Since the 2015 WWC will be increased to 24 teams, should the 2016 Olympics be expanded to 16 teams(same as the men)?? To have two African teams qualify plus a second team from CONMEBOL, plus New Zealand always get their [almost] automatic spot; yet Germany, Norway, Denmark, Australia & China get left out isn't fair. Should FIFA look into expanding the women's football tournament at the Olympics??
UEFA had 3 teams in the knockout round this time and won one game. That was against another UEFA team. I'm not sure that makes a case for teams that didn't qualify getting in. It does make a case for an extra slot for CONCACAF, though But the 12 team tournament is kind of goofy, and allows for teams to game their seed in the knockout rounds too much. For that reason alone, a 16 team tournament makes sense. As important, it should be configured so teams get similar travel and rest days. Giving one team an extra day in a 16 day tournament plain sucks.
Not if you wan't FIFA to down grade the women's tournament to a U-23 level too. An Open age competition with 16 qualifiers is pure fantasy for any future Olympics. After the WC we always here talk about why can't there be a WC every year, but while it may be hard to believe, FIFA aren't dumb enough to fall for that argument disguised in Olympic posturing. FIFA simply won't allow another outside organisation to have a tournament which can rival it's own new growing brand, with the current model of the women's Olympic football tournament seeming to fit FIFA's agenda perfectly. Things will change in the future, but it will only take place as a direct counter balance to the increased competition amongst WWC nations, finally bringing the women's competitions in line with the men. U-17 WC, U-20 WC, U-23 Olympics, senior WC.
Yes, 12 teams is not a good number of teams for a tournamnet run in the FIFA prefred ways, that it enough reason to increase it to 16.
I think your right, but you know only one or two confederations would be prepared to introduce more development incentives like a U-21 competition in the aim of an eventual U-23 Olympics. With the increasing depth within it's own house, UEFA probably needs a U-21 championship more than anybody else, but it would all hinge on what happens to the Olympics down the line. The AFC, CAF, and probably even New Zealand in a few years, could all benefit from a Olympic change too, but CONMEBOL and CONCACAF, simply lack the depth or desire to change their only source of serious senior competition out side of the FIFA events. With all the history they have with U-23 football, North American nations would probably benefit the most with an Olympic rule change, but without any decent regional competitions on the horizon, I seriously doubt their rather short sighted Feds would welcome the idea of losing a senior competition; even if it is a flawed one.
What is the point of having a Senior National Team to only play one tournament every 4 years. For the Concacaf region unlike UEFA there is nothing else besides WWC and Olympics. If the Olympics went U-23, then you might as well retire everyone after age 23, and just play the same team in WWC and Olympics. There is no Euro Championship, hell there isn't a pro league, and certainly no UEFA Women's Champions League. There is no reason to force the women's game to fit the men's mold, it just isn't there yet.
Not until the Olympics Womens Soccer threatens the WWC as a big moneymaker for FIFA. So until WWC starts to at least be close to being a big moneymaker FIFA have no reason to gut the Olympics Womens Soccer tournament. As it is now it works as an advertisment for Women's Soccer and that benefits the WWC.
It should definitely move up to 16 teams. I hate how 2/3 of the teams from group play (8 of 12 teams) make the knockout round. You can go 1-2-0 (3 points, only one win, and two losses), and still make the knockout round. It should be 4 groups consisting of 4 teams in each group. The Olympics last 19 days (including the two days before the opening ceremony), as it ranges from Wednesday through Sunday (such as 7/25 - 8/12 this year). That's 19 days. Day 1: Women's Soccer Group action round #1 (All groups play) (Wednesday) Day 3: Opening Ceremony (Friday) Day 4: Women's Soccer Group action round #2 (All groups play) Day 7: Women's Soccer Group action round #3 (All groups play) Day 10: Quarterfinal round Day 13: Semifinal round Day 16: Gold Medal and Bronze Medal matches (Thursday) Day 19: Closing Ceremony (Sunday) The 16 teams need to be broken down like this. UEFA should still get at least 4 teams in, you would think. Host: 1.0 (Brazil in 2016) CONCACAF: 3.0 (USA, Canada, and Mexico, all would be traditional in the Olympics) CONMEBOL: 2.0 (Brazil doesn't count here in 2016, because they're the Host) UEFA: 4.0 (The Olympics likes balance between the confeds, but UEFA should get the most) CAF: 2.0 AFC: 3.0 OFC: 1.0 (New Zealand) So the teams would look like this in 2016 perhaps? .... USA Canada Mexico (brings that Hispanic vibe to the Olympic environment, much like the men did in London) Brazil (Host) Colombia Argentina (good fans, good for the Olympics as an underdog) Germany (in 2016 for sure) Sweden France Norway "or" Great Britain (a toss up for the 4th and final UEFA spot in 2016?) Nigeria (return to 2016) South Africa (they're improving, and had a decent showing for a first timer in London) Japan North Korea Australia (Never Say Die Matildas make the Olympic tournament better, if they get in) New Zealand That would be an awesome 16-team tournament in 2016. You would have 6 nations from the Western Hemisphere, and 10 nations from the Eastern Hemisphere. Good balance across the world, which is what the Olympic Committee wants.
Yeah, this sounds nice for the confederations without much going on post WC, but I'm sure UEFA wouldn't be too thrilled about 4 or more of their best national sides concentrating on the Olympic's, over the increasingly important demands of their still growing club and Euro Championship competitions. A 16 team senior tournament so soon after the world cup, would only continue to favour/benefit the national teams utilising club like systems anyway, at a time where it's increasingly obvious that the international run like a club team approach, is no longer going to be the accepted global norm. So do we honestly believe FIFA cares enough about the current state of a relatively new women's tournament, to figuratively go and move the goal posts for a rival competition that currently and perfectly suits their every need?
I doubt very much UEFA would see that as a problem (yet anyway), the Olympic makes good PR for Women's soccer and the fanbase (and audience) for the European leauges still needs the boost. So until UEFA start to make serious money on Women's League's (and currently they are pretty much break even or less) I can't see that they would mind. As long as they don't have to hold a real qualification for it anyway.
I think that's the real point. The Olympics appeal/PR, is simply the lobbyists after party, to the main event of the previous years WWC. You increase the scope of the after party to soon though, and I only see this leading to the stagnation of healthy progressive inter-regional competition, in favour of a swift return to the old school years of everybody having to find funding for programs utilising year long camp systems. I love watching the healthy competition of international football, but I prefer seeing the players and their quality of play improving too, and this has been orchestrated best through the trails and troubles of club football, and not simply falling back on the 2 year cycle of WC to Olympic football. Using the Olympics as a cheap way to leech off another global media platform, in hopes of generating interest in a still developing sport, is a great approach from FIFA right now, but in the near future, I don't see how an extra 8 teams will do a developmental tournament any good, when then quality of play has never justified any need for immediate growth. We still need to remember that we have only been able to gain access to full coverage of the women's Olympic tournament this year, and you could clearly see that the random nature of this event meant that we only got decent games at the semi final stage, which is of course substantially lower than the standards we witnessed in the previous years WWC. So would watching another crop of unfortunate lackluster games, with a new batch of underperforming/out of sync teams, really add to the sports current climate positively, when were still yet to see the effects of an increased UEFA championship, and 2015 WWC play out, just around the corner?
UEFA teams, fans, and UEFA in general, continue to downplay the importance of the Olympics as an excuse for how poor they have performed in it. In five Olympic Games now, only one of the ten teams to reach the finals was a UEFA team (Norway in 2000). There are two teams that reach the finals, and there have been five gold medal matches (2 *5 = 10 teams). USA has reached the Gold Medal match 5 times, Brazil 2 times, China 1 time, Japan 1 time, and Norway 1 time. And if China loves you 1 time, they love you long time. Therefore, CONCACAF has been to the Gold Medal Match 5 times, CONMEBOL has been there 2 times, AFC has been there 2 times, and UEFA only once. Sans 2000, Norway underachieved in that tournament back in the day. Sweden has always underachieved in that tournament. And Germany has been quieter than just about anyone of all the powers in that tournament (when they qualified). UEFA does good, even great, in World Cups. They know how to handle their bladder there (Germany was awesome in 2003 and 2007, Sweden in 2003 and 2011). They just wet the bed at the Olympic tournament. Great Britain's loss on home soil to Canada was proof of that (in fact, Canada dominated them that game like a nappy-headed "bloody" brittish stepchild). And after the U.S. fell behind 2-0 to France, they made the French their peasants for the rest of that match (from minute 18 through minute 90+). It was a complete beat-down after minute 18, where as France outplayed the U.S. at the World Cup though last year. UEFA brings it at the World Cup (see Sweden over the U.S. in 2011 WWC group play). UEFA wets the bed at the Olympics. Maybe we should lower the UEFA bid to 1.0 teams in the 12-team field. Allow an extra CONCACAF team to get there, such as Mexico. At least they have thirst and passion for wanting to be there, and their fans will care more about it too.
I was under the impression that GB does not compete in the Olympics unless they are home, since they do not recognize England, Scotland N.I. or Wales.
That is correct. The IOC only recognizes teams whose counties belong to the UN. It is in the bylaws. In fact, FIFA only recognizes national teams from UN members also, as of a bylaw they made in, I think, the sixties. But The UK insists it is one nation, and Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland don't belong to the UN. They have the same status as Catalonia, Asturias, or Euskadia(Basque country) have. England could field a team if they allowed the other nations to join the UN, but most of the British sports federations for other olympic sports don't want to do that,and either does the crown. FIFA recognizes the four FA's as part of IFAB for historical reasons. It was the only way the Commonweath countries would be part of FIFA, back in the day. That is why FIFA allows four national teams. I suppose There could be a FIFA team GBR if the other three nations gave up their FA's and seats on IFAB, but that ain't happening. So GBR play only when an English city ( always London, so far) hosts. This time around, the other three national FA's wanted nothing to do with it, so it wasn't even clear that GBR Would be allowed to play until last fall. Sepp Blatter was asked about GBR playing in years they don't host an Olympics. He thinks it is highly unlikely, because those teams have to go through qualifiers, and team GBR doesn't even play enough games to be eligible for that. So unless UEFA gives them a pass ( what do you think the odds of that are? ) they won't be in the games. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ol...B-unlikely-compete-football-future-Games.html
There are 12 teams in it now, for FIFA 12 (or 20 or 24) is just a temporary stage. A full tournamnet either have 4, 8, 16 or 32 teams. So FIFA (and UEFA) will approve an increase to 16. You are right in regards to why they will probably not approve further increases after that (and I don't think IOC have the space anyway), but that they approved it to go from 8 is a very clear indication that it is on its way to 16. So no 8 extra team will not be added, but the question was about 4, and since the time needed for a 16 teams torunamnet is the same as for a 12 team one it will happen, question is just if it will eb 2016 or later. When Women's soccer becomes lucrative enough something similar to the limitation on the men's game in olympics will be implemented to stop the Olympics from rivaling WWC (but my guess is that is at least 10 years into teh future and very possibly much longer).
Well isn't that just like CONCACAF's best continuously trying to over hype the one competition their teams continue to look half decent in? Believe me though, the history books won't ever be stating that any football sides greatness was found during an Olympic football tournament. I mean come on, if you honestly think the (lol) hard core nature of the Olympics stops UEFA's best from competing deep into the tournaments medal rounds? You would have to be pretty narrow minded to also intentionally want to forget about the depth of that entire region too. Plus UEFA's best, and their fans, don't need to make excuses for failing in the Olympics, because their teams only qualify for the damned thing by doing really well in the more prestigious arena of the WWC anyway. But hey, I guess we can just continue to make believe that having the Euro nations competing amongst themselves does neither them, or anybody else any real good, if it doesn't help everybody aka CONCACAF in the process too . The Olympics importance will only ever be measured by the success of the previous years WC, and the continued lethargy from teams post WC, says that in the spite of it containing many of the games top players, this tournament is already at the exact size it probably should be. Yes we all say it's a shame Mexico can't take the place of this or that nation, but it's really not FIFA's job to retrofit new rules to it's niche competitions, just to provide weak/lazy confederations with the extra competition for development they should be creating on their own time either. It would be funny though to see FIFA take away a spot from their strongest confederation, but I think UEFA already did that to themselves this year by including the spurious England/GB team ahead of one of the worlds strongest women's programs, lol.
As soon as the Olympic's hits another black hole for football (remember the crowds in Greece), then we'll see why your ten +years makes serious sense. However I still think many of the top nations could already function under the U-23 + 3 overage handicap, which I'm also sure would raise the quality of football on show too, but oh well, 16 or 8 I don't see major benefits above what were already seeing now so.....
For now, I mean English. There is no precedent that the FA would join in a coalition that was lead by another home nation FA, just as the other FA's didn't officially join with England. England sees itself in the preeminent position, which other FA's don't share. Have any of those cities ever put in a bid to host? The point however, is that there is no mechanism for GBR to qualify for WWC, and no way for England nor GBR to qualify for the Olympics if they don't host. the IOS doesn't recognize England, and neither FIFA nor UEFA recognize GBR for qualifiers.