An article from this text:
In London, on August 12, 2012, the Olympic Stadium, illuminated in the colors of the British flag, was filled with 80,000 spectators who came to witness the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games. After being entertained by prestigious concerts, the crowd cheered for the athletes who appeared on the field, looking radiant. In this year of hosting the competition, Great Britain broke its record since 1908 by winning 65 medals, including 29 gold, 18 silver, and 18 bronze, ranking third in the world. Since the Beijing Games in 2008, where they won 51 medals, the English have shown impressive progress: 30 medals in Athens, 28 in Sydney, and only 15 in Atlanta in 1996.
The sports world has an expression to describe and explain this feat: the “home advantage,” or the supposed advantage of playing at home. This theory is evident in almost every Olympiad: the impressive economic programs put in place by host countries, combined with increased motivation of local athletes, the encouragement of supporters, competing on familiar territory, or offering more athletes in competition, leads to an increase in the number of victories during the Games, explains Pierre Lagrue, a sports historian and Olympic specialist. “But this can also impact the previous and subsequent competitions, which benefit greatly from these massive investments,” he adds. As evidenced in the 2016 Rio Games, the United Kingdom improved on its medal count from London by winning 67 medals. A similar phenomenon was seen with Brazil, where they set a new record in Rio with 19 medals, only to be surpassed once again at Tokyo 2021 with 21 podiums.
Japan also excelled in the 2021 Tokyo Games, winning 58 medals, compared to 41 in Rio, 38 in London, or 25 in Beijing. “Mathematically, we can expect a high performance from the Japanese in Paris,” insists Wladimir Andreff, president of the scientific council of the Sports Economy Observatory, who took into account the “host country” variable in creating his Olympic medal prediction model. “Mathematical tests and scientific literature show the real impact of home support or familiarity with a specific venue on player performance. But the most important thing remains the financial investment from the host country before, during, and after the Games,” he says.
“The Virtuous Circle”
“When organizing the Olympic Games, sports become a national priority and therefore political. It’s a virtuous circle,” adds Jean-Baptiste Guégan, an expert in sports geopolitics. “Host countries tend to allocate funds to federations and athletes, build infrastructure, and recruit more staff across all domains.” For the researcher, the best example is the 2012 London Olympics. In 1997, after the Atlanta fiasco, the United Kingdom established the UK Sport organization with a budget of several hundred million pounds between 1997 and 2013. Their strategy was simple: target a few disciplines, like sailing, cycling, rowing, or swimming, and invest significantly to maximize their medal count in future competitions. “They allocated enormous scientific resources while favoring sports in which their athletes had the best chance of winning. And it worked,” illustrates Jean-Baptiste Guégan. From 2008 in Beijing, the English overperformed in rowing and cycling, clinching 14 medals, including 8 gold, placing them third in the rankings. Four years later, on their home turf, the UK dominated in track cycling, winning seven gold medals in ten events.
“This investment is not magical,” nuances Pierre Lagrue. “The English, for example, targeted swimming, but did not perform as well in 2012. They did, however, significantly improve at the world championships the following year and at the 2016 Olympics,” he reminds us. According to the historian, specifically targeting certain sports to shine when hosting the competition is not a new strategy: “It’s true for China and Russia, for example. And it’s not a new concept! During the Cold War, the USSR, for instance, heavily invested in less popular sports like wrestling or weightlifting, where they topped the standings at the Moscow Games in 1980,” he recalls.
For Jean-François Robin, in charge of the national research support network for performance at the National Institute of Sport, Expertise, and Performance (Insep), the question of research is paramount: “The more a nation invests in scientific research on sports, the better the results at the Games. And the champions in this field are the United States, China, and the United Kingdom.” France has also invested in the sector: in anticipation of the 2024 Olympics, a priority research program “High-Performance Sports” with a budget of 20 million euros was launched by the National Research Agency in 2020, funding 12 research projects across different disciplines. “Unlike the British, we don’t focus solely on specific sports, but on thirty of the 38 Olympic and Paralympic disciplines,” explains Jean-François Robin, emphasizing that all areas of research are mobilized. “We work on aerodynamics or hydrodynamics, as well as psychology, biology, nutrition, textiles…” he lists, pleased that the “Olympic effect” has led to the development of such a program.
However, the researcher warns: for the effects of this supposed “home advantage” to persist over time, the state must continue to invest in research. “We are ahead by four years. But if we want to remain in the top 5 in the years to come, we must not reduce the research budget… For now, we have no guarantees,” he says. According to Pierre Rondeau, a sports economist and professor at the Sports Management School, some investments should have been implemented sooner. “State support in preparation for a home competition helps maximize chances of winning a medal… if done on time,” he considers, regretting a budget investment that came too late. “The English allocated resources from 1996, resulting in outcomes fifteen years later. We started to think about it in 2017. There’s no way we can expect a bonus in just four years.”
“Winning in France”
In the meantime, France is focusing on athletes’ comfort. In the 2024 budget, 6.7 million euros are invested in the “Winning in France” program to ensure that French competitors have the best logistical conditions. A “performance house” equipped with medical staff, coaches, and training sites will be attached to the Olympic Village throughout the Games and reserved for French athletes. In addition, each French athlete received four free tickets for their loved ones.
“We are also preparing athletes for the media frenzy they will face, strengthening their mental skills by managing distractions, and optimizing communication within the team,” says Anaëlle Malherbe, a sports psychology mission manager at Insep. According to the clinical psychologist, even if they seem trivial, these small details matter. “Teams that are used to playing in a specific location, adapt physiologically to the area, are motivated by local audiences or loved ones, and are mentally prepared, are more likely to perform,” she says. Whether this supposed “home advantage” will enable France to achieve the goal set by Sports Minister Amélie Oudéa-Castéra, and join the “top 5″… remains to be seen.
