The 2004 OlympicsIraq's meaningless inspirational victory.
Posted Thursday, Aug. 12, 2004, at 8:21 PM ET
The Iraqi soccer team's 4-2 triumph over Portugal in the preliminary rounds of the Olympics makes for an inspiring feature story. It might even merit exploration in the A section—the victory could conceivably help develop a sense of Iraqi nationalism, at least providing a hint of unity that will help keep the Shiites, Sunni, and Kurds from each other's throats. But if you caught a glimpse of today's game, you would have noticed a near empty stadium. There's a reason for this: Olympic men's soccer is a boring non-event, barely worthy of a mention in the sports pages.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponOlympic gold may represent the mother lode in many sports, but it has almost no prestige in soccer. This summer has already seen the European Championship and the Copa America, tournaments waged for continental supremacy that feature the world's best professional players, genuine rivalries, and a rich history. They both matter far more than the Olympics. With the calendar so jammed, the soccer world simply has no need for another major tournament. And the game's elite can't afford the physical toll of another long event. Consequently, the rules of the Olympics have been rigged to ensure the tourney's non-importance—squads can only bring three players older than 23.
A little over a month ago, Iraq's vanquished opponent, Portugal, lost to Greece in the finals of the European Championship. The Portuguese have treated this tournament with such low regard that they sent only one player from that superb team, Christiano Ronaldo, to the Olympics. Even he received significant pressure from his club, Manchester United, to skip the tournament.
That pressure highlights the fundamental difference between soccer and almost all other Olympic sports. As Daniel Gross has pointed out, soccer is an incredibly capitalist enterprise. The game couldn't be more disdainful of the ethos of amateurism the Olympics still pretends to embrace. In the end, the games just don't matter because they don't yield massive sponsorship deals or television contracts for national soccer federations.
Because so much of the world cares so little, the Olympics represent an excellent opportunity for countries like Iraq and Ghana—which tied Italy today—to acquire a small slice of soccer glory. While the traditional powers play like laggards, the smaller countries evince cohesion and heart. The result is a charming inversion of the game's power structure: Brazil has never won a gold; Hungary has three.
But as a consequence of globalization, even lesser countries can't field their best teams. According to the Financial Times' Simon Kuper, the players on this year's entry from Mali "mostly play for tiny clubs such as Djoliba AC and AS Bamako, and earn less than European street cleaners." That's because the country's best players are based in Europe, and their rich clubs have prevented them from making the trek to Athens.
How little do the games matter? This afternoon, when I logged on to Soccernet, a heavily trafficked source for news on the game, there wasn't a mention of the Iraqi victory. Instead, the top story was about Real Madrid's plan to purchase Liverpool striker Michael Owen. In focusing on speculation over the possible sale of an English forward rather than the inspirational triumph of the Iraqi team, there's no doubt that Soccernet has its priorities straight.
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
What Ever Happened to Hood Ornaments?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Remarks from the Fray:
…Anyway, soccer doesn't need the Olympics because soccer is already played at its highest levels in numerous international competitions, including the Euro championships, Copa America, and of course, the World Cup. Forget the fact that Brazil hasn't won gold. All you need to know about Olympic soccer is that Brazil didn't even qualify for the Olympics this time. That's soccer crazy Brazil, winner of the World Cup and Copa America. That's the Copa champions who played their B team at Copa and still defeated a Argentina.
Still, an Olympic medal for a lesser soccer nation could serve as a springboard for that country's soccer dreams. And I know Argentina for one wants to win badly, to prove they can at least win something (even if Brazil isn't there). So its not totally meaningless. Its just about AS meaningless as any team sport in the Olympics since the pros got into it.
--TheAList
(To reply, click here)
… The very sad truth is that international soccer (meaning -- national sides as opposed to club sides) is in big trouble. The best players don't take it seriously, the countries with the best leagues have ceded so much power to the moneymaking goliaths that are the clubs that national sides don't have the time or energy to practice. It's a little akin to the way the United States has been treating Olympic basketball.
There are advantages to this system. Countries like Greece, Cameroon, the United States, Japan, South Korea, and maybe Iraq and China (runner up in the Asia cup) get suprising victories, increasing the popularity of soccer and upping the support for international soccer in those places. Eventually, the major European countries may be shamed into submission. But it hasn't happened yet. The Spanish side has never done anything, and the clubs rule the roost. England embarasses itself with shocking regularity, but it looks like clubs are gaining more power in the F.A.
So international soccer is likely to continue to be a series of compelling stories built around sub-par football. Sad.
--august
(To reply, click here)
Although Olympic soccer does not have the same cache as the major FIFA/UEFA titles there is a hugely important role played by the tourney.
National Associations use them to groom and develop their younger talent. Therefore the under 23 rule is a bonus.
It worth noting that the major super powers in national soccer have had Olympic success and have then goen on to produce talents and players who dominate the national teams for years.
The relative lack of pressure to win also means that teams bring some of their most creative players who can risk doing tricks and feints without the Team Coach having a heart attack or the fans threatening to lynch him unless he scores.
A good example is Cameroon who's Sydney 2000 team went on to dominate African football for a good few years. Many of the players from that team went to become superstars on the European football scene in their own right - Samuel E'too being a great example .. he now is being touted as a partner for REal Madrid's Ronaldo (Brazilian dude with the goofy grin). During the Sydney tournament E'too played like a magician and brought himself to the attention of a lot of european scouts.
TO put that in perspective its like going from High School rookie to MVP in the space of four years.
--DirectHex
(To reply, click here)
(8/13)