Simply looking at total medals or championships won tell virtually nothing about who is actually better at sports. These statistics take into account the population of a country. Population does not mean everything, but for example, if there are two countries with equal quality sports programs and one country has a population of 1,000,000 and the other 100,000,000, the bigger country will generally have a huge advantage in producing better sports teams. Something that this study does not take into account is foreign resource/currency manipulation and natural advantages, which definitely gives certain countries huge advantages (mainly the U.S. but also western European and related countries). If I had the time and resources to conduct a study like that, rankings would look much different. Skip to 4:58 to view stats immediately without explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GAik-g0Pb8
if population or money were the gating factor then the USA would win every World Cup as opposed to getting spanked every 4 years
Not true, there are more factors than just these such as base quality (determined by discipline of the culture and organization of the national sport). Also, the USA has a good soccer team and always has been relatively decent since the early/mid 1900s. If you need further evidence view European world cup qualifications for any given year. You will see that small countries will have a harder time qualifying simply because of population, because the quality and money is already there. Luxembourg and Iceland, for instance, offer high quality and have much wealth, but have very low populations... this will make it extremely hard for them to beat countries like Germany and Italy that are also rich and offer quality, but have high populations. Another example is Basketball. Countries like Lithuania and Croatia are much more efficient than the USA in basketball, but USA will beat them 90% or more of the time because they have a huge population pool to choose from (100x the population to be exact). USA also has financial advantages. Angola and Tunisia are examples of good quality basketball cultures with decently sized populations, but their economic situation is horrendous (especially Angola). The economic situation of USA, Western European countries, and other related countries amplifies their base quality. Population can also mean very little if wealth or quality culture in the specific sport is not present (for example India's and China's soccer teams). There can also be other factors, such as diet, which mainly effects Asian countries (by choice) and/or very poor countries (not by choice).
thank you for proving my point. The USA should be a dominant force in international football instead of Germany, Italy, Spain. Population and wealth aren't always enough
Yes, and I stated this point in the video and text. So I am not sure if you were simply restating what I was saying or implying that the idea was wrong on some level. With the way you put it I assumed it was an argument against it. On a side note, the USA and Germany are relatively equal in efficiency according the study. But as I stated in the video the study does not take into account financial and resource advantages. Therefore Germany is actually probably better at sports if these were factored in. Italy would be closer to the United States if these were factored in. But Spain, who doesn't have nearly the financial/resource advantage of any of the countries dominates either way you look at it. This can probably be attributed to vastly superior sporting culture. It could also be the case that a higher percentage of Germans, Americans, and Italians are pursuing white collar careers while the Spanish, who don't have those opportunities, have more of a chance spending their time playing sports. And at the same time, still have sufficient money/resources/culture to organize complex sporting organizations, unlike many very poor nations.
This is true. New Zealand with a population of around 4.5 million have been a dominant force in Rugby (one of the top five international field sports) for decades. On the other hand, NZ hasn't been all that successful in World Cup football but their women's Netball teams have been near the top forever. It all depends on the sport and the nation.
Yes, but population can play a huge role. The reason why these small countries can sometimes dominate the sport is through excellent organization and/or discipline in the sport/culture. Example, if the United States or Russia offered the same kind of quality that New Zealand did in these fields in rugby, they would dominate New Zealand because they have a bigger population pool to choose from. However, population is meaningless if organization/culture is garbage, and less important if it is below par. But countries with more population will always have an advantage if they manage it properly.
The US dominates the world in American football, baseball,and basketball, not surprisingly. Soccer is a distant FIFTH here, behind even ice hockey, in terms of real interest. However, as the current youth grows up, interest in pro and international level soccer (futbol) will likely also grow.
rugby has very few countries competing, were rugby as popular as soccer nz's would have difficulty being among the best....the same applies to many womens sports, many countries dont have womens sports due to cultural issues or have no cash for them...
The US is virtually the only country that plays football so that's not dominating...the same applies to baseball, relatively few countries play, most are small so no big deal there either.... Among professional sports in the usa soccer has surpassed both basketball and hockey in attendence and only trails football in particpation, (baseball combines with sofball for more but their different games)
no there is another variable, knowledge...the usa has large numbers of people playing but the coaching knowledge is far behind....thats not to say there aren't knowledgeable coaches there are, just relatively few as yet, and they arent working with the most important demographic, children...
Do you really believe this? Here is a map of International Rugby Union members and associates. From what I have read is Football, Cricket and Rugby are the three biggest played and watched team field sports. Rugby is growing at a phenomenal rate in Asia. Even little Laos hosts the International Rugby 10s every year. It's on the 8-9 February. You can guarantee I'll be there.
you misunderstand...numbers don't mean anything if the quality isn't there, canada plays rugby but knowledge wise and in participation numbers it's light years behind NZ and the top 6 or 8 nations...if we were to assume the numbers and depth of knowledge were the same as in soccer it would be a different matter...there very a few strong countries in rugby and a the rest are minnows, there's an enormous gulf between the top 6 and the rest...cricket is the same... in soccer there are a number of very strong nations that can hold their own against the giants of the game...
swimming is one of those elite sports, it requires a lot of money to participate on a competitive level, that leaves many countries out of the mix... track sports particularly the distance events are a great equalizer, expensive facilities aren't required and participation costs are very low...
l agree...if you look at soccer brazil has a population of 198 million and a huge participation level, the Netherlands has a population of 16million and about 1 million people playing the game...both are very good at the game technically and tactically, but whereas Brazil always qualifies for the WC and is perpetually rated in the top 6 in the world the Netherlands does not qualify for every WC and drifts in and out of the top 6 nations, the reason is population size...Brazil will always have the depth of talent 198 million provides... whereas the Netherlands can find itself short of talent with less depth on the field or the bench... the USA once it's coaching depth and knowledge reaches Netherlands or Brazil standards will become one of the world permanent powerhouses in the sport...the USA has the population size, the facilities, the numbers participating and the cash, it now only requires the knowledge...that may take 20 or 30 yrs but it will happen...
It does all depend on the nation. Look at the Pacific Island nations like Samoa, Fiji, Tonga. Tiny tiny nations but incredibly strong in Rugby, especially in Rugby 7s. Italy, France, Argentina, even the Netherland field very capable teams. Italy has the most fearsome pack of forwards, because of their sheer size. Some of the best international Rugby I've ever seen is between the NZ All Blacks and Italy. Nowadays Rugby isn't confined to the old British Empire nations. Rugby is also very strong in Japan, although they didn't qualify for the 2015 World Cup but Canada did. South Africa has always been a power house in international Rugby except during the Apartheid years, when they were banned from international Rugby. Every country has its 'national' sport. I believe Canada it's ice hockey, the US baseball, but these sports are only minority sports globally, although baseball is huge in Asian countries like Japan and the Philippines. Australia the national sport isn't Rugby, but Australian Rules Football, invented in Australia. Interestingly, Australia often gets a hiding from Ireland in Australian Rules Football (both countries play a tournament once a year) where it's a minority sport, but similar to Gaelic Football but also different. Like the Kiwis, Irish are incredibly passionate about their sport. Possibly. Funny thing about cricket, it comes in cycles. There have been times when the smaller nations have dominated, not just for a year or so but for a decade. The West Indies for example were at the top internationally during in the late 1970s into the early 1990s, almost unbeatable. Sri Lanka have fielded very strong teams, as have Pakistan and Bangladesh. India is a power house in world cricket as is South Africa and New Zealand. Other Africa countries like Kenya and Zimbabwe haven't got it together yet. Some of the best cricketers ever have come out of the Sub-Continent,,, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and also the West Indies (I'm a huge Viv Richards fan). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viv_Richards
My point is population is not always as good an indicator as one would think. The real answer is the ability to identify and promote talent when you see it. Over the years it has been something Australia has been very good at, and this has led to Australia over represented in a number of sports.
One of the ways this can be accelerated is having players in elite leagues around the world. They gain knowledge and experience, then bring it back with them towards the end of their careers when players tend to finish their time playing in domestic leagues.
There is a doco going around about Australian sport. A lot of the content is about the Olympics. From the Melbourne Olympics until the 1980s Australia was incredibly strong in swimming and often dominated. Tennis also. What was mentioned why Australia is strong in sport for a 'small' nation is our climate and diet, and also throw in a bit of Anglo-Celtic tenacity. What's also interesting, Australia being an ex-colony of Britain, isn't anywhere near the top in football (the round ball version), but strong in cricket and Rugby.
Originally Canadas national sport is Lacrosse. But they made ice hockey Canadas official winter sport and summers national sport is lacrosse.
Thanks for that info. Here's the next question. Are ice hockey and lacrosse true international sports?
What a load of rubbish - It is obvious we are so good at EVERYTHING because, well we are just that awesome lol
Ice hockey is the biggest draw & event in the winter olympics. The gold medal game is always on the last day of the olympics.
lolzzz Here's an interesting thing. Do you realise Australia has the best wild camels in the world? Honestly. We round up our camels, ship them over to Arabia for racing camels because they are bigger, faster and disease free. Howzat for some useless information?
