The Retention Potential of the 2016 U.S. Olympic Track and Field Team

Abstract

In 2016, USA Track & Field (USATF) fielded a team of 129 athletes to compete at the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro. Trends in the retention rates of athletes on past USATF national teams may help to better direct future USATF funding and support. PURPOSE: To assess the retention potential of the 2016 U.S. Olympic Track and Field team for future World Championships and Olympic Games teams. METHODS: USATF rosters from 13 World Championships and Olympic national teams dating back to 2000 were analyzed in terms of athlete retention rates at subsequent national team events. The relationship between the mean retention rates of national teams and subsequent national team events was modeled using non-linear regression. Data from this model were used to make inferences regarding the future retention rates of the 2016 Olympic team and its athletes with the significance level set at P<0.05. RESULTS: The retention rate of a given national team falls logarithmically (y = −0.0203ln(x)+0.5443) with time as athletes attempt to make subsequent teams (R = 0.98). Furthermore, individual athlete retention rates decayed exponentially (y = 1.354e-0.424x) with time as athletes attempted to make subsequent teams (R2 = 0.99). Using these models to assess the 2016 Olympic team, the model predicts that only 65 of the 129 members will make the 2017 World Championships team (95% CI, [58-73]). Additionally, the model suggests that only 39 athletes from the 2016 Olympic team will make the 2020 Olympic team (95% CI, [32-46]). Finally, when applied to the 48 first time national team athletes in 2016, the model projects that 19 (41.2%) will never make another national team (95% CI, [17-22]). CONCLUSIONS: The large amount of turnover from one national team to another is likely a reflection of the highly competitive and objective nature of national track & field team selection in the United States. From an athlete funding standpoint, national governing organizations with limited resources may be able to optimize their return on investment by funding athletes on a year to year basis as opposed to making long term commitments.