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… ;)

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.

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).