Time To Boot Soccer From The Olympics

2009-12-02T16:26:58-05:00

2008-08-12T06:28:09-04:00

2008-09-10T06:38:32-04:00

2008-08-15T16:07:00-04:00

277

no_trolling_please

No City 128849

I say drop men's soccer. Not because of missing star power (I am sure the Fifa will change the rules so the clubs have to sent their players) but because I think that professional athletes should not be there. No pro soccer No pro basketball No pro Volleyball No pro Handball No pro Tennis (tennis is imho the worst offender) Once upon a time the Olympics was for amateurs - and in most events it is still for amateurs. With the exeption of the team sports and tennis. Remove them, it is an abomination! 2506144

2008-08-15T10:39:24-04:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/415/811/thumb/Copy_of_Talking_Toupee_Dog_D-Wreck.bmp 6977 IN

D-Wreck

Bloomington 416251

Despite the fact that club teams don't want them to go, pro players will mostly still want to represent their country and many will try to play anyway. I say leave it as is for now--its been pretty competitive. Let's not over-complicate things. I'm surprised some airhead hasn't recommneded that American Football be an olympic sport. 2501144

2008-08-14T19:55:04-04:00

VivaMadrid

Asheville 471525

Grant, You must of hit your head against the "whal' this time. First, what needs to happen is the IOC make a rule that 27yr olds and below not playing on 1st division teams in any league be allowed to participate and those carrying a true amateur title. Teams will not be allowed to bring players playing in first division teams. This means that maybe just maybe there are a few players that will shine and become stars...leave the stars for the WC. I truly enjoy watching the unknowns play for gold...and I feel the same rule should be applied to basketbal and many more sports in the Olympics. 2496982

2008-08-14T15:59:47-04:00

bmwsolo

El Cajon 406414

I disagree with your article. If there are changes contemplated then, I would like to see an under-23 without the three allowed overaged players. 2494041

2008-08-14T11:32:58-04:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/191/229/thumb/ben_action.jpg 5 WA

Hoppercool

Seattle 191529

Yeah, if there's going to basketball, team handball and tennis at the Olympics, there needs to be soccer. It's the world's game, so it should be played at the Olympic level. I could do without the overage players as they're not necessary, but I enjoy watching soccer at the Olympics. There needs to be better coverage though. I enjoyed it in 2000 with Andres Cantor and Alexi Lalas on the commentary team. Marcelo Balboa sucks. 2489476

2008-08-13T17:25:36-04:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/561/6/thumb/kickups.jpg 39 CA

peteo

Daly City 5636

I'm saying to keep it...love any soccer tournament. Many players do not get a chance to play at such a competitive level, regardless of quality (which is decent IMO). 2482875

2008-08-13T15:23:36-04:00

olumadu

Washington 472422

Drop it because the big-names will be missing? And all the big-names are above 23? Totally, untrue! The big-names are under 23 -- Ronaldo, Roonie, Mikel Obi, Pato ,,, to recall a few. The only problem I have is equal treatment. In 2008 for instance, Marseille refused to release Taiwo, a key player for the Nigerian team, but, Barcelona bulked and Released Messi on goodwill to Argentina. Argentina, Brazil and Holland are packed with their star players, while the african teams are left yawning with substitutes. That's the unfair practice. I will suggest: freeze it on 23 and make it mandatory for all clubs to release invited players. That's the only fun and hope for africa. 2480811

2008-08-13T15:21:18-04:00

olumadu

Washington 472422

2008-08-13T13:14:11-04:00

Macpride

Long Beach 472197

Because of a lack of "Star Power" that means it should be removed? What logic are u following? So what if the Messi's or the Ronaldinho's can't play. The olympics is another great opportunity for the young up and coming players to showcase their skills and possibly get picked up by an European club. I wonder how this blog would be different if say the US was in the quarters or more dominant. This article wreaks.. 2478841

2008-08-13T13:09:42-04:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/358/040/thumb/LEAH_punk.jpg 67 OR

TonyofAnfield

Corvallis 358480

Agree with Mr Wahl. Soccer should be eliminated from the Olympics. It is not a good time for it. ALl the good players are involved in League games. So unless we can do the Olympics in June (then we have the famous Euro Cup to deal with), it is a waste of time... 2478714

SHENYANG, China — I love the Olympics. And I love soccer. But I don’t love Olympic soccer—not the way it’s shaping up for the 2012 Games, at least—and if you ask me it’s time to remove the world’s most popular sport from the Olympics entirely. Olympic men’s soccer was already hurting for star power heading into last week, the result of FIFA’s long-ago decision to make it an under-23 tournament with each team allowed no more than three over-age players (so that the Olympics wouldn’t compete for prestige with the World Cup). The 2008 Olympics actually has more stars than some previous editions—Argentina's Lionel Messi and Juan Román Riquelme, Brazil’s Ronaldinho, Cote d’Ivoire’s Salomon Kalou—but future Olympic tournaments will likely be gutted of big-name players. That’s because the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled last week that clubs will not be obligated to release players of any age for the Olympics in the future. The decision means that Olympic men’s soccer will become a lot less like a World Cup and a lot more like the lame-duck baseball competition in this year’s Olympics—in other words, an event that’s a shadow of the sport’s highest levels and, in the end, more trouble than it’s worth in an already-overloaded soccer calendar. The case for dropping women’s Olympic soccer is even stronger—but only if FIFA were to turn the Women’s World Cup into an event held once every two years instead of once every four. Women’s soccer is still in a fragile state. Five years have passed without the existence of a top-level women’s pro league since the demise of the WUSA, and the long-term viability of the start-up WPS league in 2009 is by no means guaranteed. If FIFA is truly concerned about the good of the women’s game, then it could give the sport a huge boost by holding a World Cup in odd-numbered years (with no competition from the men’s World Cup or European championship) and preferably in early July, a la the 1999 World Cup, which captured the imagination of the U.S. public during the slowest stretch of the American sports calendar. As it stands right now, women’s Olympic soccer creates an unbalanced calendar that hurts the sport. After holding major tournaments in 2007 (the Women’s World Cup) and 2008 (the Olympics), the women’s game will go three years without the sort of signature event that can draw global attention and stand alone from other sports (which doesn’t happen in the Olympics anyway). What’s more, the chance to hold the Women’s World Cup every two years would greatly accelerate the popular acceptance of women’s soccer in countries that already have an established culture for the men’s game. Could you imagine what would happen if the WWC were held in Brazil or England? I can: those soccer-mad countries would be overcome with nationalism and galvanize around their fast-improving women’s teams. Nor would it be a bad thing for the U.S. to host another Women’s World Cup. I’m always surprised when Europeans tell me they think U.S. women’s soccer is far ahead of the American men’s game. That might have been true in the year 2000, but it’s certainly not the case anymore. The U.S. men’s league, Major League Soccer, won’t be threatening Europe’s Big Four anytime soon, but at least it’s a growing enterprise whose stability is only increasing with the addition of new stadiums, new teams and new television contracts. The best thing that could happen to the fledgling WPS (Women’s Professional Soccer) league would be for the U.S. to host another Women’s World Cup. And the best thing that could happen for women’s soccer in America would be for young girls to see not just the U.S. players but also the creative genius of a player like Brazil’s Marta. (Maybe that exposure would help the U.S. start producing more players with a soccer imagination.) Granted, the Women’s World Cup is hardly a money-making machine like the men’s World Cup. But with the right planning it’s possible to make money on the WWC (witness the stadium-filling event of 1999). And besides, isn’t it the responsibility of a governing body like FIFA to grow the game and do what’s best for the future of the sport even if megaprofits aren't part of the equation? When you think about it in those terms, dropping Olympic soccer is a no-brainer. Who’s with me? Who's not? Post your own thoughts below.   http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/194/315/thumb/wahl_grant.jpg 11 MD

Grant Wahl

Baltimore 194615 1303