As the 2024 summer Olympics come to a close, the USA characteristically topped the medal tally with 40 golds and 125 total medals, edging out China, which also had 40 golds but only 91 total medals. This tie for gold raised a worldwide controversy: how should we define Olympic victory? Some focus on gold medals, while others argue for total medals or even medals per capita. In my opinion, the total medal metric makes the most sense, as it reflects the depth of a nation’s athletic talent.

When the USA was trailing China in gold medals, everyone pushed for a gold-only tally. But when USA caught up to China, a new argument about per capita rankings emerged. The per capita measurement aims to level the playing field among various sized countries, evaluating the ratio of gold medals per capita of land. However, this argument falls short and heavily favors the tiny countries. Does Dominica, with one gold medal from triple jumper Thea LaFond, and a population of 72,000, really qualify as the world’s most athletic country? Their per-capita ratio might be 1:72,000, but that doesn’t make them completely superior to the USA. If size determined success, then India, with a population of 1.4 billion, should dominate—but they ended with no medals this year. The only way the per capita argument is feasible in my eyes, is if two countries came to a complete tie, across gold, silver and bronze. This has never happened in the 2,700 years the Olympic games have existed. It seems that no matter what, the USA can never be agreed upon as the victor.

The Olympic standard is officially based on gold medals first, then total medals in the event of a tie. But this metric fails fully capture depth. Take Jamaican sprinter Kishane Thompson, who had the season of his life and lost by just .005 seconds in the 100m dash—did his achievement mean nothing to his country? Look at any other competitive setting, like high school and collegiate track meets, where depth is key. Teams that succeed are the ones with athletes consistently placing across multiple events, not just those who manage a few wins. This paints a fuller, more accurate picture of a nation’s overall athletic achievement.

Ultimately, you can’t win a competition when everyone plays by different rules. The per capita argument is my equivalent to a toddler constantly changing and making up new rules to a game, so it looks like they’re winning.