Monday, 28 April 2014

The Olympics are better than the World Cup...

Every two years we are subject to either one of these two great sporting events. The Olympic Games and The World Cup can always be relied upon for drama, upsets, excitement and unknowns making their name on the global stage. 

Now, both merit their accolades as the pinnacle of competing for the athletes involved and the majority of the sport watching public would say football, and therefore the World Cup, is better. I'm going to dispel these inaccuracies through the power of word. It may only be my opinion but I certainly believe it to be true. 



Here are five reasons why I think the Olympics are the better event: 

5. The Olympics has more than one sport

A simple one to start with. When the World Cup is on all you have is football. That's it. This may be a dream come true for some people and more often than not the best players in the world are on show but this is a negative when it comes to this article. The Olympic Games has a massive number of athletes from all walks of life and you can pick and chose what you're watching at any given time. These competitors may not always be famous, rich or have the backing of multi-national companies but yet they can still capture the imagination of so many and do the unthinkable and compete at the highest level of their sport but do so in the knowledge that if they don't win they have still been to the top of their game. They've been to the Olympics.


4. World Records

How often do you sit down to a World Cup match, whether it be the first round or the final, and think; 'There could be a new world record in this match'. Not very often, I would imagine. I have never went into a game of football thinking about the quickest goal, most goals scored or the most passes completed. Maybe it's just the nature of the sport but, for me, you simply cannot beat that feeling of possibility. When David Rudisha ran 1.40.91 in the 800m at London 2012 I was in complete awe. A world record is something special, it is the best time, distance or score that the world has ever seen. Ever. 

3. You get football at the Olympics anyway...

OK, it's not the best players in the world that are playing but it's still football. The usually under-23 event sees the best in emerging talent in the world of soccer (sorry) and they take to the best stadiums in the country to try and win a gold, silver or bronze. The beauty of the tournament is that the whole country can have the chance to get along to at least one game as they are played at venues far and wide, not just within the home city. At London 2012, the football took place in venues such as Hampden, Old Trafford and St James' Park.

2. There's only one winner at the World Cup

You could argue that you only get one winner at the Olympics too but that's in each sport. These sports have different disciplines and categories which means there are hundreds of winners. Take weightlifting, for example, there is a whole number of different chance for people to enter and have a chance of winning. Your size, ability and age could affect your chances at appearing at the World Cup but at the Olympics you can be 12 or 75 and you can still be the best in your chosen sport. It's diverse and intriguing, not mundane. 

1. Not winning actually means something

If you get to the World Cup Final but don't get your hands on that trophy, you're going to be remembered as the also rans. That nearly side. The team that could have been. If you come second in the Olympics you're a silver medalist and are celebrated beyond imagination. The way in which gold, silver and bronze is set out is to ensure that if you don't win, you still have a chance of being celebrated. Of course, there is a third and fourth play-off in the World Cup but this isn't usually a game to remember and they're ultimately pointless. Being Scottish, it would be a win for my side just to qualify for a World Cup Finals never mind coming close to winning but I think medals are a much better way of doing things. Unless you come fourth. That must be tough. 

That concludes my argument. I'm 99% sure you could turn this article on its head and reverse it completely to make the Olympics look a bit rubbish and to put the World Cup in a magnificent light but not this time. 

Do you agree? Am I completely insane? Let me know in the comments below or on Twitter where I can be found at @paulsworldsport












1 comment:

  1. Midfield Veteran1 May 2014 at 09:36

    Good stuff. For the more general sports fan, I can see why the Olympics are more attractive. Also take your point about world records.

    I'm too football biased so I will always prefer the World Cup (though the CL and sometimes the Euros are better competitions.

    I actually think the big problem with the Olympics is that it's become too big. I think it should be restricted to sports where the Olympics are the biggest title in the sport e.g athletics, swimming, track cycling, amateur boxing.

    There's too many events where being the Olympic title isn't the be all and end all e.g football (W/C), tennis (grand slams), road cycling (grand tours). These should be removed as it could/would lead to more exposure for minority spoirts.

    ReplyDelete