Jump to content

Great Britain Team


Laurence

Recommended Posts

In the summer it is good for fans to see competitive football

So I think a Great Britain team in the Olympics is a fantastic idea

Scotland N Ireland and Wales are not happy with England planning to enter a GB side

Now they see this as a threat to their individual identity as independent footballing nations

I think this is utter claptrap

Many of the teams  from fencing to Swimming, to Boxing etc all have their own individual controlling bodies, and  they are proud to see competitors from their own areas competing .

We have had combined rugby teams for years now  known as the "British Lions", and I see no people in that sport complaining.

The thing is the English Premier league is dominated by foreign players, So this sort of competition allows British players a chance , especially the younger ones to compete in a world competition.

There are age restrictions , I understand it is basically an Under 23 tournament, with a couple of older players allowed as make weights.

I am sure that a sensible coach will pick a balanced squad from the four countries of younger players who we can all get behind

The team will have to qualify first.

That may not be easy , as the other nations in Europe like Germany , Italy,  France, and Spain amongst others all have powerful squads.

 

I think it will be good fun taking part and the 4 nations will enjoy working together for once.

 

I think back to my younger days when the tournament was amateur , I seem to remember and I might be wrong, but the Queens Park club used to provide a lot of the players. No talk then of losing identity.

 

Also I must point out that 3 of the 4 nations theses days continually fail to qualify for the two big tournaments, because of the lack of good players.  Wales may be the exception.

 

Joining a great Britain team will give experience to younger players and give fans across the British Isles something to  cheer for

 

Lets go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in the 'nay' camp too. Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales are all separate entities under FIFA and that's how it should stay. Its nothing political, pro-independence or anti-English from me, just my opinion.

 

I also think comparisons to rugby or other sports are irrelevant and dangerous as for many years Sepp Blatter and those of his ilk in both FIFA and UEFA have been trying desperately to cut the influence and alleged "power" the four home nations have by having these four voices and permanent positions on the executive reduced or removed .....

 

in Mr Blatter's own words when referencing the idea of a 'British' team for the 2012 Olympics .... "If you start to put together a combined team for the Olympics, the question will automatically come up that there are four different associations so how can they play in one team? If this is the case then why the hell do they have four associations and four votes and their own vice-presidency? This will put into question all the privileges that the British associations have been given by the Congress in 1946.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself in a quandry with this one, solely regarding the Olympics.

 

Then I think "does football, a professional sport, require to be in the Olympics" to which the answer is . . .  no.

 

Quandry now solved.

 

As you were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst my view expressed on another thread is that sportsmen and women and sports fans in the UK would be better served by having a single UK (or GB) team for all team sports, the fact is that with a few exceptions and anomolies (eg. the "English" cricket team represents the Cricket Board of England and Wales) the home nations have separate sporting bodies.  The major exception to the rule is the Olympics.  That being the case, the issue really ought to be why the home nations are not represented separately at the Olympics. 

 

But, if there is a sound and compelling reason for the Olympics being different and requiring it being a GB & NI team, then why on earth should we approach the fielding of a UK team in football any different to all other Olympic team games? Being scared of Blatter is simply not a valid reason in my book.  OK, so Blatter will raise some questions.  So what?  The questions are there in any case and not just for football but all sports.  If there are valid reasons for the home nations to have separate football associations, what's the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there was a pretty good consensus on here in 2012 that Olympic football is a complete joke and really shouldn't be given house room. Tennis is the same and so would golf be if it were to be included because these sports already have their own global structure as major attractions.

Consequently, I would prefer the British Olympic Association simply not to bother entering a football team. I suppose you could see a sort of obligation for a home Games in 2012, but for Rio, I just wish they wouldn't bother.

But what gets the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish so twitchy is that they alone have preferred, separate status within FIFA and UEFA whilst not being sovereign nations, and this highlights that anomaly. It's a bit like Prussia or Tuscany having their own teams and the three who do so have that privilege because of the "Grandfather Rights" of international football starting among Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. What they therefore fear is that if the notion of a British football team becomes highlighted, pressure will grow for this privileged status  of Great Britain getting four bites at the cherry to disappear.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming we are still part of the Union come 2016 I think the only viable option would be to stage round-robin tournament featuring the home nations with the winner representing the UK in Rio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming we are still part of the Union come 2016 I think the only viable option would be to stage round-robin tournament featuring the home nations with the winner representing the UK in Rio.

It's not the composition of the players in the team that matters, but the fact they'd still be competing under the 'GB' banner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what gets the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish so twitchy is that they alone have preferred, separate status within FIFA and UEFA whilst not being sovereign nations

 

surely that applies to 'England' too Charles? or are you being selective in conferring the right to be the main FIFA member within the UK on the English FA with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish being happy to pick up the scraps from the table? 

 

However, you are also fundamentally wrong .... at last count there were 23 non-sovereign 'countries' who were members of FIFA and 7 sovereign ones who are not ! (and before anyone comments on the list below, Gibraltar are not FIFA members, just UEFA)

 

Non-sovereign nations that are current FIFA members

  • American Samoa (USA)
  • Anguilla (UK)
  • Aruba (Netherlands)
  • Bermuda (UK)
  • British Virgin Islands (UK)
  • Cayman Islands (UK)
  • Chinese Taipei (China)
  • Curaçao (Netherlands)
  • England (UK)
  • Faroe Islands (Denmark)
  • Guam (USA)
  • Hong Kong (China)
  • Macau (China)
  • Montserrat (UK)
  • New Caledonia (France)
  • Northern Ireland (UK)
  • Palestine
  • Puerto Rico (USA)
  • Scotland (UK)
  • Tahiti (France)
  • Turks and Caicos Islands (UK)
  • US Virgin Islands (USA)
  • Wales (UK)

 

NON-FIFA members that are associate members of continental Confederations

  • AFC: Northern Mariana Islands
  • CAF: Réunion
  • CONCACAF: French Guyana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint Martin, Sint Maarten 
  • OFC: Niue, Kiribati, Tuvalu

 

Sovereign Nations that are not members of FIFA or their continental Confederations

 

  • Federated States of Micronesia
  • Marshall Islands
  • Monaco
  • Nauru
  • Palau
  • United Kingdom
  • Vatican City
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats the motivation behind this though? We already have a world cup and Euro champs so a major tournament every 2 years with qualification phases, there are also equivilants for the U21's. So what does fielding a team of U23's with a few older players actually get for the home nations?

 

If you are any other nation, France, Germany, Spain its a few extra years for young players to stay together and transition into the senior squads but for a 'Team GB' its fragmented individuals where 2 or 3 per nation (at best) will play together longer - there is no real incentive I can see for why this is needed or of benefit?

 

While I accept that some players choose not to play as part of Team GB 2012 from Scotland, the stats are there out of the 22 man squad only 5 were Welsh, the rest English. Based on fair representation the squad should have 5 per nation, so why when Scotland and NI chose not to partake did England get the extra 10 slots, surely it should have been equal split. This is where I see a problem in future years - regardless of what makes the best team, if its a team GB then it needs to be equally representative but alas we know its not, this is just an English FA vanity project to try maintain interest in their National team in the face of dwindling quality and the foreign EPL invasion.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats the motivation behind this though? We already have a world cup and Euro champs so a major tournament every 2 years with qualification phases, there are also equivilants for the U21's. So what does fielding a team of U23's with a few older players actually get for the home nations?

 

If you are any other nation, France, Germany, Spain its a few extra years for young players to stay together and transition into the senior squads but for a 'Team GB' its fragmented individuals where 2 or 3 per nation (at best) will play together longer - there is no real incentive I can see for why this is needed or of benefit?

 

While I accept that some players choose not to play as part of Team GB 2012 from Scotland, the stats are there out of the 22 man squad only 5 were Welsh, the rest English. Based on fair representation the squad should have 5 per nation, so why when Scotland and NI chose not to partake did England get the extra 10 slots, surely it should have been equal split. This is where I see a problem in future years - regardless of what makes the best team, if its a team GB then it needs to be equally representative but alas we know its not, this is just an English FA vanity project to try maintain interest in their National team in the face of dwindling quality and the foreign EPL invasion.

I am not sure if you are asking about my motivation for raising this issue or are you challenging the English F A for wanting a team in the Olypics

 

However to address my own motivation

I thought I was quite clear, it was quite simply a desire to watch some football in Brazil that had some degree of home interest.

I really personally don't care about the internal politics of  the home nations.  I have long realised that England included that our nations just can't compete , as was seen in the last world cup in Brazil,

 

If the  smaller home nations want to plod on never getting to the final stages of these competitions well that's their affair, but is it good for the fans?

 

Surely the fans are not happy.

 

But to get back to the Olympics and motivation. I have personally no axe to grind except I think it would be a bit of fun to watch the men's football in the Summer of 2016, and before that taking an interest in the qualifying games

 

The women are preparing I am told are going to put a team in Brazil. I wish them luck

 

Again I don't like FIFA it is corrupt, money and back handers talk.

 

British football and top Euro football existed long before FIFA.

I suggest the top nations should ask themselves why are we in such a disgusting organisation.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, questioning the motivation of the English FA being the only body that really seems to want to push this forwards. The EFA benefit from self promotion and dominating the team with an over disporportionate representation of players based on the argogance of population bias - so I ask again what is the motivation for other home nations? I'm not English so I dont want to see an English dominated team I'm asked to support - if I am to back team GB I want to see 25% of the players in the squad and on the pitch at any time being Scottish and I expect anyone from Wales or N.Ireland is the same or another way no more than 25% English representation.

 

As for the comments regarding FIFA, do you think the IOC are less corrupt. Do you think that Olympic venues are selected only on the basis of cultural diversity and global sharing, not on who is offering the most incentives? Why are the venues historically dominated by North America and Europe with some token Asian hosts - why can hosts introduce and drop events to make them more successful in sports the already are strong in, but to gain domestic appeal. Its no surprise that any host always over exceeds in a medal haul which is disproportinate to historic or future performances - the IOC set it up that way. Are they are corrupt as FIFA, perhaps not or perhaps they just have never been exposed as often (yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats xenophobic about equal representation? If that's the most constructive response you have the the debate you started then I'm sorry for not agreeing with you and suggesting equality over dominance but I take offence at being tarred as xenophobic when not one comment I see can substantiate that view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are proposing is not equal representation though.  Scotland has less that 10% of the UK's population and therefore should have only 1 player on the park at any time by your argument.  But the whole concept of equal representation is nonsense because it discriminates against individuals who are more deserving of a place.  Just pick the best team regardless of nationality because every one has an equal opportunity of selection if it is merit based.  In any case, large numbers of players may have been born in Scotland and have an English parent and therefore maybe considered English or Scottish.

 

Presumably you are also in favour of geographical representation within the Scottish team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are proposing is not equal representation though.  Scotland has less that 10% of the UK's population and therefore should have only 1 player on the park at any time by your argument. 

Based on population I would class that as proportional representation which based on your figures I argee but not the concept in this scenario which I believe should be equal hence 25% each - think there is a difference in what people consider the context of the terms equal or proportional. Its neither xenephobic or any other discrimination from my perspective no matter how you wish to try and spin it. I could state how N Ireland dont have as much population or football quality as Scotland but wont - I believe that they would as equal to 25% representation in a GB team as anyone else. If based on the logic you propose then there is no motivation for any of the nations other than England to be involved. Based on populus we would each get 1 or 2 players to supplement and England select? It seems that if anyone is promoting a xenephobic approach its those who wish to have a team GB dominated by only England players.

 

At least with othere Olympic disciplines within team GB there are qualifiers to decide who is the 'best' - whats the criteria for football to be done this way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some posters on this web platform need to grow up

Xenophobia is rife in the Highlands that's for sure

 

That is an astonishing statement. I was born in the Highlands and have been closely connected to the area for over half a century.

 

Like everywhere else, there is the odd idiot but there is no evidence to back up your slur on an entire region which I greatly resent.

 

Who, by the way, needs to 'grow up' ? Would it, by any chance be those that have the temerity to have a different opinion to yourself ? Perhaps you should try debating without resorting to insult like the vast majority of posters on this site seem capable of.

  • Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will ignore the abusive remark from Laurence and say this. I would not have a problem with a football team GB provided it followed certain criterea.

 

1. The professional associations (FA's of England, Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales) have absolutely nothing to do with the organisation or team selection. They can, however, provide training and financial support.

2. Teams are made up from amatuer and junior leagues.

3. Numbers of players from each nation must, at a minimum, reflect similar percentages as population of each nation.

4. There must be no risk that the independence of each association is jeopordised.

 

SAtisfy all the above and I see no reason why we can't have a team GB

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What you are proposing is not equal representation though.  Scotland has less that 10% of the UK's population and therefore should have only 1 player on the park at any time by your argument. 

Based on population I would class that as proportional representation which based on your figures I argee but not the concept in this scenario which I believe should be equal hence 25% each - think there is a difference in what people consider the context of the terms equal or proportional. Its neither xenephobic or any other discrimination from my perspective no matter how you wish to try and spin it. I could state how N Ireland don't have as much population or football quality as Scotland but wont - I believe that they would as equal to 25% representation in a GB team as anyone else. If based on the logic you propose then there is no motivation for any of the nations other than England to be involved. Based on populus we would each get 1 or 2 players to supplement and England select? It seems that if anyone is promoting a xenephobic approach its those who wish to have a team GB dominated by only England players.

 

At least with othere Olympic disciplines within team GB there are qualifiers to decide who is the 'best' - whats the criteria for football to be done this way?

 

I'm honestly not sure if you are on a fishing trip or whether you seriously believe this.  But on the off chance that you are actually serious, I'll bite.

 

This is sport we are talking about and not politics.  If participation in any team sport at an international level requires us to have a British team then can you not simply accept that?  Can you not accept that regardless of which part of the UK team members come from, chosing a team on merit means it is our best team?  What possible reason is there for saying there has to be the same number of team members from each of the home nations?  How can it possibly be equal or fair to say that one player has 10 times more chance of playing for his country than another simply because of where he was born?

 

What such an absurd policy would do is to reduce the chances of success and deny better players the opportunity to play at the top level.  It really is discrimination of the worst kind.  And you can just imagine what it would do for team morale - better players sitting on the bench or not even in the squad whilst a League One player whose mother happened to have been born in Belfast is on the pitch as part of the N. Ireland quota and makes the errors that ruin the teams chances of success.  Or in an athletics context, should Team GB's relay squads have one runner from each of the 4 home countries?  These are events we have won medals in with some regularity because the team has been selected on merit.  If we had to pick relay teams for the World championships and the Olympics based on one runner from each home country we would probably never win any medals.  What is particularly nasty about such an approach in my view is that it denies success to athletes who have devoted their lives to try and excel in their chosen sport and who, if selection was based on merit, would have a good chance of success.

 

I am an Englishman who has lived in Scotland for the last 40 years and I would echo what Alex says about xenophobia in the sense that I have never experienced personal animosity because I am English.  But what I cannot for the life of me understand is how some Scots seem happy to support manifestly unfair proposals like this which actually reduce the chance of their team succeeding.  I don't know if it is this that Lawrence was really alluding to but it does seem to me that the a minority of Scots simply cannot take any joy or pride in a British victory, even if there is a small Scottish representation, if the majority of the team are English.  They seem to fear it will be seen as an English victory and therefore something to be resented. 

 

So rather than celebrate a British victory, (albeit one where Scots are proud team members selected on merit), they would prefer to adopt a grossly discriminative quota selection policy which denies participation by athletes who on merit deserve selection. Thereby they both deny the athletes the chance of the success they deserve as well as denying themselves the pleasure of celebrating that success.  However, such a policy also reduces the chances of the English celebrating success and therefore it is all somehow worthwhile!  For goodness sake, can we not consign such bizarre attitudes to the dustbin of history and get behind our sportsmen and women, give them the best opportunity to succeed and then celebrate their success with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, people seem really offended by the view that if a team GB exists then  my personal view is it should have a equal split of players from all nations and yes I am being serious and agree this should be the way for most team GB sports. Although I will conceed that events such as athletics or swimming you do have a direct competition to allow qualification or selection thus allowing fastest, strongest etc to be selected. But in the case of Football or other team sports what is the selection criteria and who decides - a board made up of members who decide which is fine if done without bias but a representative from each nation will have a vested interest and quite rightly so. 

 

What history shows is that England have a higher percentage of players which may longer term help the transition from U21 to senior as its another platform and playing together longer, for the other less well represented nations other than have a single or few players get experience of a tournament when there is potential oppertunity at U21 and senior level it does not help longer term development of football in that nation.

 

There does seem to be an agenda within this thread that if you disagree with the organisation behind or the structure of a team GB then it makes the poster a xenophobe. At no point has any comment I have posted place any anti-English statement or personal insult only my opinion on the topic of Olympic football and a Team GB, therefore if anyone wishes to suggest or comment further I shall report them to moderators and ask for a ban as I feel that name calling, accusing and deformation of a character is totally uncalled for just because a personal opinion differs.

 

If there is a Team GB at the Olympics then maybe it will be a sucess, however based on the 2012 showing it highlights that picking the cream of the crop from these shores still falls a long way short of other footballing nations and I have yet to see what positive impact that team had on football within the UK in terms of talent progressing to senior levels.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside the peculiar quasi political issues surrounding a Great Britain football team, in my view, an Olympic gold medal ought to be the pinnacle of achievement for the participant in any Olympic sport.

 

Professional footballers, tennis players and now golfers all have much greater priorities than the Olympics which, for them, is merely a side show.

 

For that reason alone, football, at least at professional level, has no place at the Olympics and that's before we even get started on the manifold perils of entering a Great Britain team.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a reminder to everyone to debate the topic and not to resort to name calling or character assassination. Further instances of this will result in topic closure or in the posters being banned from the thread. this is the only warning. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But what gets the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish so twitchy is that they alone have preferred, separate status within FIFA and UEFA whilst not being sovereign nations

 

surely that applies to 'England' too Charles? or are you being selective in conferring the right to be the main FIFA member within the UK on the English FA with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish being happy to pick up the scraps from the table? 

 

However, you are also fundamentally wrong .... at last count there were 23 non-sovereign 'countries' who were members of FIFA and 7 sovereign ones who are not ! (and before anyone comments on the list below, Gibraltar are not FIFA members, just UEFA)

 

Non-sovereign nations that are current FIFA members

  • American Samoa (USA)
  • Anguilla (UK)
  • Aruba (Netherlands)
  • Bermuda (UK)
  • British Virgin Islands (UK)
  • Cayman Islands (UK)
  • Chinese Taipei (China)
  • Curaçao (Netherlands)
  • England (UK)
  • Faroe Islands (Denmark)
  • Guam (USA)
  • Hong Kong (China)
  • Macau (China)
  • Montserrat (UK)
  • New Caledonia (France)
  • Northern Ireland (UK)
  • Palestine
  • Puerto Rico (USA)
  • Scotland (UK)
  • Tahiti (France)
  • Turks and Caicos Islands (UK)
  • US Virgin Islands (USA)
  • Wales (UK)

 

 

Less ambiguously, I should, rather than "they alone", have said "the UK home countries alone". But as far as twitchiness is concerned, that indeed does seem principally to be confined to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The English don't seem to feel all that chippy about it.

 

In the second instance, I wasn't really legislating for geographical fragments like Hong Kong, Montserrat and New Caledonia which are, through one status or another, relics of various countries' imperial pasts, although the concise way I tried to put it does invite their inclusion.

 

So perhaps I could, perhaps somewhat more legalistically, rewrite the quoted passage as follows - But what gets the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish so twitchy is that the UK countries alone have preferred, separate status within FIFA and UEFA as constituent parts of a sovereign nation whilst not being sovereign nations themselves.

 

 

What it boils down to is that, as far as I can see, no country in the world other than the UK has multiple representation in international football for its constituent bits (as opposed to separate representation for certain elements of its imperial past).

 

This, as already stated, is a consequence of the unique "grandfather rights" which the UK enjoys because international football started here among its constituent bits. Given that constituent bits of other countries, such as Bavaria and Tuscany which were politically autonomous much later than Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales ever were, don't have this separate representation, it's unsurprising that this is an arrangement which could, potentially, be looked at critically by FIFA and UEFA.

Since I began writing this Kingsmills has, however, reiterated what to me is the central viewpoint here - that Olympic football is a complete irrelevance and not worth bothering about.

 

I note that the Vatican is one sovereign nation which is non a FIFA member and the famous Dave Allen sketch of the hammer throwing Bishop instantly comes to mind :lol:

Presumably the Vatican feels adequately represented at club level in the East End of Glasgow. :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy