Gold, Silver, and Bronze: Determining National Success in Men’s and Women’s Summer Olympic Events

Objective This article aims at explaining national medal totals at the 1992–2016 Summer Olympic Games (n = 1,289 observations) and forecasting them in 2016 (based on 1992–2012 data) and 2020 with a set of variables similar to previous studies, as well as a regional (subcontinents) variable not tested previously in the literature in English. Method Econometric testing not only resorts to a Tobit model as usual but also to a Hurdle model. Results Most variables have a significant impact on national team medal totals; it appears to be negative for most regions other than North America except Western Europe and Oceania (not significant). Then, two models (Tobit and Hurdle) are implemented to forecast national medal totals at the 2016 and 2020 Summer Olympics. Conclusion Both models are complementary for the 2016 forecast. The 2020 forecast is consistent with Olympic Medals Predictions, although some striking differences are found.

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Forecasting National Medal Totals at the Summer Olympic Games Reconsidered

Scelles

Andreff

Bonnal

et al. 2020

“…Membership in the communist bloc has served as proxy either for organizational capacities or for policy priorities in favor of elite sport policies (e.g., Bernard andBusse, 2000, 2004). Although the model has been primarily developed to explain success at the Olympics, it has also been applied to international soccer (e.g., Leeds and Leeds, 2009;Gásquez and Royuela, 2016) and to the Paralympics (Buts et al, 2013).…”

Section: Theoretical Background: From the Study Of Macrosocial Determmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to these "Big Two" explanations (Buts et al, 2013:137), membership in the communist bloc was found to increase medal share at the Olympics. 1 In addition, many studies found a hosting effect (Den Butter and Van der Tak, 1995;Johnson and Ali, 2004;De Bosscher, De Knop, and Heyndels, 2003;Bernard and Busse 2004;Moosa and Smith 2004;Bian, 2005;Pfau, 2006;Macmillan and Smith, 2007;Liu and Suen, 2008;Manuel Luiz and Fadal, 2011;Leeds and Leeds, 2012;Bernard and Busse, 2004;Heyndels, 2003, 2006;Lowen, Deaner, andSchmitt, 2016, Sun, Wang, andZhan, 2015;Hoffmann, Ging, andRamasamy, 2002, 2004;Buts et al, 2013;Lowen, Deaner, and Schmitt, 2016;Noland and Stahler, 2016). 2 Notwithstanding the power of this parsimonious model for explaining sporting success, the set of potentially relevant covariates has been constantly expanded-sometimes without a fully specified theoretical model of the production of sporting success (Emrich et al, 2016).…”

Section: Theoretical Background: From the Study Of Macrosocial Determmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, a convincing theoretical case has been made for gender equality. As gender discrimination is often related to the suppression of female participation in sport, gender equality has proven to be an important factor for achieving success in women's sports (Klein, 2004;Leeds and Leeds, 2012;Lowen, Deaner, and Schmitt, 2016;Noland and Stahler, 2016). Lowen, Deaner, and Schmitt (2016) even found that higher gender inequality reduces the number of medals won by both men and women.…”

Section: Theoretical Background: From the Study Of Macrosocial Determmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Superior Sporting Performance in Athletics: Determinants and Sustainability

Meier

Jetzke

Nagm

et al. 2019

The article aims to contribute to the understanding of competitive dynamics and specialization in international sport by analyzing superior sporting performance (SSP) in international athletics in the period from 1999 to 2018. By applying iterative Kolmogorov‐Smirnov tests to annual bests, the study examines national SSPs. Contrary to theoretical considerations, less specialized countries are more likely to achieve SSP. Technical entry barriers and macrosocial factors also appear to play a limited role. SSP seems not to disappear due to increased international competition. The United States and Russia are identified as “sporting super powers,” able to persistently dominate a number of disciplines. The case of Russia poses fundamental questions concerning market distortions in international sport resulting from doping. The results come with substantial policy implications.

“…The gender effect was analyzed by Leeds and Leeds (2012) by distinguishing the determinants of success for male and female athletes. They found that this distinction provides clear clues about what could determine success.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meeting Expectations at the 2016 Rio Olympic Games: Country Potential and Competitiveness

Otamendi

Doncel

Martín‐Gutiérrez

2020

Objective Develop a framework to measure the extent to which countries meet their performance expectations at major sporting events using economists, experts, and fan knowledge. Method Long‐term expectations based on socioeconomic potential are calculated using sport‐agnostic econometric modeling. Short‐term expectations based on performance and competitiveness are calculated using betting odds, which incorporate both expert knowledge and “wisdom of the crowd.” Robust statistics based on the chi‐squared distribution are used to measure the extent to which countries’ expectations are met. Our method is tested using real data from the Rio 2016 Summer Olympic Games. Results Twelve countries over‐ or underperformed in terms of meeting either long‐ or short‐term expectations. Conclusions Uzbekistan was the only country that exceeded both long‐ and short‐term expectations.