The U.S. women will head into the belated 2020 Olympics as massive favorites, even with a roster that reads more like a Hall of Fame ballot than a collection of the best current talent a country with a thriving development pipeline would offer.
The competition simply isn’t there. Literally. With only three slots available for European teams, the USA need not face second-ranked Germany or third-ranked France, countries that account for 23 of the top 100 players in The Guardian’s annual ranking. (The USA has nine players on that list, two of whom aren’t on the Olympic roster.) England will have to keep its chemistry while competing as “Great Britain.”
All 12 teams, along with their male counterparts, will be chasing prize money of $0. The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee offers $37,500 per gold medal out of its own pocket, though its sponsors probably don’t mind. U.S. Soccer would be on the hook for $100,000 per player, $1.8 million total, along with a $1.2 million bonus for a four-game victory tour.
What if they could do better by not going to the Olympics?
It’s certainly a counterintuitive thought. Athletes -- or at least the associations representing them -- are falling all over themselves to get onto the Olympic program. This year, surfers, climbers and skateboarders will compete for medals and attention.
But that’s part of the problem. At the Olympics, women’s soccer is just one of 339 medal events. At the Women’s World Cup, the spotlight is all theirs.
Meanwhile, women have more outlets to play than they did a decade ago. The NWSL competes for talent with rapidly growing professional leagues in Europe. Having a World Cup Lite on a crowded Olympic stage the year after the World Cup just interrupts the NWSL for a second straight year and adds to the fatigue for the few European players who participate in international tournaments over back-to-back summers along with their fall-to-spring club seasons.
At this point, the Olympics need women’s soccer more than women’s soccer needs the Olympics. And that’s a low bar. The Olympics will be just fine with 338 medal events -- or, more interestingly, if the women’s soccer tournament becomes an U-23 event like the men’s tournament is, sort of.
Without the Olympics, national teams would still have a void -- except in Europe, where teams can play in the Women’s Euro.
So suppose the rest of the world had something equal to the Women’s Euro?
One continent might not do the trick. Asia could put together a credible tournament with five top-20 teams (Australia, both Koreas, Japan and China). Concacaf, though, would have the USA occupying one tier, Canada occupying another, Mexico and Costa Rica in another, and then little else. South America isn’t quite there. Africa is sending 104th-ranked Zambia to the Olympics.
Uniting the Americas into a Copa America is an obvious decision, pulling Brazil and an occasionally competitive Colombian team alongside the USA and the rest of Concacaf.
But why stop there?
Why not have an Americas-Asia-Africa Women’s Championship? Market it as Triple-A if you like, glossing over the fact that inviting an Oceania representative (read: New Zealand, with Australia long ago bolting for Asia’s confederation) would be a good idea.
Now we’re talking about a decent event. Compare it with the 2020 (2021) Olympic field -- the Netherlands, Sweden and Great Britain would be out, but North Korea (ranked 10th), South Korea, Colombia and Mexico would be in.
This tournament could have 16 teams instead of the 12 in the Olympics. African and South American teams would have more opportunities to compete and grow the sport in their countries, and yet the field wouldn’t be too watered down.
Going strictly by FIFA rankings -- flawed, but the best measure we have -- and reserving at least two spots for each continent, we’d have the following:
1. USA (Concacaf)
7. Brazil (South America)
8. Canada (CONCACAF)
9. Australia (Asia)
10. North Korea (Asia)
11. Japan (Asia)
14. China (Asia)
19. South Korea (Asia)
22. New Zealand (Oceania)
26. Colombia (South America)
28. Mexico (Concacaf)
33. Vietnam (Asia)
35. Argentina (South America)
36. Costa Rica (Concacaf)
38. Nigeria (Africa)
52. Cameroon (Africa)
There’s one more way to make sure this event gives women’s soccer more of the spotlight:
Hold it in December.
European clubs might balk at giving up some players for the tournament. But it seems only fair to have one event (World Cup) held during an NWSL season and another held during the European season.
December is generally a dead time for major events, with all due respect to the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl and the short-course swimming world championships. Weather won’t be an issue -- it’ll be summer in several of the eligible host countries, Tokyo temperature is pleasant, and Shanghai is similarly mild.
A Triple-A Women’s final could potentially have the airwaves to itself. In this year’s Olympics, the women’s final (11 a.m. Tokyo time, a relatively friendly time for Californians at least) will coincide with the women’s beach volleyball medal matches, women’s golf, women’s bronze medal field hockey (important in some areas of the world), karate, rhythmic gymnastics, table tennis and wrestling. If the game goes to overtime, it will overlap with a women’s volleyball semifinal. Had organizers scheduled the final for the Tokyo evening, it would have gone up against six track and field medal events, team handball, field hockey, karate, modern pentathlon, table tennis, volleyball, wrestling finals, and the women’s climbing finals.
The best part, as it relates to the women’s soccer pay dispute: Multiple confederations can pool resources to offer prize money, buoyed by what should be substantial broadcaster interest in the USA, China and surely a few other countries.
So instead of asking U.S. Soccer to pay infinity percent of nonexistent Olympic prize money as bonuses for the women’s team, the federation could pay 100% -- as it essentially does for the World Cup, when the Victory Tour bonus is included -- of what should be a prize pool rivaling that of FIFA, which tosses around cash for a great many things but is still miserly when it comes to women’s soccer competitions.
And if anyone misses the Olympics, just make sure the medals are nice as well.
The alternative to the Olympic Women's Soccer Tournament is a really good one. It is better than the Oympic turnament. Aldo, the roster would be expnaded to 23 players, instead of the present 18. More teams in the tourney would provide better competion.
Except for the WC
Nothing is bigger in "worldwide" soccer than the Olympics.
Increase the number of teams to 24, maybe 28
Problem (if there ever was one) solved
Sorry but the Men's World Cup is the largest sporting event on the planet!
Sorry, But the Olympics are "Bigger" than the WC... Just ask anyone who has been a participant in both... I say I was part of US National Soccer Team; Usually get; "Oh, that's Cool". End of Discussion... I say I was on The US Olympic Team; and the Questions are Never Ending... When, Where, What Sport("Soccer, I didn't even know there was Soccer in the Olympics"), What other "Stars" did you meet, What was the Food Like, Did you Win a Medal.??? Etc, etc, etc...Show off my Team Ring, That Really gets them.!!!
Except for the WC
There is nothing in "worldwide" soccer bigger than the Olympics
Increase the number of teams to 24 or 28
Problem (if there ever was one) )solved
But if you expand the Olympic field, you have to play more games in that short window. It's already too compressed.
For a couple of paragraphs, I thought the Confederations Cup format was going to be suggested for the women -- which in itself wouldn't be a bad idea.
Olympics should be a U23 event for the women as well as the men.
I'm certainly ok with U23
The 3 exceptions however are... silly at best
The Olympic Committee wanted professional athletes to generate more TV revenues. Greed.
I guess we have completely forgotten the amateur origins of the Olympics.
Beau, you left out the obvious solution to your stated problem--send an amateur team and let the pros stay home. There isn't a lot of difference between pros and top amateur players. Especially in the US.
With the New NCAA Rulings, you will have to go down to Non-Pro High School Players to find "Amatuers".
An intriguing idea. Albeit complicated it might work. However wouldn't it be easier to just expand the number of teams to 24 or 28? I do like the idea/suggestion to make the womens olympics more like the mens soccer or like a U23 with 2-3 under 30 players. With all the bright minds out there they just have to figure out how to do the prize money. If there has to be for the Olympics. However suing for nonexistant money isn't the answer. My two cents. Go USA!
And expand the roster to 23. Gives more players a chance to have the honor to play for their country. That is the underlying idea for the Olympics - right?
USSF should have pressed forsomething. As it is the Euros will/have become the second largest tournament and is much more attractive, pulling $ , players and eyeballs away from anything else. I've thought if NWSL and W League clubs could engage players to give them 10 months of playing time every year they could capture more/better players while improving play and gaining better sponsorship. Guess it's too late for that now that Europe has finally started becoming interested in the women's version of the Euros.
Wasn't there a Women's World Cup in France in June and early July 2019, which US beat Holland for the championship, and Sweden beat England for 3rd place? The next one will have 32 teams and is scheduled for late July and August 2023 (during the winter in the southern Hemisphere) in Australia and New Zealand
Been an advocate to end participation of WoSo NT's particpation in the Olympics for many years. Its attraction fulfills a need prvavelent in many countries regarding the import of he IOC quadrenniel; but FIFA gave dispensation to the women to include their Senior NT's based on making WoSo grow.
The author's rationale behind eliminating the Olymics is spot on since the best teams are not represented in the tournament by the limitation of three UEFA teams. One may disagree with the suggested alternative made by Dure; but his prmise is correct. Of course FIFA will raise concerns about lowering their WC brand by combining Federations; yet it stll makes sense.