Population size is meaningless. India has about 4 times more people but it's completely absent on the medals table.
You need a combination of many things: money, size, diversity (ethnic, geographic/climate), general public interest and strong patriotism.
Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Egypt, Iran, Thailand, Turkey, Congo, Ethiopia...India is an exception to the rule.population has alot to do with number of athletes sent and medals won...

India is an exception to the rule.population has alot to do with number of athletes sent and medals won...
It's not just money either: Some of those countries only care about 1 or 2 sports (cricket in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh or soccer in Nigeria for example).Nah
India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Bangladesh are 6 of the 10 most populous nations on earth and all olympic light weights.
China, US, Russia, and Japan are the other 4 nations in the top 10 and only China, US, and Russia are Olympic powerhouses.
Then you look at the Germany, UK, Jamaica , and other nations who have quite a bit of Olympic success and the population argument has no merit.
Its more financing for the olympics games specifically
There's no one factor but this plays a major role. We got a globally mixed gene pool training in some of the best facilities in the world.Stronger and larger genetic pool of diversity.
There are over 300 million people from all backgrounds.
only in the US are you going to find a Katie Ledecky and Michael Phelps with a Lebron James and Stephan Curry coming from the same country
great pointIt's not just money either: Some of those countries only care about 1 or 2 sports (cricket in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh or soccer in Nigeria for example).
Diversity in interests counts too.
We're one of the larger countries, we have money and resources for athletes to train and excel in a variety of sports, and we have a significant black athlete population.
Money and one of the most successful doping programs in the world