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 discipline or number of Olympic 2003-2009 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 Corresponding ranking of Rank of Points 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.