From: archer@hsi.com (Garry Archer)
Subject: Re: Olympic Soccer (was Re: English News: Norway, FA Cup draw)
Organization: 3M Health Information Systems, Wallingford CT
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:40:04 GMT

In article <FISCHER.92Nov3012754@steiner.iesd.auc.dk> fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer) writes:
>
>Garry> While I agree with this to a certain extent, I would argue that
>Garry> the Women's World Cup could similarly decide the matter of who
>Garry> are the Women's football champions.
>
>Why? There is a World Cup already. In handball, there is the Olympics
>and the world cup as seperate event, for both women and men. Likewise
>for the 100 m dash. 

My argument is based on why do we need Olympic (World) Champions and
World Cup Champions if they are played by the same set of players
(this isn't exactly the case yet, but its evolving that way)?  In this 
scenario we may as well say the World Championship is played every two 
years instead of every four years... but who are the true World Champions, 
the Olympic team or the World Cup team?  I just want an "amateur"
champion and a "professional" champion (although the distinction for
some teams is a little grey, as you point out below).


>Garry> It seems that since "professionals" are now allowed to play in
>Garry> the Olympics that the gap between Olympic football and the
>Garry> World Cup will converge at an alarming rate in the next couple
>Garry> of decades. 
>
>What is alarming about that? Just about all top sports events are
>between professionals -- be it swimming, sailing, 100 m dash, tennis,
>football, whatever. What's wrong with that. Remember that the amateur
>idea was invented to keep the workers out of gentleman sports such as
>tennis -- nothing noble or "good" about that.

See my comments earlier.  I prefer the idea that there are amateurs
who are able to compete amongst themselves.  The modern-day Olympics 
was supposed to be for this.


>Garry> The need for Olympic football was best when it was solely for
>Garry> the non-paid amateurs.
>
>Define amateur. When was this? When the eastern European teams fielded
>"state-amateur" teams? Back in 1948?

I think you know what I mean.


>Garry> Return the Olympics to the true amateur.  Then have _both_
>Garry> Men's and Women's Olympic football.
>
>Why? Why not have the Olympics as an event for the best, for all
>sports? I see no need to arbitrarily exclude those that are paid to
>do it -- and it'll just lead to all kinds of cheating.

Well, that's OK for you, to have an event for the best --- but I
thought the World Cup was that --- but as I say, I prefer to also
have an event for teams of perhaps lesser ability.  Somewhat like 
some American gridiron football fans enjoy the differences between 
college NCAA and professional NFL football.


>Ah, but the only reason we do not have "harmony" is that FIFA is not
>going to let the IOC take over its very profitable mega-event.

Nor do I want them to.  The IOC and FIFA should look after their own affairs.
But their separate championships should compliment not compete with each other.


>Garry> The only problem I see so far, is that I wonder how many
>Garry> nations could come up with professional Women's teams.  Perhaps
>Garry> in the next couple of decades.
>
>You are creating touble for yourself. There is no demand to be
>professional in the world cup -- a team can have all the amateurs it
>wants.

I must admit, you've got me there Lars!  There are many players/teams
who are classed as amateur competing at World Cup level.  If I remember
correctly, some Scandinavian teams were amateurs or "semi-professionals".
Although those teams may be getting away from that now as their players
can be found liberally sprinkled in the major leagues in Europe.  But
certainly many African and Asian FIFA members are certainly all amateur.


-- 
Garry Archer Esq.	archer@hsi.com
3M Health Information Systems,	Wallingford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"An Englishman never enjoys himself, except for a noble purpose." - A.P.Herbert