16th Annual International Conference on Sports: Economic, Management, Marketing & Social Aspects, 9-12 May 2016, Athens, Greece
Elite Sport Ranking of the “International Society of Sports Sciences in the Arab World:” An Accurate Evaluation of Nations Performances in International Sports Competitions
Nadim Nassif, PhD, Academic Advisor of the Physical Education and Sports Major Manager of the FIFA/CIES Sport Management Program Notre-Dame University.
Results and rankings are a predominant and unavoidable measurement of the performance of athletes, clubs and national teams
Countries rankings are therefore very appropriate tools in determining which national sport movements are the most efficient in the establishment of policies leading to international success
The most known ranking worldwide is the medal table proposed by the International Olympic Committee at the end of each edition of the Winter and Summer Olympics
Although according to the Olympic Charter, the Olympic medal table is just informative and the IOC shall not draw up any global ranking per country, scholars, media and national sport leaders mainly refer to it when they want to measure the performance of a country in international competitions
"I believe each country will highlight what suits it best. One country will say, 'Gold medals.' The other country will say, 'The total tally counts.' We take no position on that.”
IOC President Jacques Rogge (Washington Post, 2008)
The global acknowledgement of the Olympic Medal Table arises from the fact that the Olympic Games are the most universal and popular multidisciplinary competition in the world
During the last Olympic Games in London in 2012, 204 nations participated
And due to this universality and the media coverage of this event, the public and private sectors invest large amounts of money on the Olympic sports
Winning in the Olympics can therefore constitute a very relevant tool of measurement of success of a national sport policy
Consequently, the Olympic medal table is considered to be the reference in terms of international sport ranking
OLYMPIC MEDAL TABLE METHODOLOGY (as used in the website of the IOC)
It computes all the gold, silver and bronze medals won by each nation
A gold medal in any event has superior value over any number of silver, and a silver over any number of bronze
In the case that two countries obtain the same number of gold medals, the country that has collected more silvers will be better ranked
In the case that two countries obtain the same number of gold and silver medals, the country that has collected more bronze will be better ranked
Although considered a reference, the Olympics ranking methodology has some elements that prevent it from being a scientifically accurate measurement of success in elite sport
1-The superiority of a gold medal over any number of silver and of a sliver over any number of bronze will create situations where a country having only one exceptional athlete capable of winning a gold medal is placed in front of another one endowed with several athletes who were placed second and third
Rank Countries Gold Silver Bronze Total 35 Norway 2 1 1 4 36 Canada 1 5 12 18
This methodology creates the false inference that a country with 2 gold medals, 1 silver and 1 bronze has a better elite sport policy than another country with 1 gold, 5 silver and 12 bronze!
2-The number of medals awarded per event does not take into account neither the
level of competition of the sport to which it belongs nor the number of countries and athletes that it involves
For example, a sport like sailing that has 10 events and played in 115 countries, offers 10 gold medals, whereas a sport like basketball, that has only two events played in 215 countries, offers only two gold medals
Moreover, for the same event, as an individual sport, sailing can offer medals to several athletes of a same country whereas, as a team sport, basketball, can only offer one medal per country
In that sense, following the Olympic medal table methodology, a minor sport could outweigh a major sport that is more popular, universal and thus more competitive
This measurement is therefore misleading in the comparison of elite national sport policies
THE I3SAW ELITE SPORT RANKING METHODOLOGY
In March 2015, we have presented a ranking methodology in the first congress organized by the International Society for Sports Science in the Arab World (I3SAW)
The I3SAW adopted this methodology
The objective of this endeavor was to propose a methodology that rewards countries that have consistent results, present a larger number of athletes succeeding and win in the most competitive events
This methodology relies on the calculation of two coefficients that weight the different sports: popularity and universality
Popularity indicates the international media ratings for each sport. It shows to which extent a sport is covered and therefore attracts private and public funding and raises competition’s level by engaging the most talented athletes
Universality takes into account the number of all countries participating in a given sport. The more there are countries participating, the more difficult it is for them to win in an event
By taking into account the universality and popularity of each sport, our goal is to give a differential weight for minor sports like, curling or luge and major sports, like football and basketball
The 2014 I3SAW ranking methodology
GLOSSARY
TERM DEFINITION EXAMPLES SPORT A group of disciplines or events Aquatics (FINA) that belong to the same international federation DISCIPLINE A branch in a sport comprising Swimming, water polo, diving one or more events and synchronized swimming are disciplines in the sport of aquatics EVENT A competition in a sport or Men 50 M freestyle is an event discipline that gives rise to a of the discipline of swimming ranking that belongs to the sport of aquatics
THE 2014 I3SAW RANKING METHODOLOGY
Only the sports that are part of the summer and winter Olympic programs were taken in consideration. Being part of the Olympic program is a guarantee of universality and popularity
Only the countries that have National Olympic Committees were ranked because they have access to the highest number of sports
Since the number of National Olympic Committees that participated in the 2012 Olympics is 204, any team (basketball, handball...) or individual (athletics, swimming, wrestling…) competitor gets a basic score of 204, the second getting 203, the third, 202, and so on...
In case of an individual event with more than one competitor from a specific country, this country would get a cumulative score
THE 2014 I3SAW RANKING METHODOLOGY
To reward the top 8 countries, we introduce a weighting coefficient inspired from the formula 1 scores between 2003 and 2009
All those ranked 8th and above will obtain points that decrease from 197 to 1
The points earned in each event were added to determine the ranking of countries in each event. With this criteria, the goal was to avoid situations of having countries with 1 gold medal, 0 silver and 0 bronze, ranked in front of some that won 0 gold medal, 5 silver medals and 7 bronze medals
Rank in an Basic Number Points Weight Weighted Basic event, granted on basis of (Formula 1 Number Points 2003-2009 discipline or number of Olympic sport committees scale)
1 204 10 2040 2 203 8 1624
3 202 6 1212 4 201 5 1005 5 200 4 800 6 199 3 597 7 198 2 396 8 197 1 197 9 196 1 196 10 195 1 195 … … … … 23 182 1 182 … … … …
In case of an individual sport with more than one competitor, we obtain a total number of points per event for each country by summing up the points received
by its athletes in that event
Rank of Points Corresponding ranking of Final Points for the countries in event A athletes in event A event A 1. USA 2040 1. Brazil 2836 (1624 + 1212) 2040 2. Brazil 1624 2. USA 2040 1624 3. Brazil 1212 3. France 1202 (1005+ 197) 1212 4. France 1005 4. Italy 993 (597+396) 1005 5. Spain 800 5. Spain 800 800 6. Italy 597 7. Italy 396 8. France 197
The sum of points of rankings of countries in each event is then totaled by sport
Sports Points
examples
Athletics Sum of the points gained in the different athletics men and women events (pole vault, long jump, high jump, triple jump, 100M, Marathon…) countries rankings
Basketball Sum of the points gained in the basketball men and women events countries rankings Sum of the points gained in the different road, track, mountain bike Cycling and BMX men and women events countries rankings
This was done to avoid having a sport that has a multitude of events (athletics, boxing) offer more points than a team sport that has just two (basketball)
The ranking in each sport followed the same pointing system than the one used for the event ranking: 2040 for the first, 1624 for the second, 1212 for the third, 1005 for the fourth and so on…
THE 2014 I3SAW RANKING METHODOLOGY
The points obtained from the ranking in each sport will be multiplied by coefficients of popularity and universality
As an indicator of universality, number of countries affiliated to the international federation of each sport divided by 100
As for the popularity, amount of money that each sport generated in the 2012 Olympics
GROUPS SPORTS POPULARITY COEFFICIENTS A Aquatics, Athletics, 5 Gymnastics
B Basketball, Cycling 4 Football (especial case), Tennis, Volleyball C Archery, Badminton, 3 Boxing, Judo, Rowing, Shooting, Table tennis, Weightlifting D Canoe/kayak, Equestrian, 2 Fencing, Handball, Hockey, Sailing, Taekwondo, Triathlon, Wrestling E Modern pentathlon, Golf, 1 Rugby
THE 2014 I3SAW RANKING METHODOLOGY
For the winter sports, coefficients were put based on Winter Olympics media ratings and their comparison with Summer Olympics media ratings
Concerning the competitions chosen, we considered that the international federations are the best placed to know what are the major competitions of their sport. Therefore, we used the official ranking made by these federations. When there was no ranking available depending on the year, the results of the last world championships or the Olympics to date were used
SPORTS COMPETITIONS UNIVERSALITY POPULARITY TOTAL POINTS = EXAMPLES CHOSEN COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT POINTS OBTAINED FROM THE RANKING (N) X UNIVERSALITY X POPULARITY
BASKETBALL Last 2014 International 2.04 4 = N x 2.04 x 4 Basketball Federation men and women rankings to date ROWING Results obtained in the 1.42 3 = N x 1.42 x 3 2014 World Rowing Championships
TABLE Last 2014 rankings to 2.04 3 = N x 2.04 x 3 TENNIS date made by the International Table Tennis Federation for Men and Women table tennis
The points won by each country in each of the 35 sports after the coefficient multiplications were added to obtain their total amount of points
USA RUSSIA GERMANY Aquatics 20808 10251 1989 Biathlon 44 281 46 Basketball 16646 13252 1436 Boxing 11995 2328 4794
… … … …
TOTAL 174 729 130 764 120 337
The final ranking was done according to the “summed” total amount of each country
The 2015 I3SAW ranking methodology
We considered that some non-Olympic sports are perhaps more universal and popular than some Olympic sports
THE 2015 I3SAW RANKING METHODOLOGY
For this purpose, we undertook a deeper analysis of the development of a much wider range of sports
For the popularity rate, we used the website “Biggestglobalsports”, created by the economist Michael Brown
Brown constructs a yearly popularity data-base of all global sports following a thorough tracking of sports news websites around the world
Brown’s information gave a precise pointing system on the popularity of every discipline
The 2015 I3SAW popularity coefficient was obtained by dividing the number of points given by the website “biggestglobalsports” by 100
As for the universality rating, we took into consideration whether a sport is part of the programs of the Olympics, the International School Sport Federation (ISF), the International University Sport Federation (FISU), the International Military Sports Council (CISM), the International Police Sports Union (USIP) and the International Masters Games Associations (IMGA), i.e., all multisport organizations recognized by the International Olympic Committee
Example of attribution for Universality coefficients in the 2015 I3SAW model
BADMINTON JUDO
Number of national federations /100 1.76 2 Olympics program = 2x (Number of national federations 3.52 4 /100) ISF coefficient = Number of national sport school 0.72 0.72 federations /100 FISU coefficient = Number of national university sport 0.835 1.67 federations / 100 (for optional sports, this number is divided by 2) CISM coefficient = Number of national military sport 0 1.34 federations / 100 USIP coefficient = Number of national police sport 0 0 federations / 100 IMGA coefficient = Number of national master sport 1 0 federations / 100 TOTAL UNIVERSALITY 7.835 9.73
THE COEFFICIENTS OF EACH SPORT IN THE 2015 I3SAW RANKING METHODOLOGY WILL BE THE SUM OF ITS UNIVERSALITY AND POPULARITY COEFFICENTS
BADMINTON JUDO
Media popularity (Michael Brown Model points 2.15 0.277 /100)
Universality Coefficients 7.835 9.73 9.985 10.007 TOTAL
This methodology has been used to calculate the universality and popularity coefficients of 112 sports
17 non-Olympic sports have superior coefficients than luge, which is the Olympic sport that has the lowest coefficient
For 2015 ranking, we took into account all the sports that have coefficients at least equal or superior to the “smallest” Olympic sport. With this new methodology, 52 sports, instead of 35 (as in 2014), “made the cut”
THE 2015 I3SAW RANKING METHODOLOGY
Like in 2014, when the international federation do not submit an updated official ranking, results of the last world championships, Olympics or major competition in their sport will be taken in consideration
206 countries were ranked in 2015 (Kosovo and South Sudan were added). The 1st obtained 2060, 2nd 1640, 3rd 1224, 4th 1015, 5th 808, 6th 603, 7th 400, 8th 199, 9th 198 and so on…
Unlike 2014 where only the Olympic disciplines of the sports that were part of the Olympic program were considered, in 2015, all the disciplines were taken into account as long as they have a total of the coefficient of universality and popularity that is equal or superior to 1.59 (which is the coefficient of luge). Ex: Futsal and beach soccer
In certain disciplines, we also had a difference in popularity between gender categories
The 2015 methodology included 127 disciplines, 71 more than in 2014
It will also be based on points but unlike in 2014, where the sum of the points of the events were computed by sports, in 2015, the sum of the points of the events were computed by disciplines and the sum of the points of the disciplines were computed by sports
Michael Brown’s study allowed a differentiation between gender in each discipline
SPORT SPORT DISCIPLINES DISCIPLINES MEN COEFFICIENT WOMEN COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENTS COEFFICIENT
BASKETBALL 21.8 Basketball 21.8 14.4 7.4
3vs3 Basketball 3.6 1.8 1.8
CONCLUSION
By proposing a detailed ranking methodology, the goal was to create an accurate measurement of the 206 countries performances in elite sport
It also offered different results, rewarding countries (Spain, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico) which succeeded in highly universal and popular sports
This research also indirectly ranked the development of 112 sports, their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, thus offering an indicator for the related international federations on their popularity and universality
This endeavor undertaken is the first part of a wider project aiming at identifying the factors behind the success of countries in international competitions, which is the main learning objective of the sub-academic field of elite sport policy
47