|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 24, 2024 4:42:43 GMT -5
As I understand it, golf is in the same category as soccer or tennis in that while the athletes probably would love to be at the Olympics and maybe win a medal, it's not anywhere near as important to them as the top professional championships in their sport.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jun 24, 2024 8:22:50 GMT -5
As I understand it, golf is in the same category as soccer or tennis in that while the athletes probably would love to be at the Olympics and maybe win a medal, it's not anywhere near as important to them as the top professional championships in their sport. Men’s or women’s. In women’s soccer the Olympics are definitely on par with the Women’s World Cup.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 24, 2024 10:55:46 GMT -5
As I understand it, golf is in the same category as soccer or tennis in that while the athletes probably would love to be at the Olympics and maybe win a medal, it's not anywhere near as important to them as the top professional championships in their sport. Men’s or women’s. In women’s soccer the Olympics are definitely on par with the Women’s World Cup. I used to think that way, and it probably was true for a while, but I think the Olympics are now clearly behind the Women's World Cup in the hiearchy. The problem is that there are only 12 teams, and UEFA only gets three. For a while, most of the traditional men's soccer powers were ignoring their women's programs, so there weren't that many strong teams in Europe anyway. But that has changed in the last decade. It's still a big tournament but second overall. The men's tournament is not very important because it's mostly a youth tournament, so the best players in the world aren't playing for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jun 24, 2024 10:59:20 GMT -5
As I understand it, golf is in the same category as soccer or tennis in that while the athletes probably would love to be at the Olympics and maybe win a medal, it's not anywhere near as important to them as the top professional championships in their sport. Men's soccer still has the age limit, right? I think it'd be more important if it were allowed to be a premier competition, but the stakes just aren't as high when it's U-23.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 24, 2024 10:59:23 GMT -5
As I understand it, golf is in the same category as soccer or tennis in that while the athletes probably would love to be at the Olympics and maybe win a medal, it's not anywhere near as important to them as the top professional championships in their sport. I would say that's pretty accurate. Tennis is the best comparison. Like tennis, golf has four majors that are played annually, and these tournaments are the main criteria when discussing the best players of all time (plus, they offer the most money and have the highest viewership). An Olympic gold medal is a nice achievement, but it seems to be fifth at best in these sports, as nearly all players would rather win one of the majors. This is in contrast to most individual sports where an Olympic gold medal is by far the best thing you can win, well above even a world championship gold medal. Team sports are a bit different. It's hard to say how much players value, say, an NBA Championship vs an Olympic gold medal. I think it really comes down to individual player preference.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 24, 2024 16:05:59 GMT -5
As I understand it, golf is in the same category as soccer or tennis in that while the athletes probably would love to be at the Olympics and maybe win a medal, it's not anywhere near as important to them as the top professional championships in their sport. Men's soccer still has the age limit, right? I think it'd be more important if it were allowed to be a premier competition, but the stakes just aren't as high when it's U-23. Plus, Great Britain competes as one for the Olympics. So none of Great Britain/England/etc are able qualify or participate. Taking them out of the equation is going to lose a lot of the interest by itself.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 24, 2024 19:12:11 GMT -5
Men's soccer still has the age limit, right? I think it'd be more important if it were allowed to be a premier competition, but the stakes just aren't as high when it's U-23. Plus, Great Britain competes as one for the Olympics. So none of Great Britain/England/etc are able qualify or participate. Taking them out of the equation is going to lose a lot of the interest by itself. I know you're talking about the men's tournament, and for that, you are right. The women are eligible to compete in the Olympics, however. They competed as recently as Tokyo, and they didn't qualify this time (UEFA only gets three bids, so some of the best teams in the world get left out).
|
|
|
Post by avid 2.0 on Jun 24, 2024 20:50:11 GMT -5
Men's soccer still has the age limit, right? I think it'd be more important if it were allowed to be a premier competition, but the stakes just aren't as high when it's U-23. Plus, Great Britain competes as one for the Olympics. So none of Great Britain/England/etc are able qualify or participate. Taking them out of the equation is going to lose a lot of the interest by itself. I think they could, if they wanted (for the men) It's just Scotland/Wales/northern ireland(?) dont want to.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jun 24, 2024 21:15:16 GMT -5
Plus, Great Britain competes as one for the Olympics. So none of Great Britain/England/etc are able qualify or participate. Taking them out of the equation is going to lose a lot of the interest by itself. I think they could, if they wanted (for the men) It's just Scotland/Wales/northern ireland(?) dont want to. There are a lot of countries where their territories are grandfathered in by the IOC. Not sure how it works for the UK (which the IOC recognizes as "Great Britain"). My reading of the rules were that the Olympic Charter started requiring "nations" participating to be independent states and not dependent territories in 1996. Hong Kong managed to transfer that status even though they changed hands. The US has dependent territories with their national Olympic committees from American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. I found this, which claims that the breakup of Yugoslavia created the rule change when there were so many different "countries" that formed and claimed to be independent. Even then, there are some really weird permutations. Athletes from territories with their own national Olympic committees have represented the parent nation. There have been several for the United States, where I'm thinking Tim Duncan wasn't likely to play for a USVI basketball team. I think someone from Northern Ireland could choose to represent Great Britain or Ireland. And yep - it's happened before.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 24, 2024 23:55:10 GMT -5
Men’s or women’s. In women’s soccer the Olympics are definitely on par with the Women’s World Cup. I used to think that way, and it probably was true for a while, but I think the Olympics are now clearly behind the Women's World Cup in the hiearchy. The problem is that there are only 12 teams, and UEFA only gets three. For a while, most of the traditional men's soccer powers were ignoring their women's programs, so there weren't that many strong teams in Europe anyway. But that has changed in the last decade. It's still a big tournament but second overall. I was thinking about this, and if women's soccer handled its Olympic bids the way women's volleyball does, the field would be something like: France (UEFA - host) Spain (UEFA) Great Britain* (UEFA) Germany (UEFA) USA (CONCACAF) Sweden (UEFA) Japan (AFC) Canada (CONCACAF) Brazil (CONMEBOL) North Korea (AFC) Netherlands (UEFA) Nigeria (CAF) Soccer doesn't do its qualifying tournaments the same way volleyball does, so I just went by FIFA ranking, with at least one country from North America, South America, Asia, Europe and Africa, plus the host. Honestly, I think this would be a better tournament than what we'll actually get. *In Tokyo, Great Britain qualified via England's success
|
|