Britain | The brass behind the gold

How Britain (population: 65m) beat China (population: 1.4 billion) in the Olympics

More cash, ruthlessly funnelled towards winners, explains Britain’s medal haul

BRITONS worried about their country’s global standing after it opted to leave the European Union in June might take some solace from this summer’s Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro. Britain finished second in the medal table (as ranked by the number of golds won), ahead of China, and became the first country ever to increase its medal haul immediately after hosting the games.

Britain’s tally of 65 medals in 2012, when London welcomed the world’s athletes, was its best in a century. A total of 29 golds was enough to lift Team GB to third in the world, with as many first-place finishes as France, Germany and Japan combined.

Few expected the Brits to repeat that performance in Rio, if only because such a feat was unprecedented. Host nations typically enjoy an “Olympic bounce”: over the past three decades, most have gradually increased their medal returns in the run-up to a home games, before peaking on their own turf, and tailing off in ensuing tournaments. This trend can largely be explained by hosts funnelling extra money towards sporting programmes in the hope that their athletes will put on a good show on home soil. Nobody wants to be the loser at their own party.

Spending data are hard to find for many countries, since they are reluctant to give away details about their preparation. But an analysis by the BBC has shown that British Olympic success has correlated strongly with total funding over the past 20 years. Both have grown heftily since the embarrassment of the 1996 games in Atlanta, when Team GB won just one gold medal.

A good indicator of beefed-up Olympic programmes is the number of athletes that a country sends to the games. Host nations do get an easier run in qualification in some sports: they have guaranteed spots in rowing, football and gymnastics, for example, though no special treatment in athletics, track cycling or swimming. But they evidently put more effort into training their sportsmen and women up to Olympic standard too. Yet hosts typically send fewer competitors to subsequent games. This makes Britain’s recent success all the more remarkable. The team that arrived in Rio was one-third smaller than the one that took part in London, yet it snaffled 27 gold medals and 67 overall.

Some of that was down to luck. Britain’s rugby sevens team, which collected an unexpected silver medal, avoided an early exit after their Argentine opponents squandered a penalty kick for victory; Andy Murray, who won gold in the tennis singles, benefited when his nemesis, Novak Djokovic, crashed out in the first round. Other countries have voiced suspicions about Team GB’s rapid improvement in certain disciplines, especially in the velodrome. Britain won no gold medals at the 2015 Track Cycling World Championships, but six of the ten on offer in Rio. (British Cycling, the sport’s governing body, has said it is focused on Olympic goals: Britons won seven golds in London’s velodrome.)

But the underlying cause of Team GB’s success has been an efficient allocation of resources. The £350m ($460m) pot of National Lottery money that was available to British teams in the four years leading up to the Rio games was shared only among those likely to win medals. Cycling, rowing and sailing, which produced 26 gongs in 2012, received a combined stipend of £88m for the Olympic cycle of 2013-17. Athletes in these disciplines have better equipment, facilities, and training regimes than ever before. Weightlifting, fencing and archery, in which Britain won no medals four years ago, were given £8.8m. Such an unforgiving approach to spending allowed Britain to win one gold medal for every 14 athletes competing in Rio, its best ratio in the post-war era.

Occasionally a lesser-funded sport can prove its worth. Britain’s struggling gymnasts received just £1.8m ahead of the Beijing games, but beat their medal target in 2012 and were given a budget of £14.6m in 2013. Max Whitlock, a 23-year-old pommel-horse specialist, won two gold medals in Rio—the first Briton ever to win an Olympic gymnastics title. Well-targeted investment, it seems, pays off.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that host nations get no advantage in qualifying for Olympic events. In fact, they do have guaranteed spots in some sports. This has been corrected.

Discover more

The future of Drax, Britain’s largest power plant

From coal to wood to carbon capture and storage?

A new hate-crime law in Scotland causes widespread concern

Transgender identity is protected; biological sex is not


Britain’s kings of sourdough

The rapid rise of a firm that makes bread very slowly