Assessing Our Asian Games Performance
The Philippines ended its campaign in the 2026 Asian Games in Aichi-Nagoya, Japan, with four gold medals, nine silvers and 16 bronzes. Our 29 medals placed us 17th among participating nations.
At first glance, there is reason to celebrate. We increased our total medal haul from 18 at the 2022 Hangzhou Asian Games to 29 in Aichi-Nagoya last month. That’s an increase of more than 60 percent. Our gold-medal count, however, remained unchanged at four, and we finished in the same 17th place. Here’s a historical look at the performance of Philippine athletes in the past Asian Games:
| Asian Games year | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total medals | Overall rank | POC President |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 3 | 7 | 16 | 26 | 18th | Celso Dayrit |
| 2006 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 17 | 18th | Peping Cojuangco |
| 2010 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 16 | 19th | Peping Cojuangco |
| 2014 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 15 | 22nd | Peping Cojuangco |
| 2018 | 4 | 2 | 15 | 21 | 19th | Ricky Vargas |
| 2023* | 4 | 2 | 12 | 18 | 17th | Abraham Tolentino |
| 2026 | 4 | 9 | 16 | 29 | 17th | Abraham Tolentino |
Note: The 2022 Hangzhou Asian Games were postponed and held in 2023 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
What does the historical record tell us? Three observations stand out.
First, the deterioration between 2006 and 2014 is unmistakable in the medal totals. During Peping Cojuangco’s POC presidency, the Philippines went from four golds and 17 total medals in 2006 to one gold and 15 total medals in 2014. Our ranking also fell from 18th to 22nd. The 2014 result was particularly disappointing, with just a solitary gold medal, three silvers and 11 bronzes.
Second, the recovery began after that low point, although it was not immediate or uninterrupted. In 2018, under new POC head Ricky Vargas, the Philippines rebounded with four gold medals and improved its total to 21, finishing 19th. The following Games, held in 2023, brought another four golds and a 17th-place finish.
Third, the latest results show an encouraging expansion of our medal-winning capacity. Under Abraham Tolentino’s POC leadership, the Philippines maintained four golds in both 2023 and 2026, while its total medal count rose from 18 to 29. The increase in silver medals, from two to nine, is particularly noteworthy.
These results give us a useful historical narrative: a period of decline, a recovery in gold-medal production, and a more recent increase in the number of medals won.
So now we go back to the big question, are we improving?
The answer is yes, but with an important qualification. We are winning more medals, yet we have not significantly improved our standing among Asia’s sporting nations. This is encouraging progress, but it also tells us that there is more work to be done. Hence, while we celebrate the achievements of our athletes, we must also confront an uncomfortable reality: we fell short of the Philippine Olympic Committee (POC) expectations of eight gold medals.
For me, the more important question is not simply how many medals we won. It is what these results tell us about the state of Philippine sports and what we must do to produce better results in the years ahead.
Learning from Our Asian Neighbors
One good reference in assessing our performance – although it may not be the end-all-be-all of things – is to compare ourselves with other Asian countries, particularly those with smaller populations or economies, and the ASEAN neighbors who have the same bantam build as ours.
| Country | Rank | Gold | Total medals | Population | GDP (US$) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uzbekistan | 5th | 21 | 70 | 37.1M | $147B |
| Iran | 6th | 19 | 52 | 92.4M | $363B |
| Thailand | 7th | 18 | 52 | 71.6M | $577B |
| Kazakhstan | 8th | 12 | 84 | 20.8M | $306B |
| Hong Kong | 9th | 11 | 54 | 7.5M | $427B |
| Bahrain | 10th | 11 | 22 | 1.6M | $49B |
| Malaysia | 11th | 9 | 32 | 36.0M | $472B |
| North Korea | 12th | 7 | 29 | 26.6M | Not available |
| UAE | 13th | 7 | 13 | 11.5M | $552B* |
| Qatar | 14th | 6 | 18 | 3.1M | $216B |
| Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) | 15th | 5 | 55 | 23.3M | Approx. $884B** |
| Indonesia | 16th | 5 | 39 | 285.7M | $1.446T |
| Philippines | 17th | 4 | 29 | 116.8M | $487B |
Consider Thailand. With a population of approximately 72 million, compared with our 117 million, Thailand won 18 gold medals and finished seventh in the medal standings. Its economy, at roughly US$577 billion, is larger than ours at approximately US$487 billion.
Thailand’s performance is a reminder that a smaller population does not necessarily limit a country’s sporting achievements. Its results deserve closer examination, particularly in terms of how it develops athletes, supports its national teams and sustains competitive performance across different sports.
Indonesia offers another useful comparison. With a population of approximately 286 million and an economy almost three times the size of ours, Indonesia finished 16th, just one place ahead of the Philippines. It won five golds and 39 medals overall, compared to our four golds and 29 medals.
The difference between our two countries was not enormous in gold medals, but Indonesia’s larger overall medal haul was made possible by a broader base from which to pick successful athletes.
Then there are countries whose achievements challenge us to look beyond population and economic size. Our bantam size will always give us an inherent disadvantage from countries like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in certain sports that give premium to height and bulk.
Uzbekistan, with approximately 37 million people and a GDP of about US$147 billion, finished fifth with 21 gold medals. Kazakhstan, with approximately 21 million people and a GDP of about US$306 billion, finished eighth with 12 golds. And there’s Bahrain, with a population of only about 1.6 million and a GDP of approximately US$49 billion, which won 11 golds and finished tenth.
These countries have demonstrated that sporting success does not necessarily depend on having a large population or one of Asia’s biggest economies, although it certainly provides an advantage. Of course, population and GDP do not tell the whole story. A country’s sports budget, coaching expertise, established sporting traditions, facilities and athlete-support programs all matter. We cannot conclude from medal tables alone that one country’s system is better than another’s.
Nevertheless, these comparisons raise an important question: Are we making the best possible use of the talent and resources available to us? The Philippines has the population and economic capacity to aspire for a stronger Asian Games standing, but must improve how it identifies, develops and sustains its athletes. Thailand offers a nearby benchmark; Indonesia offers a useful regional comparison; and the smaller medal-winning countries challenge us to examine how efficiently we turn resources into medal results.
Along with its large population base, the Philippines has a strong sporting culture and an abundance of young people. Our athletes have repeatedly demonstrated that they can compete with Asia’s best, given the right breaks. What we need is a system that identifies their athletic potential early, develops it systematically and sustains it until our athletes reach their full capabilities.
From Recovery to Excellence
Our recent performances offer grounds for optimism. At the 2022 Asian Games, the Philippines won four golds, two silvers and 12 bronzes. In 2026, we retained our four golds while increasing our silver medals to nine and our bronzes to 16.
This is more than a numerical improvement. It suggests that we have a bigger group of athletes capable of competing at the highest levels.
We should recognize the dedication and sacrifice behind every medal. Our athletes train for years, often under difficult circumstances, while balancing financial concerns, family responsibilities and the demands of competition. Their achievements deserve our gratitude and respect.
But we must also ask what happens to those who come close to winning. How many of our silver medalists could have become gold medalists with better coaching, more international exposure or improved sports science support? How many bronze medalists could have moved up the podium? And how many promising young athletes never reach the national team because they lack the resources to continue training?
These are questions we should answer through a careful, sport-by-sport assessment of our Asian Games performance. We need to distinguish between athletes who are already capable of winning medals, those who are approaching that level and young prospects who could become our champions in the next five to ten years.
The question is: how can we turn our encouraging results into sustained improvement? Our proposal: The objective should not be to concentrate exclusively on athletes who are already successful. The objective should be to create a continuing supply of talented athletes who can eventually replace them. In other words, we must move from recovering our competitiveness to building a sustainable system of excellence.
(To be continued. In Part 2, we make our recommendations on the ways forward for Philippine Sports in general.)
Cover pic courtesy of Jontotheworld.com. Other pics courtesy of sports inquirer.net and spin.ph.
