How has the Olympic Movement changed since Sydney 2000?

Over the past two decades, the power struggle between nations to win medals in major competitions, especially the Olympic Games has intensified. This has led to increasing competition in international sports with extensive investment by sports governments through funding and national lottery funding. As the supply of medals (success) remains essentially fixed (the IOC has indicated that it would like the number of events to be capped at around 300), and the demand for success is increasing (more nations taking part and more nations winning medals), the “market” has adjusted by raising the “price of success” (Shibli, 2003). This is evidenced by data from the SPLISS (Sports Policy factors Leading to International Sporting Success) study (De Bosscher, Bingham, Shibli, van Bottenburg, & De Knop, 2008), that showed from an international comparison in six nations (Canada, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom) that expenditures on sport and elite sport increased considerably between 1999 and 2003, ranging from 30% in Norway to 90% in the Netherlands. Italy was the only exception in this regard, with a reduction in expenditure of 27% caused by falling sport gambling receipts in 2003. Interestingly, over the same time period, no nation in the sample improved its market share of medals from Sydney (2000) to Athens (2004). Canada was the only nation which maintained its performance. This finding suggested that as nations strive for success, there are diminishing returns on investment such that it is necessary to continue investing in sport simply to maintain existing performance levels (De Bosscher, 2008). A follow up project in 15 countries is still in progress since 2011, involving 58 researchers, 33 policy makers, over 3000 elite athletes, 1300 coaches and 240 performance directors, known as SPLISS 2.0 (De Bosscher et al., in Press). First results confirm a continued ‘escalating global sporting arms race’. Funding increased in almost every nation since the beginning of the 21st century (see figures in appendix), with the exception of Denmark, Estonia, Spain and Portugal, the latter of which the financial crisis can be a possible explanation. The rules of this race are dictated by what rival nations are doing, not on the basis of what an individual nation is doing now compared with what it did in the past. The key question facing all nations taking a strategic approach to elite sport is “to what extent do you wish to be part of this Game?” (De Bosscher et al., 2008, p134).