I am a man and as such I'm supposed to like sports, but I don't. Sure, not all men love sports as much as some, but to actually dislike sports, as a man, is rare, and I do, quite a lot. I'm not saying there is no value in this form of entertainment, but there is a difference between curing cancer and throwing a ball into a hoop, and one should have more rewards than the other.
So you won the competition, you're the best, but what are you the best at? Running really fast? Getting something into a goal? Those things are certainly skills which are difficult to master, but how does those skills benefit society? Thousands of years ago, and even hundred years ago, some of those skills were still useful to society.
If you could run really fast, or really long, you could be a messenger, or a delivery boy. But today you've got all kinds of different ways of communicating across the entire world almost instantly, and there are machines which carry way more stuff and way faster. Other sport skills were never useful to society.
When a scientist wins the a Nobel price, that does not mean that the scientist were the best at an arbitrarily defined skill. Instead, it's a token of immense appreciation for the work the scientist has done, which will create unimaginable benefits to all of society in the form of technology and medicine.
When a person wins a race, all it means is that that person was the fastest in that particular race. If you were to repeat the race, someone else could very well win. Who wins depends on so many different factors, maybe someone stepped poorly, could've happened to anyone. Maybe someone wasn't feeling too well today because they had to travel all night, or they got a cold. Maybe they just got off to a bad start, or someone was in their way even though they were faster.
A scientist would never declare something to be true without running the test over and over and over again. And the scientific community would never reach a consensus on something being true until the whole community has also done the tests over and over and over again. One person, or team, winning against some opponents once does not prove anything. Only by repeating the competition several times can you prove one to be superior to the other.
A person, or team, who's affiliated with that city or nation won. The person, or people in the team, may not even be from that city or nation. And even if they are, it still does not have anything to do with all the other people who live in the city or nation.
If "your nation" wins the competition, it does not mean that the people in "your nation", or "your nation" as a whole, is better than the other nations, not even in that particular sport. All it means is that that particular team, or individual, was better at winning in that particular sport against those particular opponents in that particular situation. The people of "your nation" are most likely still fat and lazy.
While the winner may only be 0.5% faster, the difference in reward and fame between the number one and number two appears to be approaching infinity and winning by one or 50 points doesn't make a difference. And in either case, everyone who's in the competition is already skilled so far beyond the average person that nitpicking between them is really just silly.