I think it’s a stretch to call international competition “political.” But if you insist on doing that, then it’s silly to claim that they are supposed to be apolitical when every athlete competes under a flag.

The ancient Olympic Games was literally the biggest and most important political event in ancient Greece(and during the hellenistic period, in the “World”).

Everyone gathered there, wars were temporary suspended so if you had anything important to announce, you did it there. And thats why alliances were often announced there, alongside with shitload of backdoor deals and politicking.

Large countries like to boast that their absolute number is bigger, it’s a tale as old as time.

If you really want to make comparisons (and I’d argue it’s really not that important) you should probably look at medals per capita, or medals per athlete sent. Obviously that gets a bit distorted with countries with small population, but I think it’s a more valuable number.

By the medals per capita metric the USA is 47th, and China is 75th.
https://www.medalspercapita.com/

I can’t find a good list for medals per athlete sent.

For people who care about medal count (btw not me) it’s the whole point though to show that you are the biggest with the most people and the most resources. Not that you made the most of what you had or that you have the purest spirit.

Raw industrial capacity and soldier count have decided wars after all, so showing you can amass the most / biggest can hardly be said to be an empty boast. It’s a threat, really.

Almost twice the number of silvers too. If you do like gold is three points, silver is two and bronze is one, the US ends up with a solid 20% margin of victory.

160 ish what, gold? Not even close.

Pathetic man.