With the entry lists for the Paris 2024 Olympic Games being revealed by World Aquatics, we now know who and how many athletes will be appearing in the swimming events.
The qualification criteria were designed so that the quota of 852 athletes had been targeted. The requirements are: Olympic Qualifying Time (OQT, or “A” cut), relay-only swimmers, Universality places and Olympic Consideration Time (OCQ, or “B” cut).
Since the first time women were admitted to Olympic swimming, in 1912, the female participation rate has been increasing over the years. In Paris, it was expected that the percentage of men and women would be equal, thus achieving the much-desired 50% equity stake.
It has been revealed that 854 athletes will be competing in pool swimming events in Paris, two more than the original quota.
We cannot say the same about the 50% equity stake, however. There will be 463 male swimmers and 391 female swimmers in Paris. The women’s rate of participation will be 45.8%, 0.3% higher than Tokyo three years ago, but lower than Rio 2016 and London 2012.
Women’s rate of participation in Olympic swimming
| Year | City | Total | Women | Men | % Women |
| 1912 | Stockholm | 120 | 27 | 93 | 22.5% |
| 1920 | Antwerp | 116 | 24 | 92 | 20.7% |
| 1924 | Paris | 169 | 51 | 118 | 30.2% |
| 1928 | Amsterdam | 182 | 72 | 110 | 39.6% |
| 1932 | Los Angeles | 128 | 44 | 84 | 34.4% |
| 1936 | Berlin | 248 | 94 | 154 | 37.9% |
| 1948 | London | 249 | 88 | 161 | 35.3% |
| 1952 | Helsinki | 319 | 118 | 201 | 37.0% |
| 1956 | Melbourne | 235 | 99 | 136 | 42.1% |
| 1960 | Rome | 380 | 144 | 236 | 37.9% |
| 1964 | Tokyo | 405 | 162 | 243 | 40.0% |
| 1968 | Mexico City | 468 | 204 | 264 | 43.6% |
| 1972 | Munich | 532 | 245 | 287 | 46.1% |
| 1976 | Montreal | 471 | 208 | 263 | 44.2% |
| 1980 | Moscow | 333 | 143 | 190 | 42.9% |
| 1984 | Los Angeles | 494 | 186 | 308 | 37.7% |
| 1988 | Seoul | 633 | 252 | 381 | 39.8% |
| 1992 | Barcelona | 641 | 256 | 385 | 39.9% |
| 1996 | Atlanta | 762 | 345 | 417 | 45.3% |
| 2000 | Sydney | 954 | 396 | 558 | 41.5% |
| 2004 | Athens | 937 | 393 | 544 | 41.9% |
| 2008 | Beijing | 980 | 433 | 547 | 44.2% |
| 2012 | London | 887 | 429 | 458 | 48.4% |
| 2016 | Rio | 897 | 414 | 483 | 46.2% |
| 2021 | Tokyo | 875 | 398 | 477 | 45.5% |
| 2024 | Paris | 854 | 391 | 463 | 45.8% |
As theoretically the qualification times have the same difficulty levels for all events and there is no privilege towards men in the selection of relay-only and Universality athletes, what explains there being 8.4% more male than female swimmers in Paris?
A stat can help explain. When looking only at swimmers who reached the OQT, or ‘A’ cut, there is a notable difference between women and men. In men’s events, there are 350 entry times under the OQT (247 unique swimmers). In the women’s events, there are only 259 (175 unique swimmers).
The table below shows the number of entries under the OQT by event.
Number of entries under the OQT by event
| Event | Women | Men |
| 50 freestyle | 24 | 40 |
| 100 freestyle | 14 | 32 |
| 200 freestyle | 16 | 21 |
| 400 freestyle | 19 | 23 |
| 800 freestyle | 11 | 30 |
| 1500 freestyle | 14 | 24 |
| 100 backstroke | 20 | 30 |
| 200 backstroke | 26 | 27 |
| 100 breaststroke | 23 | 21 |
| 200 breaststroke | 16 | 18 |
| 100 butterfly | 24 | 29 |
| 200 butterfly | 14 | 23 |
| 200 IM | 23 | 16 |
| 400 IM | 15 | 16 |
In every event but two (100 breaststroke and 200 IM), there are more entries under the OQT on the men’s side than on the women’s side. Some differences are notable, especially in the 100 freestyle (14 women versus 32 men) and the 800 freestyle (11 women versus 30 men).
In this article, this trend already existed. In the comparison made at the time, on May 31, there were 346 potential entries under the OQT on the men’s side (considering two swimmers per country), and 267 potential entries on the women’s side.
The OQTs correspond to the time achieved by the 14th-place swimmer in the prelims at the Tokyo Olympic Games in 2021. If the 14th-place swimmer in Tokyo was slower than the established OQT at the time, the qualifying time for Tokyo remains intact (established from the 14th-place time at Rio 2016).
In that article, we pointed out that this has not made the OQTs the same level of difficulty across the events. Now, it seems that the OQTs are in fact more difficult to achieve in women’s events than in men’s events.
Also, in that article, we argued that there are better ways to design time standards so that the number of swimmers below a given time standard is quite even in different events. This is also valid so the OQTs can become more even among women and men. Only this way, we can expect to achieve the desired 50% equity stake among women and men in swimming.
What if you don’t consider 2 swimmers per country? Is it possible women are just more concentrated in certain countries than the men are? You could look at where that 14th place time falls in world rankings, ignoring country and see if the count is more balanced.
I realize this doesn’t actually change the equity, but it would be a more accurate way of assessing difficulty.
Hmm interesting thought that I hadn’t considered. That makes sense to me just based on what we know about the world and its cultures.
There may still be something else going on – the US, which is a country that invests heavily in women’s sports, had more men at Trials than women by a pretty wide margin, and there’s no “two per country” rule in play there.
The data would most likely reveal greater representation from Europe, North America (Canada, United States of America), Asia (China, Japan), Oceania (Australia, New Zealand) than Central America, South America, Africa.
Indeed. Perhaps men’s swimming is more geographically diverse and the depth in women’s swimming revolves around fewer countries with the USA and Australia particularly dominant when you look at the overall world rankings.
So I know I’m a bit late to the party but I’ve done a preliminary check of the stats.
Looking at only Australia, US, China and Great Britain as the “bigger” countries (the top 3 on the medal table from Fukuoka plus GB who were in 5th with France left out):
When considering the top 14 qualifiers for Paris (as per World Aquatics) you get the following:
63% of women in the top 14 are from these four countries compared to 41% of men. Another way to put it is that 43 top 14 entries were lost on the women’s side due to the 2 per country rule as opposed to 29 for men.
This is awesome. I’m going to find someone to develop this into an article so that more people can see it.
The heats were at night at the Tokyo 2021 Olympics which definitely had an effect on the times. For example, Katie Ledecky swam faster in the heats (15:35.35) of the W 1500 FR than the final (15:37.34).
At the age of 27, Katie Ledecky would have been faster in the final of the W 800 FR at the 2024 Olympic Team Trials if she didn’t overcook herself in the heats of the W 1500 FR and W 800 FR. In addition, no one (media/pundits) is demanding that Katie Ledecky post a Top 25 All-Time Performance in the heats (15:39.73) of the W 1500 FR. Is the sight of Lotte Friis in the Top 25 All-Time Performance list driving her mad? A classic case of “can’t see the forest for the trees”.
Is the advantage of establishing OQTs, versus just guaranteeing places for the top 24 in the world (limit two per country) during a certain time period, just that less work / record-keeping is necessary?
Does this mean prelims for the 200 IM are meaningless? Just need to go fast in semis?
No. There are 25 entries in the men’s 200 IM (OQT swimmers, OCT swimmers and Universality swimmers). This article is about the number of entry times under the OQT, which is 16 in this particular event.
The closest we’ll get to a meaningless prelims is the W200 fly as there are 19 athletes in total, 14 with OQT, three with OCT and two on a Universality entry time.
There’s very likely socio-cultural/economic/political/religious reasons for why there are more men than women that aren’t tied to the qualifying times.
Yup yup yup
My thoughts exactly.