Wealth and population amount have a large consequence on international sports. Here are the results in terms of wealth and population in the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Available population specific to the sport of soccer shown in millions for each country (meaning the approximate number of people in between ages 15-64 and living on at least $10 per day that are potentially supporting the soccer infrastructure in that country directly or indirectly). (MATCHES WON BY THE COUNTRY WITH MORE AVAILABLE POPULATION) GROUP STAGE: 20/34 (59%) KNOCKOUT STAGE: 10/16 (63%) TOTAL: 30/50 (60% victories for countries with more available population) COUNTRIES (32) Brazil: 63.5 Germany: 53.3 France: 42.6 Italy: 39.5 Japan: 39.3 Mexico: 38.6 South Korea: 36.7 England: 34.5 Spain: 31.3 Argentina: 18.4 United States: 13.1 Netherlands: 11.1 Chile: 7.6 South Africa: 7.1 Portugal: 6.9 Greece: 6.7 Algeria: 5.6 Serbia: 3.8 Denmark: 3.7 Slovakia: 3.4 Nigeria: 3.3 North Korea: 2.9 Switzerland: 2.7 Australia: 2.0 Paraguay: 1.9 Honduras: 1.7 Cameroon - Slovenia - Uruguay: 1.3 Ivory Coast: 1.2 Ghana: 0.9 New Zealand: 0.8 TOTAL: 448.7 AVERAGE: 14.0
I don't know exactly what this number should be, but I can't think of any way that this relativity can be correct. I know its 5-6 years later, but Australia's population is ~24.1 million and NZ's is just 4.7 (ie about 20% of it) - otherwise the demographics/economics etc are pretty similar (in fact, they'd probably marginally skew in Australia's favour, certainly demographics). Even noting that there are competing sports in Australia this is certainly also the case in NZ. So I can't really see how NZ could be 40% of the Australian number (unless it's something dumb like NZ has only 1 major winter competitor and Australia has 2 or something along those lines, which would certainly be dumb) J
They are somewhat similar but have slightly different tastes in sports, which is why the numbers are closer. Soccer is New Zealand's 3rd favorite team sport (excluding netball), but is 4th popular in Australia. This dramatically reduces the infrastructure for soccer in Australia, therefore bringing the numbers closer together (but still over twice as high as New Zealand). The percentage of resources dedicated to Australian Rules Football in Australia cannot be overlooked. Total available population for each nation: Australia: 15.8 New Zealand: 3.0
This is, of course, where you run into problems by using simplistic analysis. "4th" in Australia is quite misleading because one of those sports (Rugby League) would only rank above Football in 2 States (but massively) but somewhat behind in the others, while another (Australian Rules Football) would largely see the reverse position. In many ways Football ranks 3rd in most places (you could argue that point but it would be defensible). And (this is just my opinion) neither would really be as "far ahead" of Football as Rugby would be in New Zealand. J
Of course, this is common sense. For such detailed statistics you cannot use a simple one size fits all algorithm for all countries. For sports that are number 1 in a country it is generally easier, but it gets trickier in other situations. However, the statistics are generally accurate to give people an idea of a country's potential in a particular sport. Also, as you say it is just your opinion, you are also lacking a detailed statistical analysis. If I had more resources at my disposal chances are good my research would yield similar results in this case (sometimes vaguely looking at numbers can trick the mind when trying to think exponentially, therefore making them appear off). Total available population is certainly more accurate though, and is very good (yet by no means perfect) in determining a country's potential in all sports combined (after all rankings are averaged). EXAMPLE HERE USING 20 MEN'S TEAM CONTACT SPORTS.