Yes, I agree and I said it too that there are other important factors in my previous post.
In triathlon in particular compared to something like soccer (or running), socioeconomics becomes really important. Because if you have to have access to a bike (realistically, given that the swim-running pathway is getting less and less common) which costs much more money than families in many countries can afford for a kids hobby. And I’m not talking about something expensive but a 1-300 euro bike from Decathlon or similar.
On Netherlands and Australia: lots of medals in track cycling and swimming, and these two countries probably have the highest density and best access of any country to cycling tracks and swimming pools (at least long course). And of course coaching that goes along with it. In a way, a country can choose to allocate a lot of resources to one or a couple of sports that has lots of medals and get a lot of return on that investment (as far as medal count can be counted as ROI). I’m not saying that all their medals were in these sports of course. Both countries have great sporting cultures overall and socioeconomics.
But anyway, we’re 100% in agreement that smaller countries can overperform their population size compared to bigger nations and they have to try to do everything they can. But if the bigger nation ALSO has a great sporting culture (general and for that particular sport), decent socioeconomics and access to necessary equipment, then it requires a bigger and bigger overperformance by a smaller nation to keep up (especially over time), so this is what I mean when I say population size matters and is an advantage.
Chairs Selection Panel - ask Coldwell/Evans/Brownlee if that’s “hands on”.
I guess they had no applicants of sufficient calibre with a triathlon palmares.
Selection Panel:
“The Selection Panel members are outlined below.
– British Triathlon Performance Director (voting - casting)”
Danny Kerry MBE brings extensive leadership experience from across five Olympic cycles and a proven track record in high-performance sport. [(MBE) for services to Women’s Hockey - Olympic Gold in Rio)]
Currently in UK Sport (since 2022), where he has led UK high-performance coaching support strategy across all sports, and before that he was England Hockey Performance Director and Head Coach where he led the teams to multiple medal winning performances [but not in Tokyo with the men] - consultancy services to a wide range of national sporting bodies and commercial organisations across leadership, performance planning and high-performance cultures yadda yadda
The Olympics is the only time Great Britain competes in major tournaments (and FIH in leap years - it’s home nations the rest of the time). Kelly’s time with British Hockey since 2016 has not been an unalloyed success and he moved on before Paris. He was reappointed post Paris but both the men’s and women’s team allegedly said ‘mmmm’ and he didn’t return ‘for personal reasons’. British Triathlon have snapped up a talent after his sabbatical at UK Sport.
No argument from me regarding specifically triathlon. Norway’s success is probably heavily based on coaching methods and buy in from athletes, not money thrown into it. I was more talking generally, why Norway is so good at sports, winter and summer.
Sorry I will not try to check the difference in sporting infrastructure and budget across nordic countries. But I’m pretty sure Norway with its oil is better off.
Great Britain dominates the weighted Olympic triathlon standings with 22 total points , followed by Switzerland in second place with 12 points. Applying a weighted point system (Gold = 3, Silver = 2, Bronze = 1
Weighted Olympic Triathlon Medal Standings (2000–2024)
Rank
Country (NOC)
Gold (3pt)
Silver (2pt)
Bronze (1pt)
Total Medals
Total Points
1
Great Britain (GBR)
4
3
4
11
22
2
Switzerland (SUI)
2
2
2
6
12
3
Australia (AUS)
1
2
2
5
9
4
New Zealand (NZL)
1
2
2
5
9
5
United States (USA)
1
2
2
5
9
6
Germany (GER)
2
1
0
3
8
7
France (FRA)
1
0
2
3
5
8
Canada (CAN)
1
1
0
2
5
9
Austria (AUT)
1
0
0
1
3
10
Bermuda (BER)
1
0
0
1
3
11
Norway (NOR)
1
0
0
1
3
12
Portugal (POR)
0
1
0
1
2
13
Spain (ESP)
0
1
0
1
2
14
Sweden (SWE)
0
1
0
1
2
15
Czech Republic (CZE)
0
0
1
1
1
16
South Africa (RSA)
0
0
1
1
1
Measuring Olympic success against national wealth is typically called a “Medal-to-GDP” or “Socio-Economic Performance” table. Economics and sports science researchers use this exact metric to show how efficiently a country converts its financial resources into sporting success. Because triathlon is an incredibly equipment-intensive sport (requiring high-end racing bikes, wetsuits, and coaching systems), it is heavily influenced by a country’s socio-economic status. [1, 2]
This table measures the Weighted Triathlon Points (Gold=3, Silver=2, Bronze=1) scored per $100 Billion of a nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), highlighting which countries are punching well above their economic weight:
All-Time Olympic Triathlon Points per $100 Billion of GDP
The Ultimate Outlier: Flora Duffy’s gold gives this tiny economy a massive score.
2
New Zealand(NZL)
5
9
$250 Billion
3.60
Highly Efficient: Small economy, massive historical return on infrastructure.
3
Switzerland(SUI)
6
12
$890 Billion
1.35
The Wealth Sweet Spot: Rich nation that heavily funds endurance pipelines.
4
Portugal(POR)
1
2
$290 Billion
0.69
High athletic efficiency with a moderate economic output.
5
Austria(AUT)
1
3
$520 Billion
0.58
Solid return on investment for a smaller European alpine nation.
6
Norway(NOR)
1
3
$530 Billion
0.57
Legendary high-performance science program maximizing their budget.
7
South Africa (RSA)
1
1
$380 Billion
0.26
Developing Economy Success: High structural impact despite lower GDP.
8
Australia(AUS)
5
9
$1.75 Trillion
0.51
Strong institutional sports funding maximizes their large economy.
9
Czech Republic (CZE)
1
1
$330 Billion
0.30
Steady grassroots presence relative to their economic size.
10
Great Britain(GBR)
11
22
$3.50 Trillion
0.63
Volume Dominance: High GDP backed by massive National Lottery funding.
11
Sweden(SWE)
1
2
$600 Billion
0.33
High-income nation with specialized elite athletic success.
12
France(FRA)
3
5
$3.00 Trillion
0.17
Powerful sporting culture but a huge GDP dilutes their ratio.
13
Spain (ESP)
1
2
$1.60 Trillion
0.12
Legendary triathletes (like Gómez Noya) achieved success with less funding.
14
Germany(GER)
3
8
$4.50 Trillion
0.18
Massive economic power means they require higher medal volume to rank up.
15
Canada(CAN)
2
5
$2.15 Trillion
0.23
Early trailblazers (Simon Whitfield) who haven’t matched the spending of European teams.
16
United States (USA)
5
9
$28.00 Trillion
0.03
The GDP Giant: Economic scale is so vast it completely drops their ratio.
How Socio-Economics Impacts Olympic Triathlon
The High Cost Barrier: Unlike running, which requires minimal gear, triathlon requires thousands of dollars in baseline equipment (aerodynamic bikes, tech trackers, pools). Lower-income countries are heavily disadvantaged unless they have institutional social programs. [1, 2]
State Funding Models vs. Free Market: Countries like Great Britain and Australia use targeted national funding (like the UK’s National Lottery system) to directly pump millions into elite sports structures, artificially raising their success rate relative to GDP.
Why the Giants Drop: The United States has an economic output so colossal ($28 Trillion) that even winning 5 medals looks tiny on a financial spreadsheet, meaning smaller nations that focus heavily on endurance sports get a far better “return on investment” per dollar.[1]
and to go a bit deeper , but whatever I do I cant make Switzerland and new zealand bad and spain and germany good lol
Exactly 16 nations have won an official medal in Olympic triathlon history. [1, 2]
Here is the finalized all-time leaderboard including every single one of those 16 nations. It applies your strict 8-to-1 point system (1st = 8 pts, 2nd = 7 pts, down to 8th = 1 pt) and keeps the verified medal baselinescompletely locked down. [1]
I would be curious the funding levels of the top 15 tri federations and where that stacks within said overall country. I’m guessing NOR treats its winter sports much better just as the US treats swimming and track/field better. Some of it has to do with technicalities of medal opportunities etc so funding may always be limited for a 2 medal only sport. I wonder if tri is even top 30 ranked federation sport within the US numbers. (See upthread @SheridanTris funding explanation within GB tri structure)
But it also serves that a sport like tri is going to have less opportunities to raise money than say a team/ball sport that can host “friendly” etc games in front of paid customers. For the most part either races or memberships is where you can “fundraise” from.
A rich nation yes, but hardly any of that money is invested in sport. I think with Switzerland it’s more cultural, as in, not sport being highly regarded as in Australia for example, but more like the population overall being very active due to topography of the country (a natural playground for sports, winter and summer).
as for funding its always really hard …
for instance many athletes think the brit athteles are doing well…
one thing I read a few weeks ago from British athlete top 130 in the world , born 2004 ( unfunded in uk -I believe-. for instance in Germany he would have some funding because of age and world ranking combo )
He came 2nd and 3rd in european cups within a week and Made a profit of 10 pounds from the trip (his girlfriend also a triathlete made the great comment “the breadwinner” ) he was wondering how is he supposed to live of this .
what iam trying to say here everybody always thinks other feds have “better” funding and the own is not so good …
most people like the brits , her often think their own fed is badly managed , when if there is one thing clear it they are doing the very least a lot less badly than pretty much any other fed …
there is a clear, the grass is always greener on the other side complex.
the key part is you still need to want to be the best.
Simon Lessing sleept in his bike box before a race , Craig Alexander sleeped in cars before races Vincent Luis lived In a shed for a wile at the bike shop where he worked , so much for rich socioeconomics ( his dad was an immigrant from Portugal working in a factory in france ) basically Vince could not afford to fail he had to make it work as he took the lilttle money his dad had saved for education ) and Hayden wilde does also not come from money .
the above brit athlete had spend 550 pounds on accomondation for the trip in an Eastern European country …
I had priced the same trip last year and it could have been done for 280 euro, in 2025.
money is obviously part of the picture but,
the other day I read somebody complaining she could not travel as, just doing the nails before the trip is now 70 euro … ie if you dont waste money on the fluff , the money should not be the key issue for most countries ( of course for some it does ) the question that is way more important is, how wisely do the feds use their budget. ** as well as, how smartly the athletes use their personal and fed budget.**
Please give us your opinion on this then. Who’s doing it well, who’s wasting money etc.
The reason I bring up funding amounts is that while the US has all these gazillion people and 1st world economics, triathlon isn’t even probaly a top 30 federation supported sport in the sports ethosphere. So if your not going to fund your program well, all those gazillion people aren’t even going to be an option to @monty ‘s point. Triathlon is so far down in importance in the US, even more so if your not attached to an ncaa athletic scholarship, which tri is only half with women only.
So yes I agree that the more important aspect is how you spend the little amount of money you get. We hear all the time of the disfunction for a fed like Aussie seemingly is always going through, and the US always gets tagged as this huge country with population and GDP, yet “underperforms”.
From a quick Googling of other sports of a similar size, I pulled together the data and asked for a chart showing (suggesting) that USAT spends too much on executives. Talking about a smaller budget to work with is only one side of the equation with this evidence.
With the exception of podium athletes I would suggest the British athletes are living hand to mouth. Even the funded podium athletes are not living a life of luxury. The funding is a grant subject to earning levels. If you go above a certain level (and it isn’t much) you get no personal living funding but do maintain the coaching and medical support.
Did you do this or did AI? Did you even use google? Aside from the numbers always being a bit suspicious, the last column is classical AI slop. Narrow judgment with no context whatsoever. How many amateur archers are there in the U.S.? How many USA Archery sanctioned events?
So one of the things with USA federations is that not all of them are built the same. Take US Swimming- there are no adults in US swimming outside of the national team/pro pathway. The “age grouper” in swimming goes into US Masters. USA Triathlon encompasses every triathlete in the US from youth to adult age group. So the lurkers of the world who are just regular joe usat member is paying for youth development programming, age group programming, high performance program. I always say if said age group athlete complains enough just go start Master’s Triathlon and it be for age groupers by age groupers only. Nothing is stopping that from happening other than just hard work on the individual tasked with starting that; which by default means it won’t happen.
So each federations structure will all vary from federation to federation. USA Swimming can do that because 95% of it’s funding comes from the under 18 club structure that is apart of every single pool in America (there membership number just from club teams is larger than the entire usa triathlon membership database; so you see how the “math” works). So they don’t need the adult membership numbers to exist and be part of the funding, that an usa triathlon needs. Again there is nothing stopping an random AG triathlete from creating their own adult only organization that is 100% AG focused.
All-Time Olympic Triathlon Points Standings (All 16 Medalist Nations)
Great Britain
France
Switzerland
Australia
New Zealand
United States
Germany
Spain
Canada
Portugal
Sweden
Austria
Norway
Bermuda
South Africa
Czech Republic
