Allardyce calls for return of Olympic football team

[G B Young]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37148094

I've made my support for this clear on the Scott Brown thread but just to open the debate up a bit more widely, what, if anything, should our objection be? Aside from the fact Scotland doesn't presently have any players good enough to take part, the principle of entering a nationwide team is surely not a bad one? Having attended games in both the men's and women's football competitions at London 2012 I can testify to them being very enjoyable spectacles. As this story points out there were 155,000 fans at the four women's games (games which featured a couple of Scottish players) alone!

The Rio Olympics have been brilliant, with Team GB outstanding and numerous Scots among the medal winners. Competitors from a vast array of sports, both team and individual, are proud to represent the nation at the Olympics, so why do we adopt such a head in the sand attitude when it comes to football?

[bingo70]

I personally think there's no place for football at the olympics, don't really care if there's a British team as I wouldn't watch it anyway (not in any sort of protest, just wouldn't interest me)

IMO football should be replaced by futsal, that i'd take an interest in and would welcome a British team.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I personally think there's no place for football at the olympics, don't really care if there's a British team as I wouldn't watch it anyway (not in any sort of protest, just wouldn't interest me)

IMO football should be replaced by futsal, that is take an interest in and would welcome a British team.

I agree. We have the World Cup for football and rugby, but it seems every sport is now included, even golf.

[Haymaker]

No.

[Broken Gnome]

Little enthusiasm for a team created on the hoof. Can't just flick a switch on because we're apparently supposed to care.

[Ricky Bobby]

I would not have any problem with having a GB team at the Olympics for football, but i can understand that some are concerned about FIFA pushing for a GB team in all competitions.
I think that international football in the main is now an irrevelance so it would not bother me.
On the subject of the olympics. I dont think it has been great. Empty stadia, dodgey judging, the home country booing other competitors. All that before you look at the politics behind it.

[Smartie]

I really like the futsal idea but I'd have no interest in a GB football team.

[Matty_Jack04]

Football at the Olympics should be 5 a side or something like tenants sixies style games much like the rugby 7s

[Finn2015]

I personally think there's no place for football at the olympics, don't really care if there's a British team as I wouldn't watch it anyway (not in any sort of protest, just wouldn't interest me)

IMO football should be replaced by futsal, that i'd take an interest in and would welcome a British team.

Bang on. Futsal is a great spectacle and would add to the olympics and all for this being opened to the games instead of football

[The Captain....]

Hardly watched any of this Olympics which is unusual for me as I'll pretty much watch any sport. Respect the sacrifices and talent of those involved but I think there's just too many sports etc in it now and it detracts a bit from the athletics for me.

I would have no interest in a GB football team of any stripe in the Olympics. I find it difficult enough to maintain an interest in the Scotland team tbh. International football doesn't really capture my imagination.

[Jim Herriot]

I quite liked the idea (not sure where it was from) of home internationals between the under-21 England/Scotland/Wales/NI teams, with the winner going into the Olympics. The same thing could be done between the women's national teams.

This would keep the teams' national identities distinct while promoting u21 and women's football.

[Malthibby]

I quite liked the idea (not sure where it was from) of home internationals between the under-21 England/Scotland/Wales/NI teams, with the winner going into the Olympics. The same thing could be done between the women's national teams.

This would keep the teams' national identities distinct while promoting u21 and women's football.

:agree: Only way I'd be happy with the idea. Along with something written in stone to protect Scotland's place as a national team.
GG

[Pretty Boy]

I personally think there's no place for football at the olympics, don't really care if there's a British team as I wouldn't watch it anyway (not in any sort of protest, just wouldn't interest me)

IMO football should be replaced by futsal, that i'd take an interest in and would welcome a British team.

Agreed.

The Olympics should be for sports in which winning a gold medal is the greatest achievement in the sport in question. It's why pro boxers should be kept away and why I'd happily see tennis, football and golf drop out.

That said if football is to continue in the games I wouldn't really have a problem with a GB team entering. There should probably be some guarantee that it won't effect all the home nations status going forwards for those that care about international footballs sake though.

[ancient hibee]

I quite liked the idea (not sure where it was from) of home internationals between the under-21 England/Scotland/Wales/NI teams, with the winner going into the Olympics. The same thing could be done between the women's national teams.

This would keep the teams' national identities distinct while promoting u21 and women's football.


The winner would obviously have to enter as Great Britain.In the amateur days there was a GB team in the 1960s with a couple of Scots in it including Davy Holt who went on to play (very well)for Hearts.

[Dalianwanda]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37148094

I've made my support for this clear on the Scott Brown thread but just to open the debate up a bit more widely, what, if anything, should our objection be? Aside from the fact Scotland doesn't presently have any players good enough to take part, the principle of entering a nationwide team is surely not a bad one? Having attended games in both the men's and women's football competitions at London 2012 I can testify to them being very enjoyable spectacles. As this story points out there were 155,000 fans at the four women's games (games which featured a couple of Scottish players) alone!

The Rio Olympics have been brilliant, with Team GB outstanding and numerous Scots among the medal winners. Competitors from a vast array of sports, both team and individual, are proud to represent the nation at the Olympics, so why do we adopt such a head in the sand attitude when it comes to football?

Why is not agreeing with your view a head in the sand attitude? Your comments on the Scot Brown thread talk about us not being good enough & recommending we go to become a UK team as that will give us a better chance of winning. So we move the goalposts on the catchment area just to give us a team that would have a better chance of success? Personally I think that stinks...Whats the point of a national team? Its pride in representing your country. Yes we want to do well but to completely change what that team stands for just sucks imo. What were your views on the wallace mercer take over? One Edinburgh team, great support, greater chance of success so he said...I don't see much of a difference in what you propose.

Personally I dont think football should be in the Olympics at all. It has a wide enough global reach & I dont see how the olympics expands this.

I've really enjoyed the olypics this year and have supported those taking part from team GB. Not because I'm a great supporter of the union (Im not) but because they are the team that represents me most closely.

In terms of success yes the GB olympic team has done great. I've got a bit tired of the fixation on gold medals and the race against china. Its not all about the medals you know, just doing the best you possibly can with the resources available IMO.

[Mixu62]

Not for me. A sports tv presenter once said that the sports in the Olympics should be the ones for which an Olympic gold medal is the pinnacle of the sport. For this reason I don't think football or tennis or golf should be Olympic sports.

[Michael]

Although I really enjoy the Olympics and Team GB performing so well, I just couldn't get behind the GB football team in London.

I'm not anti-English or anything (I always support them except when against Scotland), but football is a special case for me and it's the correct call that we have not been entering a team into the Olympics.

[Topographic Hibby]

In the UK, we never rate football at the Olympics because we are so protective of the four Home Nations. Add in that we (the Home Nations) have a stranglehold on the rules of the game through the International Board, we don't want to appear do to bring together the four and unify under a TeamGB or UK basis for football.

The various UK FAs fear the pressure of other associations gathering a head of steam to make the four become one. And putting out a UK team at the Olympics could be the catalyst for such a move.

We put out teams at London because it was a home games, more as a toe in the water and something that could not be agreed on after 2012.

In some countries, the Olympic football is a big deal. But it doesn't seem something we can agree on in Britain.

In saying that, I have found myself cheering on some unlikely Brits recently, eg the Hockey girls, the Rugby Sevens guys, anyone on two wheels and some scary bird from Wales that kicks folk in the head.

Why can't we find a way to organise a couple of football teams?

[Dashing Bob S]

Way too much football already, and would interfere with the real season. With a World Cup and European nations cup at international level, it would be seen as Mickey Mouse stuff by the fans. In fact I suspect that nobody, bar a few social engineering politicians and some Huns, would embrace it for political reasons, would give much of a toss about it.

I think golf and tennis should be bombed out the Olympics too. They have their own circuits with extensive fixtures.

[G B Young]

Why is not agreeing with your view a head in the sand attitude? Your comments on the Scot Brown thread talk about us not being good enough & recommending we go to become a UK team as that will give us a better chance of winning. So we move the goalposts on the catchment area just to give us a team that would have a better chance of success? Personally I think that stinks...Whats the point of a national team? Its pride in representing your country. Yes we want to do well but to completely change what that team stands for just sucks imo. What were your views on the wallace mercer take over? One Edinburgh team, great support, greater chance of success so he said...I don't see much of a difference in what you propose.

Personally I dont think football should be in the Olympics at all. It has a wide enough global reach & I dont see how the olympics expands this.

I've really enjoyed the olypics this year and have supported those taking part from team GB. Not because I'm a great supporter of the union (Im not) but because they are the team that represents me most closely.

In terms of success yes the GB olympic team has done great. I've got a bit tired of the fixation on gold medals and the race against china. Its not all about the medals you know, just doing the best you possibly can with the resources available IMO.

I didn't say that not agreeing with my view was a head in the sand attitude. I'm not saying you have to agree, just questioning why if we can get behind a nationwide team representing so many different sports it should be any different if it came to a football team at the Olympics.

I don't agree with your point about the Mercer takeover. In my view a football club rooted in a community is a good thing, whether or not they're any good, and very different to an international team which is part of a far bigger picture where the aim is to try to achieve success on a global or European stage. Scotland have proved for far too long now that we're miles off the pace in that respect so I'd personally prefer to see us try something different.

As for those saying certain sports shouldn't be at the Olympics I think you just need to look at the emotional reaction of guys like Andy Murray and Justin Rose - or for that matter the Brazilian football team - to winning gold to see how much importance they attach to it and how much they really love competing on that stage.

I reckon the more the merrier when it comes to which sports are represented at the Olympics. It's a fantastic festival of the best the sporting world has to offer. I don't really get the argument that it should be more about athletics. Just like football, golf and tennis, athletics has numerous other major events of its own outwith the Olympics (World Championships, World Indoors, European Championships etc) so it's not as though the Olympics are the only stage on which these athletes get the chance to shine.

[KazHibby]

I didn't say that not agreeing with my view was a head in the sand attitude. I'm not saying you have to agree, just questioning why if we can get behind a nationwide team representing so many different sports it should be any different if it came to a football team at the Olympics.

I don't agree with your point about the Mercer takeover. In my view a football club rooted in a community is a good thing, whether or not they're any good, and very different to an international team which is part of a far bigger picture where the aim is to try to achieve success on a global or European stage. Scotland have proved for far too long now that we're miles off the pace in that respect so I'd personally prefer to see us try something different.

As for those saying certain sports shouldn't be at the Olympics I think you just need to look at the emotional reaction of guys like Andy Murray and Justin Rose - or for that matter the Brazilian football team - to winning gold to see how much importance they attach to it and how much they really love competing on that stage.

I for one have had to explain to south americians on many occasions why there are Scotland, Wales etc football teams yet Team GB at Olympics. With Rugby and hockey etc., there is not such an issue as with the possibilities / popularity of football at the moment.

Time to get independent or end up as a sport back water, on the tails of the engerlunder - having watched many of this year Olympics I can vouch for the fact many commentators / experts and athletes consider engerlund as team GB - eg in the men's rugby 7s basically discussed as the engerlund squad with two Scottish and two welsh interloprs! They forgot about twickers at the world 7s obviously.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

Scotland have proved for far too long now that we're miles off the pace in that respect so I'd personally prefer to see us try something different.

Hibs have proved for far much longer that we are even more miles off the pace...

Of course, the other constituent parts of the UK have been totally ON the pace and we want to jump on their coattails. ..

Let's have a European national team and guarantee winning at least the Euros every singe time..

Or alternatively you are trolling or a British Nationalist pushing your agenda - or a troll.

[monktonharp]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37148094

I've made my support for this clear on the Scott Brown thread but just to open the debate up a bit more widely, what, if anything, should our objection be? Aside from the fact Scotland doesn't presently have any players good enough to take part, the principle of entering a nationwide team is surely not a bad one? Having attended games in both the men's and women's football competitions at London 2012 I can testify to them being very enjoyable spectacles. As this story points out there were 155,000 fans at the four women's games (games which featured a couple of Scottish players) alone!

The Rio Olympics have been brilliant, with Team GB outstanding and numerous Scots among the medal winners. Competitors from a vast array of sports, both team and individual, are proud to represent the nation at the Olympics, so why do we adopt such a head in the sand attitude when it comes to football?some of it is tied in with the fact that quite a few, see themselves as Scottish , Welsh or Other, rather than GB, GB. ken what ah mean?

[monktonharp]

Hardly watched any of this Olympics which is unusual for me as I'll pretty much watch any sport. Respect the sacrifices and talent of those involved but I think there's just too many sports etc in it now and it detracts a bit from the athletics for me.

I would have no interest in a GB football team of any stripe in the Olympics. I find it difficult enough to maintain an interest in the Scotland team tbh. International football doesn't really capture my imagination.I used to like watching the Olympics, but this time round I could not do it.. the press/media of nowadays have totally turned me off. added to the fact (some might say not an actual fact) that our government seems so corrupt and prepared to support regimes that are killing people over the world, I can not support that. don't say that sport is outwith politics to me. politics, is everything if it involves mass murder.

[Greencore]

Nah. It would just be Gareth Bale and England players.

[monktonharp]

Hibs have proved for far much longer that we are even more miles off the pace...

Of course, the other constituent parts of the UK have been totally ON the pace and we want to jump on their coattails. ..

Let's have a European national team and guarantee winning at least the Euros every singe time..

Or alternatively you are trolling or a British Nationalist pushing your agenda - or a troll.:wink:

[monktonharp]

I didn't say that not agreeing with my view was a head in the sand attitude. I'm not saying you have to agree, just questioning why if we can get behind a nationwide team representing so many different sports it should be any different if it came to a football team at the Olympics.

I don't agree with your point about the Mercer takeover. In my view a football club rooted in a community is a good thing, whether or not they're any good, and very different to an international team which is part of a far bigger picture where the aim is to try to achieve success on a global or European stage. Scotland have proved for far too long now that we're miles off the pace in that respect so I'd personally prefer to see us try something different.

As for those saying certain sports shouldn't be at the Olympics I think you just need to look at the emotional reaction of guys like Andy Murray and Justin Rose - or for that matter the Brazilian football team - to winning gold to see how much importance they attach to it and how much they really love competing on that stage.

I reckon the more the merrier when it comes to which sports are represented at the Olympics. It's a fantastic festival of the best the sporting world has to offer. I don't really get the argument that it should be more about athletics. Just like football, golf and tennis, athletics has numerous other major events of its own outwith the Olympics (World Championships, World Indoors, European Championships etc) so it's not as though the Olympics are the only stage on which these athletes get the chance to shine.Club football is definitely a community based thing:faf: especially in England when they spend 90 million on a player, who earns more in a shift, than maist people can earn in a bloody year. get a life. Personally, I am looking forward to the day when Tiddleywinks becomes an Olypic event or better still, Italian housewifes topless darts. now that's a sport I'd watch.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Club football is definitely a community based thing:faf: especially in England when they spend 90 million on a player, who earns more in a shift, than maist people can earn in a bloody year. get a life. Personally, I am looking forward to the day when Tiddleywinks becomes an Olypic event or better still, Italian housewifes topless darts. now that's a sport I'd watch.

Even on pay per view :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

No danger ... the African and Asian nations who already think they are under represented at the WC would love to see Europe given one less place at the table, they feel that Europe's quota is as big partly to accommodate the British Isles fielding 4 teams in the European qualifying groups, a British Olympic team would add fuel to the fire IMO.

If there ever was to be a British team then no matter what the quality of players available each association would have to be represented, at this Olympics squads were made up of 18 players ( 15 under 23 and 3 older players ) so by population say for arguments sake 9 English, 4 Scots, 3 Welsh and 2 Northern Irish. Are there many midfielders under 23 in Scotland better than John McGinn is just now? ... I bet he would get nowhere near a GB Olympic squad in a free for all.

Like a lot of folk the Olympics is beginning to lose its allure for me. Corruption appears to be rife and for the countries bidding to host it, it appears to be as much a vanity project as any love of sport for the sake of it. The same unfortunately goes for the UK's approach to the Olympics ... its not about taking part any more, its a vicious drive to keep up with the Americans, Chinese and Russians with a devil take the hindmost approach to funding, where money is poured into the things we are good at and withdrawn from the things we aren't good at, so much so that competitors in many sports have no chance of making the Olympics because we wont fund sports like Basketball, handball or Volleyball where we have little chance of winning a medal ..... that approach might win you lots of medals, but the Corinthian spirit which was the cornerstone of the modern games is fast disappearing in the rear view mirror.

It doesn't help that there's a real chance you will find out years down the line that the competitor you marvelled at breaking that world record to win his gold medal turned out to have had more drugs in him than the local branch of Boots ..... fair or not there's always that wee doubt when you watch some of them.

Anyway .... Its a no from me :greengrin

[Dalianwanda]

I didn't say that not agreeing with my view was a head in the sand attitude. I'm not saying you have to agree, just questioning why if we can get behind a nationwide team representing so many different sports it should be any different if it came to a football team at the Olympics.

"Competitors from a vast array of sports, both team and individual, are proud to represent the nation at the Olympics, so why do we adopt such a head in the sand attitude when it comes to football?" Fair enough but thats how it reads to me.

I don't agree with your point about the Mercer takeover. In my view a football club rooted in a community is a good thing, whether or not they're any good, and very different to an international team which is part of a far bigger picture where the aim is to try to achieve success on a global or European stage. Scotland have proved for far too long now that we're miles off the pace in that respect so I'd personally prefer to see us try something different.

I disagree regarding the aim, who says its to provide global/european success? Surely the aim of the National team is to provide a sporting representation of the nation? Yes we want to win but if success is what its all about where do we draw the line? Why were teams like Gibraltar & San Marino allowed on the European stage when relistically they have no chance of that.

As for those saying certain sports shouldn't be at the Olympics I think you just need to look at the emotional reaction of guys like Andy Murray and Justin Rose - or for that matter the Brazilian football team - to winning gold to see how much importance they attach to it and how much they really love competing on that stage.

As has been stated elsewhere the olympics should be the pinnacle of the sport represented. It is for athletcis even though there are other world competitions, same with cycling, gymnastics for example. It isn't for golf, football or tennis. Of course these guys got excited they are winners & the olympics is something unique. It's not the pinnacle of their chosen sports though. If you had any sport in the competitors would competing at their best doesnt mean it's an olympic sport.

I reckon the more the merrier when it comes to which sports are represented at the Olympics. It's a fantastic festival of the best the sporting world has to offer. I don't really get the argument that it should be more about athletics. Just like football, golf and tennis, athletics has numerous other major events of its own outwith the Olympics (World Championships, World Indoors, European Championships etc) so it's not as though the Olympics are the only stage on which these athletes get the chance to shine.

I love the mix of sports too & agree it shouldnt be just about athletics (dont know where that was said?)..But I dont see the point in having football in, event more so as an age group tournament.

[ronaldo7]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37148094

I've made my support for this clear on the Scott Brown thread but just to open the debate up a bit more widely, what, if anything, should our objection be? Aside from the fact Scotland doesn't presently have any players good enough to take part, the principle of entering a nationwide team is surely not a bad one? Having attended games in both the men's and women's football competitions at London 2012 I can testify to them being very enjoyable spectacles. As this story points out there were 155,000 fans at the four women's games (games which featured a couple of Scottish players) alone!

The Rio Olympics have been brilliant, with Team GB outstanding and numerous Scots among the medal winners. Competitors from a vast array of sports, both team and individual, are proud to represent the nation at the Olympics, so why do we adopt such a head in the sand attitude when it comes to football?

No thanks 😉

[pacoluna]

Absolutely no!

Last GB team never included any Scottish player,anyone know if that was down to Scottish players refusing to play or pearse just not selecting any of them?

[G B Young]

I disagree regarding the aim, who says its to provide global/european success? Surely the aim of the National team is to provide a sporting representation of the nation? Yes we want to win but if success is what its all about where do we draw the line? Why were teams like Gibraltar & San Marino allowed on the European stage when relistically they have no chance of that.

I don't think teams like Gibraltar and San Marino should be entered into the pool stages for the Euros or the World Cup. They should play in a lower tier international competition where they can be genuinely competitive. They will gain nothing from shipping five, six, seven goals every game and the teams dishing out the hammerings will gain nothing from the experience either. Euro 2016 itself showed that there are far too many mediocre teams even at the tournament stage and they should be reducing the number of qualifiers rather than increasing it.

[G B Young]

Absolutely no!

Last GB team never included any Scottish player,anyone know if that was down to Scottish players refusing to play or pearse just not selecting any of them?

Initially it was down the SFA refusing to sanction Scottish players being selected, but they relented and there were half a dozen Scots selected for the initial pool of players. This was reduced to two (Steven Fletcher and Barry Bannan) when Pearce named his short list of 35. Neither made the final cut. No real surprise as Scotland don't presently have players good enough to represent a nationwide team. Craig Gordon might have been in with a shout at his peak but that would have been about it.

[northstandhibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37148094

I've made my support for this clear on the Scott Brown thread but just to open the debate up a bit more widely, what, if anything, should our objection be? Aside from the fact Scotland doesn't presently have any players good enough to take part, the principle of entering a nationwide team is surely not a bad one? Having attended games in both the men's and women's football competitions at London 2012 I can testify to them being very enjoyable spectacles. As this story points out there were 155,000 fans at the four women's games (games which featured a couple of Scottish players) alone!

The Rio Olympics have been brilliant, with Team GB outstanding and numerous Scots among the medal winners. Competitors from a vast array of sports, both team and individual, are proud to represent the nation at the Olympics, so why do we adopt such a head in the sand attitude when it comes to football?

It wouldn't bother me overly if there was to be a uk team as such as I stopped following Scotland around the 1986 world cup. However it would be sad to see Scotland swallowed up by England which would have the vast amount of players actually playing. Maybe a quota of each home nation would be the answer although I'm not a fan of quotas either per say. I suppose if enough people wanted a uk team then it would be accepted by most.



GGTTH

[Dalianwanda]

I don't think teams like Gibraltar and San Marino should be entered into the pool stages for the Euros or the World Cup. They should play in a lower tier international competition where they can be genuinely competitive. They will gain nothing from shipping five, six, seven goals every game and the teams dishing out the hammerings will gain nothing from the experience either. Euro 2016 itself showed that there are far too many mediocre teams even at the tournament stage and they should be reducing the number of qualifiers rather than increasing it.

It's not the competition we are in or the pool of players we have to pick from thats the problem. Its the structure of the game as a whole in this country & the attitude of those who are supposed to be moving us forward & making decision to get the best out of what we have now & in the future. Going to a team GB just smacks on giving up on he potential we have because we cant work out what to do ourselves.

[Scouse Hibee]

Yes as long as their is some form of criteria for selection rather than a manager just picking the team. Not quite sure what but some form of monitoring system that enables players with the best stats to be in the squad.

[Billy McKirdy]

Not being a believer in the British state I look forward to the demise of Team UK and the rise of Team Scotland, only then will I take an interest in the fortunes of our various sporting achievements in the Olympics, including football.

[Glory Lurker]

No Thanks.

Geddit???

:-)

[Deansy]

Personally I think that this 'Team GB' nonsense is just England's desperation to win something at international level in football and I hope thd GFA NEVER entertain the slightest notion of helping them out !

[Bishop Hibee]

No Team GB.

[ScottB]

As long as the Home Nations current status is guaranteed, I wouldn't have a problem. Rugby seemed to manage it without any drama.

[Bristolhibby]

Anything that weakens Scotland position in world football is a no from me.

I believe a semi regular British team would be a nail in the coffin of Scotland, Wales, NI and England.

Olympic football is a farce anyway, nobody really takes it seriously. Brazil were only up for it because of their poor showing at the Copa America and their humiliation in their home World Cup v the Germans. They needed a good news story.

J

[G B Young]

As long as the Home Nations current status is guaranteed, I wouldn't have a problem. Rugby seemed to manage it without any drama.

Yes, this was the first year for Team GB in the Olympic rugby sevens and as you say there's been not a peep of concern that the home nations would see their status undermined. It's worth remembering though that the British and Irish Lions rugby team has been on the go for well over a century. It brings fans of all the home nations together, with over 20,000 regularly travelling to follow them on tour. Beyond the pocket of many but I gather it's a great experience.

[Phil MaGlass]

***x yir British olympic fitba team.

[Dalianwanda]

Yes, this was the first year for Team GB in the Olympic rugby sevens and as you say there's been not a peep of concern that the home nations would see their status undermined. It's worth remembering though that the British and Irish Lions rugby team has been on the go for well over a century. It brings fans of all the home nations together, with over 20,000 regularly travelling to follow them on tour. Beyond the pocket of many but I gather it's a great experience.

7's is a completely different game to 15's & the lions only tour every four years with the cream of the crop not an underage side.....Your not comparing like with like..

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Never watched any Olympic football at all. Maybe a bit of inverted snobbery but I always associate the Olympics with athletes individually and not in teams.

[G B Young]

7's is a completely different game to 15's & the lions only tour every four years with the cream of the crop not an underage side.....Your not comparing like with like..

I wasn't trying to compare like with like, just suggesting that perhaps the fact the Lions have for so long combined the home nations on the rugby front made the establishment of a GB Olympics rugby sevens team more seamless than it might otherwise have been. Like the Lions tours, the Olympics also only take place every four years which is part of the reason I find it hard to fathom why football remains pretty much the only sport where the prospect of a GB team causes such angst. Maybe a five-a-side tournament featuring a GB team would attract less opposition?

[Pretty Boy]

Yes, this was the first year for Team GB in the Olympic rugby sevens and as you say there's been not a peep of concern that the home nations would see their status undermined. It's worth remembering though that the British and Irish Lions rugby team has been on the go for well over a century. It brings fans of all the home nations together, with over 20,000 regularly travelling to follow them on tour. Beyond the pocket of many but I gather it's a great experience.

Let's be honest there's no threat to the home nations rugby teams because world rugby can't afford to lose half the teams who play the game at a decent level in Europe and the 3 of them are consistently in the worlds top 10.

There's a few European countries who would be only too happy to see 4 potential rivals for qualification to major tournaments reduced to 1.

[monktonharp]

Yes, this was the first year for Team GB in the Olympic rugby sevens and as you say there's been not a peep of concern that the home nations would see their status undermined. It's worth remembering though that the British and Irish Lions rugby team has been on the go for well over a century. It brings fans of all the home nations together, with over 20,000 regularly travelling to follow them on tour. Beyond the pocket of many but I gather it's a great experience.the fact that you are pointing out, that this rugger thing, albeit British Lions , followed by so many well off fans, tells it's own story. the ordinary man, certainly where I'm at, has no interest in that. some have hardly got enough to get the bairns to a club game every second week.

[Kavinho]

Yes, this was the first year for Team GB in the Olympic rugby sevens and as you say there's been not a peep of concern that the home nations would see their status undermined. It's worth remembering though that the British and Irish Lions rugby team has been on the go for well over a century. It brings fans of all the home nations together, with over 20,000 regularly travelling to follow them on tour. Beyond the pocket of many but I gather it's a great experience.


Theres been almost 150 years of home nations internationals, with the lions in effect acting like a call up to a supra-national event which in no way undermines the sovereignty of the under lying nations.

You've compared Apples and pears all across this thread and ended up with coconuts.
I can't take this one seriously at all.

[CropleyWasGod]

I wasn't trying to compare like with like, just suggesting that perhaps the fact the Lions have for so long combined the home nations on the rugby front made the establishment of a GB Olympics rugby sevens team more seamless than it might otherwise have been. Like the Lions tours, the Olympics also only take place every four years which is part of the reason I find it hard to fathom why football remains pretty much the only sport where the prospect of a GB team causes such angst. Maybe a five-a-side tournament featuring a GB team would attract less opposition?

To echo another thread, why just a GB team? Why exclude the NornIrons?

:cb

[G B Young]

Theres been almost 150 years of home nations internationals, with the lions in effect acting like a call up to a supra-national event which in no way undermines the sovereignty of the under lying nations.

You've compared Apples and pears all across this thread and ended up with coconuts.
I can't take this one seriously at all.

It's not my intention to make this confusing so apologies if I've not made my point clear. For me it's a simple comparison between football and all manner of other sports where there appears to be no problem when it comes to forming a combined side drawing from all the home nations, be that the Olympics or a Lions tour. The debate over sovereignty just doesn't seem to exist for any sport except football.

Having done a little research on this I've discovered that a GB football team has, in fact, competed at the Olympics on nine occasions, winning the gold three times in the early years. The team has comprised a mix of amateur-only sides and professionals over the years and was actually managed by Matt Busby in 1948 when they finished fourth. From 1960 until 2012 they either failed to qualify or didn't enter so it's clear that for many years there was no big deal surrounding whether there should be a GB team. So I guess my question now is not so much why is there a problem with entering such a team but why has it become such a no-no for some in more recent years?

[Dalianwanda]

It's not my intention to make this confusing so apologies if I've not made my point clear. For me it's a simple comparison between football and all manner of other sports where there appears to be no problem when it comes to forming a combined side drawing from all the home nations, be that the Olympics or a Lions tour. The debate over sovereignty just doesn't seem to exist for any sport except football.

Having done a little research on this I've discovered that a GB football team has, in fact, competed at the Olympics on nine occasions, winning the gold three times in the early years. The team has comprised a mix of amateur-only sides and professionals over the years and was actually managed by Matt Busby in 1948 when they finished fourth. From 1960 until 2012 they either failed to qualify or didn't enter so it's clear that for many years there was no big deal surrounding whether there should be a GB team. So I guess my question now is not so much why is there a problem with entering such a team but why has it become such a no-no for some in more recent years?

Sorry I'm getting mixed up with your Scotty Brown comments and the national team........I'll just go back to my original comment of why is football included at all? Theres no need & very little interest. For me the olympics was a nice escape from the football season..Was anyone that fussed when we didnt enter a team this time around? Perhaps womens soccer which could do with the exposure...And five a side isnt a sport where as rugby sevens is..Just chucking a thing in there in order to have a team doesnt serve any purpose..:wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

It's not my intention to make this confusing so apologies if I've not made my point clear. For me it's a simple comparison between football and all manner of other sports where there appears to be no problem when it comes to forming a combined side drawing from all the home nations, be that the Olympics or a Lions tour. The debate over sovereignty just doesn't seem to exist for any sport except football.

Having done a little research on this I've discovered that a GB football team has, in fact, competed at the Olympics on nine occasions, winning the gold three times in the early years. The team has comprised a mix of amateur-only sides and professionals over the years and was actually managed by Matt Busby in 1948 when they finished fourth. From 1960 until 2012 they either failed to qualify or didn't enter so it's clear that for many years there was no big deal surrounding whether there should be a GB team. So I guess my question now is not so much why is there a problem with entering such a team but why has it become such a no-no for some in more recent years?

The Lions example does confuse things, though. It's a combination of players from 2 separate countries, albeit 4 rugby federations.

[Gordy M]

It's not my intention to make this confusing so apologies if I've not made my point clear. For me it's a simple comparison between football and all manner of other sports where there appears to be no problem when it comes to forming a combined side drawing from all the home nations, be that the Olympics or a Lions tour. The debate over sovereignty just doesn't seem to exist for any sport except football.

Having done a little research on this I've discovered that a GB football team has, in fact, competed at the Olympics on nine occasions, winning the gold three times in the early years. The team has comprised a mix of amateur-only sides and professionals over the years and was actually managed by Matt Busby in 1948 when they finished fourth. From 1960 until 2012 they either failed to qualify or didn't enter so it's clear that for many years there was no big deal surrounding whether there should be a GB team. So I guess my question now is not so much why is there a problem with entering such a team but why has it become such a no-no for some in more recent years?

The issue was, and im not sure if it is still the case, that various nations in europe and africa stated that if GB had a regular national GB team at the olympics, then they would be pushing for that in FIFA competitions, thereby reducing the teams that could qualify and creating more chances for their own country. FIFA gave assurances that this wouldnt happen for the London olympics but the feeling was if that continued then these countries would raise the issue again.

[G B Young]

the fact that you are pointing out, that this rugger thing, albeit British Lions , followed by so many well off fans, tells it's own story. the ordinary man, certainly where I'm at, has no interest in that. some have hardly got enough to get the bairns to a club game every second week.

Straying off the thread topic a bit here, but it's easy to dismiss rugby as an elitist sport played and supported only by the wealthy. From a Scotland point of view, the picture is distorted by Edinburgh's public school system, but there have been many great Scottish players from working class backgrounds, especially during the great days when some tough as teak Borderers used to make up the bulk of the team. Guys like Gary Armstrong and Peter Wright (lorry drivers by profession) were stalwarts of the side, while former England captain Brian Moore (regarded my many as the archetypal arrogant Englishman) was born into as deprived an upbringing as most could imagine. Further afield, the class system simply doesn't apply to the game in other nations and as you'll see in this article (written by a Labour party stalwart), revolutionary heroes like Che Guevara and Steve Biko were talented and enthusiastic rugby players:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/02/01/rugby-union-it%E2%80%99s-not-just-for-the-posh-boys/

As for admission prices to club football, you're right, it's hard for many (myself included) to take the kids. For less than half the price you'll get into a club rugby game, which is usually far more entertaining than international rugby these days and where you're never likely to see a nil-nil draw!

It's a similar story with cricket and given your own background you might be aware that the dearth of good English fast bowlers is often attributed to the demise of the mining industry in the UK. It used to be said you just had to whistle down a Yorkshire mine shaft to unearth a new England fast bowler. Good article on the cricket/mining connection here:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketer/content/story/261262.html

Sorry to prattle on about this if it's something that holds no interest for you. I'll sign off now!

[yekimevol]

100% no from me.

[hibee_nation]

Hopefully there will be a team Scotland come the Tokyo games. Alba Gu Brath. :aok:

[NAE NOOKIE]

As long as the Home Nations current status is guaranteed, I wouldn't have a problem. Rugby seemed to manage it without any drama.

That's the problem though ... push this and it wouldn't be guaranteed, the independence of the 'home nations' was guaranteed by FIFA because the British associations ( or at least the English FA ) gave them financial assistance at the end of WW2 with the price being that the home nations would be left alone.

The world is a very different place now with far more independent states than existed then and far more able to enter a team into the world cup .... as far as they are concerned our 'bribe' is long past its sell by date ..... The fact that what is supposed to be one country had 3 different teams at the finals of the Euros ( and could have had 4 ) wont have gone unnoticed by those with a vested interest in GB competing as one team at world cups. From their point of view team GB at the Olympics and 4 different entries into the world cup would be having our cake and eating it and I for one wouldn't blame them for being angry about it.

As for Rugby ... as somebody else on here pointed out, they barely have enough countries good enough at the game, or interested enough in it, to make a world cup viable ... if you had a GB team in that you would lose three of the most competitive countries at a stroke and replace them with one.

[ScottB]

That's the problem though ... push this and it wouldn't be guaranteed, the independence of the 'home nations' was guaranteed by FIFA because the British associations ( or at least the English FA ) gave them financial assistance at the end of WW2 with the price being that the home nations would be left alone.

The world is a very different place now with far more independent states than existed then and far more able to enter a team into the world cup .... as far as they are concerned our 'bribe' is long past its sell by date ..... The fact that what is supposed to be one country had 3 different teams at the finals of the Euros ( and could have had 4 ) wont have gone unnoticed by those with a vested interest in GB competing as one team at world cups. From their point of view team GB at the Olympics and 4 different entries into the world cup would be having our cake and eating it and I for one wouldn't blame them for being angry about it.

As for Rugby ... as somebody else on here pointed out, they barely have enough countries good enough at the game, or interested enough in it, to make a world cup viable ... if you had a GB team in that you would lose three of the most competitive countries at a stroke and replace them with one.

On the other hand, UEFA / FIFA seem happy for just about anyone to field a national team these days, if Gibraltar and Kosovo, two highly disputed states that aren't universally recognised can compete, I can't imagine much of a serious threat being applied to the Home Nations' status!

Personally, I'm not fussed about football being in the Olympics, might be nice to copy Rugby and introduce a shorter / indoor competition of they really want to have it, but as said, provided it wouldn't threaten our status the rest of the time, a Team GB side taking part wouldn't bother me.

[Haymaker]

Thing is, team GB would still have to qualify for the Olympics. You don't just get in!

[G B Young]

Thing is, team GB would still have to qualify for the Olympics. You don't just get in!

That's correct. They got in automatically as hosts in 2012 but failed to qualify from 1960 to 1972 which more or less spelled the end of the GB team for a good number of years.

In the 1990s, the UEFA Under-21 Championship was used as the qualifying competition for the Olympics and in 1996 the SNP proposed that as the highest placed home nation Scotland should represent GB at the Olympics. The SFA rejected the proposal.

Interesting article here on Scots who have played for a British team at the Olympics:

http://stv.tv/sport/football/229107-who-says-scots-have-never-played-for-a-british-olympic-football-team/

[Kavinho]

It's not my intention to make this confusing so apologies if I've not made my point clear. For me it's a simple comparison between football and all manner of other sports where there appears to be no problem when it comes to forming a combined side drawing from all the home nations, be that the Olympics or a Lions tour. The debate over sovereignty just doesn't seem to exist for any sport except football.

Having done a little research on this I've discovered that a GB football team has, in fact, competed at the Olympics on nine occasions, winning the gold three times in the early years. The team has comprised a mix of amateur-only sides and professionals over the years and was actually managed by Matt Busby in 1948 when they finished fourth. From 1960 until 2012 they either failed to qualify or didn't enter so it's clear that for many years there was no big deal surrounding whether there should be a GB team. So I guess my question now is not so much why is there a problem with entering such a team but why has it become such a no-no for some in more recent years?


Look at the early history of the lions and you'll see it wasa no no then too

[G B Young]

Look at the early history of the lions and you'll see it wasa no no then too

What was a no no back then? The formation of the Lions? I wasn't aware of that, but if that's the case it's interesting that whatever differences there were have long since been set aside and the Lions tours have become hugely popular global sporting events.

As the article I posted above on Scottish footballers at the Olympics contends, great sporting events like this should be seen as a celebration of the qualities that bind nations together and not a focus on the issues that divide them.

[CropleyWasGod]

What was a no no back then? The formation of the Lions? I wasn't aware of that, but if that's the case it's interesting that whatever differences there were have long since been set aside and the Lions tours have become hugely popular global sporting events.

As the article I posted above on Scottish footballers at the Olympics contends, great sporting events like this should be seen as a celebration of the qualities that bind nations together and not a focus on the issues that divide them.

As has been said before, the Lions are not a good example to follow. They represent a combination of 4 separate rugby nations, but 2 separate legal countries.

The equivalent in football would be a combined UK and Republic of Ireland team.

[Gordy M]

Why a football TeamGB is a threat to the independence of the ‘home nations’ | Wales since 1939
https://martinjohnes.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/why-a-football-teamgb-is-a-threat-to-the-independence-of-the-home-nations/

Quite an interesting read and explains some of the home nations relutance to take part in a Team GB at the Olympics.

[WeeRussell]

Not being a believer in the British state I look forward to the demise of Team UK and the rise of Team Scotland, only then will I take an interest in the fortunes of our various sporting achievements in the Olympics, including football.

Saved me a bit of typing :aok:

I get how those happy to cheer on 'Team GB' at the olympics, but have a concern for the state of the Scottish National team, face something of a dilemma on the subject.

As I don't actively support anything or anyone representing a Union Jack at sport, there is no dilemma. Don't get me wrong - I don't sit desperately wanting every Brit to get beat but I tend to just cheer on my favourite individuals, regardless of what country they come from.

That is why I never get excited for the olympics - it's mostly sports I would never watch, which I can't get overly excited for as I am unable to support what I consider to be "my country".

[Glory Lurker]

What was a no no back then? The formation of the Lions? I wasn't aware of that, but if that's the case it's interesting that whatever differences there were have long since been set aside and the Lions tours have become hugely popular global sporting events.

As the article I posted above on Scottish footballers at the Olympics contends, great sporting events like this should be seen as a celebration of the qualities that bind nations together and not a focus on the issues that divide them.

Should they not be a celebration of sport?

[G B Young]

Saved me a bit of typing :aok:

I get how those happy to cheer on 'Team GB' at the olympics, but have a concern for the state of the Scottish National team, face something of a dilemma on the subject.

As I don't actively support anything or anyone representing a Union Jack at sport, there is no dilemma. Don't get me wrong - I don't sit desperately wanting every Brit to get beat but I tend to just cheer on my favourite individuals, regardless of what country they come from.

That is why I never get excited for the olympics - it's mostly sports I would never watch, which I can't get overly excited for as I am unable to support what I consider to be "my country".

I've always felt sport should be a politics-free zone and personally I thoroughly enjoyed the way the Olympics relegated a lot of the daily political sparring to also ran status when it came to the news agenda. I agree it certainly wouldn't be an enjoyable way to watch the Olympics if you had to pick and choose which GB athlete you felt able to lend your support to.

[Nemo]

Anything that weakens Scotland position in world football is a no from me.

I believe a semi regular British team would be a nail in the coffin of Scotland, Wales, NI and England.

Olympic football is a farce anyway, nobody really takes it seriously. Brazil were only up for it because of their poor showing at the Copa America and their humiliation in their home World Cup v the Germans. They needed a good news story.

J

Thats the main worry of the SFA

although assurances were given in the lead up to London 2012 by FIFA.

i also know that FIFA and UEFA are not to be trusted on this particular issue, and "allegedly" the SFA concur.

And yes, on this issue iam ITK

[Septimus]

Every four years I have to carefully schedule my TV viewing to avoid seeing any of the Olympic rubbish. On average according to the New Statesman every medal won by a GB competitor cost 5.5 million pounds of public money. Perhaps if the teams/players were amateur I would feel differently but I can quite easily live without watching grossly overpaid people running round in circles.

[Pete]

Allardyce might be OK in the short term but he's no good in the long run. Even he knows this.

What they need is a Guardiola or a Conte. An interactive, real-time manager that can even dictate a philosophy from the ground up.

[superfurryhibby]

Every four years I have to carefully schedule my TV viewing to avoid seeing any of the Olympic rubbish. On average according to the New Statesman every medal won by a GB competitor cost 5.5 million pounds of public money. Perhaps if the teams/players were amateur I would feel differently but I can quite easily live without watching grossly overpaid people running round in circles.

Most of the athletes outwith the elite level receive c£25:000/ year, plus whatever they can raise via sponsorship etc. Funding is 2/3 lotto money and according to the Guardian, the cost to the public is £1:09/ per head of population.

The same article highlights that government funding is standard practice in many industries, it stimulates the economy.

Success creates interest and fuels participation at all levels?

I personally am much more concerned about buying a replqcement for Trident and closing tax avoidance loopholes that allow big business to renege on their liability.

As for a GB football team, no chance. Very few people outwith the Hun and diehard Unionists would identify with that entity. Allardyce, was a shocking appointment from the FA. No imagination or vision.

[WeeRussell]

I've always felt sport should be a politics-free zone and personally I thoroughly enjoyed the way the Olympics relegated a lot of the daily political sparring to also ran status when it came to the news agenda. I agree it certainly wouldn't be an enjoyable way to watch the Olympics if you had to pick and choose which GB athlete you felt able to lend your support to.

I don't disagree, but I also struggle to get right into a sport unless I have some degree of passion in my support for someone.. or if I have money on them! I will never feel passionately for anything Team GB.

I guess it's similar to the Ryder Cup. I am a golfing fan but never get as enthusiastic for the RC as others seem to... being European just isn't something I really associate with! Having said that, I'd take being called European over British any day of the week (that's us back into politics now :greengrin)

[G B Young]

Every four years I have to carefully schedule my TV viewing to avoid seeing any of the Olympic rubbish. On average according to the New Statesman every medal won by a GB competitor cost 5.5 million pounds of public money. Perhaps if the teams/players were amateur I would feel differently but I can quite easily live without watching grossly overpaid people running round in circles.

As somebody else has pointed out, very few of the Olympic athletes are 'grossly overpaid' and the cost per medal is only a miniscule fraction of the price you claim. Personally I think it's money well spent on something that brings such pleasure to billions around the globe.

I know you don't watch the Olympics but if you were to see what competitors from all nations put in to their sports I'd be surprised if you weren't inspired by their dedication. I think it's a magnificent, feelgood event and to dismiss it as 'people running around in circles' is very disrespectful to some truly extraordinary competitors from all nations, not just Team GB, who take your breath away with their ability.

They may not be paid directly from the public purse, but if any athletes are grossly overpaid it's footballers, especially in the supposedly world-class English Premier League. Such inflated salaries are underpinned by fans' continued willingness to shell out for overpriced tickets and TV packages to watch what is often a distinctly mediocre product.

[Thecat23]

Big Sam 😂😂😂😂😂

Sorry nothing else to add as he's horrific!

[KWJ]

Shove it.

[pacoluna]

Shove it.
up big sam's ar*e

[Lancs Harp]

Personally I don't see any threat to English, Scottish, N.Irish and Welsh FA independence, why would there be? But I'm not in favour of a GB football team personally and there seems very little appetite anywhere in Britain for it. Football in the Olympics is a bit odd with its age restrictions plus a few "others", obviously stipulated by FIFA so the Olympic event can never compete with its world cup.

[PeeJay]

The Olympic Team GB - with sportsmen/women from all over the UK - secured a superb haul of medals, taking 2nd place only to the US - the various football teams of the nation win nothing, if they even qualify for competitions - could there be a lesson in there somewhere? :confused:

[itslegaltender]

What was a no no back then? The formation of the Lions? I wasn't aware of that, but if that's the case it's interesting that whatever differences there were have long since been set aside and the Lions tours have become hugely popular global sporting events.

As the article I posted above on Scottish footballers at the Olympics contends, great sporting events like this should be seen as a celebration of the qualities that bind nations together and not a focus on the issues that divide them.

Not the same comparison with lions who have Republic of Ireland players and is in reality a minority sport.

[Dalianwanda]

The Olympic Team GB - with sportsmen/women from all over the UK - secured a superb haul of medals, taking 2nd place only to the US - the various football teams of the nation win nothing, if they even qualify for competitions - could there be a lesson in there somewhere? :confused:

Nah dont think so..Unless your looking at how funding is allocated, what constitutes elite atheletes & finally the focus of training...Perhaps lessons there but nothing in terms of GB itself...

[G B Young]

Personally I don't see any threat to English, Scottish, N.Irish and Welsh FA independence, why would there be? But I'm not in favour of a GB football team personally and there seems very little appetite anywhere in Britain for it. Football in the Olympics is a bit odd with its age restrictions plus a few "others", obviously stipulated by FIFA so the Olympic event can never compete with its world cup.

We were at the Team GB group game v the United Arab Emirates at Wembley in 2012 and there were more than 85,000 there. When Giggs opened the scoring it was a great atmosphere. I'm sure there were 70,000+ crowds at the games they played outwith London too. We were also at the women's game v Brazil. Just checked the crowd and it was 70,584. Scotland's Kim Little was playing and the place went mental when Team GB scored the winner.

What struck me about the games was how good natured the crowd was. Bellamy and Giggs were key players for the men's team and received a lot of backing. More than any other nation, I think England has often pondered how much more successful they might have been if they'd been able to call upon the likes of Best, Law, Giggs, Bale etc. I know it was the Olympics, which brings with it a different vibe, but I do suspect that were the SFA to become a little less entrenched in their disapproval of the idea it might surprise many fans how quickly they'd warm to a GB men's team which included Scottish players.

[Haymaker]

I'd never warm to a GB side in football.

[superfurryhibby]

We were at the Team GB group game v the United Arab Emirates at Wembley in 2012 and there were more than 85,000 there. When Giggs opened the scoring it was a great atmosphere. I'm sure there were 70,000+ crowds at the games they played outwith London too. We were also at the women's game v Brazil. Just checked the crowd and it was 70,584. Scotland's Kim Little was playing and the place went mental when Team GB scored the winner.

What struck me about the games was how good natured the crowd was. Bellamy and Giggs were key players for the men's team and received a lot of backing. More than any other nation, I think England has often pondered how much more successful they might have been if they'd been able to call upon the likes of Best, Law, Giggs, Bale etc. I know it was the Olympics, which brings with it a different vibe, but I do suspect that were the SFA to become a little less entrenched in their disapproval of the idea it might surprise many fans how quickly they'd warm to a GB men's team which included Scottish players.

Going by the response on here, you are kidding yourself. No one wants it, it's never going to happen, end of story.

[Lancs Harp]

We were at the Team GB group game v the United Arab Emirates at Wembley in 2012 and there were more than 85,000 there. When Giggs opened the scoring it was a great atmosphere. I'm sure there were 70,000+ crowds at the games they played outwith London too. We were also at the women's game v Brazil. Just checked the crowd and it was 70,584. Scotland's Kim Little was playing and the place went mental when Team GB scored the winner.

What struck me about the games was how good natured the crowd was. Bellamy and Giggs were key players for the men's team and received a lot of backing. More than any other nation, I think England has often pondered how much more successful they might have been if they'd been able to call upon the likes of Best, Law, Giggs, Bale etc. I know it was the Olympics, which brings with it a different vibe, but I do suspect that were the SFA to become a little less entrenched in their disapproval of the idea it might surprise many fans how quickly they'd warm to a GB men's team which included Scottish players.

Was a one off tournament mate. Was the fervour the same as a Scotland game or an England game? There is no passion about a GB team from any of the home nations. Team selection for instance, done on the best players or being PC between the home nations? Its bollux sorry.

[KWJ]

We were at the Team GB group game v the United Arab Emirates at Wembley in 2012 and there were more than 85,000 there. When Giggs opened the scoring it was a great atmosphere. I'm sure there were 70,000+ crowds at the games they played outwith London too. We were also at the women's game v Brazil. Just checked the crowd and it was 70,584. Scotland's Kim Little was playing and the place went mental when Team GB scored the winner.

What struck me about the games was how good natured the crowd was. Bellamy and Giggs were key players for the men's team and received a lot of backing. More than any other nation, I think England has often pondered how much more successful they might have been if they'd been able to call upon the likes of Best, Law, Giggs, Bale etc. I know it was the Olympics, which brings with it a different vibe, but I do suspect that were the SFA to become a little less entrenched in their disapproval of the idea it might surprise many fans how quickly they'd warm to a GB men's team which included Scottish players.

Or Pele, Maradona and Cruyff :crazy:

They wouldn't be able to help themselves from calling it England.

I support some of the athletes individually but I the name Team GB grates with me, what was wrong with calling it Team UK ffs.

Fair play to you for giving your opinion but I'd rather support a ***** Scotland with some passion than merge with our biggest rivals, ken.

[ronaldo7]

Was a one off tournament mate. Was the fervour the same as a Scotland game or an England game? There is no passion about a GB team from any of the home nations. Team selection for instance, done on the best players or being PC between the home nations? Its bollux sorry.

:agree: Next we'll have morris dancing in the Olympics.

[PeeJay]

We were at the Team GB group game v the United Arab Emirates at Wembley in 2012 and there were more than 85,000 there. When Giggs opened the scoring it was a great atmosphere. I'm sure there were 70,000+ crowds at the games they played outwith London too. We were also at the women's game v Brazil. Just checked the crowd and it was 70,584. Scotland's Kim Little was playing and the place went mental when Team GB scored the winner.

What struck me about the games was how good natured the crowd was. Bellamy and Giggs were key players for the men's team and received a lot of backing. More than any other nation, I think England has often pondered how much more successful they might have been if they'd been able to call upon the likes of Best, Law, Giggs, Bale etc. I know it was the Olympics, which brings with it a different vibe, but I do suspect that were the SFA to become a little less entrenched in their disapproval of the idea it might surprise many fans how quickly they'd warm to a GB men's team which included Scottish players.

Overall your post is a good one IMO, but then you spoil it with "England" might have been more successful with Best, Law, Giggs, Bale" - this can only apply to a Team GB, surely? None of the players would/could have played for any team called "England" ... GB is not England and England is not GB

[G B Young]

Overall your post is a good one IMO, but then you spoil it with "England" might have been more successful with Best, Law, Giggs, Bale" - this can only apply to a Team GB, surely? None of the players would/could have played for any team called "England" ... GB is not England and England is not GB

Sorry, I haven't really made myself clear there. I didn't mean that the team would be called England, I meant that down the years England fans especially have mooted how much stronger a side could have been put together were players from other nations involved along with the best English players. The team itself would obviously have to be a Team GB or Team UK. England would almost certainly have the majority of the players in the squad, simply down to the fact they have biggest pool to choose from, but just as most British sports fans get behind competitors representing GB, be that at the Olympics, the Open golf, Wimbledon, Davis Cup etc, I think such a team might be easier to back than many think.

[hibee_nation]

Sorry, I haven't really made myself clear there. I didn't mean that the team would be called England, I meant that down the years England fans especially have mooted how much stronger a side could have been put together were players from other nations involved along with the best English players. The team itself would obviously have to be a Team GB or Team UK. England would almost certainly have the majority of the players in the squad, simply down to the fact they have biggest pool to choose from, but just as most British sports fans get behind competitors representing GB, be that at the Olympics, the Open golf, Wimbledon, Davis Cup etc, I think such a team might be easier to back than many think.

Be a good chance for the huns to wave their UJ flags and sing rule britania i suppose.

[PeeJay]

Sorry, I haven't really made myself clear there. I didn't mean that the team would be called England, I meant that down the years England fans especially have mooted how much stronger a side could have been put together were players from other nations involved along with the best English players. The team itself would obviously have to be a Team GB or Team UK. England would almost certainly have the majority of the players in the squad, simply down to the fact they have biggest pool to choose from, but just as most British sports fans get behind competitors representing GB, be that at the Olympics, the Open golf, Wimbledon, Davis Cup etc, I think such a team might be easier to back than many think.

Yeah, guessed that, you're spot on there I think - seems strange to support a Team GB and then to say, not the football team ...

[hhibs]

Hibs have proved for far much longer that we are even more miles off the pace...

Of course, the other constituent parts of the UK have been totally ON the pace and we want to jump on their coattails. ..

Let's have a European national team and guarantee winning at least the Euros every singe time..

Or alternatively you are trolling or a British Nationalist pushing your agenda - or a troll.


Indeed !

[G B Young]

As long as the Home Nations current status is guaranteed, I wouldn't have a problem. Rugby seemed to manage it without any drama.

Rugby, or at least the sevens version, appears to be more open minded about a regular nationwide side:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37191726

[Kavinho]

Surely time to give this a rest.....?

[Scouse Hibee]

Ironically Scotland has a team including GB players who qualify through some very tenuous links like lots of other nations. Time to cut back on the criteria that allows players to pick one nation because they have no chance of being selected for another. I blame Jack Charlton.

[Haymaker]

As long as the Home Nations current status is guaranteed, I wouldn't have a problem. Rugby seemed to manage it without any drama.

A GB team for the Olympic football would have to qualify for it meaning we would have to have a team GB in competition. This would mean the separate home nations would have to become one.

Not worth it for a competition every 4 years.

And personally, I wouldn't support it.

[Haymaker]

Ironically Scotland has a team including GB players who qualify through some very tenuous links like lots of other nations. Time to cut back on the criteria that allows players to pick one nation because they have no chance of being selected for another. I blame Jack Charlton.

This. I can understand for some people but sometimes it takes the piss. Players getting in via their gran who have never even seen Scotland is pushing it a bit.