So you're saying countries like USA, China, Russia etc don't throw money at their athletes? Gold medals in the olympics are very important for the PR of any country, just like having the best weapons or the most nukes.

Ever since I was a young 'un during the height of the Cold War, the Olympics, and particularly the "medal count," have had an undercurrent of politics and nationalism dominance, except for those times it was an overcurrent.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ic-competition

Of course other rich countries do the same. The point is that most competing countries are poor and can't afford to do this, so it isn't a level playing field to begin with. I get annoyed by the pretence that this is about sportsmanship and physical excellence (as in 'Chariots of Fire') when it's actually about money and nationalism. It's the continuation of war by other means.

Which I think was my point. To say that it is unfair on some countries is naive, all human culture is unfair to some portion of the population and beneficial to another, rightly or wrongly ( wrongly in my opinion ), but is the real world we have to live in.

I've been enjoying the Olympics, but the thing that has been niggling me is the emphasis on the UK's medal count, and particularly its gold medal count as compared to China's. This isn't what it should be about. It should be about personal excellence, pure and simple.

and there should be unicorns, but here aint.

Love the Olympics, but not the NBC/Comcast coverage in my area. It'd be great if one could stream whichever event one were interested in without a cable contract. Without a contract one is limited to broadcast, which in my area consists of hours of the same things: diving, swimming, womens's gymnastics & beach volleyball and running... and of course all the commentary. Hey, how about streaming with commercials for the Olympics? How about a limited contract with cable or satellite just for the Olympics?

While you have athletes representing nation states and wearing their colours you will have this.

Ironically that's very true to the spirit of the ancient Olympics. Of course the Greeks who competed at Olympia were representing their cities, not their country, but they certainly were not competing as individuals. It was not about individual excellence but about winning glory for your city. And there were no silver or bronze medals; only the winner got a prize.

If you won, they would put up a statue to you in the market place. If you came second, you would return home in disgrace. No one would want to admit that they even knew you.

Look here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-37129276

Even some of the 'poorer' countries reward their athletes better than we do.

It's all relative.

According to The Local, Denmark's excited over 13 medals: http://www.thelocal.dk/20160819/with...-olympics-ever