Here's a nice example of where the Scandinavian countries clearly seem to have something in common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_lau...
I'm seeing a lot of "born in" (~100) next to the laureates in the US category. That doesn't diminish the achievements for US as a country.
It's a sports term. In sports, when you win, you win fair and square.
Also, you might have a 'home court advantage' if you're playing at home.
I don't see why Nobel prizes would be any different. There are always more people who deserve a prize than receive it.
So yes, you can have both.
The implication was clearly that the particular "home" advantage made the difference and without it the person wouldn't have won. And the comment sounded like "I'm not saying it was unfair but it was unfair".
P.S. In sports you usually play both home and away to even out that unfair advantage. Big one time matches might even be held on neutral ground for the same reason.
Let's not play on semantics here. It's common sense not to suggest something is fair but then imply someone's nationality made the difference. I'm not saying I know nationality doesn't make a difference when awarding a Nobel prize. Just that if it does, then it wasn't fair.
We tend to measure it by how much money it earns. I think we could get away from that.
I'm interested in new methods for thatching homes, for instance. Maybe I'll find a weave that helps oaten straw last twice as long. It would never produce a meaningful economic benefit, but it would still be an innovation that enriches humanity,