The Olympic movement is global. The countries with the most medals are mainly wealthy. UK facilities in all sports are beyond the wildest dreams of most potential athletes in poor countries. We're fixated with school sports in the UK, yet most European countries (and all the Asian countries I know of) don't do sport in school at all - it is addressed by local clubs. The model in the USA is the opposite, with school-to-college sport at the centre of funding, scholarships and local TV schedules. Every street and field in Australia and New Zealand is bursting with joggers, exercisers and teams sports - yet NZ is currently miles more successful than Oz by population. I suspect (IMHO) that the macho culture in Oz is undermining women's sport.
The Olympic movement, I think, is trying to get more medal success across more countries - that needs co-operation and accessibility. The tiny size of some contingents in the athletes' parade at the opening ceremony was shocking.
Any suggestions about how to fix that?
Why is it shocking? Maybe competitive sport is not important in some cultures, or they might have other things to get on with. Or it could be they are content with their place in the world and aren't looking for international prestige.
Maybe medal success should be left to those countries that feel they have something to prove, that have low esteem and a inferiority complex. Or they might want to divert attention from divisive internal social and economic problems, and are prepared to spend hundreds of million £ on state sponsored sports people so that some people can wave flags and feel good about themselves by proxy.
