What price for an Olympic Gold?

We are five days into the Beijing Olympic Games and the South African team has been humbled by standards that have progressed well beyond what might have been expected. Our 4 x 100m freestyle relay men, triumphant in Athens in 2004, actually swam faster than they did to win gold back then, but were beaten by more than four seconds - and by six other teams. Our medal prospects have failed to advance to finals, finishing outside the top 8 in their semi-finals, and questions are beginning to be asked: "What is wrong with SA sport?" Unfortunately, the situation not going to improve in the next week.

Best-case scenario still dismal

South Africa’s swimming team is facing the very real prospect of not winning a single medal in Beijing, unless the 4 x 100m medley relay team can pull off a surprise. On current form, and given the US, Australian and French performances so far, they have at best an outside chance. This is true also for South Africa’s track hopefuls, despite many people’s belief that South Africa sent its strongest squad ever to the Games. The next 10 days of competition might prove to be a watershed for SA sport, the very real possibility now emerging that we return without a single medal, of any colour. Even a best-case scenario, or an optimist, would struggle to find more than three medals (none gold, mind you) in the next 10 days.

So is SA sport broken? Questions are going to be asked in the coming weeks. Perhaps these Olympic Games will be a 'break point' moment, a turning point in SA sport. But to begin with, we must ask the question: "Are we investing enough money into SA sport?" Quite how that money should be invested is another debate, but for now, let’s look at the price of Olympic success.

How much is an Olympic gold medal worth?

I guess that depends who is answering the question. For an athlete, it's a lifetime of achievement, or perhaps endorsement deals worth millions, a lifetime of fame and contentment. If you're a government like that of China, then every gold medal represents your "statement" of superiority to the world. But can the achievement of medals be quantified financially? Can a direct line be drawn between spending and an Olympic medal? It turns out that yes, it can in fact be done in some cases. The graph below shows the number of medals won by Australia at the Olympic Games between 1980 and 1996, with a projection on the number of medals that would be won in 2000. The x-axis is the money spent in each four-year cycle leading up to the Games. This analysis was presented at an IOC Congress in the months leading up to the Sydney Games of 2000.

What you will see immediately is a nice, linear relationship between the number of medals won and the money spent during a four-year cycle between Olympic Games. The bronze medals lie on a slightly different 'line' to that of the gold and silver, but it's possible to work out, using the slope of the line, the approximate cost per medal. It turns out that each bronze medal will set you back a cool Aus $15 million, while gold and silver will cost you about Aus $40 million!

Money invested=medals won?

Obviously, that price is "context-specific", and depends on the nation and how that money is spent. Money can be wasted, or it can be invested wisely, and the return on spending depends on the system in which the money is spent. So this cost is the Australian price. In Cuba, for example, Olympic medals cost a lot less, and if you reshuffle the Olympic medal table, then Cuba tends to win the most medals per dollar (though this is expressed per $ GDP). Other countries that win cheaper Olympic medals include the Eastern Bloc nations, like Hungary, Bulgaria, Belarus. For the US, it's almost impossible to quantify the cost, because there is no state-controlled spending on sport development during the four-year cycle - the system is "privatised". But the point is, there is a relationship between money invested and medals won. If you want 20 gold medals, then spend Aus $800 million every four years.

Will China have hometown advantage?

The graph above was used to project how many medals Australia would win in Sydney - the dashed line in the graph. It turns out it was pretty accurate, because as hosts, Australia won 16 gold, 25 silver and 17 bronze medals, for a total of 63 medals (projection was 14 gold, 14 silver and 35 bronze, a total of 58 medals). They exceeded themselves by winning more silvers than anticipated - home-town advantage perhaps? What does this information mean? Well, it means that China, which has spared no expense in its quest to be the dominant nation of the Olympics, is set for great things, not just in Beijing, but beyond. Anyone who saw the opening ceremony will recognise the investment by China into a vision of superiority and dominance. The country reportedly had between 20 000 and 50 000 athletes in elite training camps leading up to the Beijing Games. The cost associated with running these facilities, providing coaches and medical / scientific support is enormous. Yet it's been done, in the name of "super-power" status. China will therefore be able to produce a graph much the same as the one above, and it will be interesting to see just how the rest of the world responds to the onslaught by a nation of a billion people throwing massive money into sport.

You get what you pay for

As for my country, South Africa... well, let's just say that we would probably not even make it onto the graph above, both in terms of spending and medals won! I doubt whether we spend enough to win even one single medal in the Australian model. However, we do have a back-up plan, which sees our best swimmers leave South Africa to go to the US and train there. That is our best shot for a medal.

It is a sad state of affairs that in order to achieve success in SA sport, your best chance is to leave the country. But that is the reality. And for the simple reason that we fail to invest, either in people or financially, I would pick that we'll win two medals in Beijing. You get what you pay for, even when it comes to Olympic medals...