<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">G. Vagenas</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">E Vlachokyriakou</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Olympic Medals and Demo-Economic Factors: Novel predictors, the ex-host effect, the exact role of team size, and the &quot;Population-GDP&quot; model revisited</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sport Management Review</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441352311000489</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">211-217</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The present study revisited the problem of estimating Olympic success by critical demo-economic indicators. The sample consisted of the 75 winner countries at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games (not previously analyzed). Medal totals were log-linearly regressed on land, population, GDP, urban population, inflation, growth rate, unemployment, labor force, health expenditures, ex-host, and team size. Multiple regression assumptions were tested with proper diagnostics including collinearity. Olympic team size was the best single predictors of Olympic medals (&lt;em&gt;R&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;0.690, &lt;em&gt;p&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;nbsp;0.001), and as an alternative criterion variable was significantly regressed on population, growth rate, health expenditure, and unemployment (&lt;em&gt;R&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;0.563, &lt;em&gt;p&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;nbsp;0.001). Medal totals were significantly regressed on population, ex-host, health expenditure, growth rate, and unemployment (&lt;em&gt;R&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;0.541, &lt;em&gt;p&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;nbsp;0.001). The classical population-GDP model extracted only 28% of the variance in total medals (&lt;em&gt;R&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;0.277, &lt;em&gt;p&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;nbsp;0.001), and this was slightly improved when combined with unemployment (&lt;em&gt;R&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;0.365, &lt;em&gt;p&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;nbsp;0.001). It appears that the size of the Olympic team plays the role of transmitting the composite impact of a country's size and economy to the end-phase of Olympic success. Winning Olympic medals depends on the combined potential of population, wealth, growth rate, unemployment, ex-host, and social-sport expenditures. Larger and wealthier countries win more medals by “producing” larger Olympic teams as a result of possessing more athletic talents and better support for social and sport related activities.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15</style></issue></record></records></xml>