What it really tracks
Population gives a country more candidates; funding converts candidates into trained competitors. A table built on totals therefore correlates strongly with those two inputs. Treating it as a ranking of sporting culture confuses an input with an achievement.
Uneven medal supply
Some sports award many medals for closely related events, others award one. A nation that invests in a medal-dense sport can climb the table without broader success. That is a sensible strategy and a poor basis for comparison, since it says more about programme design than depth.
Better questions
More interesting comparisons exist: medals relative to funding, breadth across disciplines, whether success persists across cycles. None fit neatly into a graphic, which is presumably why the crude version survives. I would rather read the awkward number than the tidy one.