Football has no place at the Olympics!

http://richard-mills-sports.blogspot.com/

hi guys hope you are all well,
i wrote this article and was wondering if you could give me some feedback if possible as I'm a young budding journalist and you guys know ya stuff thanks
enjoy

Very nicely written article.
Where I would disagree is that for a lot of people myself included is that football is a sport that will bring in non Olympic sport fans that will tune in to watch, in doing so they may then find that some of the other sports enjoyable and continue to watch them.

thanks man and thanks for the feedback!
I just feel that the amateur values should be upheld and that is why, despite being a die hard tennis fan, it doesn't quite fit but to a lesser extent and this year the elite have placed a priority on winning it especially feds.

No sport where an Olympic medal isn't seen as the big one should be allowed at the Olypmics, this would see football, tennis and golf removed, then we could add other sports like squash, where those competing would see a gold as their lifetime crowning glory.

Sadly though, the Olympics is just as money hungry as the rest of the world and those organising the games are just as willing to sell their principles as any other whore, if the price is right, they'll bend over and ask for more.

Tend to agree with reallyreal, any sport which has it's own big tournaments should not be included. The olympics should be the biggest event that the competetors compete in, the highlight, the dream. But in certain sports (football,tennis etc),it never will be.
But money talks unfortunatly, and while it does more and more events will be added that are not required or needed, taking away what makes the olympics special.

tigerrobins wrote:Tend to agree with reallyreal, any sport which has it's own big tournaments should not be included. The olympics should be the biggest event that the competetors compete in, the highlight, the dream. But in certain sports (football,tennis etc),it never will be.
But money talks unfortunatly, and while it does more and more events will be added that are not required or needed, taking away what makes the olympics special.

100% agree with ya.

any criticisms or improvements that i could make would be welcome btw learning process and all that

cricketfan90 wrote:

tigerrobins wrote:Tend to agree with reallyreal, any sport which has it's own big tournaments should not be included. The olympics should be the biggest event that the competetors compete in, the highlight, the dream. But in certain sports (football,tennis etc),it never will be.
But money talks unfortunatly, and while it does more and more events will be added that are not required or needed, taking away what makes the olympics special.

100% agree with ya.

200% agree.................

I can understand some of the arguments but the Olympics is a celebration of sport and football is one of, if not, the biggest sport in the world. So why not involve it?

I think I am right in saying football is the most viewed sport in the Olympics and I am pretty sure the Great Britain games will be a huge draw this summer.

Having seen several top tennis players interviewed, they seem to take the Olympics very seriously and I know Messi was prepared to take Barcelona to court a few years back so he could play in the tournament.

LuvSports! wrote:any criticisms or improvements that i could make would be welcome btw learning process and all that

Sorry, it's a well written piece, the only thing that i would change is to prehaps focus in more on what it means to the competors, of both sides. Highlight the diffrences in training etc, about how athletics is more of a solo sport so what it means to win a medal.
Also the point Macclads makes about the aspect of fans who's intrest is football, then watch the the rest of the tournament, and the money it brings in to the olmpics.
I would have highlighted fors and against, and then done a conclusion (i stated my views earlier). But like i said it good, well written articule.

Another thing about football in particular, the idea of restricting those who compete just because they are above a certain age is utterly ridiculous.
Football already has continental and world championships for all age groups up to U21s, the idea of having an U23s tournament with a few extra overage players, yet basing qualification on results in U21s tournaments makes as much sense as those who claim to be virgins because they've been born again since they first had sex.

Whoever made up the criteria for football in the Olympics must have had a lobotomy and those who agreed to the ideas are either too damn thick to be allowed any power (or allowed on the streets without holding mummys hand) or just so corrupt that they'd vote for their own childrens execution, if enough money were offered to them.

tigerrobins wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:any criticisms or improvements that i could make would be welcome btw learning process and all that

Sorry, it's a well written piece, the only thing that i would change is to prehaps focus in more on what it means to the competors, of both sides. Highlight the diffrences in training etc, about how athletics is more of a solo sport so what it means to win a medal.
Also the point Macclads makes about the aspect of fans who's intrest is football, then watch the the rest of the tournament, and the money it brings in to the olmpics.
I would have highlighted fors and against, and then done a conclusion (i stated my views earlier). But like i said it good, well written articule.

thanks man appreciate it and good advice duly noted. This is only my 3rd article but i think i have improved them in this one but still a long way to go.
have a good rest of weekend peeps!

ReallyReal wrote:Another thing about football in particular, the idea of restricting those who compete just because they are above a certain age is utterly ridiculous.
Football already has continental and world championships for all age groups up to U21s, the idea of having an U23s tournament with a few extra overage players, yet basing qualification on results in U21s tournaments makes as much sense as those who claim to be virgins because they've been born again since they first had sex.

Whoever made up the criteria for football in the Olympics must have had a lobotomy and those who agreed to the ideas are either too damn thick to be allowed any power (or allowed on the streets without holding mummys hand) or just so corrupt that they'd vote for their own childrens execution, if enough money were offered to them.

Fifa currently has competitions for under 17s (teams qualify from Uefa under 17s tournament) and under 20s (teams qualify from Uefa under 19s tournament) so an under 23s tournament that incorporates the best under 21s teams from around the world makes sense.

Maybe these tournaments could be cleared up better though.

How about Uefa and other confederations hold under 17s, under 19s and under 21s tournaments then Fifa hold under 18s, under 20s and under 22s (Olympics) tournaments.

Ive heard some good arguments on this matter and the best point is that Olympics are not the pinnacle for footballers, before the world cup they were but they have been thrown in to draw greater interest to the event as a whole

For the womens game the competition is maybe on par with the world cup so they should stay but the comprimise of an Under 23 tournament for men just shows how poor it is

The Olympics is a sporting event. The biggest after the World cup of Football.
So for me Football has to be in the Olympics..
For the Olympics to survive it needs to embrace Football

nissan wrote:The Olympics is a sporting event. The biggest after the World cup of Football.
So for me Football has to be in the Olympics..
For the Olympics to survive it needs to embrace Football

It seems to survive admirably without football as stated in the article it is one of only three events that hasnt sold its allocation and with 1.5m out of 2m remaining! Perhaps more interest would be made if they changed it from u23 to the regular format so that is why i think it doesnt have to be. Also i think the olympics is bigger as in parts of asia, america and oceania the world cup isn't the most important thing, in the US far from it, as at beijing 2m watched the opening ceremony with i think 700m watching the 2010 world cup final so we will have to agree to disagree.

LuvSports!
I will agree to disagree about the Olypmics being a bigger event than the Football World cup, i think you know my opinion. We all know why Football will never make it in America, with Baseball,Basketball,American Football, Nascar even the Olympics take 2nd stage to that lot, so i would say the Olypmics is not that important to the States. And as we know Bejing held the 2008 games so it is not surprising so many tuned in.
So maybe you are changing my mind.. Maybe ther Olympics does not need Football after all.Football is too big a sport for the Olympics to handle.

Instead of restricting it to under-23s they should restrict it to amateur players. Bigger deal for the players, who also get the spotlight that could get them signed somewhere, and clubs wouldn't complain. Maybe keep allowing a few pros for starpower.

Lowland
Quite like the idea of the Olympics football tournament being restricted to amateur (or perhaps semi-professional) players.

I'm certainly of the school of thought that the Olympics should be the pinnacle of the sports that are included, and that as such the likes of football, tennis, basketball and road cycling should not be there in their current format. Interestingly, all of these sports have had their Olympic status changed within the last 30 years - in the case of football, cycling and basketball by the allowing in of the top professionals and by tennis being re-introduced to the games after an absence of 60 years.

nothing wrong with it at all.

it just anbother tournament- whats the harm with more sport!!1

its good.

dont think that things should be catergorised.

so what if the oylmpics is the pinnacle for some sports but not for others.

dont think that it will force britain to form one team.

the oylimpics is the biggest sporting festival going, why shouldnt it incoparte as many sports as possible

"I'm certainly of the school of thought that the Olympics should be the pinnacle of the sports that are included,"

can i ask why?

how does it affect you personally?

if your wishes were successfull,, how would that help anyone?

it would just stop people competeing, it would also devalue the oylimpics as a sporting event(more events bring more viewers and more money, more enetertainment and more fun)

be happy- stop catergorising things for no reason other than it doesnt make sense in your head!

I have no problem with football at the olympics, however there should be restrictions as there is with the age already set at 23, there should be no over 23's allowed as there are 3 allowed atm. However I feel there should be a caps restriction as well, you can only have played X times for your country ie this would rule out Gareth Bale, Aaron Ramsey, Jack Wilshere etc as they are all solid first teamers for their country. Countries like Argentina use the olympics to develop their young players and its something we could implement

"Countries like Argentina use the olympics to develop their young players and its something we could implement"

thats not really gonna help us is it- we dont play as great britain on the whole.


lets just get a good team out there and try and get a medal!