Reply With Quote
So how does FIFA set the age limits for the Olympic compe ion?
somehow it's always easy to slide a football reasoning into a basketball thread.....lol
So how does FIFA set the age limits for the Olympic compe ion?
I told you not to bring the soccer analogy. You do not listen to me
All soccer clubs have to release their players for the WC, it's qualifiers, the continental tournaments (which you have dubbed as "minor") and some friendlies, which are call FIFA dates (fechas FIFA in Spanish).
You started the paragraph with the right concept "I don't know the soccer situation well at all . . .", but screwed it up later
.
I have never heard of a star soccer player not wanting to play for their NT in one of the tounaments I have stated above. It is unheard of.
Name the torunament please. I can bet half of what I own it is not the qualifiers or the WC.
I don't know the exact answer. I will try to find out by doing some googling.
I suppose it is because soccer, being the most popular sport in the World, already has mayor compe ions, therefore, the Olympic games are not that prestigious (for soccer fans).
I would not be surprised if in the future, the age limit is eliminated. Already you can have 3 players per squad which are over the age limit of (is it 23?)
I'll bow out of soccer discussion.
But Reyna was playing some important game with his Scottish team and didn't play in a regional qualifier for the US.
If it's true thet FIFA supercedes a team and it's contractedplayers then it must be some communist organization.
To say that everyone who does not agree with your position is "wrong" is quite narrowminded in itself, wouldn't you agree?
I can see where TPark and Sequ are coming from. Injuries have been a common fear for Spurs fans. We all know how they can make or break a season. Let's admit it: Plantar Fascitis was something we all knew and hated. But as TPark pointed out, the whole Parker-injury situation has only served to validate these concerns. This is a Spurs forum, first and foremost. That's why we're all here; we're all Spurs fans, although it's become evident that others are player first - Spurs second.
I didn't mean that to be a knock on anyone. I understand everyone's priorities are different. The flaming is quite senseless, as are the 'getting hit by a bus' or 'catching a cold' analogies. I'm not saying that US management is completely not to blame. One astute poster has already mentioned that the US shouldn't pay these guys so much and I agree. It's stupid to blame the international players that make money here - why blame a dog for eating the food that was placed in front of him? But to use American arrogance/ignorance as a scapegoat is asinine.
Sequ, the players play for their countries. They value their teams differently. I don't like it, but I can certainly understand it. And because I'm not Pop, RC or whoever can actually do something about it, I've been pretty quiet about expressing my opinions on such a touchy matter. Props to those who did.
Guys, it's simple.
For almost every huma being, NT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> local team.
I'd rather have Argentina win the next 5 WC than my local team, River Plate, ever win a local tornament in my lifetime.
It could be that his club "suggested" or "hinted" that it might be better that he plays for them instead. This happens in basketball too, we're missing Sasha and last year Smodis, because of that player putting his club career infront of his NT. Some players are like that, others not.
Just curious. I wonder if some of it has to do with the fact that the best basketball players from most countries gravitiate to a foreign team in the US so you only have peripheral involvement with the player and the team. Same goes for Latin soccer fans who see their best players going to clubs in Europe.
Question: Would a rabid English Manchester United fan rather see Man win the highest club level championship or England win the WC? I know I'd rather see the Spurs win the next NBA championship than the US win the next 5 Olympics.
compe ions in the olympics are organized by their respective federation. FIFA sets the refs and rules for Olympic soccer.
EDIT: also OC might not want a too big/good soccer tournament, since it might overshadow all their other compe ions.
Thanks.
Like I said it's always about the money and the power/control in the end.
btw no way the OC wouldn't want a bigger soccer tournament if they could get it. $$$
yes they wouldn't, if getting it meant no air time for other sports. Many sports federation main income is olympics.
FIFA
You know nothing is compared with FIFA World Cup
hmmmmm, I DO AGREE with your reasoning
I am not English, but please English people let me answer .... YES ... FIFA WC is the biggest event form almost every Human being in this Planet (ok, we know USA doesn't share our passion).
When you represent your contrypeople, you are playing for your colours, for your COUNTRY, it is a question of pride and honor; it is hard to explain starting from Intl point of view ... for us sound so natural ... even for those little devils from Manchester.
I would guess that for most US citizens, it's exactly the opposite.
Ask how many Spur fans here would give up any of their three NBA les for the 02 WC or the 04 Olympics.
I think the WC and Olympics are important and want to see our players there, but they're not as important as the NBA.
mmm... tough one.
I'd rather see my local soccer team win a local championship than Argentina to win a WC heheh.
But thats maybe because my team has 4 local les... and Smeagol's River Plate has more than 30
People do not own athleates. They are employees, but employees in the end will still do as they wish. If someone wants to play for their national team - which I think is a much greater honor than playing for the San Antonio Spurs or any other NBA team - then I think they should take advantadge of the opportunity to its fullest.
If an NBA owner feels strongly against this, they can write it into their contracts. But that is just another thing you have to bargain for. If you make players agree to your terms, you will have to agree to theirs. It is a negotiation and just because the owners pay the checks doesnt' mean they wield all the power. Not by a huge longshot.
The bottom line is that people like Tpark want their desires - in this case the Spurs chances for a le - to be addressed first. I think the players are allowed a say in what they want to do well before anyone is allowed to decide for them.
No, no one can write in a contract for a player not to play in FIBA tournaments. No court would back it up. That would be possible only as a protection after already harboring an injury ( omnipresent Spurs medical staff etc). Slovenian players had problems especialy in football, since they were in and out of club while they never had a true spot in their team. Club cannot touch them, since they are protected as a member of a national team. But club can take serious measures like putting them on a bench or inactive list. That can even happen to a great player in football, if he doesn't behave.
Thought is that every nation deserves a good and stabile national team. Every club deserves just what his manager and players are willing to put in. Owner can always make mistakes and managers can be stupid, but national teams have to produce the optimum performance.
Clubs have so smart owners and genious coaches, but national teams have the glory of inspiring the youth who likes the sport being played. Thats how it should always be.
If the US wins three or four olympic bronce medals in a row while sending teams of NBA players who are very talented but simply not good enough (a la 2004), let's see if Americans still think the same way, or many would start trading their NBA (or future NBA) les for a gold medal.
I can almost guarantee you that will never happen. The only ones who would say that would be people who are college-only fans, but I can also guarantee that none of them would trade an NCAA championship for their favorite team for any gold medals.
Just look at baseball. Nobody really cares how the US does in the Olympics or the World Baseball Classic. I bet not one fan would give up an NCAA or World Series le for one of those others.
Sure, people will get upset if the US doesn't win gold medals, but that will NEVER be the priority in this country.
Interesting
No, it's country first (National Team), Spurs second.
Reyna plays for an English club, Manchester City, that got demolished 3-0 by Chelsea. He probably didn't play in the qualifier because he was injured for most of the months leading to the world cup.
Soccer is definately important to me and I am a HUGE soccer fan. It was Cameroon that won the olympics in 2000 by beating spain. I will never forget that moment. It would be nice if an African team can also win the World Cup. Maybe in South Africa in 2010
One reason these things aren't as important here is because Americans automaticaly assume they are the best. Seriously, we don't care how much we stack up against other teams because we feel we're the best hands down. Even when we don't win these compe ions, we never for a second think Argentina is better.
I wouldn't trade the Spurs le for Olympic Gold, but if I was a player, I would cherish the Olympic Gold way more than an NBA le. I simply feel its a great honor to play for your country. When your country comes to you and says that you are the best and they want you to represent them, I think is is huge.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
