No, per capita is terrible in the Olympics. Just look at gymnastics. We had the #1, #2, #3, and #4 best overall female gymnasts. But we could only send two. It's the same way in swimming. We could sweep medal podiums with the relays or individual events if given three. They limit the entrants of larger nations for a more timely competition.
For example, everyone bitches about swimming, but there isn't some huge global qualifying tournament where we are allow unlimited participants and teams. 2/3 of the basketball teams would be ours if that was the case.
Due to sample size it also skews heavily due to the reality that some nations spend all their energy and expertise in sports that are a national pride (and often tend to be the more obscure sports on a global scale). Examples:
- Fiji --> Rugby
- Hungary --> Fencing
- Finland --> Javelin Throw
- South Korea --> Archery (or Short Track Skating in the Winter)
- Ethiopia --> Long Distance running
- Kazakhstan --> Boxing, Wrestling, Weightlifting (<-- dirty as shit, shouldn't even be competing)
- Denmark --> Sailing, Rowing
That's just a taste. There's a reason only two of the top 16 nations there have a population size greater than 10 million. That's like a fourth the size of my state. Yawn.
A proper comparison would add some sort of Bayesian weighting to this while also factoring in the restrictive coefficient of limiting participants, and an additional bonus coefficient for medaling in a wider array of sport.
Oh yeah, and...undefeated world champions of Football. Superbowls = 49 - 0. Not that peasants care about the master race sport.
