Fynsa
The 2023 Santiago Pan American Games have just come to a close; we are awaiting the start of the Parapan American Games, and the sporting euphoria that swept the country during those weeks is still in the air. After some initial doubts about the infrastructure and our organizational capabilities, enthusiasm grew as the days went by, fueled by the incredible response from the public and the strong athletic performance of “Team Chile.” In fact, according to preliminary estimates, attendance at the various sports venues exceeded 1.3 million people, who were able to celebrate the national team’s haul of 79 medals: 12 gold, 31 silver, and 36 bronze.
Following these results and the enthusiasm they generated—as is often the case in such situations—there were calls to increase support for athletes—primarily in the form of funding—as well as calls for the facilities to be maintained and remain available to anyone who wants to use them. I must be honest: it’s very difficult for me to oppose these requests, given how much I love sports, how much I enjoy playing them, and how happy those two weeks of the JJPP made me. However, from a public policy perspective, decisions require a slightly broader view than the fanaticism of the person writing these lines.
The first thing we must consider is that public resources are scarce and have many alternative uses. In other words, whenever we decide to spend money on something, we stop spending it on something else. Therefore, if we want high-performance sports to receive more funding, that money must inevitably come from somewhere else and/or be diverted from another initiative.
Second, we need to know what kind of figures we're talking about. Based on the available data from a selection of countries, the cost of winning an Olympic medal ranges from US$3 million to US$6 million per Olympic cycle. However, this does not account for the investment made in sports that did not win medals (usually about 60% of the total investment in large countries) or the opportunity cost of facilities and the management and administration of the public sector. Taking all of this into account, the cost per medal could reach as high as US$40 million.
In any case, the cost per medal also depends on the sport and expectations, with medals in individual sports being the “cheapest” and those in team sports the “most expensive.” In terms of order of magnitude, the United Kingdom invested more than US$370 million during the Rio Olympic cycle, while Australia spent US$332 million during the same period. These budgets do not take into account existing infrastructure (swimming pools, track and field facilities, stadiums, etc.), maintenance costs, or expenses related to travel to other competitions.
Therefore, the opportunity cost of an Olympic medal is no small matter. The cost of competing in the Pan American Games may be lower, but there’s a reason why the institutions dedicated to this are called “Olympic.” Furthermore, let’s keep in mind that this investment is directed toward a small number of athletes, unlike more widespread sports programs aimed at the general population (for example, to combat obesity and a sedentary lifestyle), whose results are less visible.
With this in mind, do we still think we should allocate more resources to elite athletes to increase their chances of winning a medal? My answer is clear, but it would be interesting to know what the reader would be willing to give up in order to free up those funds. See you in part two.
