The US has a system for preparing athletes for the Olympics as does every other country that won an appreciable number of medals. But the US system does not pervade the US culture. The system only impacts the few athletes that are identified as having world class talents.
There's more to it than that. From watching American Movies and TV, it might be unremarkable for a high school or university to have its own athletics track. I don't know how common it is, but I'm willing to bet its more common than it is in the UK where most schools have (at best) a grass field that once a year gets a track painted onto it for a sports day.
If it is the case that there are more tracks per capita, that kids have much easier access to tracks, then it stands to reason that there is a better chance of 'capturing' potential world class sprinters. A good solid grass roots system is essential to consistently producing world class athletes.
The system doesn't just impact only the elite - it impacts everybody, and helps (or hinders) elite athletes realize their potential.
And it is not like the US gov't dumps huge amounts of tax payer money into training athletes. US athletes are not state sponsored.
A state can encourage track and field by investing money into facilities and systems for picking out future athletes. Then there are grants and the like, these may come from a government, or a private institution or a sponsor.
Furthermore - a culture doesn't have to be state sponsored to be a culture. A culture which glorifies academics over sport, may find that they are less successful in sport. A culture that rewards sporting success with for instance acclaim or wealth, will probably do better in sport than ones that don't.
But this I respectfully disagree with. The US has a higher medal count, using any metric you chose than both large countries four times it size, and small countries. The count includes far more gold medals than anyone else. I think that's impressive.
The point is that having more medals than a country with a smaller population is not in itself all that impressive. Out of every 3,000,000 Americans, 1 is a 2012 Olympic medal winner. It was about 1 in 700,000 Australians. About 1 in 1,000,000 Brits. I chose countries with reasonably large populations to avoid outliers having a big impact. That said, Jamaica does consistently well for its size (almost always in the top ten per capita rankings over the past 50 years).
If we assume Olympiads aren't biased towards the Australian gene pool, for instance, then it appears that Australia is doing something to extract more of its raw talent and shape it towards Olympic success (and in recent history, 1 in 700,000 is a poor showing for Australia).
And naturally, we shouldn't expect poor countries to do so well, especially in certain sports. With less money for the people, they spend less on sport, which reduces their capacity to identify, and potentially subsidise the training of, a future elite athlete. Britain has a GDP/medal ratio of 37 (US billion), Australia, 39 and the US 145.
America was somehow less successful in extracting Olympic talent from the potential athletic people pool they had available and getting them up to an elite level.
That isn't to say that America has a poor sporting culture though, since the Olympics is not all sport, and few countries focus on an Olympic sport as their main cultural choice (Jamaica may be one of the exceptions). A young American teenage boy who finds out he can run 100m in 10.8 seconds has a choice: Become a wide receiver/half back whatever and if he has other relevant athletic skills, potentially turn pro in one of the many professional team spots available, and earn lots of money and acclaim (and failing that, get laid a fair few times). Or, hone his sprinting skills in a largely amateur sport, hoping to become one of a small handful of people able to command respectable sponsorship earnings/ appearance money/ prize wins.
In a country with such massive wages being commanded by the likes of professional (American) Football, Baseball and Basketball, and such small ones (if any) for Olympic events - it shouldn't come as a surprise to learn that many of America's finest athletes are doing things other than honing themselves for an Olympic event.
A per capita and GDP weighted measures are interesting, but it's not like they're the only thing worth looking at. But I think it's worth noting if people are going to suggest that having the most medals mean America is objectively the best or things of that nature. Whether or not its 'impressive' depends on how you look at it, really. Is it impressive that America won more medals than Grenada? Well no, its not. What is impressive is that Grenada won a medal. A gold one. In an event that has historically been owned by the USA. The men's 400m. He didn't just get a gold, he got in the top 10 times of all time. A list composed only of Americans (and now him), an event that America have won gold in (by my quick count) 19 times. Go Grenada. Though that's less impressive, given its probably rightly considered to be an outlier.
Is it impressive that America beat Britain? Well not really. You've got 5 times the size of talent pool and a whole host more money than us.
Is it impressive that America beat China? Well, yes, actually I think it is. Well done. China has a bigger population (and only 1 in 15,000,000 of them got medals) but America has more money. It's really the only fair direct competition that America has, and its a tough contest.
Is it impressive that America beat America? Wait what? Well you got the best Gold Medal count for a good long while (and 1984 doesn't count, I think), so well done that country there too.
In short - it's practically impossible to say that one country impressively 'won' the Olympics in any sense. Total number of medals (or golds or whatever) is certainly one way to look at it. And really, the only thing you can compare it to is your nearest historical rival, or your own historical performance. You certainly would be foolish to compare America to Grenada in 2012 and declare America the superior one based purely on total number of medals won.
On the other hand, per capita is far from perfect, although I think its best use is in comparing approximately similar countries. I think Australia deserves particular mention, for instance, for its sporting success considering its relatively low population.
And really, wow, I didn't intend to write that much.
I couldn't be bothered doing the maths myself, so the numbers are unchecked by me and extracted from
Olympic Medals per Capita
™ Version 4.2
