The Olympic Summer Games is seen as the pinnacle for most of the 28 sports that take part. For the vast majority of participants, an Olympic gold medal proudly stands as their sport’s highest accolade.
There are exceptions, but none more glaring than football.
The sport was introduced to the Olympic program at the second of the Modern Games at Paris in 1900, however in that year and the following Games in St Louis, the tournaments were contested by club rather than national sides.
At London in 1908, a six-nation tournament was sanctioned by FIFA, the sport’s governing body. For many Olympiads to come, nations had to field teams comprised solely of amateurs in keeping with the IOC’s ideals. This caused issues for FIFA with many ‘minnows’ achieving more success than countries where the sport had powerhouse status.
At the time Uruguay won consecutive gold medals in 1924 and 1928, it was clear the rules regarding player eligibility meant there was not an accurate representation of the sport’s strength or quality globally, given only amateurs were allowed to play
As football became more universally professional the gap between the standard at FIFA’s World Cup (inaugurated in 1930) and the Olympic Games became even starker. From day one, the World Cup was the sport’s marquee event, with the world’s leading professionals capturing the hearts and minds of myriad spectators.
As time marched on, the nations who featured at the pointy end of the World Cup seldom featured in the medal matches at the Olympics. The Olympic tournaments became the stronghold of the Eastern Bloc nations which cleverly circumvented the amateur eligibility clause by using players sponsored by the state, which meant they were effectively professionals but stayed within the IOC’s criteria.
Between the first post-war Games in London in 1948 and Moscow in 1980 a total of 27 medals were decided with all bar four being won by countries from behind the Iron Curtain.
Of the 24 medals awarded at eight World Cups in the same time period, only three were won by Eastern Bloc nations.
For the 1984 Los Angeles Games the IOC decided to loosen its eligibility criteria and allow professional players to take part in the tournament.
This move was anathema to FIFA which was determined to keep the World Cup as the sport’s pinnacle event so it decided to apply its own criteria to Olympic qualification.
Any nation outside UEFA and the South American Football Federation were allowed to choose any professional player whilst the former pair could only nominate players who had never represented their country at World Cup level.
Then, ahead of the Barcelona Games in 1992, FIFA made its most radical eligibility decision when it decided that only three players in every squad could be over the age of 23.
With the stroke of a pen FIFA had consigned the Olympic gold medal for football to the level of an under-age international tournament. The decision has cheapened that Olympic gold medal tremendously.
Football is the only sport at the Olympics that has imposed an age ceiling. It is clear why FIFA chose this path as it guaranteed the unchallenged status of the World Cup, but diluting an Olympic gold medal is an extremely unsatisfactory way to do it.
The IOC can live without football.
It is unlikely that its massive television rights would be greatly affected by not having football at the Games.
American network NBC once again contributed over half of the IOC’s broadcast revenue at the 2012 London Olympics by shelling out US$1.18 billion – a figure that would not be substantially reduced should football be given its marching orders.
For mine, I don’t think tennis deserves a berth at the Olympics either, as the status of an Olympic gold medal does not equate to the trophy that is presented at any of the four annual grand slam tournaments – a fact evidenced by the number of high-profile names to have bypassed the Olympics since the sport was reintroduced in 1988.
The same can be said for golf which is on the schedule for Rio de Janeiro in two years’ time.
However, there is a fundamental difference – neither tennis nor golf put age restrictions on participation as football does.
I dare say that even some very ardent and passionate followers of the World Game could not name the two finalists at the London Olympics two years ago.
Yet almost all of them could tell you that Spain and the Netherlands battled it out at the final of the 2010 World Cup at Johannesburg.
The Olympics should be the preserve of the very best that sport can offer and football by its own design has denied that with its own selection criteria.
It is time that it was omitted from the Olympic schedule.
Jacques
Guest
No it would impact severely on the FIFA world cup. You don't seem to be an educated football writer, more like a Herald Sun sports writer hiding as an AFL writer. The Fifa word cup is the stand alone men's premier competition.It takes a few years for the qualifying process just to be completed. Understand ?
Mitch
Guest
And proudly perform the 'Haka' to empty stadiums. But then it won't matter anyway, as their competitions will probably be consigned to cow paddocks out the bulldarts.
Mitch
Guest
j.binnie, FIFA 'toe the line' for noone......................everyone else toes the line for them
Raghu
Guest
When both Ronaldhinio and Archie played at Beijing they were over 29 yrs old
Kurt
Guest
7 a side rugby is the most popular form of the game, there's a big push to include it, therefore your argument is invalid
j binnie
Guest
Bondy -Thanks for the reply.Had a look at the website but to be honest couldn't really make much sense of it.There does appear to be some sort of qualifying going on but they don't appear to like to name how many ,simply explaining that the "winner" will get into the Cup proper but do appear to have 16 teams already "in" with their Qualifiers playing for a position out of the African,Asian, & Oceania continents leaving one space for the winners of the so-called repecharge that takes place. Too complex for me. Thanks jb
Squizz
Guest
They can't even beat Ireland
Stu
Guest
I think you have confirmed what I said, OLympics need football more than football needs the Olympics
Mitch
Guest
I've got an nteresting idea...........................If Football were ever to be omitted from the Olympics then FIFA should stage an U23 World Cup in it's place in the same country and at the same time as the Summer Olympic Games are held to allow the locals the opportunity to choose which one they like best.
Squizz
Guest
Maybe ARF for the Olympics. We have the best players in the world surely we are a shoe-in for the Olympic gold. That's why everyone watches ARF and why we consistently beat the Irish... oops
Mitch
Guest
Fair comment
Mitch
Guest
Absolutely correct.....................the Olympics needs Football (and the IOC have said as much many times in the past) MORE than Footballl needs the Olympics. As someone said above Football always contributes the most spectators at the Games and without it the Olympics would struggle to for popularity or relevance to 80% of the World's population and it's tv rights would rapidly diminish. Someone mentioned that Cricket T20 was hoping to be admitted into the Olympics? Their dreaming!
Bondy
Guest
This may help JB I goggled last rugby world cup group match results. Good luck to them. (http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/QUALIFYING/).
j binnie
Guest
Punter.-Finding out the actual figure for the rugby union WC is actually quite difficult for Wikipedia give a rather confusing method of the make up of the comp.some actually being "invited" to make up the numbers,but there doesn't appear to be what one would call a qualifying tournament and it does say 20 will be the number participating in the next competition. cheers jb
Punter
Guest
JB, I think there is more then 20 countries participating in the Rugby WC, they too have qualifications for some of the lesser teams, you may find that the same for Cricket especially the T20. However, I understand where you are coming from, Football as a sport just dwarfs all others & as someone posted, it's the Olympics who need football, more then football need Olympics. That really in an essence is the whole argument.
Bondy
Guest
Interesting read JB.
fadida
Guest
yep. As I said above, Mexico pop 120 million cares. A bit more important than Australia 20 million not caring
j binnie
Guest
Glenn - your slip is showing.The World Cup as it is known started in 1930 when most of the cricketers you mention weren't even born so I think you would have to agree most "World Cups" being played by other sports are just "johnny come lately" tournaments using the football model as a guide to success but,as I hinted earlier, probably being given a push (sometime financial?) by the ever demanding TV industry constantly searching for viewer numbers.For your interest it was calculated that the World Cup in Germany (2006) attracted 715 million viewers.With the spread of "receiving" facilities into such countries as India and China one can only imagine what this figure is going to be for the Brazil tournament, Just to stimulate conversation, here are some figures concerning World Cups. Football- Started in 1930, Participating countries - 204 (2010 competition) Rugby League -Started in 1954, Participating countries - 17 Cricket - Started in 1975, Participating countries - 10 Rugby Union - Started in 1987, Participating countries - 20. You will note the chronological march towards TV viewing number potential. Also is it fair to burden a competition as a "World" competition when only 10 countries participate.???? Leave that to the readers. Cheers jb
Matthew Skellett
Roar Rookie
I used to play marbles at school all those years ago great fun :-)
bobbym
Guest
I'd like to see Marbles at the Olympics - drainy, ringy, etc