FanNation - The Republic of Sport

I think the Men's Olympics should be a true U-23 event, plain and simple. It doesn't need star power when it can focus on future star exposure instead. The three overage players always cheapened the tournament in my eyes.

football is the worlds most popular and most watched sport, it should be at the olympics regardless of the quality of play. there is nothing wrong with a country sending a u23 team to the olympics. if anything it will provide younger players with more international experience which in turn will help any countries national team in the future.

as for the womens world cup, why should the united states get another crack at hosting, why not another country such as canada, brazil, england, etc. these countries may not be as strong as the united states but it would help develop the game in those countries more than if they were held in the united states. the united states is not the be all and end all of womens soccer in the world. the game is on the rise in other countries as well and the world should not look the united states to develop a top quality womens league for the rest of us to watch. nobody will pay money to watch mens soccer in north america (mls) with the exceptions of a few pockets. why would they pay to watch womens soccer? there is a greater chance of people paying money to watch womens soccer in europe than in canada if the teams were associated with the mens professional clubs (as they are already) as they could be subsidized by the mens teams that rake in large and silly amounts of money. this way ticket sales would not be of great importance and the success of the league could continue. perhaps the women should join with mls and be associated with the league here rather than create a whole new one of their own.

Grant, on Sunday I watched the U.S. realize the most technically strong and inspired performance I have ever seen them produce (regardless of the disappointing last-minute gaffe). Furthermore, the three over-age players did nothing to cheapen the game. The U.S. sent their second-best goalie, McBride wasn't a big factor, and the defenseman was excellent, but very much on the same plane skill-wise as the other players.

Perhaps your argument possesses some logical grounding based on your knowledge/insight into recent FIFA rule changes, however, in terms of visceral reaction to the product put on the field, and of the entertainment experience, I think it's a bad call on your part. Are people tuning in to watch the soccer? Are they enjoying it? My guess is yes. FYI - Brazil, Argentina, and the African countries may have Copa America and the African Nation's Cup, but in 2008 they don't get to participate on nearly as big a stage as the European countries were able to in the Euro. This, I suppose, is why Argentinian, Brazilian, and African players are eager to showcase their talent on the Olympic stage.

All in all I think the Olympic tourney is providing a winning showcase for numerous -- if not all -- stakeholders!

For a generally astute and insightful writer, Grant could not possibly be more off base here. This is the typical American reaction in the Olympics - if it's a sport we care about but can't dominate, it doesn't belong in the Olympics. FYI - the U-23 and U-16 World Cup events are great items on FIFA's calendar, and the fans in the true soccer world are engaged in those. really they are second only to the World Cup itself in prestige; and yes, that is even with the emergence of the Women's game. This may be shocking to those American soccer fans whose awareness of this, or any sport comes and goes based on our dominance but the truth is that the Olympics as a U-23 tournament is just fine. Even if no teams have to release players (since there are many of the U-23 players who are already pros) and everyone has to play with amateurs, it would still be RIDICULOUS to remove Soccer from the games.

And BTW, Grant recent blog on the Nigerian journalists was silliy and juvenile - the response of someone having a hard time watching another person's team win. If anyone heard Rowdy Gaines call the US gold in the 4x100, how can you explain there never having been a blog entry about that? WE NEED TO GET OVER OURSELVES. Just because it doesn't suit our sense of "decorum", should not make it a faux pas.

I honestly could not disagree more Grant. You have just lost a fan. ****?! First of all, should we also scrap the U-20 World Cup for its lack of star power? Next, it is just plain absurd to suggest that this tournament is "more trouble than it???s worth in an already-overloaded soccer calendar." What is more important than competing for your country? A bunch of meaningless pre-season friendlies for your club team? Lame Grant, just lame.

I've been to Shenyang before. How you enjoying that one Grant?

I agree the Olympic soccer should go.

But it's mainly because it's just another U-23 tournament when there is already the U-23 World Cup, the British Isles are NOT represented in the Olympics, and - to agree with you, Grant - the highest levels of the game are represented in MANY other places.

I don't think Grant is saying that it should be scrapped simply because it is under 23, but because the fact that the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that clubs don't have to release players for the Olympics, meaning that all the top young players who are currently playing in the tourney and attached to big Euro clubs might not be able to play either.

The Olympic movement totally lost its way at the 1984 Los Angeles / Dick Ebersol Olympics. The even lost its soul, as professionals of all types were invtied. Drop all Pros - soccer and all other sports. Take the best amateur players, and let them compete for the medals. Soccer has enough worldwide competition for the professionals. They Olympics merely water that down. I would rather watch the return of the Tug of War to the Olympics, than watch the 'Dream Team' lose to Spain and Brazil

This one is easy. I agree that men's soccer should be scratched. What other olympic event limits its contestants by age? Women's soccer is a different story. That is a perfectly fine Olympic event. All women of all ages can participate, and there is no significant league to keep them from participating.

The CAS decision applies for these Olympics in particular, but not necessarily for the future editions. The considerations given in the ruling include the fact that Beijing '08 is not part of the Coordinated Match Calendar and that there was no specific FIFA ExComm decision forcing clubs to release U-23 players. After this fiasco, both of these conditions will almost certainly change for future Games, so the legal precedent will not apply.
Also, it looks like FIFA will try to make it a strictly U-23 competition, which will reduce the clubs' opposition. And, at least for London '12, the tournament will end by this time of the month, so there won't be as much conflict with leagues and UEFA competitions.
So, assuming FIFA doesn't mess up again, and considering how much talent is already available at the U-23 level, I don't see why men's soccer should be scratched from the Games.

World Cup and the Olympics should be on equal ground in my eyes. If NBA players can play for team USA basketball why can't more Ronaldinho's be on the Olympic soccer squad?

The problem with the Olympcs as it stands (not just soccer) is that in my opinion, there should be no professional players allowed to compete. Full Stop. You play professionally? You should continue to do that. The olympics should serve as a showcase for the best amatuer talent there is out there. If you are good enough to be paid for what you do, what sense is there going to the Olympics? The possible exception being Track and Field, where the Olympics stands as the pinnacle of that profession? There is soccer for the world cup. Baseball - World Series and its equivalent in each territory. Basketball - NBA Finals and worldwide equivalent. Tennis - The pro tour and the grand slams. To me, the olympics should be about a showcase of talent, and then move on where possible to the professional ranks. I think that would definitely make for a much more level playing fields across the board and make the Olympics fun again.

I struggle to see how Soccer should not be an olympic sport when it is the world's most popular game though the format has to be adjusted as the teams playing a poor imitations of the real national teams. Make it an U21 competition is fair - alternatively, give Brazil the title as they appear to be the only nation taking it seriously (judging by their squad).
If we want to get rid of a sport, get softball/baseball out of there.. who plays this game?? the US, Japan and Cuba... the medalists are there... it's just a question of which order tehy will finish...

Yeah, let's drop soccer and still get bombarded with such great fun as Olympic baseball, softball, and beach volleyball. Spare me the idea that these sports are any more interesting than soccer no matter how many millionaire professionals they line up to play.

In the Olympics, more so that at any other time, it's the name of the country that matters - not the name of the player. This is particularly true in soccer, where we do not have the advantage.

In a time when we are increasingly getting better and better in international soccer, I'll take eleven young Americans I've never heard of playing their hearts out for their country over yet another, media-created, sponsorship-laden, over-hyped Dream Team redux anytime.

Sorry, Grant. This time it looks like you have completely missed the point.

As a mega soccer fan, I hate to think of dropping the game from the Olympics, but I really enjoy watching Michael Phelps swim and like the diversity of the games. I really do enjoy other sports, and that does take something away from a single sport. With that being said, I think FIFA needs a re-vamp. There have been several decisions over time (coming from FIFA) that a lot of people are questioning. It's obviouis FIFA wants the World Cup to stay the biggest tournament, and they don't care about the Olympics. They should grow the game as they are the "parents" of it.

Now, to answer your question, I completely disagree that soccer should be dropped. As I watched the US play the Netherlands the other day, I learned that these young players we have truly do have talent and the guts to play on the world stage. Also, I learned that the US soccer team is in good hands for years to come. I truly enjoyed watching this young team go out and fight with everything they had and play good soccer. It filled me with pride, much like it does to watch Michael Phelps demolish the rest of the world or the men's gymnastic team take home bronze when everyone said how bad they were.

I usually agree with what you have to say, but not this time.

By the way, I really enjoyed your column on your favorite stadiums. I'll be in Argentina next year, and want to see what you were talking about with regards to La Bombonera.

how about getting rid of equestrian... unless the human is going to carry the horse... this one has never made sense to me... also, what about sailing... if the major part of the sport is not the human, ie. a horse or a boat, then get it out of the olympics...

as far as the removal of all professionals, if you think back, the reason the professionals are allowed is because the Soviet Bloc countries, and Cuba would pay their athletes, which kept them on an amatuer status, and some of them would compete for 20 years on the international scene... it was supposed to level the playing field. If you capped the age, what would have happened to the 41 year old swimmer who made it this year, or back 40 years ago with Al Oerter... who competed in 4 Olympics. He was never a professional... just a great athlete

Grant's assessment has nothing to do with him personally not "wanting" soccer at the Olympics; rather, with clubs no longer required to release their players for it, the event will become like Olympic baseball - a minor-league event. Since Olympic soccer isn't a money-generator for FIFA, clubs have more power in this instance to effectively kill Olympic competition.

The major problem is that the Olympics coincide with the European Soccer Championships, no way are big stars going to play two tourneys in a summer

unless they make Euro 2012 change into Euro 2013, non euro stars will only play

I can see the Olympics as a way to develop young players not playing in a major league or with a major club as they probably will not release most

The fact that is and U-23 competition is what hurts it from being on the same level as the World Cup or Euro cup