Olympic Soccer tournaments going forward? Yes, please!
What’s with all this talk that soccer doesn’t belong in the Olympics? Of course it does
Some of our voices in the game seem to be done with Olympic soccer – and I’m not sure I understand where this is coming from.
To be clear, I have a lot of respect for some of the voices saying so, but I couldn’t disagree more.
Are there tweaks that should (and could easily) be made? Absolutely. But the sport still has a place in the Games. (Don’t forget the next version will be in Los Angeles, with the Olympic Football Tournament likely to spread up and down the West Coast, and perhaps even further inland.) Don’t kill our Olympic soccer buzz, guys!
What’s best for the Olympic Games?
The very first thing to say here is that anyone who believes soccer doesn’t belong in the Olympics is probably saying so from a soccer supporter point of view. Front of mind for them is, “What’s best for world soccer?” Which I understand and appreciate – but it’s the wrong question to ask.
The Olympic Games organizers have a right to do what’s best for the Olympic Games, and it’s really not much more complicated than that. And from where I sit, the soccer tournaments (both men’s and women’s, that is) help make the Olympic Games feel “big.” That’s exactly how they should feel. The Olympics are big. Scratch that and make it “super colossal ginormous.” It’s two weeks pancake stacked with pretty much every major athletic endeavor and a few that aren’t even major at all, and a whole lot of our big ol’ world pays attention.
The soccer tournaments play their part. Soccer truly is the global game, and its presence helps to balance the smaller, more niche-y sports (archery, fencing, table tennis, etc.). It also helps balance the individual sports (track, gymnastics, etc.), which adds variety to the larger spectacle.
Women’s soccer is especially great
The next thing that has to be said here: when we talk about soccer in the Olympics, we’re talking about two different tournaments — which are pretty different animals. I like that men’s soccer remains a part of the Games, even in a model modified to protect the FIFA World Cup. But I love that women’s soccer is part of the Games.
(And, no, this sentiment isn’t just down to the United States stirring Gold Medal achievement – although it was quite nice, eh? Big shout to Triple Espresso, Emma, Alyssa and the rest of the USWNT crew.)
The women’s game has a history of getting short shrift from FIFA and from, well, from a long list of stakeholders. Here’s a place where women’s soccer actually gets something more than men's soccer globally: at the international level they compete hard for a globally sought trophy every TWO years rather than every four years. And I love it for them.
You know how we get the occasional argument about whether FIFA should hold the World Cup every two years rather than four? Well, the women’s game has the perfect compromise: retain the Women’s World Cup quadrennial status but also reap the beneficial competition of a major trophy chase in the years in between. And it’s not just arrival into the big tournament itself, for all the glitter, gold and grandeur that implies. Its also good for improvement of the women’s game at large, as regional competition for places in both major tournaments can only help in ongoing development.
(Yes, of course I’m aware of the European Championships, Copa America, AFCON, etc., which bisect the four-year World Cup cycle. But women’s soccer has some of these, too – and they will also continue to help in development.)
The compromise of the men’s tournament
The men’s tournament is an under-23 competition, with that significant age-related allowance (three over-aged players). So it’s still a good tournament, just a different tournament. If you saw the men’s final, an 8-goal score-orgy between host France and Spain, you couldn’t help but enjoy it.
Was the collective quality as good as a World Cup, or one of the predominant regional competitions? (The European Championships, held in neighboring Germany just a month prior to the Paris 2024 Games provided a pretty good side-by-side comparison.) No, it wasn’t – and so what?
The Olympic Football Tournament doesn’t need to be the same. It can be a good tournament and a good Olympic fit without being a mirror image of something that just happened nearby or in some other part of the world. In the United States, we seem to enjoy NFL football and college football, don’t we? And while they are the same sport, they aren’t really the same game, now are they?
By the way, because of the roster differences, we tend to get more upsets in the Olympic men’s tournament. Unless you’re someone who only bets on favorites, I’m thinking that most of us enjoy that.
The necessary tweaks
Can the Olympic Tournament be better? You betcha. The necessary changes seem obvious and, probably more importantly, don’t seem like a big lift.
Who could possibly believe that 18-man rosters are a good thing? (If you heard broadcaster Julie Foudy during the U.S. matches, she pretty much covered it. Every match, in fact.) I suppose Olympic organizers save a few bucks on hotels and meal costs with slightly smaller crews, but as a percentage of the overall Olympic budget, it’s surely nothing more than a rounding error. Rosters of 22 or 23 would be ideal; even adding two players (up to 20) would be helpful.
And starting the tournament just a few days earlier (the tournament already kicks off a few days before the official Opening Ceremonies) would be helpful, too. But if they didn’t want to do that (perhaps unwilling to open the Olympic window any further) then additional roster spots could help mitigate the mileage wear and tear on individuals.
The United States and Brazil were playing a 6th match in 17 days as they contested the final inside Parc des Princes in southwest Paris. That’s tough with any roster; with just 18 players, it’s absurd.
But from here, I say: roll out the tweaks but keep the tournament. The good far out-strips any bad.