Does anyone know why the IOC allows FIFA to impose an under-23 age limit on men's soccer in the Olympics? I understand why FIFA would want it (to continue to place more emphasis on the World Cup), but why in the world would the IOC need FIFA's stamp of approval? In other words, how could FIFA prevent the IOC from using players of any age in the Olympics? Anyone know?
All sports at the Olympics are organized by the world governing body for each sport. FIFA is the world governing body for soccer, all of the national associations that organize the teams for each country are members of FIFA. If the IOC tried to put on a soccer tournament outside of FIFA's purview, it would not be able to use teams sanctioned by FIFA-affiliated national associations, which would in effect mean that it could not use any players that are registered with those national associations, which would eliminate players from almost every organized professional or amateur club in the world.
I should have known this, and thanks for the info. It all makes sense, now that I think back to the way the IOC handled NHL players in the Winter Olympics. Maybe I should change my question, then, and ask if anyone knows of any other sport in either the Winter or Summer Olypic games that has an age restriction?
Boxers in the Olympics must be between 17 and 34. A few sports have minimums. Divers must be 14. Equestrian must be 16. Gymnasts must be 14. Judo must be 15. Team handball must be 18. Weightlifters and wrestlers must be 17. Figure skaters must 16. I think boxing and men's football are the only sports with maximum ages.
Part of the traditional closing ceremony of the Olympics is to pass the flag to a rep of the next host city, and invite "the youth" of the world to join them in 4 years. Course, it's usually some old fart from the IOC making that speech, so anyone is "young" in comparison to him. But the sentiment is there, the Games are for youth athletes. So FIFA is not out of line with max age restrictions. Other sports, where you're washed up at 19 or 22, it doesn't matter anyway.
Under the current IOC Charter, they have to work with the organizing associations with the different sports (for instance, for track and field they have to work with the IAAF). When "amateurism" per se was abolished as an absolute requirement in 1984, they left it to each association to determine any eligibility (amateurs or anyone else). FIFA maintained the amateur status in 1984 and 1988 even though they didn't have to, because they did not want a competitor for the World Cup (tennis in 1988 brought in an age requirement to lessen competition with it's marquee events too). In 1992, FIFA changed it to say that only players who had not appeared in the world cup, pro or amatuer (by this time all world class players were now pro), could play in the Olympics. In 1996, they brought in the under-23 rule (a bit more rational) using the same excuse tennis used in 1988 (to develop and give younger athletes a chance), but it was altered somewhat to allow an extra 3 overage players at the actual Olympic competition (not the qualifiers) - this was as a result of tough last-minute bargaining between the IOC/Atlanta Organizing (that wanted to make it more commercially saleable) and FIFA. The 1994 rule still applies, as FIFA does not want to have a strong competitor for the World Cup. Other sports such as tennis and ice hockey have since dropped all restrictions (including being capped) other than nationality altogether.