Article by Glen Tomlinson
As the electric static of a magnificent tournament and a collective exhaustion of spectators, athletes and organisers rippled across the Seine for one last time this weekend, the Olympic football tournament ended. The Paris Games were studded with controversy, heartbreak and a stunning display of the human at their physical apex. France did well to cement the fact that the Olympics is truly one of sports greatest pageants. The United States women’s team’s nail-biting triumph over Brazil was a worthy win and they rightly deserved to hoist their fifth gold medal on high in the Parc des Prince on Saturday. From coach Emma Hayes’s triumphant roar to the players’ joyous pile-on over goalkeeper Alyssa Naeher, the victory was a moment of undeniable achievement and joy.
As the tinsel settles and the stadiums are once more silent, the broader implications for the women’s football landscape come sharply into focus. The Olympics, a venerable fixture in sports, now faces scrutiny about its role and relevance in an evolving sporting ecosystem. Is it possible to balance the demands of international tournaments with players’ need for rest? You must ask yourself whether the sacrifice these players make to play in the Olympics are commensurate with audience engagement often diluted by other minor sporting disciplines competing for the limelight. Let’s be honest, to shine for your country for two weeks every four years seems like a sure bet. A number of players and their paying clubs will tend to disagree.
Although the commitment and national pride of these players representing their countries is unquestionable—each tournament brings its share of tears, both of joy and disappointment. Yet, as we reflect on the intense schedule and the physical toll on the players, the need for reform becomes clear. The women’s final is a grueling culmination of six matches in just over two weeks and it highlights the excessive demands placed on these players. Suggestions such as expanding squad sizes, removing extra time in favour of direct penalty shootouts, or transitioning to an under-23 format have been floated as possible solutions. I believe these should be considered.
The troubles are clearly illustrated by the Lionesses failure to secure Olympic qualification for Team Great Britain. Despite the obvious politics and logistics of forming a united team GB, they simply did not top their Nations League group, a necessary step for Olympic eligibility. Despite an emphatic 6-0 win against Scotland in their final group match, England finished second to the Netherlands, who maintained a superior goal difference. You would have thought the Netherlands who also missed out on Olympic qualification, losing in the semi-finals and the third-place play-off, would have walked through. This left Spain, Germany, and host nation France to represent Europe in the 2024 Olympic women’s football tournament. Surely not a fair outcome considering the prodigious pool of players Great Britain has to draw from.
This year’s tournament also prompted a reevaluation of the Olympic football format itself. Attendances outside Paris were sparce and viewer fatigue was clearly a factor in the low television viewership numbers. Sensible critics will understand that there were more sports viewing options on offer than a loaded French charcuterie board and this contributed to the poor numbers.
Despite these challenges, the IOC and FIFA have a window to rethink and revamp the tournament. The Olympics train has already left the station for Los Angeles 2028 and there’s hope that these discussions will lead to a more sustainable and engaging Olympic football experience. But the willingness to undertake such changes remains to be seen. Will the next Olympic cycle bring about the necessary adjustments, or will it be business as usual? The football community watches and waits in anticipation.
Image courtesy of Eurosport: https://www.eurosport.com/