Why does the Olympics Medal Table reflect political power?

You might look at this question and think “it doesn’t”. But look at the table today, on 7^th August 2012, as China leads the table, and USA follows in second.  It wasn’t always this way: back in the 2004 Olympics in Athens, USA was first in the table, followed by China and then Russia.

China has been creeping up the medal table, just as their economy has been booming.  In fact, it was the Beijing Olympics of 2008 when China first overtook the US in the medals table.

Back in the Olympics of 1992 in Barcelona, the Olympic medal table told a different story. The former USSR countries (then called the Unified team) came top of the medals table by a long way. It seems it took a little while for the end of the Soviet Union to be reflected in the medals table.

Before the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR dissolved, the Soviet Union and East Germany had been doing really well in the Olympics medal department, like in the Seoul Olympics of 1988.  One exception to this was in the 1984 LA Olympics in the USA when many Soviet countries actually boycotted the Olympics, meaning the USA came top. 

The USA had actually boycotted the previous Moscow Olympics back in 1980 – in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - and athletes could not participate or they would have their passports revoked. At this point, the US and USSR did not want to visit each others’ countries and governments were willing to boycott the Games to put their point across.

As we can see, like most things, the Olympics can get quite political.  I am not saying this is a scientific analysis, and it is definitely not, but there could be a few reasons why this could be happening:

1. Funding for sports

Funding for sports is obviously quite related to economic power.  The bigger superpowers (like China now) can afford to put funds into their Olympic team and train good athletes. 

2. Using the Olympics to gain status

Countries like the Soviet Union might have tried to fund sports more enthusiastically to gain status during the Cold War.

3. Hosting countries have the home advantage

Countries like China in the Beijing Olympics of 2008 may have benefitted from the home advantage, being able to support their team with sports funding in order to host the Games. Countries may be more likely to generate a successful bid for the Games if they are doing pretty well.  Australia, as the host of the 2000 Sydney Olympics came fourth in the table. Confidence also plays a role, and the effect of the home crowd.

Unfortunately, no city in Africa or South America (until Rio next time) has ever hosted the Olympic Games!!  Hopefully, we will see an African city host the Olympic Games in coming decades, as African economies' start to boom.

The Olympics can also be a place for politics to take place. For example South Africa was banned by the IOC from participation in 1964 because of the oppressive apartheid regime, and they were only allowed to rejoin back in 1992.

The IOC is headquartered in Switzerland, and the Olympic Charter states there should not be any demonstration at the Games, but it seems you cannot remove politics entirely (and would you really want to?)...