Among the top twenty economies of the world, Turkey ranked 17^th in medal count.

So, here is result of the games: Kim Jong-Un won against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. North Korea finished the London 2012 Olympic Games with six medals, four gold, and two bronze. Turkey settled with five: two gold, two silver, and one bronze. So, the final score is North Korea: 6, Turkey: 5. Turkey was the 32^nd in overall ranking while North Korea made it into the top twenty. Among the top twenty economies of the world, Turkey ranked 17^th in medal count. Out of the 652 medals won by the top twenty economies, Turkey won only 5, corresponding to 8 in 1000. In terms of the total GDP of the top twenty, Turkey’s share was around 1.5 percent. Thus, Turkey’s performance in the Olympics was weaker compared to the size of its economy.

Anyway, let me cut to the chase: Recently, I argued, “Turkey is like an adolescent unaware of his or her potential.” Before the games started, Charlotte McDonald from the BBC asked some experts to predict the number of medals some 200 participant countries could win. When identifying the potential of countries, their populations, and levels of GDP were taken in account for the size of the skills pool and the resources allocated to sports. According to this, Turkey had the potential to win 22 medals, but it won only 5. On the list of underperformers, Turkey was fourth, right after India, Indonesia, and Mexico. Also, there were overperformers: the US, Russia, and China.

As with any other study, this one by the BBC is, of course, open to criticism. Yet, given that 70 percent of the medals were won by the seven largest economies of the world, taking population and GDP into account during the calculation makes sense. Still, one can offer another assumption that would give healthier results. Nevertheless, I will take the existing analysis as granted as it perfectly matches the general approach in Turkey. The study is completely harmonious with the “the bigger, the better” assumption in our region. But, I think that the results of the Olympic Games contradict this assumption. Let me tell you why.

First, when you observe the list of underperformers, you instantly see some of the top twenty countries which have high populations, but have not yet leaped from middle to high income. Development is not directly related to the size of the country. The list reveals that, under normal conditions, countries that are not fully developed, are not prosperous and have not overcome the middle-income trap underperform at the Olympic Games. In other words, countries with low per capita income trail behind.

“How about China?” some of you might ask. Actually, there is not one single China. But let’s skip this for now and focus on North Korea and Russia on the list of overperformers. How did they succeed? If a country uses resources that could otherwise be allocated to the rest of the population to train a few elite athletes, it can succeed in the Olympics. In fact, if it does this continuously, this strategy can even be sustainable. This is the second point I noticed concerning the list of underperformers and overperformers.

And here is the third one: last month, there was a study in Lancet magazine on the level of physical activity in different nations. The US and the UK, which always succeed at the Olympics, occupy the top seats on the list of physical inactivity. In countries such as Finland, Sweden, and Holland, 60 percent of the population is considered physically active, while the rates for the UK and the US, two of the top performers in the Olympic Games, are around 30 percent. The share of the physically active in population is 40 percent in Turkey and 80 percent in Kenya. If you are curious how Kenya can overperform its potential, I really don’t know!

I believe that, under normal conditions, countries that have overcome the middle-income trap surpass a certain barrier of medals and win medals in a more diversified array of branches. The level of success in the Olympic Games is not an indicator of the importance to which that country attaches physical activity, however. This rather is a matter of public relations; that is, it is a show to demonstrate “how strong and fit you are.”

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 17.08.2012