Is Olympic Football About to Die?

February 5th, 2009 | by: Daryl |

I think the answer might be yes. Partly because no one ever writes a blog post with a question in the title unless the answer might be yes, but mostly because both FIFA and UEFA are making plans to kill it off. Slowly but surely.

The current Olympic rule – players must be Under 23, but with three over-age exceptions – caused absolute mayhem last August, with players like Rafinha and Leo Messi getting into long long arguments with their clubs about whether they should be allowed to go and play or not. It wasn’t pretty.

And now FIFA (an organization that clearly has no love for Olympic football) has proposed (and UEFA has approved) two more nails in the Olympic football coffin:

1. No more overage players (that would have meant no Ronaldinho at the 2008 Olymics, for example) and
2. Going from Under-23 to Under-20.

So basically the Olympics would become an Under-20 football tournament.

Don’t we already have one of those? It’s called the FIFA U-20 World Cup and is played every two years (next one is this September/October in Egypt).

With the U-20 World Cup being even years and the Olympics being odd years, that would mean three consecutive years with U-20 tournaments. A little bit of U-20 overkill maybe?

I understand that it’s hard to come up with alternatives. I’d personally be in favour of placing no restrictions on players ages and letting the Olympics flourish as a football tournament. Even if clubs don’t have to release players, maybe national teams should just negotiate with clubs and put together the best team they possibly can. Then at least you’d get teams filled with players who definitely want to be there.

But I don’t see FIFA – or the big clubs – letting that happen.

And with Olympic soccer already struggling for respectability, the absence of almost any big name players will probably be the beginning of the end. Olympic football could soon go the way of Olympic baseball and be voted out of the games.

Tags: Olympics, U-20, U-23, World Football, World Soccer

World Cup Soccer – South Africa 2010 RSS Feed

Comments

By Dave Martinez | February 5th, 2009 at 8:15 am

First off, the only good FIFA out there is the video game.

Second, at least the USA will be able to look good in an international tournament now.

Posted from United States

By Laurie | February 5th, 2009 at 9:19 am

What Dave said. Although a U-20 with no overage players sounds…boring. Unless it’s, like you said, the U-20 WC.

Sigh.

Posted from United States

By sandrahn | February 5th, 2009 at 9:24 am

This would be a major case of ingratitude and historical myopia if FIFA destroyed Olympic football.

THERE WOULD BE NO WORLD CUP, NO FIFA, WERE IT NOT FOR OLYMPIC FOOTBALL.

The world cup and the European championship (FIFA and UEFA) were founded AS A RESULT of the success of football at the Olympics in the 20s. Football is one of the founding sports of the modern Olympics. South America has always taken Olympic football seriously because that’s where South American football started to gain international recognition in the early part of the 20th century. It was South American football success in the world’s only international competition at the time that had football that generated interest in Europe to create an international football competition.

It was the FRENCH who acted on this interest and created the World Cup and the European championship.

Posted from United States

By Dave Martinez | February 5th, 2009 at 9:28 am

Laurie – very boring. Especially to people who arent soccer nerds like us that appreciate watching the youth.

This is so unnecessary. Couldn’t they have an U-20 with 1 veteran slot and 1 under 25 player? SOME type of compromise?!

Posted from United States

By Wayne | February 5th, 2009 at 9:46 am

Ridiculous, I literally couldn’t hate Blatter or Platini more.

Posted from Ireland

By Shazback | February 5th, 2009 at 10:17 am

I don’t see why it doesn’t stay a U-23 tournament, but without “overage” players. Making it an alternative World Cup (without age restriction) would simply be mad because of Euros and other international competitions. Also, it would require a different qualifying process (or some strange explanation why the U-21s play the qualifiers but the finals are without age restriction) that would need to be added on top of the World Cup and regional competition qualifiers.

Sure, the overage players are often “big names”. But they’re far from being the only big names. The complete list of overage players in the 2008 Olympics? Pareja, Riquelme, Mascherano (ARG); North, Carney, Thompson (AUS); Stojkovic, Zivkovic, Mrdakovic (SRB); Jaliens, Makaay, Sibon (NED); Odemwingie (NIG); Guzan, Parkhurst, McBride (USA); De Roover, Martens (BEL); Thiago Silva, Ronaldinho (BRA); Weifeng, Zhi, Peng (CHI); Nelsen, Elliott, Killen (NZL); Ghomsi, Bebbe (CAM); Caballero, Martinez, Pavon (HON); Rocchi (ITA); Dong-Jin, Jung-Woo (KOR). How many are ‘big names’? Riquelme, Mascherano, Ronaldinho. Messi, Gago, Agüero, Salomon Kalou, Babel, Anderson and Marcelo would have been there without needing the derogations.

Football is most likely the least “olympic” of all sports. It’s one of the only sports that has its “heats” in a different town from the final, and it uses a certain number of stadiums that are -only- for football. No other events are played there. What other sport does that? Like a few other sports, most footballers are full-time professionals, but that’s still a rare feat in olympic events (how many shot putters are full-time professionals in shot putting?). Another point is that the olympics are not the “top” event in Football. Cycling (and the Tour de France), and Boxing (with the various WBA/WNS/WBS titles) are the only ones I can think of that are like that. How do Cycling and Boxing deal with that problem? They forbid certain groups of athletes (”pro” cyclists, IIRC and over a certain age boxers as well as “pro” boxers). Why don’t they forbid “pro” footballers? Because football is a massive cash cow. In China, over 20,000 people attended each game (going up to 89,000 for the final), and most games get 35,000+ people.

Honestly, although I support my country, I consider the Olympics to be a very second-rate competition. Even if they opened it up to all ages, the fact that there are only 16 teams (4 UEFA, 3 AFC, 3 CAF, 2 CONMEBOL, 2 CONCACAF, 1 OFC, 1 Host) makes for a laughably unbalanced competition. The AFC has never had 3 teams in the last 16 of a World Cup (max : 2 in 2002, both hosts) the CAF has never had 3 teams in the last 16 of a World Cup either (max : 1 in 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006), and the only OFC team to ever reach the last 16 was Australia in 2006, but they’re now part of the AFC… I think the Olympics is a good competition for younger players to prove themselves, but I don’t really see the point of it for players who are already established internationals.

By OhYes | February 5th, 2009 at 10:48 am

I liked the way it was before, with U-23 and the exceptions for the overage players. I thought that was pretty cool because the young ones got a bunch of experience from playing international football and they were lead by the overage veterans. In Argentina, for example, you had Riquelme at the attack, Mascherano in the mid and Zabaleta at the back, each one helping the youngsters in their area using their experience. That way the young ones gained additional experience that supplemented the game.

And now it’s just U20 like the other tournaments. Screw you, FIFA.

By Shazback | February 5th, 2009 at 11:13 am

Really lol Sandrahn.

Football wasn’t a sport of the founding Olympics (the 1896 olympics did not include football), and the 1900, 1904 and 1906 olympics only included football as a demonstration sport, without awarding medals, as the players were not representing their country, but their club. It was pretty much a joke. In 1900 there were three clubs (Upton Park (GBR); USFSA (FRA); U. de Bruxelles (BEL)), in 1904 there were three clubs but from only two countries (Galt FC (CAN); Christian Brothers (USA); St. Rose (USA)), and in 1906 the four clubs came from three countries (Denmark (DEN); Thessaloniki (TUR); Smyrna (TUR); Athens (GRE)).

The 1908 olympics were the first ones where football was a medal event, and it was only because the FA organised it (in lieu of the IOC)… There were only 5 teams, all amateurs, as per the IOC’s demands, even though professional football was already widely popular, particularly in the British Isles. In 1912 the Swedish FA repeated the experiment, with 11 teams, still all from Europe.

The Olympics did help boost the image of the game in the 1920s, but they weren’t the cause of the rise. The Copa America started in 1916, and there had been various short-lived international tournaments for professional clubs well before 1920 (the most famous being the Sir Thomas Lipton Trophy). The huge growth of professional football in the 1910s and 1920s (when it went from a few clubs in the British Isles to clubs across South America and Europe) lead to a problem : a certain number of players that played in the 1924 and 1928 olympics were alleged (and later confirmed) as not being professionals, thus granting their team an unfair advantage. Since the IOC didn’t want to accept professionals, FIFA solved the problem by introducing a competition both for amateurs and professionals : the World Cup, intended to be competed alternatively in South America and Europe (the two main areas of football) so that the cost of travelling would not be always for the same group of countries (travel in the 1930s wasn’t the same as today).

You would be a lot more convincing if there wasn’t substantial evidence that football was extremely popular prior to the 1920s. In 1909 Manchester United had an attendance of 77,000 people, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t even a record for a club home attendance. Prestige games (like cup finals) attracted far more people, from the 120,000 at Crystal Palace for the 1913 FA Cup final to the 200,000+ for the 1923 FA Cup final at Wembley… As early as 1901 the FA Cup Final broke the 100,000 spectator barrier. Even in South America football was popular, the 1916 Copa America attracted enough people to force a change of stadium for the final, from the 18,000 capacity Estadio GEBA to the 30,000 Estadio Racing Club… But most of the players in these games were professionals.

By sandrahn | February 5th, 2009 at 11:29 am

“You would be a lot more convincing if there wasn’t substantial evidence that football was extremely popular prior to the 1920s.”

Incredibly stupid comment since I never said football was not popular before the 20s, that’s YOUR simpleminded interpretation of my comment. I said that the success of South American football in the Olympics is what generated interest in Europe to create an int’l competition involving ONLY football. Until then most Europeans had not been exposed to South American football. Sorry, that’s fact, I stand by that, having read far too many texts on the subject by sports historians whose authority I trust more than yours.

I stand corrected about football not being one of founding sports of the modern Olympics, I should not have written “founding” sports, that was lazy on my part. My intent was to say that football has been a part of the Olympics for a very long time, since the tournament’s early days, that it is not a peripheral, recent addition to the tournament. Far too many people today believe that football was added only recently to the Olympics when it has been part of the tournament for far longer than most sports considered more “legitimate” as Olympian competitions.

Posted from United States

By diana | February 5th, 2009 at 11:49 am

‘With the U-20 World Cup being even years and the Olympics being odd years, that would mean three consecutive years with U-20 tournaments. A little bit of U-20 overkill maybe?’
Come to think of it Daryl, a little bit of an overkill.

But then with the ruling being that clubs need not release the players, what if you have the players who are being called up and they want to go? Alright, the clubs are the employers because they pay the salaries of their players. But then, Leo Messi was a case in itself ahead of the Olympics last year. He had always wanted to go. The Olympics comes once in four years. I know the World Cup happens once every four years but, there is a difference of two years between each World Cup and the Olympics (i.e. the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, the 2010 World Cup in South Africa). That is if you exclude the European Championships which always fall in the same year with each summer Olympics.

Maybe I am a romantic myself but then, I do like watching the Olympics other than football. The Olympics do not happen everyday on the TV. Like the World Cup, it is also an honour to represent your country at such a sporting event. I did watched a handful of the Olympic football tournaments last year. Those club-versus-country Olympic football-style last year almost killed off the romanticism of the Olympics for me. As if it is bad enough whenever the international football week comes along we have the club-versus-country issue keep popping up.

Posted from Singapore

By diana | February 5th, 2009 at 11:56 am

Or maybe again (I forgot to add), it is the way how Olympic football is being seen especially in South America and Europe. Clubs in Europe not releasing their players due to the Olympics clashing with the football schedules. And often you have players coming from South America playing in Europe as well.

And, typo error. I actually meant to say in my previous comment that I did watched a handful of the matches during the Olympic football tournament last year.

Posted from Singapore

By CSD | February 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Kill it. Let it die.

Posted from United States

By Daryl | February 5th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

CSD,

I think there’s definitely a case for that.

Olympic sports really should represent the best competing against the best, and seems like every Olympic football tournament brings nothing but arguments (the GB team debate for London 2012 has only just got going).

By Shazback | February 5th, 2009 at 7:20 pm

Sandrahn : “I said that the success of South American football in the Olympics is what generated interest in Europe to create an int’l competition involving ONLY football. Until then most Europeans had not been exposed to South American football.”

Yes, Exter City toured South America in 1914 just for fun. After all, the Corinthians of London (one of the top teams of the time) had done a South-American tour in 1910 and 1913 (since it worked so well the first time). Portugal played a series of games in South America in the early 1910s too, mainly against Brazil.

Indeed, South American football was badly known (not surprising given that most leagues had barely started, added to the difficulty of transport, and the fact that the “poorer” South American teams that weren’t professionals didn’t come to Europe), but there was already interest in football in South America on behalf of (at least) English supporters. The 1914 tour of South America by Exeter City was related with great interest in sports journals of the day, just as the Corinthians’ various exploits were almost amalgamated with those of the England national team (they supplied on several occasions the entire squad for England international matches in the 1890s), in particular when they toured foreign countries such as Brazil (1910), Argentina and Brazil (1913), Spain (1902), Sweden (1904) or France (1908).

The thing is that whilst Corinthians were amateurs, they weren’t primarily footballers. They were born into wealthy families and didn’t rely on football to live. Woosnam, for instance, was a full-time sportsman, but he declined various times the opportunity of becoming a professional. He represented England in the Olympics for tennis (1920, gold for mens’ doubles, silver for mixed doubles), and declined an offer to captain the England football team in the same olympics (the events were at the same time). And few clubs like Corinthians existed. Corinthians could spend money to tour the world at their leisure, since they had no problem raising money (either from prestigious exhibition games, or from the wealthy contributors and backers they had). If touring South America was to cost them 10,000£, so be it. However, other professional clubs couldn’t afford to lose 10,000£, so naturally they wouldn’t embark on similar adventures (Exeter City toured following Corinthians’ success the previous year, but still lost lots of money). South American teams wouldn’t tour Europe because they paid few of their players, and the little money the clubs had was far from the amounts required to tour Europe.

After WW1, football’s profile raised very quickly in Europe (outside Great Britain). From a few leagues (England, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands, in particular) in 1918, by 1933 France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Argentina and various Brazilian states had formed professional (or quasi-professional) leagues. The IOC banned professional players from the Olympics, thus leaving FIFA with a major problem : some of the best football players in certain countries (notably England) were professionals, meaning they couldn’t compete in the Olympics. After trying to comply by sending a team of amateurs in 1920, the FA recognised no difference between amateurism and professionalism in 1923, to end shamateurism. Thus, Great Britain, having won 3 of the first 4 Olympics, didn’t compete in the 1924 and 1928 Olympics. Denmark, finalists in 1908 and 1912 suffered the same problem, and having sent an amateur team in 1920 that was beaten roundly when they returned to Denmark by a professional side, decided to join the FA’s position and end shamateurism in 1923, barring them from the 1924 and 1928 Olympics.

With the Italian football league turning towards professionalism, the Spanish league embracing professionalism and various other leagues (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Argentina) visibly on the verge of professionalism, FIFA asked the IOC to allow professionals (mainly to avoid scaldals if the winning team included “shamateurs”). The IOC refused, and thus FIFA started organising a competition where professionals could also play. One reason was that England was destroying most of their opponents when they toured (in May 1927 England beat Belgium 9-1, Luxembourg 5-2 and France 6-0, in May 1928 England beat France 5-1 and Belgium 3-1, and in May 1929 beat France 5-1, Belgium 6-1 and lost 3-4 to Spain, the first defeat England suffered against non-Home Nation teams in 25 matches… France lost 3-4 to Italy in 1928, Italy went on the be 3rd, Belgium lost 6-3 to Argentina in 1928, Argentina went on to be 2nd, and Spain also lost to Italy, but required a re-match), so to exclude them from international competitions was slightly bizarre. Another was that certain clubs of professionals were on par or better than amateur international teams (Barcelona beat Argentina 4-1 in 1928, and none of those players were eligible to play for Spain since they were paid…). Without distinction between amateurs and professionals, these problems would be solved.

Before the mid 1920s there was no need for a seperate competition for football, since there were the Olympics, and between countries that had “shamateurs” to field and countries with only amateurs there weren’t any substantial problems. But in the second half of the 1920s professional football spread to such an extent that the “amateurs only” conception of the Olympics meant that many of the best players were unable to be fielded, more and more countries were on the path to not distinguishing between professionals and amateurs to end various degrees of “shamateurism” and various professional teams (England, but also many clubs) had taken to playing against the amateur teams presented at the Olympics, often winning by a clear margin.

By Bruno Romani | February 5th, 2009 at 11:41 pm

thank you again UEFA and European clubs for another great favor to international football.

Posted from United States

By Melissa | February 7th, 2009 at 12:35 am

Wow, ok. These arguments are great and all but the Olympics are still a major tournament for the women’s side. Perhaps second only to the World Cup.

By CSD | February 7th, 2009 at 4:59 am

I’m sure there was a logical point in some of those essays but after the first 5,000 words I quit reading. The point is this, and I’ve made it before myself, there’s too damn many tournaments. We already have a global tournament for football, it’s called the World Cup, it occurs every four years. And there’s also World Cups for different age groups. The Olympic Games should include sports that don’t already have some global presence and there’s no global presence greater than football.

Posted from United States

By Mike | February 7th, 2009 at 8:23 am

I don’t think it matters if it dies. There’s already a World Cup for the best players to compete to be world champions. Olympic footy has just gone down hill, with all these restrictions and teams not letting players go. It’s just a mess, and they shouldn’t even waste everyone’s time by making it U-20. If, instead, they made it semi-pro/amateur, then it would be pretty cool to see regular people playing, like the way it used to be.

Posted from United States

By brian | February 8th, 2009 at 10:31 am

we need olympic football.the world cup is only once in 4 years unlike the olympics which is once every two years.

By CSD | February 8th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

I don’t know what planet you live on, but here on Earth it’s every 4 years as well. They stagger winter and summer, so maybe that’s what has thrown you off.

Posted from United States

By Antonio | March 4th, 2009 at 10:11 pm

Who cares about Olympic Football?! The Olympics SUCKS anyway – a pathetic excuse for Superpowers to show off how powerful their countries are!

Anyways the IOC needs FIFA more than FIFA needs the IOC so why should they bother sending players to the Olympics? There’s always the World Cup to showcase the latest Football talent…