Wait what are the four countries that sent more athletes than China? The US did, obviously, but then who else? France? The image says India at 117 so it can’t be them.
Iran won a ton of medals, wow. Who would have imagined.
Doesn’t this disadvantage countries that participate in more team-based games? Wouldn’t it be fairer to compare total events against weighted medals won?
Number of athletes sent is not really a viable indicator of return on investment. America will probably, for example spend more on a single athlete annually than a country like Botswana will spend on their entire Olympic squad. I know for example that while my home country south Africa, sent a reasonable number of athletes, Their annual investment in those athletes is criminally poor, and in many cases athletes have to fend for themselves
The title and this chart really doesn’t make sense. This isn’t the “ROI” by any measure I can think of. Are you assuming the investment in each athlete is the same across each country? Even just entry requirements vary by discipline and the athletes sent count is really just the number that qualified and says nothing about how competitive they were expected to be. The sports themselves have varying entry counts… EG: Football is 18 and there’s only 1 gold medal whereas every swimmer has a shot at many.
Never thought I’d find a commonality between Finland and Nigeria.
Very nice. But why are there three seemingly Antarctic nations included? Did Bouvet Island or Kerguelen send athletes? 🤨
7 comments
Wait what are the four countries that sent more athletes than China? The US did, obviously, but then who else? France? The image says India at 117 so it can’t be them.
Iran won a ton of medals, wow. Who would have imagined.
Doesn’t this disadvantage countries that participate in more team-based games? Wouldn’t it be fairer to compare total events against weighted medals won?
Number of athletes sent is not really a viable indicator of return on investment. America will probably, for example spend more on a single athlete annually than a country like Botswana will spend on their entire Olympic squad. I know for example that while my home country south Africa, sent a reasonable number of athletes, Their annual investment in those athletes is criminally poor, and in many cases athletes have to fend for themselves
The title and this chart really doesn’t make sense. This isn’t the “ROI” by any measure I can think of. Are you assuming the investment in each athlete is the same across each country? Even just entry requirements vary by discipline and the athletes sent count is really just the number that qualified and says nothing about how competitive they were expected to be. The sports themselves have varying entry counts… EG: Football is 18 and there’s only 1 gold medal whereas every swimmer has a shot at many.
Never thought I’d find a commonality between Finland and Nigeria.
Very nice. But why are there three seemingly Antarctic nations included? Did Bouvet Island or Kerguelen send athletes? 🤨