Why few nations get more medals in Olympics?

Question

tell me why few nation gets more medals and few less. what is the difference between nations. why some r are so super and some r zero. Although zero nations have more population then other. like India, Indonesia, Malaysia,Bangladesh, Pakistan and so on.

Answer 1

maybe because those "athletes" have to feed their family as well - so have to go to work as well(or find food) let alone train.   It has to be a  natural with them for them to succeed.   The lack of nutrition let alone training facilities and coaches.

Answer 2

In my opinion, athletics are a luxury.  Nations that do well in sports are nations that have enough disposable income across a broad range of demographics.  Population alone doesn't count.

To achieve the Olympic level of competitiveness athletes devote their lives to their sport, usually starting between 6 to 9 years old.  Often have been identified as a talent in a sport by 10, and are significantly better than their peers by 12.  I know I spent 4 to 8 hours a day on my sport from when I was 9 till I quit at 21, and I didn't make it to the games.

Time in athletics is money -- it costs for coaches, fields, and equipment.  If you are going to devote 8 hours a day to ice dancing, who pays for the ice time, especially in Malaysia?  Who can afford the cost of someone spending 6 hours a day (on average) for 12 years and have no income to show for it?  Time and disposable income are required.

Next, there has to be a large number of people playing the sport because exceptional athletes of Olympic caliber are, well, exceptions.

The US women's soccer team is a dominant force in the world because there are so many young US women playing soccer.  According to American Sports Data, total soccer participation in the U.S. is at nearly 18 million. Girls account for 40% of all soccer players and 47% of all high school players. Soccer has also grown significantly among NCAA colleges, with a nearly 200% increase in female players since 1990-91.  So with 7.1 Million girls to choose from, the US can put up a pretty strong team.

India is quite competitive in women's hockey.  It is a very expensive and very popular sport. India has regions where the climate is conducive to learning to skate and playing seasonally at a very young age without great expense, and a large following that supports the growth and training of a large number of athletes.

Whereas the US can and does support virtually every sport in the same way that woman's soccer is supported, not every country with a large population acts the same way.  

According to FIFA, India has 384,900 registered women's soccer players to the US's 4,186,778.  India has a population of 1,049M to the US's 290M.  Clearly women's soccer does not share the same level of popularity in the two countries.

Its the availability of free time and money to devote to something that really doesn't generate income.  And the only nations that are competitive are the countries like China where the Government spends the money, or the US where its citizens have the time and spend their own money.

Olympic Gold Medals are luxury items won by nations who are rich enough to afford finding and supporting its athletes.