The economics of sport: PwC study seeks to predict Olympic medals tally

• GB loses home advantage, but still set to finish fourth with 52 medals
• US to lead the way with 108 medals followed closely by China with 98
• Economic size matters in medal tally – but David can still beat Goliath
• Brazil team should benefit from ‘host nation’ effect, winning 25 medals

With the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro fast approaching, speculation turns once again to how many medals each country will win. PwC economists have stepped up to the starting blocks to produce benchmarks against which performance at the 2016 Olympics can be forecast.

The study finds the following factors to be statistically significant in explaining the number of medals won by each country at previous Olympic Games:

• Size of economies (measured by GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates)
• Performance in the previous two Olympic Games
• Whether the country is host nation

In general, the number of medals won increases with the population and economic wealth of the country; but there are exceptions like Jamaica and Kenya. Jamaica, for example, is projected to win 0.4 medals in Rio for every $bn of GDP, while the same ratio is only around 0.02 for the UK and around 0.005-0.006 for the US and China.

John Hawksworth, PwC chief economist, says:

“David can sometimes beat Goliath in the Olympic arena, although superpowers like the US and China continue to dominate the top of the medals table.

“Now it is no longer the host country, Great Britain may find it difficult to match its exceptional performance in London 2012 – though our model suggests it should remain as high as fourth in Rio with over 50 medals in total.”

This reflects the success of carefully targeted government support in Britain that focuses on the strongest medal contenders.  According to the PwC model, Team GB may be down on its record-breaking London medals total but still ahead of old rivals Germany and Australia, beating its performance at any recent Olympics prior to London 2012.

Julie Clark, PwC head of sport and leisure, says:

“Competition remains strong, as other countries start to invest in elite sport as a way to raise their profile on the global stage, but since Great Britain has retained its very focused funding strategy, it should be possible to sustain the momentum of the last couple of Summer Olympics.”

The table below shows the estimated top 12 medal-winning countries in Rio and how they compare to London 2012 (see notes to editors for the full table of 30 countries).

Country	Model estimate of medal total in Rio 2016	Medal total in London 2012	Difference
1. US	108	103	+5
2. China	98	88	+10
3. Russia1	70	81	-11
4. Great Britain	52	65	-13
5. Germany	40	44	-4
6. Australia	35	35	0
7. France	34	34	0
8. Japan	33	38	-5
9. South Korea	27	28	-1
10. Italy	26	28	-2
11. Brazil	25	17	+8
12. Ukraine	20	20	0

Past Olympic performance is important, reflecting the stronger sporting traditions in some countries and the level of government funding for Olympic sports.

John Hawksworth added that:

“We can see this effect at work in China recently, where state support contributed greatly to their Olympic success in Beijing and London. Sport, it seems, is one area where a planned economy can succeed.”

Other conclusions from the PwC analysis include:

• As host nations generally ‘punch above their weight’ at the Olympics, Brazil is predicted to fare well in Rio, despite the country’s recent economic problems. The model projects they could win 25 medals, up from 17 in London.
• The model suggests that once again, the US will head the table, capturing a few more medals than in London. China will again be second place in the table.
• Of the under-performing nations relative to population and GDP, the model still suggests that India leads the way; though if it achieves the model target of 12 medals in Rio, this would double the haul the country achieved in the London Olympics.

Of course, all economic models are subject to margins of error and can never take full account of the human factor of exceptional individual performances. Looking back at the 2012 model, the order of the top countries was correct and it projected the performance of China very well. The US underperformed in London relative to the model’s suggestion, while Russia and Great Britain outperformed.  

The model does not cover the Paralympics, but if similar factors are at play there we would expect Great Britain to continue to perform well in the medals table in Rio.

Download a copy of the full report here.

Ends.

Notes to editors

1. This assumes that the Russian track and field athletics team is allowed to compete in Rio. An IAAF decision on this is due on 17^th If the Russian athletics team is not able to compete, this will have a material impact on the medal totals of other countries, and we may issue an updated set of projections in that event.

2. Model estimates of Rio 2016 Olympics medal totals as compared to London 2012 results

Country	Model estimate of medal total in Rio 2016	Medal total in London 2012	Difference
1. USA	108	103	+5
2. China	98	88	+10
3. Russia1	70	81	-11
4. Great Britain	52	65	-13
5. Germany	40	44	-4
6. Australia	35	35	0
7. France	34	34	0
8. Japan	33	38	-5
9. South Korea	27	28	-1
10. Italy	26	28	-2
11. Brazil	25	17	+8
12. Ukraine	20	20	0
13. Canada	17	18	-1
14. Netherlands	17	20	-3
15. Spain	17	17	0
16. Cuba	16	15	+1
17. Belarus	13	12	+1
18. Hungary	13	18	-5
19. India	12	6	+6
20. Kazakhstan	12	13	-1
21. Kenya	11	11	0
22. Jamaica	10	12	-2
23. New Zealand	10	13	-3
24. Poland	10	10	0
25. Iran	8	12	-4
26. Romania	8	9	-1
27. Azerbaijan	8	10	-2
28. Czech Republic	8	10	-2
29. Denmark	7	9	-2
30. Turkey	7	5	+2
Top 30 total medals	771	801	-30
Other countries	190	160	+30
Total medals	961	961	0

Note: the table shows rounded medal estimates from the model, but the country rankings reflect unrounded model estimates.

Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers model estimates using data for actual medals won in London 2012 that takes accounts of medals reallocated after the Games (e.g. due to drug use violations) where a firm decision has been made on this by the Olympic authorities as of late May 2016. For the sake of comparability, we assume the same total number of medals are awarded in Rio as in London, although in practice this could change somewhat.

3. The information in this press release is drawn from the full study produced by the UK firm of PwC entitled Economic Briefing Paper: Modelling Olympic Games performance. This paper updates similar estimates published at around the time of the 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 Olympics.

Ends.

For further information please contact Tilly Parke: [email protected] / +44 20 7804 8761