Participation, development, and gold medals

I wrote about this article once already, but I continue to see members of the USOC retweet and praise the article. The article essentially argued that the U.S. is failing in the Olympics, on a per capita basis, because of a lack of sports science and top-down control. Now, it would make sense that sports scientists and administrators within the USOC would retweet and support this argument, as it lends more credibility to their position, which may increase funding for their salaries and projects.

However, at what cost?

The article that praised Great Britain and Australia for its sports science advances neglected to mention the costs associated with those advancements. For example, funding for basketball, the second most popular participation sport for youths in Great Britain, was cut because of poor performances in the Olympics:

That makes it [basketball] the second most popular team sport behind football, according to a 2014 UK Sport survey into participation, with half of those kids coming from black and minority ethnic communities.

Because the U.S. lacks the same type of top-down funding and control, it would be difficult to make a parallel. However, because much of funding for sport is through the school system, would Americans accept a cut in funding for football by the NFHS and NCAA if mandated by the USOC in order to devote those funds to Olympic sports? Would cutting football programs at the high-school level promote overall participation in sports?

Personally, I am not a fan of football. If I had a son, I would not allow him to play football, and I find Pop Warner and other youth tackle football leagues to be pointless, at best. However, despite my dislike, they draw a lot of participants and help keep a segment of the population physically active. Would we be better off eliminating these sports by decreasing or eliminating funding in order to fund elite athletes and sports scientists in less popular sports?

Great Britain won medals in the 2012 Summer Olympics in:

As a comparison, the less successful (on a per capita basis) U.S. Olympic team won sports in:

Of course, whereas most medals are individual medals (except a few events within a sport), basketball, water polo, soccer, rowing (most events), and volleyball are team sports with more participants required to win medals.

Because Australia was mentioned, here are its medals in 2012:

If you look closely, when the article’s author discussed sports science elevating performance, and suggested that talent identification, a central sports authority and research institutes elevated Australia and Great Britain, he meant that GB and Australia identified a few sports (cycling and rowing especially, and swimming in Australia) that allowed GB and Australia to maximize the number of medals for the amount of expense.

The question, and I do not know the answer, is:

How have these medals and this funding and sports science led to increases in youth participation in these sports? How many youth athletes are physically active in these sports who were not prior to the emphasis in talent ID and sports science? How has the funding enhanced all the athletes in the sports, not just the Olympians? Finally, are 21 medals in cycling and rowing worth the cost of cutting all funding to the country’s second most popular participation sport among youths?

Again, to use the U.S. has an example, if the USOC found a way to take a huge proportion of the money that U.S. schools spend on football (a non-Olympic sport) and spend that money on rowing and cycling programs at U.S. high schools and colleges, (1) would the U.S. win more medals, regardless of the sports science involved, and (2) would overall youth sports participation increase? Could the money invested to attract new participants in these sports balance out all of the athletes with nowhere to play football because of the funding cuts?

To ask another way: Is funding sports based on Olympic success the best measure for U.S. tax dollars or should more money be devoted to the more popular sports, even if many (lacrosse, football, baseball and softball – although now an Olympic sport again as of 2020) do not lead to Olympic medals?

Which is the better measurement for sports funding – Olympic success or participation rate?

The below graphic is from an ESPN article that measured sports participation from 2006-2010:

When looking at the U.S.’s failure in the Summer Olympics, look at the participation numbers. For boys, soccer is the only popular sport in which the U.S. has not had Olympic success; of the next popular sports, tennis and wrestling could be more successful. For females, the U.S. is very successful in every sport competed at the Olympics.

Therefore, if we look at participation, is the U.S. unsuccessful at the Olympics?

Really, the article’s basic point is that Great Britain wanted to win a lot of medals at its home Olympics, and it picked less popular sports (by participation) that could have quick success by identifying potential athletes and training them. On the other hand, the U.S. does not engage in this recruitment of specific athletes for specific sports, and many top athletes in the U.S. play sports that do not lead to Olympic medals or play sports from the Winter Olympics. Does that mean that the U.S. does a poor job?

How should a country measure its sports performance? Participation? Professional athletes? Sponsorship dollars? Olympic medals?

Note: Also, the U.S. is limited in the number of medals that it wins in nearly every popular sport in which it participates. I imagine there are swimming events where the U.S. could go 1-2-3, but only 2 Americans qualify in each event, thus limiting potential medals. Similarly, a second U.S. women’s soccer team would be a medal candidate, and second U.S. men’s and women’s basketball teams would almost certainly medal.

Edit: There are apparently nine sports in which the U.S. has never won a gold medal. Presumably these are the sports where the U.S. needs to improve its sports science and talent ID to increase participation and improve performance: Women’s modern pentathlon; field hockey; triathlon, rhythmic gymnastics, table tennis, badminton, women’s indoor volleyball (2x defending silver medalists), team handball, and men’s soccer.

Sharing is caring!

  • What Is A Playmaker?

    Who decided that a point guard has to be small? More importantly, what is a point guard? We expect a point guard to be a leader and have a high basketball I.Q. Why don’t we expect or challenge all players to develop this game awareness? Why rely on only one player? Read more →
  • The PBDL Concept

    English soccer academies wait until players are 11 to play full 11v11 soccer; in Italy, youth basketball players participate in skill-oriented clinics at 6-years-old, but start competitive games at 12. In the United States, kids play 5v5 full court games and compete for national championships when they are 8-years-old.

    Read more →

  • Starting A PBDL

    The PBDL emphasizes learning and development. Presently, players and parents have numerous recreation options - leagues based on fun and equal participation, typically for beginners - and numerous competitive opportunities - teams focused on strategy, game preparation and winning. There are few true development leagues - until now.

    Read more →