So is Argentina the favorite for the gold medal?

There may be perfectly good reasons for this (which is why I'm asking) but why do US rosters always take forever to be released? Are they being super secretive? Is it THAT hard to pick out a squad?

I would guess it takes some time because we don't have the obvious choices such as Acosta, Aguero, Messi, etc. That's without even getting into the question of over-age players, which is probably an involved process.

USA has to take into account a World Cup qualifier during the Olympics.

Geoff we going to get any coverage of the free kick masters thing going on in Houston?

Why would FIFA schedule WC qualifiers during the Olympics? It's almost as if they're working at odds with the Olympic Committee...

Goff: If my reading of Article 10 of the regs governing the competition is correct, the deadline for naming the squads is only a few days away:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/regulations_olympics_beijing_2008_en_6198.pdf

Also, I'm reposting some Olympic-related news from an earlier thread:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A37901225

Why would FIFA schedule WC qualifiers during the Olympics? It's almost as if they're working at odds with the Olympic Committee...

Posted by: Scott | July 3, 2008 9:39 AM
=========================================

CONCACAF is doing the scheduling at this phase. I guess Honduras has the same problem.

Olympic preliminary list is due soon, but according to ussf, they have until July 23 to set the final roster.

FIFA doesn't set the qualifiers; in this case, CONCACAF does.

Free kick masters coverage?? Please tell me you're joking.

Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former groundskeeper, now, about to become the Free Kick Masters champion. It looks like a mirac... It's in the net! It's in the net! It's in the net!

On a differernt note, how does LAG continue to simply walk out and get whatever player they seem to need? Who are they cutting? I know this will prompt a thousand "MLS does what MLS wants" responses, but how silly is this? What are they paying for this guy and who are they getting rid of? Just curious. I know! Maybe they should just take the Argie Olympic team. That team plus Cakes and Becks might win some games in MLS. :)

The Libertadores final last night was great stuff. Watching the Quito coach during the penalties was funny. He looked like someone's grandfather sitting in the living room waiting for dinner.

And the Olympics only affects 16 (?) teams, right? Can't blame them for scheduling at the same time.

who are they getting rid of?

-------------

A Ruiz trade is in the works.

Does Ruiz take his grandfathered DP designation with him or does LA keep the spot, or should I even bother to ask? And will Brian McBride start for Chicago on Tuesday :-)

Why would FIFA schedule WC qualifiers during the Olympics? It's almost as if they're working at odds with the Olympic Committee...

Posted by: Scott | July 3, 2008 9:39 AM

Actually, the IOC and FIFA are in cahoots. That's why the Olympics is a youth tournament. They don't stop proper senior level football for them. I'm surprised that Liverpool have allowed Mascherano to go as an overage player. He'll miss a couple Premier League matches.

Otherwise, Argentina can send a strong squad because their good players are so young and the Spanish and Italian leagues begin after the Olympics.

Nothing in life is free. Not even kicks.

I think one reason US Soccer delays the roster release is injuries. SOMEBODY is going to get hurt between now and mid-July -- Murphy says so -- so it's a matter of who to move from "alternate" to the roster, and who to add as an alternate, when that injury occurs.

Since I have TWO men's league games this weekend, I may have just jinxed myself...

Olympic preliminary list is due soon, but according to ussf, they have until July 23 to set the final roster.
==========================================

Again, I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the "preliminary list" would contain 22 names, and thus the only thing left to be done between then and July 23 would be to decide who will be in the first 18, and who will be an alternate. Doesn't that mean, for instance, that Nowak has to tip his hand concerning the three senior ringers pretty soon?

wow, argentina is throwing down the gauntlet. hopefully that will put some pressure on nowak/bradley to take their roster equally seriously.

i'm hoping we get to see mcbride with an overage spot!

While watching Copa Lib last night, I couldn't help but notice the big empty sections of seats.
Did their Barra and other supporters have a little spat?
Or did they get banned because they yelled "F*^# you" at someone? Of course, in Portuguese.
I guess the announcers were trying to tell me but, they spoke too fast for my mad 8th grade Spanish course skills.

While watching Copa Lib last night, I couldn't help but notice the big empty sections of seats.
Did their Barra and other supporters have a little spat?
Or did they get banned because they yelled "F*^# you" at someone? Of course, in Portuguese.
I guess the announcers were trying to tell me but, they spoke too fast for my mad 8th grade Spanish course skills.

Posted by: marksman | July 3, 2008 10:30 AM

Ummm, it is common practice to leave sections of seats empty around the AWAY FANS for their protection and ease of policing. Those were the Quito fans in the white replica jerseys sitting with the empty sections to the left and right.

not soccer related, but happy 4th to all of the SI Nation. enjoy the BBQ and soccer on the tube. thanks, goff, for all you provide us soccer junkies!

*Defender Eduardo Dominguez's move from Argentine club Huracan to the Los Angeles Galaxy is set, according to several Latin American media outlets. Dominguez has reached an 18-month deal and is scheduled to be introduced in the coming weeks.

Wow! Great old news there... Like 6 day old news...

"Free kick masters coverage?? Please tell me you're joking.

Posted by: Goff | July 3, 2008 9:51 AM "

Your general snarkyness coupled with reporting old news as something new is really turning me off this blog Goff.

Dude was just asking a question, why be mean and arrogant about it when simple "No" would suffice?

A stupid question like that deserved an answer like that.

NO.

"A stupid question like that deserved an answer like that.

Posted by: RK | July 3, 2008 11:53 AM

Perhaps by someone on BigSoccer or by some anonymous blog poster but not by a professional journalist. It was inappropriate.

Your general snarkyness coupled with reporting old news as something new is really turning me off this blog Goff.

Dude was just asking a question, why be mean and arrogant about it when simple "No" would suffice?

Posted by: Chill | July 3, 2008 11:45 AM
Ummmm...it's the freaking comment section of a blog. Jus' sayin'.

I really thought -- and he still might have been - joking when he (lax) asked that question.

Anyone interested in a free kick contest deserves a snarky response/ Go away

""Perhaps by someone on BigSoccer or by some anonymous blog poster but not by a professional journalist. It was inappropriate.""

Waaaaaaa

Goff hurt my feelings

Waaaaaaaa

Enjoy your freekicks

Luci won GotW. I guess that DCU three weeks in a row now. Does that mean we have superior goals or superior voting ability.

Perhaps by someone on BigSoccer or by some anonymous blog poster but not by a professional journalist. It was inappropriate.

Posted by: Chill | July 3, 2008 11:59 AM

***

Have you *ever* followed one of Wilbon's ChatHouse chats?

Here's a test for you: go on one in, say, May, ask about the Redskins draft options, and wait for your reply. It will make "Please tell me you're joking" seem like something Miss Manners would write.

This is a forum that allows reporters to express a bit of their own opinion. It's not an article in the dead tree edition.

Um, yes, we do have several obvious choices...Adu, Altidore, Bradley, Edu...those are no-brainers. The WC qualifier is a factor, but I think we'll be perfectly fine letting the U-23s field the strongest squad possible. The only issue, IMHO, is with overage assignments. McBride, Keller, and a defender (perhaps Conrad) seem to me to be the obvious choices. The folks saying we should send a Copa America-esque U-23 squad for the Olympics are idiots, plain and simple. This tournament matters.

The folks saying we should send a Copa America-esque U-23 squad for the Olympics are idiots, plain and simple. This tournament matters.

Posted by: Reston, Va. | July 3, 2008 12:06 PM

You have to send an U-23 squad. It's a youth tournament - those are the rules.

I agree with trying to get McBride to play as an overage player - I hope he does. Perfect situation for him.

Especially since McBride is being held hostage by Toronto...

Kev, why do you think it's a perfect situation for McBride? I would think he would want to settle for his new MLS club and get his family moved and situated more than play in the Olympics?

I know he has said he's open for it, but I never thought of his inclusion as that great a fit. He's 35, trying to meld with U-23's; doesn't seem all that simpatico.

I think that he'd like to play some soccer, wear a US shirt again and participate in the Olympics. 3 World Cups and an Olympic Games to cap off a tremendous international career.

And I'd hope he'd be able to teach the kids how to score some goals on an international stage! Any contact the youngsters can have with one of our finest players is good in my book.

Luci won GotW. I guess that DCU three weeks in a row now. Does that mean we have superior goals or superior voting ability.

Posted by: Glenn | July 3, 2008 12:03 PM

The first few wins, I'd say the quality goals factored greatly in the GOTW wins. This last one though...I'm DC United Forever and all, but I don't see how Luci wins with Ralston's piece of magic also up for contention. So I'm inclined to say that our vastly superior voting ability played a part there. Don't get me wrong, Luci's goal was nice and did call for skill and poise (though I though Cronin had some guilt in the whole thing too), but com'on Ralston's goal was sweet.

Either way it's all a moot point now. That said, if we win again somehow next week, then it will be quite obvious that the fix is in. :)

Actually, McBride is 36, as of two weeks ago. But I don't see why that would be a problem.

36? He's a youngster.

36? He's a youngster.

Posted by: Roger Milla | July 3, 2008 12:52 PM
======================================

So are you.

I'm 42 and just scored a hat-trick in a back yard game with my kids. Add those to the list!

Actually, the IOC and FIFA are in cahoots. That's why the Olympics is a youth tournament.
==========================================

Actually, that shows that IOC and FIFA are *not* in cahoots. IOC wants top-level competition in every sport, and it has managed to get it in every case except men's football, precisely because FIFA wants to protect the unique nature of the World Cup. Can you name one other Olympic competition that is age-restricted?

Can you name one other Olympic competition that is age-restricted?

Posted by: tri-village | July 3, 2008 1:08 PM
==================

Dressage. The horses must be at least 7 years old :-)

Actually, that shows that IOC and FIFA are *not* in cahoots. IOC wants top-level competition in every sport, and it has managed to get it in every case except men's football, precisely because FIFA wants to protect the unique nature of the World Cup. Can you name one other Olympic competition that is age-restricted?

Posted by: tri-village | July 3, 2008 1:08 PM

That was exactly my point tri - FIFA and the IOC have an agreement that mandates the Olympic soccer tournament will be age restricted. Old pals from Brazil Juan Antonio Samaranch (IOC) and Joao Havelange (FIFA) hammered it out a while back - hence my reference to them being in cahoots. FIFA have a say in the nature of Olympic soccer.

That was exactly my point tri - FIFA and the IOC have an agreement that mandates the Olympic soccer tournament will be age restricted.
=========================================

But my point is that that reflects FIFA's preferences, not IOC's, and was effectively forced on the latter by the former. The term "in cahoots" may suggest to some a commonality of purpose that just isn't there.

There was no force - Samaranch and Havelange agreed to the terms. FIFA (and member federations) wouldn't present a problem in keeping Olympic soccer alive - and Samaranch agreed to making it largely a youth tournament. Backs were scratched, tea was served. The common purpose for both organizations is making money and not pissing each other off, never was this more prevalent than the Samaranch/Havelange era.

The IOC gripe about it a bit nowadays, but I don't see it changing. There is no room for another major international competition nowadays - with so much club and international football.

Why would FIFA schedule WC qualifiers during the Olympics? It's almost as if they're working at odds with the Olympic Committee...

Posted by: Scott | July 3, 2008 9:39 AM

Actually, the IOC and FIFA are in cahoots. That's why the Olympics is a youth tournament. They don't stop proper senior level football for them. I'm surprised that Liverpool have allowed Mascherano to go as an overage player. He'll miss a couple Premier League matches.

Otherwise, Argentina can send a strong squad because their good players are so young and the Spanish and Italian leagues begin after the Olympics.

Posted by: Kev | July 3, 2008 10:09 AM
------------------------------------------

IOC and FIFA are not in cahoots, at all. Scott is right to believe that FIFA (and subsidiary regional organs like CONCACAF) do work "at odds with the Olympics." It is a longstanding battle that the Olympics has had with major sports, but one that FIFA is uiniquely poised to win.

FIFA absolutely does not want top players playing in the Olympics, at least in the men's game. Because the women's game is so much weaker internationally in the breadth and depth of its appeal, it works to everyone's advantage to have an Olympic tournament that operates much like a second World Cup. FIFA doesn't fear that as a challenge to the supremacy of the World Cup, since it has worked to enhance the appeal of the women's game.

The men's game presents a whole 'nother kettle of fish. FIFA doesn't want a meaningful Olympic tournament that might detract from the World Cup, which crowns a world champion every four years. The men's World Cup is the leading sports event in all the planet. So long as FIFA ensures that the Olympics cannot offer an alternative and an alternate world champion, the World Cup will remain the preeminent event.

Why the struggle? The billions -- someday, it will surely be trillions of dollars -- generated by the World Cup is controlled by FIFA. Olympics revenues go through the IOC. FIFA has the world to lose if the Olympics tournament was seen as being on a par.

That goes for the youth tournaments. FIFA is trying to develop the U-20 and U-17 tournaments inot prestige money-makers. They don't want the Olymics getting the way of that. They have made it a U-23 tournament to distinguish it, and as a sop to the IOC, they have included the three overage players -- a compromise to avoid all-out war. FIFA doesn't require that teams release players for the Olympics, in contrast to the rules regarding both qualifying games and play in the FIFA-controlled or FIFA-sanctioned tournaments.

The IOC isn't without influence. Look at what happened to basketball, hockey and baseball. The first two sports finally agreed to allow their professionals to compete in the Olympics. They did it because they needed to raise the international profile of the sports. Even in the is country, the Olympics raises the profile of the sport, especially for hockey. The leagues weren't anxious to offer an alternative to their own competition, but they saw some benefit in it, and knuckled under IOC pressure.

Baseball did not. The Olympic baseball tournament was for amateurs (except for Cubans). Not so long ago, MLB relented to allow some minor leaguers and retired players to join, so long as none of them had any prospect of being called up to the majors that year. MLB is trying to build up an laternate brand withe the WOrld Baseball Classic, in the mode of the FIFA World Cup. They thought they could play "hardball" with the IOC, and win.

Instead, the IOC has eliminated both softball and baseball as Olympic sports following the Beijing Games. Some of that was because of the negative publicity generated by the baseball scandal, and MLB's resistance to the IOC's rigid drug-testing policies. Mostly, however, it represents a power-play betweeen the IOC and MLB.

Unlike FIFA, MLB (and the American-controlled sports of baseball and softball) doesn't have the international stature to win that battle. MLB may not care that much, but the IOC was able to win this round, and the lords of baseball are left grovelling to apply for readmission as an Olympic sport.

With soccer, the roles are reversed. FIFA would almost prefer not to have an Olympic soccer tournament. Of course, it doesn't hurt the sport to have the IOC take its caravan and the Olympic soccer tournament to a new country every four years, but FIFA could live without it. So, they hold the upper hand in negotiations. That's why the Olympics is a junior tournament, and one in which even some of the best underage players may not play.

This is not the way the IOC wants it. They would love to have a huge tournament, with all the best players, guaranteed sellouts and huge global attention. Not only as an end in itself, but all those socer fans might also attend other events. As it is, the Euros are a far bigger, more-watched tournament, even outside Europe -- which is exactly the way UEFA and FIFA want it.

Fisch, are you trying to get all of your posts in before the 3-day weekend?

Ummm, it is common practice to leave sections of seats empty around the AWAY FANS for their protection and ease of policing. Those were the Quito fans in the white replica jerseys sitting with the empty sections to the left and right.

Posted by: Off the Mark

Hmmmm. Thanks.
Guess I would watch it at home if it were that crazy.

Fisch - In political praxis, your explanation does not account for the Havelange-Samaranch agreement, which was my original point.

Olympic soccer still exists because of this. They scratched each others backs throughout the 80s and 90s. They agreed on the Olympic soccer structure, Havelange helped Samaranch secure the 92 Games for Barcelona and the two organizations share common strategy on sponsorship - well, even share sponsors. The U-23 deal is all about mutual exclusivity, a peace accord trying to look out for each others best interests. The IOC won't taint the World Cup and FIFA won't kill Olympic soccer.

They are constantly scratching each others backs. Take the 2012 Games and 2014 WC for example. A big reason why 2012 went to London and not Rio was down to FIFA pending 2014 decision... Brazil. Of course there are competing interests between the two, but there is a détente based on the overlap between the two bodies.

Kev -- it's true that they've made a certain peace -- detente is a good term here. They are two superpowers whose interests are almost diametrically opposed ot each other, except that they can also work together to their mutual advantage and survival. But, still, FIFA sends its reminders to make sure the IOC understands who is the big dog.

Fisch - In political praxis, your explanation does not account for the Havelange-Samaranch agreement, which was my original point.
=========================================

This was an "agreement" in which FIFA effectively got virtually everything it wanted, and IOC did not.

IOC won't taint the World Cup and FIFA won't kill Olympic soccer.
==========================================

IOC couldn't do anything to harm the World Cup if it wanted to. On the other hand, FIFA was and is free to kill Olympic soccer at any time, simply by staging a U23 championship on its own. A more pronounced asymmetry in bargaining power can scarcely be imagined.

Good talk - enjoy your 4th weekend guys!