Is the Olympic Games format fair?

Question

In the Olympics, each country sends a team to compete against all the other countries. But some countries are very large and some are very small. A large country, like the USA or Russia or China, has many more athletes to choose from than a tiny country does. So is it fair that they must compete against each other?

Maybe they should have three different divisions: small, medium, and large countries. You only compete against your own division.

Maybe there should be a population limit, (like Little League Baseball does). Each state of the USA would send a separate team. Very small countries would combine teams.

The way it is done now, can Lictenstein or Monaco every win against the USA or Russia?

Answer 1

Just look at Australia, 20 million and they got 4th in medal count at the last Summer Olympics. Countries like that need competition.

Answer 2

Population doesn't really have a bearing on winning. The U.S. does not win in soccer.
Cuba wins in baseball.
Small European countries win Alpine and Nordic medals.
China has never won medals relative to their population.
The limit on individual events is that a very large country can not enter as many athletes as to their percentage of population as can smaller countries.
In track and field the maximum number of entries is 3, so someone ranked below the top 10 in the world has a good chance of coming in 4th or better.
Having countries compete in different divisions would be to complicated and make the Olympics last much longer than it does now, which is too long.

Answer 3

They already have arrangements in the IOC rules and among the NGOs for each sport and have constant debates about this. In individual sports and small team sports, small countries often do very well. One must also consider why some very large countries in pop do not medal much- think india. A lot of the decisions that the IOC makes are made with consideration for geography, demographics, economics as well as the individual sports. Short answer is that they already do that.

Answer 4

Liechtenstein has won more Olympic medals per capita than any other nation. (A country that is all mountains is bound to have excellent skiers)

It's not the size of the population that matters, it's the level of skill they possess. It's actually what I think makes the Olympics so special and fair. Doesn't matter how big of a country or what your budget is, the best will always be the best.

Answer 5

China has the largest population, they never won an Olympic gold medal in soccer/football. Belgium is a small country and yet they have Justine Henin, who won the women's singles event in tennis in Athens and has won many tournaments globally.

It is fair. Yes, they have many athletes to choose from but they don't master in every single event.

It is still depend on an individual or a team's mind. How much he/she/they want to be the Olympic champion.

Answer 6

the purpose of the olympics is to compete for the glory of sport and for the honor of your team and country. Take the Jamaican bobsled team for example, they didnt expect to do well and they didnt but they still competed so they could walk into the stadium and represent their nation and some times, really talented people come from these small countries and do win against the bigger countries.

To look at it in a more abstract view, you could say that because there are so many athetes that want to go to the olympics in the USA, there are more qualifying competitions narrowing down to only the best athletes of the nation making for a better quality of athlete going to the games.

another example is the vergin islands. a US bourn man always dreamed of going to the olympics but started getting older and older and eventualy with the high standerds to comete under the US flag, he was unable to go to the olympics so he moved to the vergin islands and became a citizen and went to the olympics for the sport of luge at the age of like 56 i think. the olympics really art just about winning gold medals but just to compete.

you can say that big countries like the USA sends too many people to the olympics but if we were to cut down to only like 1 athelete per sport, we will be sending the best of the best making for a better quality of athlete so the smaller countries with less people to choose from to represent their countries would still be sending a lesser quality of athlete so cutting down how many people big countries send to the games would just make it more unfair than it already is.

Answer 7

Yes the Olympic format is fair. According to your flawed logic, India would be a powerhouse in the Olympics because they have the second largest population in the world behind China, yet India is pitiful in the Olympics.

Answer 8

it could be seen as unfair as the USA has more people to chose from as it ahs a higher population, but places like Australia have a smaller population then the UK but are still able to finish in the top 5 in the past two Olympics

Answer 9

Some courtry just have a goal of winning a medal.

there are wild card entre so people get a achance from less off country or you could look at what country won from population or income

Answer 10

Lichtenstein or Norway are two very small countries that do extremely well for its size. Norway has as many people as New Zealand yet look how many medals it has won. We don't have the population or resources that other countries have and consequently we are not as successful as them but we (New Zealand) do okay, not great but okay.