Why are some countries so overrepresented the Olympics while others are so underrepresented?

[Anonymous]

I was watching the Olympic ceremonies and it was fascinating to see how many countries are overrepresented if you look at how small their population is compared to some countries that have many times that population and don't really have many Olympic athletes. Like India has 1.4 billion people and not very many athletes who qualified (some of their athletes qualified under "universality place") at 110. Mexico has 107, Poland has 210, the Netherlands 258, Brazil 274, Australia has 460 with a population of just 26 million. So Australia has 1/50 the population of India but sends 4 times as many athletes. Even China only has 388 athletes (1.4 billion) which is similar to the number Spain (population of 47 million) has with 382

The "Universality Places" are for countries that don't send a lot of athletes so they have affirmative action type programs to let some of their athletes compete even if they don't meet qualify time standards or are the best in the world. This then bumps athletes who should have qualified. For example, in track and field any country that does not have an athlete qualified in any event (and each sex is viewed separately) is able to enter their best-ranked athlete in either the 100 meters, 800 meters, or marathon. So for the marathon 9 out of the 80 women are universality placements. The US women are running under 2:25, so a universality admit of 2:30 from Namibia or 2:32 from Zimbabwe makes sense, but why would they let a woman from Bhutan in who runs a 3:26? That isn't even fast enough to qualify for the Boston Marathon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was watching the Olympic ceremonies and it was fascinating to see how many countries are overrepresented if you look at how small their population is compared to some countries that have many times that population and don't really have many Olympic athletes. Like India has 1.4 billion people and not very many athletes who qualified (some of their athletes qualified under "universality place") at 110. Mexico has 107, Poland has 210, the Netherlands 258, Brazil 274, Australia has 460 with a population of just 26 million. So Australia has 1/50 the population of India but sends 4 times as many athletes. Even China only has 388 athletes (1.4 billion) which is similar to the number Spain (population of 47 million) has with 382

The "Universality Places" are for countries that don't send a lot of athletes so they have affirmative action type programs to let some of their athletes compete even if they don't meet qualify time standards or are the best in the world. This then bumps athletes who should have qualified. For example, in track and field any country that does not have an athlete qualified in any event (and each sex is viewed separately) is able to enter their best-ranked athlete in either the 100 meters, 800 meters, or marathon. So for the marathon 9 out of the 80 women are universality placements. The US women are running under 2:25, so a universality admit of 2:30 from Namibia or 2:32 from Zimbabwe makes sense, but why would they let a woman from Bhutan in who runs a 3:26? That isn't even fast enough to qualify for the Boston Marathon.

Because the point of the Olympics is to bring in as many countries as possible. It wouldn’t be the Olympics if only the US, Australia, Canada and Brazil were competing.

[Anonymous]

Money

[Anonymous]

China allegedly harms their athletes if they don’t perform well enough, so maybe they don’t have as many people inclined to submit to being an athlete.

[Anonymous]

Australia has a lot of places with great weather, and a well off population where sports are a big part of their culture. Most importantly, they do fund a institute of sport program to train athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Money

+1

$$$

[Anonymous]

Majority-Muslim countries do not promote women’s sports. Those societies even discourage women from sports and even fitness (Saudi Arabia, for one).

[Anonymous]

Aussies love sports and the best trainers in the world want to work there due to the weather and culture.

[Anonymous]

While Latin America is soccer-obsessed, the culture generally views it as a “male sport.”

The US, Northern Europe, and Canada, encourage girls and women to learn and play soccer at every level.

Same distinction with many other competitive sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Money

+1

$$$

+1. This should be obvious OP. Have you not seen the Winter Olympics where it’s even more concentrated in the wealthy and enormous countries? Most of the world’s population doesn’t live with a lot of access to winter sports

[Anonymous]

They had to make it through the Olympic trials. Any country who wants to compete can try out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They had to make it through the Olympic trials. Any country who wants to compete can try out.

Sure they just need the plane ticket money, somewhere to stay, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was watching the Olympic ceremonies and it was fascinating to see how many countries are overrepresented if you look at how small their population is compared to some countries that have many times that population and don't really have many Olympic athletes. Like India has 1.4 billion people and not very many athletes who qualified (some of their athletes qualified under "universality place") at 110. Mexico has 107, Poland has 210, the Netherlands 258, Brazil 274, Australia has 460 with a population of just 26 million. So Australia has 1/50 the population of India but sends 4 times as many athletes. Even China only has 388 athletes (1.4 billion) which is similar to the number Spain (population of 47 million) has with 382

The "Universality Places" are for countries that don't send a lot of athletes so they have affirmative action type programs to let some of their athletes compete even if they don't meet qualify time standards or are the best in the world. This then bumps athletes who should have qualified. For example, in track and field any country that does not have an athlete qualified in any event (and each sex is viewed separately) is able to enter their best-ranked athlete in either the 100 meters, 800 meters, or marathon. So for the marathon 9 out of the 80 women are universality placements. The US women are running under 2:25, so a universality admit of 2:30 from Namibia or 2:32 from Zimbabwe makes sense, but why would they let a woman from Bhutan in who runs a 3:26? That isn't even fast enough to qualify for the Boston Marathon.

Because the point of the Olympics is to bring in as many countries as possible. It wouldn’t be the Olympics if only the US, Australia, Canada and Brazil were competing.

Really? I thought it was for the best of the best to compete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They had to make it through the Olympic trials. Any country who wants to compete can try out.

Sure, but the third world countries can’t afford training programs, airfares, other fees, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Money

+1

$$$

+1. This should be obvious OP. Have you not seen the Winter Olympics where it’s even more concentrated in the wealthy and enormous countries? Most of the world’s population doesn’t live with a lot of access to winter sports

India has winter / mountainous relations, but almost zero representation in the Winter Olympics.