When it comes to the Olympic Games, there are some truths that are as old as time.
The United States will prove a dominant force in the track and field events, Eastern European nations will thrive in weightlifting and wrestling, and Asian countries will enjoy success in those sports demanding exceptional hand-eye coordination – table tennis, badminton and the like.
These are sweeping generalisations, but ones born out of repeated success for those countries in their respective disciplines.
It’s also true that some of the largest and richest nations will have the most advanced sporting programmes, which therefore is translated into Olympic glory – is it any wonder that the United States, the Soviet Union (the former Eastern Bloc dominated by Russia) and Great Britain are the three most successful teams in Summer Games history?
Their power is derived from investment and a rich history of sporting heritage, and at the 2024 Olympics in Paris and other areas of France, the USA and Team GB – along with as few as 40 athletes from Russia, competing as ‘neutrals’ rather than representing their country due to the ongoing embargo – will likely dominate the medals table once more.
But is there a better way to measure success? Of course, in many team sports, the richest dominate – but it’s the underdog stories, those that do more with less, that are often the more captivating.
The All-Time Olympic Games Medals Table
Okay, so first things first, let’s take a look at the nations that have dominated the Olympics since its inception way back in 1896. The crudest measure of success? How many medals have been won in total.
There’s probably not a great deal here to surprise you, with the United States by far and away the most successful country at the Olympic Games – it’s a nation that boasts a huge population, which increases the potential for elite athletes to come along, and has plenty of economic power as well; investing in grassroots sports programmes aimed at developing the talents of naturally-gifted youngsters.
The Soviet Union is a slight curveball here, but they did compete in the Olympic Games for 30 or so years before the Bloc’s dissolution – for the uninitiated, the Soviet Union was made up of countries like Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and other neighbouring nations. They were a strong sporting force when united, with Russia in particular boasting high-quality athletes in a wide-range of disciplines.
Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, China, Australia….these are all economically-developed nations where sporting prowess is nurtured and assisted to grow via well-funded grassroots schemes. Success is inevitable.
Indeed, Germany is one of the best-performing nations in the annals of the Olympics – not bad, considering that for many years the country was split into East and West factions. If they had remained united, and pooled their resources into one single sporting juggernaut, they would no doubt have more than 655 medals to date.
The two anomalies, perhaps, are Hungary and Sweden, who we might not necessarily suspect as sporting powerhouses. For Hungary in particular, their Olympic success is astounding….for reasons we’ll touch upon later in this article.
So that’s the overall medal table for the Olympic Games from 1896 to 2020. Now let’s take a look at what happens when we consider gold medal tallies only:
As you can see, there’s not a great deal of difference – not only are these countries producing lots of quality athletes, hence their overall medal tallies, they’re also often developing elite performers who are the best in their chosen discipline.
The only difference is that Japan have usurped Sweden from the top ten, while the United States are around five times more powerful than any other ‘existing’ Olympic team.
And, again, Hungary feature as one of the best-performing nations at the Summer Games, which won’t be a mystery to you for much longer.
Now for something slightly different, but kind of similar. Let’s take a look at the average medal count per country per Olympic Games. Do ever-presents like the United States still come out on top?
If, in some kind of alternate reality, the Soviet Union had taken part in the same number of Olympic Games as the United States, they would top the all-time medals table – a nod to the power of the sports programme in Russia in particular (even if that has been tarnished in the modern era by accusations of doping and cheating).
You could argue, to some extent, that the success of the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and others is as much to do with their longevity as their prowess – those four countries (or the unified nation in the case of GB) have appeared in at least 28 editions of the Olympics each, with Great Britain, France, Switzerland and Greece all ‘ever present’ at the 29 hostings of the modern Games.
Take a look at the success of Germany. Even before the nation’s unification – celebrated, in inimitable style, by a sing-song with David Hasselhoff – they were delivering the goods, with the East and West ranking third and sixth respectively in the all-time table for average medals per Olympics.
The East and the West would each make five Summer Olympics appearances in all between 1968 and 1988. The West boycotted the 1980 Games as part of a protest action after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, before the East would reciprocate in 1984 by boycotting that year’s edition alongside the rest of the Eastern Bloc and their Communist allies.
So can the United States declare themselves to be the most successful country at the Olympic Games? Perhaps, but it’s interesting to note that their number one status is one of circumstance as much as it is sporting prowess, with the Soviet Union arguably a more heavyweight force during their nine appearances between 1952 and 1988.
Olympic Games Medals Per Capita
Although it’s a fairly loose definition in human geography, the ‘per capita’ measurement generally dictates an average of something per one million inhabitants.
When we consider that through the lens of Olympic Games medals, the idea would be that – although they have huge populations – in theory the United States or the Soviet Union would still be considered the strongest-performing nations.
The truth, however, is markedly different.
There’s an argument, although it might fall on deaf ears, to suggest that the Bahamas is actually the most successful country in Olympic Games history.
Why? Because they have won 55.8 medals per one million inhabitants of their population, which in reality is 16 medals for a population size of less than 350,000 people (for much of the past century).
It shows that the Bahamas is capable of producing elite athletes from such a small pool of people – with a particular penchant for creating first-class sprinters….Pauline Davis-Thompson, Debbie Ferguson and Shaunae Miller-Uibo just three multiple medal winners from the island.
All told, 12 of their 16 medals have come in races of 400m or shorter – or in the relay disciplines (although four people make up a relay team, it’s classed as only one medal in terms of the all-time rankings).
Jamaica also forms part of the list of best countries per capita at the Olympics, with sprinting amongst their specialties – Usain Bolt just one example of a speedster from the nation. So why does the Caribbean produce so many fast sprinters?
It’s a question that runs in parallel with why Africa produces so many elite long-distance runners, why Eastern Europe is so strong in wrestling and weightlifting, and why Asian countries are so good at sports demanding dexterity and hand-eye coordination – it’s a combination of training, genetics and an upbringing that combines top-class coaching with a high standard of competition even at the youngest of age groups.
It’s worth remembering that the list above is for the Summer Games only, so the presence of Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark in the top-ten might come as something of a surprise.
But these are relatively wealthy countries that promote autonomy, providing the infrastructure and facilities for those to excel at sport to try and fulfil their potential. Finland, the best-performing Scandinavian nation per capita, has won 305 Olympic medals – however, more than 200 of those came in the period 1896-1952; the latter year seeing Helsinki on hosting duties. Since then, it’s been rather more fallow.
It’s well worth shining a light on Hungary’s achievements too. They are one of just ten countries to have won 500 or more Olympic medals – not bad for a nation with a population that, as of 2023, was little over 10 million people (a fraction more than London).
And that success has come despite them missing two editions of the Summer Games. They were blackballed in 1920 due to their support for Germany in World War I, while in 1984 they withdrew in a show of support for the Soviets.
Otherwise, Hungary has won more Olympic Games gold medals per capita than any other nation with one million or more inhabitants – leveraging its particular success in producing elite competitors in fencing, canoeing and swimming, which have contributed 252 medals to their cause; roughly half of their overall tally.
Olympic Games Medals Per GDP
Olympic success enjoys a symbiotic relationship with a country’s wealth – the more financial freedom a nation has, the more likely it is to produce a large quantity of high-quality athletes.
So that’s why wealthier countries like the United States, China and Japan have so many Olympic medals to their name, but where do they rank in a comparison of the number of medals won correlating to the GDP of the individual nation?
It’s another measure by which Jamaica, land of the amazing sprinters, can be considered an outstanding Olympic nation. By dividing the total number of medals won by each country by their annual GDP, we find that Jamaica produced the best athletes despite the lack (relatively speaking) of available investment in sport.
North Korea is a surprising entry on the list – the secretive nation’s GDP is notoriously low, given its insular outlook, while Bulgaria (where wrestling, boxing and weightlifting are fertile) and Hungary also score highly in this particular measure of success.
So despite the wealth of the United States, Great Britain, China, Japan and co, there’s an argument to say that they have underperformed at the Olympics, relative to their GDP and economic wealth – another reason why the pure medals table is not a great indicator of true success at the Games.
But, the reality is that being rich does equate to glory at the Olympics. If we discard Soviet Union from the list of all-time medals winners, here’s how the most successful countries shape up in terms of global GDP (their ranking is in brackets):
- United States (1)
- Great Britain – *using UK data* (6)
- France (7)
- Germany (3)
- China (2)
- Italy (9)
- Australia (13)
- Hungary (56)
- Sweden (23)
- Japan (4)
Money can’t buy you happiness, as per the old saying, and it can’t buy you love either – according to The Beatles. But it can certainly help your country to produce Olympic medallists, with the data above helping to highlight once more the incredible over-achievement of Hungary at the quadrennial showpiece.
Great Expectations (Not Met)
In this article, we’ve celebrated the brilliance of underdog countries that have produced Olympic medallists despite their relatively small size or lack of financial muscle.
Using some of the same metrics, we can also take a look at the countries which have failed to deliver on their expectations at the Games too.
Austria
The first country to shine a light on is Austria, who have appeared in 28 editions of the Summer Olympics (remember, the maximum for the modern era is 29). And yet, the Austrians have claimed just 96 medals in total – their gold medal of 20 is less than Kenya, Ethiopia and Iran, each of whom Austria dwarfs in terms of raw GDP.
Switzerland
Black marks should also go against their neighbours Switzerland (206 medals from 29 Games appearances) and Greece, the founders of the Olympics, who have won just 121 medals in well over a century of participation.
India
India’s growth, in terms of GDP, has been driven by the technological revolution, at the heart of which their hardware and expertise has been a key driver. In terms of sport, however, the country continues to lag behind (aside from cricket) – they have won just 35 medals from 25 Olympic appearances, despite (as of 2023) boasting the fifth-highest GDP on the planet.
Brazil
But arguably the biggest deliverer of Olympic Games under-performance is Brazil, who even hosted the action in 2016 – albeit making a pig’s ear of it and ending up with a net loss in excess of £1.5 billion.
Take two of the measures we have used in our analysis – population size and GDP – and Brazil comes out highly-ranked in both, with the South American nation having the seventh largest population on earth and the eighth highest GDP output (as of 2021 data).
And yet, Brazilian athletes have combined to win just 150 Olympic medals from 25 appearances at the Games. What’s more, 38 of those – around 25% – have come in team sports like volleyball, beach volleyball and football, which reveals their gross lack of success in individual sports.
If you were feeling in a particularly cruel mood, you might be inclined to argue that Brazil and India are the greatest underachievers on the planet at the Olympic Games – will that trend continue or change in the future?