Due to COVID-19, the 32nd Olympic Games were postponed temporarily for the first time, apart from those cancelled during the First and Second World Wars. Did the pandemic also affect the results? We aim to understand the impact of stringency measures on athletes’ performance in the Olympics. For many athletes, the Olympics are the pinnacle of their careers, and they follow intense training schedules to arrive at the Games in peak physical condition. Stringency measures may have affected their results by making it harder for them to train effectively, to access sports infrastructure, to meet teammates, and more generally to follow an athletic lifestyle. Our quantitative analysis shows that stringency measures had an effect on the number of Olympic medals won, especially in team sports. This is consistent with the idea that stricter non-pharmaceutical interventions made it harder for teams to train together and achieve the necessary chemistry and harmony to succeed in such a competitive event. Furthermore, women were more severely penalized by higher stringency measures than men in team events.
HamzelouJ. World in lockdown. New Sci2020; 245: 3275.
2.
AlfanoVErcolanoS. The efficacy of lockdown against COVID-19: a cross-country panel analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy2020; 18: 509–517.
3.
FigueiredoAMDaponte CodinaAFigueiredoM, et al.Impact of lockdown on COVID-19 incidence and mortality in China: an interrupted time series study. Bull World Health Organ2020. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.256701
4.
ImaiNCoriADorigattiI, et al.Report 3: transmissibility of 2019-nCoV. WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, J-IDEA, Imperial College London, UK, 2020.
5.
LauHKhosrawipourVKocbachP, et al.The positive impact of lockdown in Wuhan on containing the COVID-19 outbreak in China. J Travel Med2020; 27: 37.
6.
KerekesSBadeaAGEPaunD. Analyzing lockdown policies and their effectiveness in Romania and Hungary. Challenges2021; 12: 20.
7.
Mendez-BritoAEl BcheraouiCPozo-MartinF. Systematic review of empirical studies comparing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19. J Infect2021; 83: 281–293.
8.
AlfanoV. The effects of school closures on COVID-19: a cross-country panel analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy2022; 20: 223–233.
9.
AlfanoVErcolanoSPintoM. Fighting the COVID pandemic. National policy choices in non-pharmaceutical interventions. J Policy Model2022; 44: 22–40.
10.
ErtimiBSarmidiTKhalidN, et al.Movement control order policy to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and its impact on quarterly growth and its components in Malaysia: a synthetic control method for policy evaluation. Asian Econ Lett2022; 3. https://doi.org/10.46557/001c.29950
11.
BetschCKornLSprengholzP, et al.Social and behavioral consequences of mask policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2020 Sep 8; 117: 21851–21853.
12.
AlfanoVErcolanoS. Social capital, quality of institutions and lockdown. Evidence from Italian provinces. Struct Change Econ2021; 59: 31–41.
13.
AlfanoV. Does social capital enforce social distancing? The role of bridging and bonding social capital in the evolution of the pandemic. Econ Politica2022; 39: 839–859.
14.
KearneyJT. Training the Olympic athlete. Sci Am1996; 274: 52–63.
15.
BirdS. Role of Sports Science in Fatigue Monitoring and Recovery Management of Olympic Athletes. In: Conference on Interdisciplinary Approach in Sports 2019, CoIS 2019.
16.
Robson-AnsleyPJGleesonMAnsleyL. Fatigue management in the preparation of Olympic athletes. J Sports Sci2019; 27: 1409–1420.
17.
BernardABBusseMR. Who wins the Olympic games: economic resources and medal totals. Rev Econ Stat2004; 86: 413–417.
18.
BianX. Predicting Olympic medal counts: the effects of economic development on Olympic performance. Park Place Econ2005; 13: 37–44.
19.
RewilakJ. The (non) determinants of Olympic success. J Sports Econ2021; 22: 546–570.
20.
SchlembachCSchmidtSLSchreyerD, et al.Forecasting the Olympic medal distribution–a socioeconomic machine learning model. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 175: 121314.
21.
CsatóL. Coronavirus and sports leagues: obtaining a fair ranking when the season cannot resume. Ima J Manag Math2021; 32: 547–560.
22.
GorgiPKoopmanSJLitR. Estimation of final standings in football competitions with premature ending: the case of COVID-19. Adv Stat Anal2021; 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10182-021-00415-7
23.
Van EetveldeHHvattumLMLeyC. The probabilistic final standing calculator: a fair stochastic tool to handle abruptly stopped football seasons. Adv Stat Anal2021: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10182-021-00416-6
24.
BenzLSLopezMJ. Estimating the change in soccer’s home advantage during the Covid-19 pandemic using bivariate Poisson regression. Adv Stat Anal2021: 1–28.
25.
BrysonADoltonPReadeJJ, et al.Causal effects of an absent crowd on performances and refereeing decisions during Covid-19. Econ Lett2021; 198: 109664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10182-021-00413-9
26.
FischerKHaucapJ. Does crowd support drive the home advantage in professional football? Evidence from German ghost games during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Sports Econ2021; 22: 982–1008.
27.
ChakrabortyIMaityP. COVID-19 outbreak: migration, effects on society, global environment and prevention. Sci Total Environ2020; 728: 138882.
28.
VermaAKPrakashS. Impact of covid-19 on environment and society. J Biosci2020; 9: 7352–7363.
29.
DubeySBiswasPGhoshR, et al.Psychosocial impact of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Syndr2020; 14: 779–788.
30.
De BosscherVDe KnopPVan BottenburgM, et al.A conceptual framework for analysing sports policy factors leading to international sporting success. Eur Sport Manag Q2006; 6: 185–215.
FischerK. Thinning out spectators: did football matches contribute to the second COVID-19 wave in Germany?Ger Econ Rev2022; 23: 595–640.
33.
AlfanoV. COVID-19 Diffusion before awareness: the role of football match attendance in Italy. J Sports Econ2022; 23: 503–523.
34.
AdamsonMMPhillipsASeenivasanS, et al.International prevalence and correlates of psychological stress during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17: 9248.
35.
SimpsonSKaufmannMCGlozmanV, et al.Disease X: accelerating the development of medical countermeasures for the next pandemic. Lancet Infect Dis2020; 20: e108–e115.
36.
HotezJ. Preventing the next pandemic: Vaccine diplomacy in a time of anti-science. er, 2021.
37.
CapranicaLPiacentiniMFHalsonS, et al.The gender gap in sport performance: equity influences equality. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2013; 8: 99–103.
VelijaP. A sociological analysis of the gender pay gap data in UK sport organisations. In: VelijaPPiggottL (eds) Gender equity in UK sport leadership and governance (Emerald studies in sport and gender). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 2022, pp.197–216.
HaleTAngristNCameron BlakeE, et al.Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, Blavatnik School of Government 2020. Available: www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/covidtracker
42.
HaleTAngristNCameron BlakeE, et al.Variation in Government Responses to COVID-19 Version 7.0. Blavatnik School of Government Working Paper. May 25, 2020. Available: www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/covidtracker
43.
HarrisTHilbeJMHardinJW. Modeling count data with generalized distributions. Stata Journal2014; 14: 562–579.
44.
CummingsTHHardinJW. Modeling count data with marginalized zero-inflated distributions. Stata Journal2019; 19: 499–509.
45.
GarayAMHashimotoEMOrtegaEMM, et al.On estimation and influence diagnostics for zero-inflated negative binomial regression models. Comput Stat Data Anal2011; 55: 1304–1318.
