It's the first standoff in summer games history and it took a nail-biting U.S. women's basketball win, in the final action of Paris 2024, to make happen.
    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      204·
      5 months ago

      I think it’s a stretch to call international competition “political.” But if you insist on doing that, then it’s silly to claim that they are supposed to be apolitical when every athlete competes under a flag.

      • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.worldEnglish
        123·
        5 months ago

        The games are inherently political, just like every facet of humanity. Yes, it is silly to think they are apolitical, as they are framed to be.

          • Doom@ttrpg.networkEnglish
            81·
            5 months ago

            The Olympics have always been political lol

            The Nazis. The Soviets. China vs the US. Tommy Smith, the Munich Massacre, Jesse Owens. Boycotting the Olympics.

            All political. Even deciding the venue is political as fuck bro

            Like how do you have such an opinion and also no clue pop

            • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              5 months ago

              It is de facto political because people bring their politics to it, and because people are who they are. It is also overtly organized around the nation states of the athletes which is essentially political. But the spirit of it is to set politics aside and compete in a sportsmanlike way on an even playing field. You might say who cares what the “spirit” is versus the facts, and you’d have a point, but then again I’m not sure we should characterize the event by how terrorists choose to abuse it, either.

              Congratulations for actually saying your piece instead of just “lol bruh.” You just took part in a discussion!

              • Doom@ttrpg.networkEnglish
                11·
                5 months ago

                Dude writes a whole dissertation just to agree with me while being condescending. Why waste the electricity 😂

                • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  2·
                  5 months ago

                  Honestly, I agree to a point with them. Your other comment was vague and didn’t make a direct point, while your followup made a valid point.

        • TheFriar@lemm.eeEnglish
          12·
          5 months ago

          I dunno. Seems like they’re just saying the nature of competing in sports isn’t political. But the fact that the flag they’re draped in is inextricably tied to that nation’s geopolitical actions means that there’s no way it can’t be seen as political. Makes sense to me.

    • NIB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      5 months ago

      The ancient Olympic Games was literally the biggest and most important political event in ancient Greece(and during the hellenistic period, in the “World”).

      Everyone gathered there, wars were temporary suspended so if you had anything important to announce, you did it there. And thats why alliances were often announced there, alongside with shitload of backdoor deals and politicking.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      8·
      5 months ago

      Almost twice the number of silvers too. If you do like gold is three points, silver is two and bronze is one, the US ends up with a solid 20% margin of victory.

    • Humanius@lemmy.worldEnglish
      273·
      5 months ago

      Large countries like to boast that their absolute number is bigger, it’s a tale as old as time.

      If you really want to make comparisons (and I’d argue it’s really not that important) you should probably look at medals per capita, or medals per athlete sent. Obviously that gets a bit distorted with countries with small population, but I think it’s a more valuable number.

      By the medals per capita metric the USA is 47th, and China is 75th.
      https://www.medalspercapita.com/

      I can’t find a good list for medals per athlete sent.

      • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        5 months ago

        Being able to train that many gold medal athletes is still a worthy boast though. I’d rather countries compete on metrics like this rather than threaten each other with war

        • Teils13@lemmy.eco.brEnglish
          1·
          5 months ago

          This is de facto extremely distorted, if not nullified, by the fact the collective sports (football, volley, etc) get 1 medal to each country, and solitary sports have multiple variants of the same competition that gives multiple medals to the same small teams or the same individuals (gymnastics, swimming, racing, etc). A nation that made 22 gold medalist athletes in football gets behind one that has made 2 gold medalists in swimming, gymnastics or racing. One of many such sport distortions in the Olympics.

    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      5 months ago

      For people who care about medal count (btw not me) it’s the whole point though to show that you are the biggest with the most people and the most resources. Not that you made the most of what you had or that you have the purest spirit.

      Raw industrial capacity and soldier count have decided wars after all, so showing you can amass the most / biggest can hardly be said to be an empty boast. It’s a threat, really.

  • isles@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    4 months ago

    The US sent 592 athletes and competed in 34 events.

    China sent 388 athletes for 33 events.

  • zephyreks@lemmy.mlEnglish
    44·
    5 months ago

    Technically the US (the country) gets +2 bronzes (Puerto Rico) and China (the country) gets +2 golds and +2 bronzes (Hong Kong)… but this whole comparison is stupid.