Lionel Messi and the Meaning of Olympic Soccer

Let's face it: the Olympic soccer tournament is probably the most meaningless, irrelevant international football competition in existence (with the possible exception of the CONCACAF Gold Cup). The big teams don't take it seriously , the player eligibility requirements are totally arbitrary, and FIFA doesn't even *officially* recognize it. Yet Messi, Diego, and Rafinha have been pretty insistent on getting a chance to play - Rafinha even skipped out on training camp rather than miss the Olympics after Schalke refused to release him.

Olympic soccer presents a bizarre conundrum. The Olympics themselves vie with the World Cup for the distinction of being the biggest sporting event in the world, and certainly any athlete should feel honored to be given the chance to compete in the Games. In many events, Olympic performances are one of the major standards on which players are judged. In women's soccer, even, there are few other opportunities for the players to prove themselves before such a large audience.

For the men's teams, however, the Olympics are far less significant. Of the four European teams competing in the group stages, only two (Italy and the Netherlands) participated in the finals of the European Cup earlier this summer, and both were eliminated in the quarterfinals of that tournament. Euro winners Spain failed to qualify, though they are hardly without young talent (Cesc Fabergas, Sergio Ramos, and David Silva, who each played in at least five of Spain's Euro matches, are all under 23). When you add in three older players, there is no reason that they should not have qualified. That they did not says quite a bit about their commitment to this competition.

It seems like there may be a bit of a positive feedback loop at work here. Part of the reason teams don't take the Olympics seriously is that the World Cup attracts more viewers in and of itself than do the Summer Games in their entirety. Yet fans aren't going to go out of their way to watch a match if they don't think it matters to their team.

Of course, it is quite possible that both players and fans would be much more focused on the Olympics if there were not so many other issues, many of which must be blamed at least in part upon FIFA. Blabbermouth president Sepp Blatter has issued several statements expressing his belief that clubs have an obligation to release players and decrying the recent CAS decision (Trademark Blatter quote, via the LA Times: “If all the national squads lose players, if clubs force them to return home, we will simply not have an Olympic football tournament here in Beijing. We could do beach soccer or a five-a-side tournament. That would be very sad and the world would not understand it.”) If football is doomed as an Olympic sport, however, Blatter and FIFA must accept at least a portion of the blame. The reason clubs can refuse to release players is that FIFA's rules on the matter are so vague; the reason clubs don't want to release players is that FIFA didn't provide a break from club games (Barca, for instance, has their first Champion's League qualifying game this week) or establish a system for insuring players.

And, all club/country dispute aside, FIFA is responsible for the most ridiculous aspect of the Olympic football competition: the rules for player eligibility. The tournament is not a pure U-23 affair, which would give young players an opportunity to compete on the world stage, provide a look at the future for fans, and give some consideration to the 'amateur' Olympic ideal. Neither is it a full international competition, the appeal of which needs no explanation. Instead, the current system tries to combine the two and succeeds only in making the matches more irrelevant than they already are.

From a stricly football-centric perspective, it is difficult to see exactly what the Olympics have to offer a player like Lionel Messi. A footballer of his caliber has little to gain in terms of experience with the competition and teammates available, especially when the alternative is playing in the Champion's League with a team like Barcelona. Even winning gold will do little for the well-established reputations of Messi and his country. So why would he choose to go to Beijing rather than stay at Camp Nou?

One thing that has been mentioned is that the Olympics are actually a big deal in South America, probably more so than in Europe. Brazil and Argentina, the region's two representatives in the tournament, really are the top two teams. Historically, the two teams have not done perhaps as well as they should in competitions held on European soil, so the Olympics may also be a way for them to reassert their dominance. Additionally, though the Olympics pale in comparison to the World Cup, Messi was not a major player in the last World Cup. He was only 19 at the time, and though he scored a goal against Serbia and Montenegro in the group stages, played only parts of three games. This is his first chance to feature as the star of anything even resembling the first team. And it is not just his own honor he may be considering - this is, after all, a player who turned down the opportunity to play for Spain because he preferred to wait for Argentina.

In any case, it looks as though all crises (except those of the U.S. teams) have been averted for the moment. The existence of Olympic soccer, however, is no more secure and no better justified than it ever was.

And on the future controversy watch:

1) FIFA will be reviewing its rules for player participation. Possible changes include clearer guidelines on releasing players and an end to three players over 23.

2) Great Britain doesn't usually bring a football team to the Olympics because it has four football associations and only one Olympic team. What will they do in 2012 when London hosts the Summer Games?