The top medal-winning teams in the Paris Olympics, so far, are the United States, France and China — three countries with large, developed economies. But how much does a country’s economy influence its performance in the Games? 

“Marketplace” host Amy Scott spoke with Pace University economics professor Veronika Dolar about the connection between economics and elite athletics. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation. 

Amy Scott: So I think, you know, even a casual Olympic watcher can probably see that bigger, wealthier countries tend to do better in the Olympics. But you’ve been studying this. How strongly is Olympic performance correlated with economics?

Veronika Dolar: So there are different ways you can sort of look at this data, right? So if you take a big, bird’s-eye view and sort of look at just gross domestic product and population size, those are probably one of the most important determinants of how many medals a country wins. But then, of course, there are all these subtle issues that sort of play a role as well, that influence who gets to be an athlete and who gets to succeed and in which sport.

Scott: Right. And it sort of belies the notion of a meritocracy when you see these differences in terms of wealth. But why, generally speaking, would wealthier countries perform better in the Olympics?

Dolar: So, the most important thing that matters is basically the infrastructure, right? Or even just before the infrastructure, health and nutrition and life expectancy and infant mortality. Those are some of the very, very basic first variables that we should be looking at when we’re sort of thinking about how many athletes we can create, let alone getting proper equipment and proper coaching and things like that that our top athletes here in the United States are exposed to.

Scott: You’ve also been working on an analysis looking at the role of income inequality in Olympic achievement. What have you found?

Dolar: Yeah, so this is something that is sort of a new addition to this research. I come from Slovenia, and that’s actually one of the reasons why I started to study this. Slovenia [is] one of, actually, the most successful countries in per-capita medals. And now I live in the United States and I also participate in sports. And I was sort of shocked to see how expensive it is for small children to get involved with sports. And this is where this income inequality sort of plays a role. You know, whether or not you give a chance to children that might be very, very talented, have the grit and all that it takes to become the top athletes, but are not born to the right parents, in a sense. So that’s really sort of the key factor here. 

Scott: I’ve heard you’re an athlete yourself. You’re a badminton enthusiast?

Dolar: Yes, I started to play badminton here in Slovenia, and that’s actually one of the reasons that I’m interested in these types of projects as well. Because my experience here is very, very different from the experience that my children have in the United States. Just to give you an example, to book a court here in Slovenia, it costs about 5 euros or $5 to book a court. In the United States, in New York, where I live, it’s over $80 per hour, not to mention how much it costs to pay for a private coach. In many European countries, you know, sport is heavily subsidized, which means that even for sports like badminton, the state would actually pay a coach — coaches are civil servants. There is no such thing, obviously, in the United States, not at least to that level. As a result, we have privatized youth sports that, you know, have become this multibillion-dollar enterprises for those who can afford it.

Stories You Might Like

What’s the payoff to hosting the Olympics?

Let’s do the numbers: The money spent on the Rio Olympics

How lucrative is ice skating?

What these Olympians could pay in taxes for winning medals

What’s the bill for hosting an Olympics?

What the Beveridge curve tells us about the Fed’s path to a “soft landing”