It would be quite simple to shoot off a quick post about the current ticketing debacle. The immense frustration of having the system shut down because there once again was not the foresight to realize that the system would be flooded with heavy traffic from thousands vying for tickets. However, I think I will save that for another day.

Instead, I want to take a look back 12 years. The Sydney 2000 Olympics were the first Games that I can really remember watching. I was 12 and completely taken with the Olympics. I’m not exactly sure how I came to be so enraptured by the Games, perhaps it is due to my mother’s love of them as well, but nonetheless, I was captivated. From that point on I began to follow each edition of the Games with increasing ferver. These are some of the parts of the Games that stuck out to me (or that I have discovered anew 12 years later).

The lighting of the Olympic cauldron:

The end of the torch relay and the lighting of the cauldron is always a significant moment for the Olympic Games. Who carries the torch inside the stadium? Who lights the cauldron? There is no set formula for how to decide but in this instance the organizers decided to highlight two historically marginalized groups: women and aborigines. Now, it is possible to debate the wisdom in this decision for hours. Does it highlight the problems Australia had in the past? Are they really in the past? Does it show that Australia has moved on? Questions such as this can be posed without too much strain. There is also the chance that Freeman doesn’t win in her home Games. But all of the politics and analysis aside, I love this. First, I love this because I think the cauldron is awesome. I remember seeing it rise from the water and being shocked and amazed. (I also remember it stalling but what’s an Opening Ceremony without a little glitch right Vancouver? – I kid.) Second, it’s hard to argue against Freeman lighting the cauldron for no other reason than she looks like she is about to cry. She looks genuinely happy to be there and that is something that is always great to see.

(w) 400m final

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeXpoRIvDPw&feature=endscreen

(For some reason the video won’t embed. The race starts at about 47s.)

It’s difficult to mention the 2000 Olympics without mentioning this race. Cathy Freeman had captured the heart of Australia and had the expectations of an entire nation on her (well, two really, the Australian nation and the Australian aboriginal nation). Her main rival had fallen victim to the pressures of the Games and media scrutiny and had left Australia before the race and returned to France. Without that rivalry, and at a home Games, she had no choice but to win. And she did. And, again, the pure joy on her face during the medal ceremony is part of the fun of watching the Games.

Eric Moussambani

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0ZePJy_nZw&feature=endscreen

(Again, sorry for the lack of embedding.)

This is one of the most memorable moments from the Olympic pool in Sydney. That’s no small feat considering 2000 was quite a show. Ian Thorpe. Pieter van den Hoogenband. Gary Hall. Grant Hackett. Lenny Krayzelburg. Micheal Klim. Klete Keller. Jason Lezak. But this was memorable for another reason. Eric Moussambani didn’t set any world records. He didn’t make the finals. This was the only time he even swam a race (there were two false starts that disqualified the other two people in his heat). However, he finished the race. The entire stadium was cheering him on and it was louder than many close races. Of course, this is not the type of performance that one goes to the Olympics to see. We all imagine seeing brilliance like Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps. This is something entirely different. Eric the eel, as he was called during the Games, is the embodiment of the Olympic creed. “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part. Just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the stuggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.”

Andreea Raducan

The all-around gold medalist in women’s gymnastics (leading a Romanian sweep) was stripped of her gold medal after a banned substance was found in drug testing. The cause? Cold medicine administered by a team trainer. The Romanians were allowed to keep their team medal but Raducan was stripped of her all-around title.

The women’s all-around vault

During this round of the vault rotation of the women’s all-around competition, the vault was set too low. This caused problems as most of the gymnasts were struggling to finish their rotations in the air, never mind land cleanly. After it was discovered, the athletes affected were given the option to vault again but Khorkina (and possibly others, I can’t remember) chose not to. Khorkina had already competed on another apparatus and had some mistakes that cost her. An improved vault score would not have put her back in the hunt for gold.

Midnight Oil – Beds Are Burning

I’m not sure why, but I really like this song. However, sung live, not so much. But the point of including it here is to point out something that I only just read about. I recently read (I can’t remember where sadly) that during this performance at the Closing Ceremony, the band wore black clothes that had “sorry” written in white on them. I didn’t remember this but I looked and sure enough, they do. According to this piece I read it was an apology to the aborigines for the treatment they had been subjected to in the past in Australia. Whether or not this is actually true, I have no idea. However, it is an interesting approach and it is just one more way that attention was drawn to past conflicts during these Games.

Savage Garden – Affirmation

These guys were everywhere in 2000. I am a fan, as I was then. And this is without a doubt my favorite song of theirs. It’s great that this is what was sung during the Games because no matter your opinion of the Olympics, they are a megaevent watched by millions. Whether or not the Olympics live up to their lofty ideals, it is great to see a song with such a positive message get a place during the Games.

The comments are always a bit fun, if not frustrating, to read. As somebody who is such a fan of the Games (though well aware of the many problems associated with them) it can be disappointing to see so many people rally against something that I so look forward to every two years. Of course, I understand the complaints. I personally was rooting for Rio to win the 2016 Games because I did not want to have them in Chicago (I lived about 45 minutes north of Chicago during most of the bid phase). I thought it was possibly the worst idea ever. Many of the criticisms are valid and difficult to argue against. The games are too expensive. The Games take potential funds from other areas that could greatly benefit from them. The Games do not actually make a city any money. (They have the potential to, but alsmost never do. LA ’84 is the real excpetion. More often it goes the way of Montreal ’76 where it takes 30 years to pay off the debt.) London does not need to be ‘put on the map.’ It causes a whole host of inconveniences to those who live in the area. I could go on. However, some of the comments are just a bit too much of a stretch. For example, all of the comparisons to the Berlin Games of 1936. Yes, I will agree that this is the first time that the Opening Ceremony was an eleaborate propoganda-fest. However, the way the comparison is framed makes it seem as if everybody is trying to compete with Berlin and that it hasn’t been done since. The elaborate displays that are customary began with LA 84 – aka the Hollywood Games. Since then they have only become more elaborate. (Beijing 2008 is a perfect example.) Also, the tendency to call every person involved in the Olympics a fascist is just trying to rally negative sentiment.

So what is the big deal? People are going to feel the way they are and the Olympics are going to be held. Neither of those are going to change. (People’s opinions might as time wears on but there will always be some who refuse to see any good in hosting the Games.) Well, the big deal is that negative sentiments have the ability to have huge impacts on the Games. I just recently came across an article on The Guardian that I thought was particularly interesting. The Guardian is currently running a series of articles that are looking back at the London Riots of this past summer and attempting to gain a greater understanding of what happened and why. One of these articles relates to the feelings about the upcoming London Olympics set to kick off in East London this July. In the article a few of the people who took part in some of the many riots around London were interviewed and their views were, perhaps unsurprisingly, negative towards the Games as well as other aspects of the government.

Perhaps the most telling quote (though the entire article is worth a read) comes from a 20 year old from Victoria (in the heart of London). He says: ‘”If the government tries to take the piss [and] things don’t get better … 2012 is not going to be successful,” he said. “They think: ‘Oh, yeah, they’ve mended the buildings, everything’s going to be OK.’ No. We know how much they treasure 2012. They cannot lock everything up. So if they don’t fix things by 2012, there’s not going to be a good Olympics.” He added: “The whole point of the Olympics, yeah, is to see people perform. If they don’t fix it by the Olympics, they won’t be safe to perform. Regardless if they try and lock us [out], nah, they can’t do that, we’ll find a way to get in. So, they won’t run smoothly for that. All of this, all of this recession because you want to waste money on Olympics. It will go to waste. It will definitely go to waste because the athletes ain’t going to be safe.”‘

To many, this sets off alarm bells, I’m sure. During the London riots I remember having a meeting with my thesis supervisor and we discussed the fact that if something like the riots happened during the Games, it would be very difficult to stop it. To put it in perspective, it took 16,000 police to be on the streets of London to begin to quell the riots. At the time this was happening, the estimates for security forces at the Games was 10,000-12,000. Rightly so, the security number has about doubled to 20,000 and will include police (mostly unarmed), military, and private security forces from the private company G4S (not to mention the stated possibility of using surface to air missles if necessary). However, if something like the riots does break out, something will have to go. Either the riots will continue or the venues will have to make due with less security. Of course, this is all speculation and perhaps the security would be enough, but recent events do tend to suggest otherwise.

While I will never dismiss out of hand that there are those who would agree with this particular 20 year old and I will not dismiss the idea that some may try and ruin the Games in some way due to outrage or any number of other reasons. I will hope that something different happens. I would hope that people might calm down as the Games get closer not because they get less annoyed but because it’s here, that isn’t changing, and they might realize that the more problems the Games have, the more money will be wasted. The Games likely won’t break even, they almost never do, but the worse the city comes off as a whole during the Olympics, the more put off people will be about being in the city and spending money during the Games and they will be more put off of the idea of coming back once the circus has left. Both of these scenarios will hurt the city (and the UK as a whole) and will make the Games a true waste of money whereas now it is more of reckless spending when you can’t afford it.

It will be interesting to see how the Games are framed as they continue to approach. The spending is lavish in a time of cut backs and each time the spending increases so too does the anger. But this was always going to happen. Bids are always pitched low and (for whatever reason) security is always one area (and a very costly area at that) that is severely underfunded from the start. Now, did the Opening Ceremony need the additional £41 million (taking the total budget up to about £80 million)? Realistically, no. The Opening Ceremony is always a huge spectacle where each host attempts to outdo its predecessors. However, if the Opening Ceremony is not engaging and doesn’t make people stop and take notice, then the tone has been set for the Games and, from the start, people will be talking about how much of a disappointment London 2012 is.

Spending on the Games has reached ridiculous heights. There are other parts of society that could use that money that could (some might argue would) have more impact, and more of a legacy than the Games. But, as the Games are here (and NOCs and governments will continue to bid for them time and again), it makes more sense to put on the best show possible to try and make money and bring people back to the city than to leave everybody disappointed. If we are going to be in debt either way, why not make it spectacular?

The Cities:

So far, three cities have made their formal announcement of their bid for the 2020 Games: Rome, Italy, Madrid, Spain, and Tokyo, Japan.

Rome is not a surprise bid in any way. There had been rumors going around that they had planned to bid and they were the first to make it official quite some time ago. By the time 2020 hits, it will have been 60 years since the Games were last in Rome (the 1960 Summer Games were held there) and 14 years since the Games were in Italy (the Torino 2006 Winter Games being the last).

Madrid is also not a surprise. This, as it was for PyeongChang, is the third straight Games the city is bidding for. They finished second in the voting for the 2016 Games in a race that, provided Rio didn’t set off any alarms anywhere, was never going to go any other way. Back in 2009, I attributed the push to the final two by Madrid as partly due to the influence of former IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch. I still believe that to be the case but if they are able to take what was said during their evaluations and listen to the questions asked of them in those presentations in 2005 and 2009, Madrid has a solid foundation for a bid this time around and could make a run for it.

Tokyo is more of a surprise. While there are no official rules about holding successive Games on the same continent (it’s easy to spot multiple examples of this within Europe due to the sheer size of the continent), it is still far less likely that the Games will be held on the same continent if strong bids are coming from other cities. A lot of the rhetoric surrounding this attempt is to pick the spirits of the nation up after the tragedies earlier this year. The affected areas are even potentially in the plans to host some competitions. This is all well and good, and it is not the first time a strategy like this has been employed (see New York 2012 as the most recent example). However, I do tend to take issue with this strategy for practical reasons. I am all for lifting the spirits of a nation after a disaster – it’s possibly the only reason I haven’t stopped reading anything to do with soccer after the World Cup. Japan played extremely well and you can’t not like a team having overcome what they have – but I don’t think spending vast sums of money to bid to host a major sports festival (when your chances have already been lowered due to simple geography especially) is the way to do that. There are so many other things that money could be used for right now and it is kind of depressing to think that the allure of this type of cultural capital and soft power is enough for a government to use funds that could be spent on recovery.

Istanbul, Turkey is also considering a bid for the Games (the final deadline to make an official bid is the July 29th). As with Rio, this would be a new location for the Games and can give a slight boost to the hopes of a bid however, the general location of Turkey isn’t quite as far into the realm of “new territory” as South America and it hasn’t brought them much success in the past as they launched four consecutive failed bids. (Istanbul lost to Syndey 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008, and London 2012.) Another bid from Istanbul would likely be met with many of the same questions and skepticisms and I’m willing to bet it would take quite a strong bid to counter any lasting doubts. There’s also the unfortunate side effect of constantly having the song “Istanbul (Not Constantinople)” stuck in everybody’s mind…

2018 Update:

As for the 2018 Games recently awarded to PyeongChang there are a few interesting new pieces that are beginning to circulate. The nature of the news relates to the political situation that exists between North and South Korea and the ever present tensions between the two. It’s worth noting before moving on to new developments that South Korea has hosted the Games once before – Seoul 1988 – and North Korea led a small boycott of those Games (other nations who followed were also communist nations such as Cuba). Now, this is 30 years before the 2018 Games and 23 years ago already and times have changed – North and South Korea even marched under a united flag during the 2000 and 2004 Opening Ceremonies. However, the fact that the two nations were only able to reach an agreement to march under a united flag twice in the six Games since 2000 says something about the current situation. Things may indeed be getting better but there is no grand solution yet in place. (Consider it was just last year that North Korea attacked a South Korean island leaving four dead.)

That being said, these new reports coming out are particularly interesting. The first one I found indicates that North Korea is hoping to co-host the 2018 Games. While nothing official has been said it is a shocking statement to hear. For one, the trend of hosting the Games, as I noted in the discussion of the three 2018 bids, is to have the Games as compact as possible. Now, PyeongChang is near the demilitarized zone so it isn’t as if athletes or spectators would have to cross the entire country to get to a venue but it still isn’t exactly a short walk from one to the other. Bidding logistics aside, the IOC (while having made no comment on this issue as of yet) has been firmly against the Games being co-hosted, even within a nation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had expressed a desire to bid for the 2020 Games and that was vetoed by the IOC as the Games are awarded to a single city, not a group of cities or a nation. (If one wants to get really uptight it is easy to point to past Games where the main city has not hosted all of the events, even the 2010 Games were essentially split between Vancouver and Whistler.) The idea of two separate nations co-hosting the Games seems to be outside the realm of possibility unless the IOC drastically changes their previous statements. One question I keep coming back to with regards to these Games though, and this co-host issue only serves to make it even more nagging, is the political interference. It has been mentioned that North Korean IOC member Chang Ung has expressed a desire to lessen the political and military tensions between the two nations so as not to impact the Games. Even if this is the case (in whatever form that could take), what does that actually mean for the Games. Does it mean less security? No. The Games are always going to be considered a high level security event. It might mean (though I don’t think it’s likely) that more attention is paid to the Games and less to the border but security is security.

Also in the “is this really being considered” category is the following: South Korean lawmakers want to push for an inter-Korean Olympic team for 2018. I had to read that a few times just to make sure I read it right. As I said, three Games have passed since these two nations could even agree to simply march under a united flag, never mind compete along side each other. (And I immediately flash to the issues that Team GB is having right now for soccer popping up in many sports…) Of course, the IOC would actually have to agree to allow two separate NOCs to combine (temporarily) which would be unprecedented. Most of the time it’s new nations, or nations within another trying to convince the IOC to recognize them as independent.

______________________________________________________________

(As a side note, for any of you who read this blog looking for women’s soccer, I apologize for the lack of posts the last few months especially with an amazing and exciting Women’s World Cup having just wrapped up. If you are interested in some good information on that check out ESPN.com, FoxSoccer.com, All White Kit, and The Equalizer. All did a wonderful job keeping fans up to date.)

Munich, Germany

I’ll start with Munich because, though they were the runner up, it will be the shortest. Sadly, the video posted on the IOC website of Munich’s presentation to the Session is a version dubbed in French. My six years of French allows me to muddle through a simple conversation but doesn’t help much in understanding an hour-long bid presentation so, sadly, I have not seen the Munich presenation. However, what I do know is that Munich was the runner up with 25 votes and they had some strong points for why they should win. (Throughout the entire process it has always seemed like a two-man race between Munich and PyeongChang.)

~Munich had a strong argument in terms of setting history as they were aiming to become the first city to host the Summer and Winter Games (Munich had hosted the Summer Games in 1972 – widely remembered for the terrible terrorist actions that left 11 members of the Israeli delegation dead). Not only would this be a first in Olympic history (which the IOC is always keen to take an interest in), it is also a feat that is not replicable by many hosts. London, Rio, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Sydney, Melbourne, etc. cannot ever realistically hope to host the Winter Games, the climates, locations, or restraints of time (the reversal of summer and winter) leave them out of the running for future Winter Games.

~Munich also had the strength of the German Olympic teams to rely on. A typically strong competitor in both the Summer and Winter Games, Germany could realistically hope to draw in large amounts of support from the home nation.

~Germany also holds a unique place in the history of the Olympics (for better or worse) as it was during the 1936 Berlin Games that the Torch Relay first took place as we now know it. There were predecessors, and the Winter Games had a much different history, but no matter the progression, that tradition is rooted in German Olympic history thanks to Carl Diem. Of course, this has nothing to do with how good of a show Munich could provide, but, again for better or worse, history counts for a lot in the Olympics.

~Germany is also very proficient at hosting major sporting events. They have previously hosted the Summer Games twice (Berlin 1936 and Munich 1972) and the Winter Games once (1936 Garmisch-Partenkirchen). The 2006 FIFA World Cup and 2011 FIFA Women’s World Cup have also both been in Germany. These 5 events are only a small selection of the major competitions that Germany has hosted which makes for a strong case to host the Games. Experience in situations such as this is never a bad thing.

Annecy, France

Annecy was always a long shot. They finished with only 7 votes, and it’s not surprising to say the least. Watching Annecy’s presentation was boring, something I rarely say about anything Olympic. The same points were repeated ad nauseum making it look as if there were really only 2-3 major selling points to having the Games in Annecy which is not going to beat the strong bid from PyeongChang.

Some of the major points that continually came up were:

-The authenticity of the Games being held in a true mountain community
-Snow and ice events in close proximity to each other
-Input from athletes in designing this bid
-Compact venue plans
-The region as the world’s number one destination for winter sports.

Each of these are strong points, no doubt about that, but there wasn’t much else to take note of. What follows is a breakdown of what presenters from the bid spoke about.

~Denis Masseglia, President of the French NOC

• Masseglia made sure to remind everybody of the history of France in the Olympics and the Winter Games mentioning that he is proud that Baron Pierre de Coubertin was French and that France was the first host of the Winter Games in Chamonix in 1924. (Though he did fail to mention that those Winter Games were only rebranded the Olympics after they had concluded  - they were orginally a major winter sport festival – and that many who competed in those Games didn’t realize they competed in the Olympics – much like many who competed in the 1904 Games in Paris.)
• He also commented on the perserverence of the French bids as this is the 4th bid in the past 14 years (which makes one question if they are really telling the truth when they say they have learned from the input of the members of the IOC and the Evaluation Committee…).
• Masseglia also made sure to note that there was complete government support at all levels. Of course, while listing out the levels of support, there was no mention of President Sarkozy as he chose not to make the trip for the presentation (a rare occurance these days that some took for a lack of confidence in the chances of the bid).

~Charles Beigbeder, Annecy 2018 President

• Along with the standard “authenticity of the mountains” and “number one destination” lines, Beigbeder outlined the three guiding principles for the Annecy Games: 1) Stage the Games in the heart of the mountain, 2) Stage the Games on a human scale. This means that the Games will be hosted by the actual mountain community with their knowledge, culture, and passion. These Games will be intimate, friendly, warm, accessible, celebratory, and inspiring. 3) Provide a blueprint for mountains of the 21st century. In this is the need for sustainable growth and sustainable year-round tourism and relations with the mountains.

Since 2005 it has been unclear what would happen with a Team GB soccer team. For most nations, this is a simple issue, you enter your national team and hope they win. For Team GB and the BOA the story is a little different. Due to the history of soccer and FIFA and all of the governmental aspects of the game, despite being one nation politically (and athletically in almost all cases – soccer and the Commonwealth Games being the most notable exceptions), there are four separate FAs – Engalnd, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland. The English FA has been vocal in their calls for GB representation at the Olympics next summer. The other FAs have been vocally opposed. The reasoning being that they don’t want to set any precedent of having a British team because then it might lead to calls (from other FAs around the world and from FIFA themselves) to make the change permanent. Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland do not want to take any chances that they may lose their status as independent footballing nations. Now, FIFA has repeatedly made assurances that this wouldn’t happen but, no matter, the idea just isn’t well received outside the English FA.

This being the case it has been widely assumed that the “Team GB” that competes in soccer next summer would be an all English side. FIFA has even recently approved of this solution. Flash forward to today and the story has been as confusing as ever with both sides holding firm.

It was announced today on TheFA.com that there would, in fact, be a Team GB competing at next summer’s Games. According to the English FA, an agreement has been reached between the four FAs that sets out selection criteria for the Olympic team and ensures that it is non-discriminatory so all players from the four FAs will have an equal shot of making the team so long as they qualify. The story was quickly picked up in a variety of places (Telegraph, SI, ESPN, Daily Record - actually preemptive, etc.). I found out on Twitter and immediately went over to BBC.co.uk to find out if there was a release on the news. I found one. It had the generic ‘there will be a Team GB, all sides have reached an agreement the English FA has annoucned’ couple paragraph story. Between the time I read that and posted the link to my own Twitter feed, the story had been edited, this time including reactions from the Scottish and Welsh FAs announcing their anger over this story saying that it isn’t true and that no agreement has been met. The FAs of Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland have even released a joint statement denying the agreement and stating that they are committed to continuing to represent each of the Home Nations under their respective flags. The Scottish FA has denied the agreement and their cheif executive has even stated that ‘”We have consulted the Association of Tartan Army Supporters Clubs, our board and also members of the media and there is absolutely no appetite.”‘ At the same time a representative spokesman for the Scottish FA has also stated ’”Legally, we couldn’t stand in any player’s way if it was their wish, nor would we stand in their way if that’s what they wanted,’ explained a spokesman for the SFA.’But, when the players were asked about it during our preparations for the friendly with Brazil in March, not one noted an interest.”‘

The importance of this issue depends on which side it’s approached from. Obviously the FAs (outside England) are concerned about their independent status. This isn’t illogical given the combined nature of other athletics and the fact that the four nations are under the same political state. From the point of view of LOCOG and the BOA, the concern is about appearences and having a soccer team from the host nation as the sport is a huge part of sporting culture (and wider pop culture) within the host nation. From the English players, they look to be set either way. If it is an all English team, they have an easier time making the roster and they get to play. For those from the other FAs it is less cut and dry. While the Scottish FA (as above) has said there would be no intent to stop players if they desired to play one has to wonder if that is truly the case. And if it is, would punishment after the fact also be off the table or simply par for the course? But for the players (as this is likely to be a one off situation no matter what the make-up of the final team due to the issues it has caused) this could be their only chance to compete in the Olympics. Now, for soccer, the holy grail is widely recognized as the World Cup. Lately fans of the USWNT have heard clips of Abby Wambach saying that she feels her career would be incomplete without winning the World Cup (despite an Olympic gold and a whole host of personal accomplishments). So does playing in the Olympics really matter to these players? Maybe not, as with everything it likely depends on the player. But consider the realities of the soccer landscape. On the women’s side, only England has ever qualified for the World Cup, the Olympics is the second biggest international soccer competition there is and without a true Team GB, these players will be shut out of that too. On the men’s side, I honestly don’t know if any of the other three FAs have ever qualified but I know they haven’t won, and they aren’t particularly competitive with the top teams in the world. This, again, could be a chance for these players to play on a major international stage. Maybe they don’t care. Perhaps the women would rather stay and play for their club teams and the men would rather train in preseason with their clubs. But if Team GB shows up with only English players, it’s likely that LOCOG and the BOA (possibly the IOC even) will consider it a black eye of sorts.

The Games aim to promote international peace, understanding, and harmony. It looks as if that is a tall task within the host nation itself when it comes to soccer.

UPDATE:

It seems that there is actually a logic to the announcement by the English FA and BOA. According to the Guardian, the English FA is the one that has been designated by FIFA and the IOC as the representative national federation for the Olympic Movement. In the Olympics, every sport is represented by an international federation (FIFA, FIBA, etc) and below that are each of the national federations (so in the US we have USA Tennis, Handball, USSF etc). In the case of Great Britain, where in a few cases there are four separate national federations one must be designated as the primary. In the case of soccer, the English FA is apparaently that representative. So while the other three FAs may be  vehemently opposed to a true Team GB, the word of the FA is binding as far as the Olympics are concerned. Now, this only means that there may actually be players from the other FAs who do in fact make the team and compete in London 2012. The reality, however, is that it is the players decision. No player can be forced to participate, obviously. It seems likely, and I’d be willing to bet more so on the women’s side than the men but perhaps not, that some players would be more than happy to pull on a Team GB kit and participate in their first (and likely only) Olympics. The real question then becomes what will the response be from the Scottish, Welsh, and N. Irish FAs? They can’t stop players from participating but they can bench players from future camps/games. Would they actually go that far? Who knows. In sport, anything is seemingly within the realm of possibility.

If this team does actually happen, what will the response be? As it stands now (before the second phase of London 2012 ticketing opens on Friday) there is only one full session of soccer sold out for next summer – the men’s final. Of the other 41 sessions (a total of 132 pricing sections) only 9 sections are sold out. The rest have been listed at “good availability.” Maybe this annoucement will boost ticket sales for the soccer sessions (and I certainly wouldn’t rule that out as a reason for the timing of the announcement). On the other hand, it might have no impact whatsoever. Will fans be willing to stand up and cheer for players that they are so accustomed to rooting against? The Scottish attitude of “anybody but England” doesn’t seem conducive to overwhelming support from Scottish fans. (It will be particularly interesting to keep an eye out for reports of crowd reactions to Team GB in Glasgow or Cardiff – though it seems likely LOCOG would attempt, as much as possible with the sessions and venues already set, to keep Team GB playing in England to avoid possible embarrassment from booing “home” fans.)

UPDATE #2 6/25/11 (A lot of quotes from these articles, some very interesting stuff…)

I have come across a few more articles posted on BBC and there is some interesting talk going around from players, former managers etc. This issue refuses to go away and I don’t think we are going to see any sort of resolution until the final squad is named next summer. I’m going to take these one at a time because there are a couple key points of interest to gather from each of the articles.

First up is this article that focuses on Craig Brown, former manager of Scotland. In a plea to Scottish players Brown says: ”‘You could jeopardise your opportunity to play for Scotland. There might no longer be a Scottish team,’ said Brown. ‘Are you going to put other players’ possibility of playing for Scotland at risk by being selfish and playing?’” By making a statement such as this the entire future of Scottish football (and we can probably assume that similar sentiments are being passed around in Wales and Northern Ireland) rests on the shoulders of the current players. The desire to play in the Olympics (and therefore on Team GB) is put forth as selfish because it doesn’t take into account the possible political (in terms of FIFA) ramifications of the game. (Brown also takes aim at the fact that on the men’s side the Olympics are a U-23 tournament – with 3 overaged players allowed – but this argument should really be directed to FIFA as it is their demand that this be the case so as to ensure that the Olympics do not have the chance to challenge the World Cup for the pinnacle of the sport.)

On the women’s side, English players are calling for a true Team GB to play next summer. Steph Houghton says: ”‘The Scottish internationals in our squad are among the best around and it would be a shame not to have those players involved at the Olympics,’ said Houghton, who was speaking after being included in England’s squad for this month’s World Cup in Germany. ‘They deserve to be playing in major tournaments and you don’t get a much bigger stage than playing an Olympics in London.’” Among some of the names that could (and arguments could be made for ‘should’ in some cases) feature – all playing in the FA WSL in England – are Julie Fleeting, Kim Little, Jennifer Beattie, and Jayne Ludlow (three Scots and one Welsh respectively). However, Julie Fleeting has publicly declared that she will not play for Team GB echoing many of the sentiments heard from Craig Brown. She states:

“‘I’m very proud to pull on the Scotland jersey,’ said Fleeting.’There are kids striving to do the same and there’s a chance that they won’t get that opportunity if we became GB.’”

and… “‘Obviously the Olympics is a fantastic stage but I am Scottish through and through. ‘It might mean our girls would not have the opportunity to play for the national team in the future because some of us went to play for Team GB. ‘That’s not a risk any of us are willing to take.’”

and… ”‘I think any player would love the opportunity to play at the Olympics,’ she told BBC Scotland. ‘It’s probably the biggest thing in sport. ‘But to have anything taken away from playing for Scotland or any opportunity for younger girls and boys coming up would be a major disappointment for the SFA.”

Again, it can be seen that the future of football is being squarely placed on the shoulders of the current players and personal ambitions to play on a stage like the Olympics are of secondary importance.

On the men’s side, Gareth Bale of Wales has made it clear that he supports Team GB. ”‘I want to play in the Olympics,’ said the Tottenham Hotspur winger. ‘I think it would be a great experience. ‘At the moment Wales haven’t qualified for a major tournament in I don’t know how many years so it would be nice to play in one against the best countries in the world. ‘You see it with the British and Irish Lions in the rugby, they come together as a unit and play against other countries. It’s great and there’s no reason why that can’t happen with the football.’”

Of course, as I brought up earlier, there are inherent issues in combining four teams into one (especially with the rivalries involved). Neville Southall, a former captain for Wales asks “‘What flag are they going to put up if they win it? [The] Union Jack? It’s not my flag. My flag’s a dragon.’” This particular article goes on to look into the culture of UK soccer and how opposing fans would feel supporting the same side and how could they support the team when the go-to chants and songs are no longer appropriate.

What the crux of the debate comes down to is distrust in FIFA (a very common sentiment). The Celtic FAs don’t believe that FIFA will keep their word that combining teams for the 2012 Games will not affect their status as independent footballing nations. (The Scotsman has reported that Blatter has unofficially confessed that Scotland’s participation in this team would undermine their status as an independent footballing nation.) Unless some sort of legally binding agreement promising this is put forth, this issue is going to continue to divide England from the Celtic nations.

The reason that this issue is so fascinating is because it is so embedded into the world of politics and identity. We tend to like to think of sports as separate from the ‘real’ world. In Durkheimian terms sport is the realm of the sacred and by bringing in politics and identity issues the profane has crept in and contaminated this space in a way. Even the title of this blog follows this thinking (even if the content doesn’t). With the political nature of the UK the way it is (and contested by many) it is no surprise that representatives of these Celtic nations would want to stand up and assert their independence in any domain they can. Soccer is one of the last truly separate domains that these four nations have and anything that threatens that isn’t just a threat to the future players who would have a tougher time finding room on one national team as opposed to four, it is a threat to the notion of identity. Are these players British? Scottish? Welsh? Irish? Northern Irish? English? The breakdowns could continue for days but each player and each representative on the FAs are answering this question and assessing it’s importance in relation to this sporting competition. Now, Julie Fleeting stated above in no uncertain terms that she is Scottish and proudly so and that is why she is taking the stand she is. Gareth Bale on the other hand has made no claims to his identity, rather his argument is put forth in terms of sporting opportunities. Does this make him less Welsh than a player who would stand and support the Welsh FA in their opposition to Team GB? That depends on who you ask I suppose. But no matter the answer, this is a topic that is coming up over and over again in this saga (for lack of a better word) both implicitly and explicitly. As much as the IOC likes to pretend that the Olympics are separate from politics, this issue has put the two squarely in the same conversation and it is front and center for all to see.

What is really interesting is the intended symbolism of the Torch. It’s the typically type of explanations that usually comes out – relations to the Olympic ideals and the like – but it’s still kind of cool to see. As already mentioned, the 8,000 holes covering the entire Torch are representative of each of the 8,000 Torchbearers and their stories. It is triangular in shape for a couple of reasons.

1) There are three pillars of Olympism – sport, education, and culture.

2) Three of the values of Olympism are friendship, value, and respect.

3) What I think is the best reason for the symbolism of the number three – London has hosted (including 2012) three Olympic Games (1908, 1948, 2012). London is the first city to be awarded the Olympics for three Games. (London has done a good job of finding little things that can be used to connect the images/symbols to both the city and the Olympic history in London and the UK more generally. The mascots are a good example. More of this type of stuff could have made the logo less of a magnet for criticism.)

The Torch Relay is always a fun part of the Games I think (when not being the subject of mass demonstrations and protests as was the case in 2008) because it allows members of the community a chance to take part in the Games either by being a Torchbearer or simply by lining up to watch the Flame on part of its journey. I was only 8 in 1996 but I still remember standing at the entrance to the complex I lived in at the time to watch the Flame go by. There was even a hand-off right in front of us. It was great. And in 2002 I was able to see one of the nightly cauldrons lit in Old Sacramento. I’ll never be an Olympian and back in 2002 I never thought I would get to go to the Olympics in person, it was the only way I was able to actually take part and it was great. Even if I was at the back of a giant crowd and couldn’t hear the speaker. I can’t wait to see the Flame in the East Midlands. I plan to be at least at Derby, Nottingham, and Leicester for the nightly ceremony. Hopefully it will actually cross through Loughborough too.

Lastly, if anybody has any family or friends in the UK that they think are inspirational (for their sporting acheivements, academic work, charity work, personal struggles, etc. really any reason) you can nominate them to be a Torchbearer. London 2012 is looking to recruit 2,012 Torchbearers (they really like that 2012 parallel) from nominations. Read more about how and who to nominate here.

Traditionally the IOC awards the TV rights to a company one Olympiad at a time (so two Games – summer and winter). However, NBC and Fox ($3.4 billion bid) made a pitch for two Olympiads in the hopes of creating a lasting presence and keeping prices at the level they are now (as they tend to increase each time). (ESPN only bid for one Olympiad at $1.4 billion and Fox submitted an alternate bid for one Olympiad at $1.5 billion.) With this being the case NBC has officially been granted the rights to the 2014 Sochi Olympics and the 2016 Rio Olympics as well as the 2018 and 2020 Games which have yet to be awarded to a host city (the candidates for 2018 are Munich, Germany, Annecy, France, and Pyeongchang, South Korea and the winner will be chosen this summer). By the time the 2020 Games have finished, NBC will have hosted 17 editions of the Olympic Games starting in 1964. They have been the exclusive host of the summer Games since 1988 and the winter Games since 2002. For the rights to the Vancouver and London Olympics NBC paid $2 billion with General Electric kicking in 2 million bringing the total to $2.2 billion for the two Games. (Remember that NBC took a loss of about $200 million and they may well lose money on London as well.) For the rights to these four Games NBC has committed to $4.4 billion ($2.2 per Olympiad again) though word on wether or not there is another sponsorship like the one with GE has not been heard.

The IOC clearly values the coverage (and money) that NBC provides and there are many benifits to staying with a company that has been covering the Games for so long. For one, they know what they are doing. Fox and ESPN have never hosted the Games before (ABC has I believe but long before the scale increased to current levels) which could have provided some growing pains for the coverage viewers would have seen. Not only that but the switch to ESPN would have meant that many viewers would be left without coverage of much of the Games. NBC is a basic channel, ESPN is not. The IOC needs viewers to keep sponsors, volunarily limiting your available population is just not smart business. Staying with NBC also provides a level of consistency for viewers. I don’t know about you but I simply cannot picture watching the Games without Bob Costas in his studio speaking as if he is an expert on every sport or Mary Carillo and her, uh, eccentric pieces on the athletes, sports, and host city/nation. I know what to expect when I tune into an NBC broadcast of the Olympics and while Bob Costas entering the broadcast on a sea plane (has anybody discovered the reason he did this?) is ridiculous and doesn’t make the events themselves any more enjoyable, I don’t dislike it, it doesn’t detract from the Games. Switching to Fox or ESPN, there is the risk that some of the hosts could be utterly unbearable.

Perhaps the biggest complaint against NBC (and it is brought up every time the Olympics come around) is that they don’t air everything live. The air many of the smaller events live (and often on CNBC or MSNBC) but the main events – athletics, snowboarding, figure skating, gymnastics etc. – are all recorded and aired in prime time. Fox and ESPN had vowed to air everything live and simply use recaps and highlights and such in prime time. While this sounds like a great idea, I’m not entirely sold. I get the appeal of live events. With Twitter, Facebook, SI.com, ESPN.com and basically every other website that ever mentions sport, it is simple to find out the results of events as they happen. If the major events are tape delayed to show in prime time, many viewers already know who won. However, consider the alternative. If you don’t stay up into all hours of the night, wake up before sunrise, or skip work for two and a half weeks (not everybody can convince their boss to let them watch the women’s soccer gold medal game on one of the 50″ work computers during their shift like I did in ’08), you likely won’t see many of these events live anyway. And if they have already been shown and are not shown in full in prime time, you never get to see them. Personally, I would rather watch an event I know the winner of than not get to see the entire event at all and still know the winner.

I can’t wait til 2014 to see some NBC coverage again. I will miss Bob Costas and Mary Carillo in 2012…Though not enough to be disappointed that I don’t have to watch TV coverage.

Update 6-11-11: Reports are that NBC is planning to air all Games coverage live on one platform or another using prime time to re-air and highlight events.

For those of you who are annoyed with the system or confused as to what is going on, here’s a quick run-down…(Admittedly these quotes are taken from the current website but, having been on it obsessively before and during the ticketing application phase, I clearly remember all of this information being present then as well.)

London2012.com – About Tickets section

“If you applied for Olympic Games tickets prior to 26 April 2011 your application will be processed and, where demand for tickets exceeds supply, London 2012 will use an automated and random selection process (‘ballot’) to ensure the fairest possible distribution and allocation of tickets on a session-by-session basis. If you are successful, payment will be taken between 10 May 2011 and 10 June 2011. Please ensure you have sufficient funds available between these dates. A notification will be sent to confirm which tickets you have been allocated by 24 June 2011.”  (Emphasis added) (This is for UK/EU residents…for those of you outside the UK, the general priciples are the same but will vary depending on your NOC and the third party they contract with.)

So what can we take from this?

1) Over-subscribed events (things like the Ceremonies, swimming, athletics, gymnastics etc.) will basically be picked from a hat. Those with all the luck may end up with all of them, those without will miss out. If they are not oversubscribed you should, I believe – don’t quote me on that point – be awarded your tickets no problem. Therefore, if you only applied for a couple of really popular events, do not be surprised if your money is still in your account, it’s likely to stay there.

2) If you haven’t been charged yet, don’t start cursing London 2012 yet…Wait until the end of next Friday (June 10th). While most accounts have been debited by this point, not all have. There’s still time.

3) If you have had money taken out and are wondering what you have tickets for, you could be waiting another three weeks. It’s not ideal (I personally spaz everytime my e-mail notification sounds – even at 1am when I know it would not be an e-mail from London 2012) but it is what it is. There are a lot of tickets and a lot of notifications to send out. Things take time. The deadline is June 24th, it’s only June 3rd.

I know everybody wants to see the big events, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Ian Thorpe, Opening Ceremony, etc etc etc but it isn’t realistic to be applying for only those tickets thinking you will get them. It’s a lottery, it’s a legitimate test of chance. I would love to see Usain Bolt v. Tyson Gay in the 100m final but I didn’t even apply for that session because I knew it would be one of the most applied for events. About half of my application (and the cheaper half by far) were for preliminary rounds and heats and minor sports (or female events of major sports – soccer I’m looking at you) because I figured that would give me a good shot at getting a few tickets. It seems to have worked as it looks like I have had £336 taken out of my account (£10 for the offical program and £6 for the processing fee). So that leaves me with £320 worth of tickets. That’s still only about 30% (money-wise – no idea how many tickets. Could be between 3 and 11 if my math is right…) that I applied for. I gambled and went big and it paid off. Not everybody can do that, I understand, but tickets were made affordable and if you were willing to go to prelims and watch less popular sports you didn’t automatically need to apply for thousands of pounds of tickets. The system isn’t perfect but it works and it is working as it was advertised to. That’s all you can reasonably ask at this point I think.

As for the old complaints about Visa being the only accepted card, it’s the way it is. It has been this way for years. Visa pays absurd amounts of money to be a TOP sponsor and they are generously rewarded. If you plan on being anywhere near London in 2012 and don’t have a Visa card, go on-line and get a pre-paid Visa debit. You can set your spending limit (a good way to make sure you don’t overspend) and be all set to enjoy the Games and the high prices that will inevitably be charged.

Now, I am going to return to refreshing my e-mail every 10 minutes for the next 3 weeks…

It was clear from early on that Lyonnais was not going to settle for losing to Potsdam two years running. (Last year these two teams went 9 deep in penalties to decide the game.) Camile Abily had a strong showing in the midfield while Thomis and Schelin basically had their way with the Potsdam defense for most of the game and Renard seemed to multiply at will appearing everywhere on the field. Lyonnais played skillful soccer and went right at Potsdam controlling the midfield and making sure Potsdam couldn’t get into any sort of rythym leading into the final third. (This was often done by way of fouling especially when Bajramaj had the ball). It was surprising to see Potsdam come out and be dominated from the outset but what was also surprising was the play of Sarholz. A hero in last year’s final she had a few moments that had to make any Potsdam supporter cringe – some missed catches, harmlessly falling out of the box, on mid-air challenges as well as a bobbled shot that lucky for her was not being followed in. She does deserve some credit, however,  for playing in obvious pain after a first half collision with Schelin.

Overall, a fun game and a good crowd. Can’t really complain when you have that.

A few of the ~600 pictures from the game…Enjoy.

With the announcement of the USWNT WWC roster the other day, fans and bloggers (myself included) began to look at the list of players and discuss what we thought. Was anybody left off the team that we thought deserved a spot? Did somebody get a spot that maybe would have been better given to another player? How have these players been performing in recent games for the US and their WPS clubs? These sorts of questions aren’t exactly foreign territory in the sports world. Fans in every sport critique their teams. Who among us hasn’t yelled at our TV at some point telling our favorite team/player/coach what they should be doing or who should be playing? I know I have. Frequently.

Of course, I make no claims to be an expert on any sport and I in no way aim to suggest that I would make a better coach of the USWNT than Pia Sundhage or a better coach of the Red Sox than Terry Francona. That’s not the point, the point is that as fans we feel invested in our teams and whether or not our opinions are actually better (or even useful/logical) we express them as a way to interact with our teams. You won’t find me telling Joe Girardi who to play and who to sit because I have absolutely no interest in what the Yankees are doing at any point in time (unless they are losing, then I’m very interested.) My criticisms of my favorite teams or players are not a way of saying that I no longer support them, rather it is one way that I express support, it’s a show of interest that I actually have taken the time to consider what the situation is and generate an opinion of any sort.

So back to the USWNT and the WWC roster…The critiques of players and the evaluations of the roster are not (at least from me and I assume from many others) a way of rejecting these players. I respect what they are able to do, I wish I were able to play the way they can. However, it seems as if some players are not exactly thrilled about fans expressing our “amateur” opinions as opposed to giving unfailing support. (If you don’t follow the USWNT players on Twitter you can catch up on the action here to understand where this post is coming from.) Don’t get me wrong, players, like everybody else, are allowed to have their opinions and express them however they want, but is arguing with fans really the best way to go about it? Is this the inevitable downside to the level of access fans can have to players (and vice versa)? Women’s soccer is very much a niche sport and it doesn’t seem prudent to tell fans (basically) that we shouldn’t have opinions. For the vast majority of us, we will never know what it is like to be a pro athlete, that’s a given, but players do know what it is like to be a fan. Support your teammates, good on you for that, but why not do it without criticizing or alientating your fanbase?

Just my thoughts…