Football in the 2024 Summer Olympics

This section will allow us to post a commentary for live updates and a video to help people learn more!

Welcome to our website, which we hope can serve as your comprehensive guide to exploring the dynamic world of football at the Olympics.

We examine the contrasts between men's and women's football tournaments, offering insights into roster compositions, team sizes, player ages, historical winner trends, differing play styles, and regional football landscapes.

Whether you're a passionate football enthusiast or a curious observer, we hope you can learn something new through our analysis of the beautiful game at its Olympic best.

One of the biggest differences between the Men’s and Women’s Tournaments is what roster each one brings to the Olympics. Before 1984, the Men’s tournament could not include any professional athletes, which meant the rosters consisted of amateurs only. This was consistent with the overarching rules of the games, no professional players could participate in any sport.

Starting in 1984, countries were able to bring their full national teams, with the condition that any European and South American players could not have played in a World Cup. The rules changed once more in 1992 which allowed countries to bring their U23 roster.

The Olympic committee made a final amendment to the rules in 1996 to permit three overage players to play in the tournament. In recent memory, Neymar was one of the above age players on Brazil’s 2016 Rio roster and won the tournament that year.

On the other hand the Women’s side, all teams bring their full national team roster since the first tournament in 1996. The same rules regarding rosters do not apply here, and they can call up any player they choose to for the games.

 The main argument for the younger and restricted roster on the men’s side is that if they were to play the full national team, there would be too much competition with the World Cup.

FIFA is worried that if the players were able to play during the Olympics on a large global stage, they would have less viewers during their World Cup. So to reduce the competition for players' screen time, they came to an agreement with the Olympic committee to only allow certain players on the roster. However, this argument does not seem to be raised on the Women’s side.

This decision has major consequences for the players both physically and financially.

Physically, the women are expected to qualify and play in two major tournaments every two years, in addition to other tournaments, unlike the men who only focus on qualifying for the World Cup every four years. This puts players at risk for more injuries as they transition from club to national team and the increased practices needed for major tournaments. They are not getting the same amount of rest needed to be on an elite playing level.

Financially, this decision to restrict the Olympic roster for the men’s side, hurts the women’s in their journey for equal pay. One of the biggest pushes in recent years is increasing the amount of money female soccer players make in comparison to their male counterparts. This can be seen by movements all across the world and in particular, the USWNT lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation. An argument from those against equal pay says that women should be paid less because the Women’s World Cup brings in less money every time. But when looking at rules such as the rosters for the Olympics, the men’s side have less opportunities to play on bigger stages and against a wide variety of teams. Based on this alone, it would make sense how the Men’s World Cup has more revenue, because they do not see the players in other global tournaments like the Olympics.

Another difference between the two tournaments is the amount of teams that can qualify and which teams advance after the group stage.

One of the biggest differences in the tournaments is that there are twelve teams on the women’s side but sixteen on the men’s. The top two teams in the men’s and women’s tournament get to advance but the women’s side allow the top two third place finishers to also progress. The smaller pool of teams might have made sense in 1996 due to the relatively lesser numbers of national teams for women compared to the men, but in the past 20 years, the number of teams has increased significantly.

There are more teams than ever making the smaller playing pool detrimental to the women’s game. Playing on a global stage like the Olympics is how teams get noticed, attract players, and ultimately receive more funding for their programs. By having fewer teams at this stage, smaller teams are not able to gain the same exposure and experience. Additionally, they have increased difficulty qualifying against well-established teams due to the fewer number of spots available.

A comparison of the Men’s and Women’s medalists must begin in 1996, as the Atlanta games were the first where women played soccer on the Olympic stage.

From the first tournament, the US Women’s National Team established themselves as the group to beat. The USWNT has taken home the gold medal four times, and medaled in six of the seven female Olympic tournaments.

The notable exception to this winning streak occurred during the infamous Rio games in 2016, during which the United States was knocked out during the quarter finals.

In contrast, the Brazilian Men’s team, often heralded as the male powerhouse of global tournaments, has medaled in soccer only seven times since the inception of the Olympic games. In percentages, the USWNT has medaled in 85.7% of Olympic tournaments since 1996, while Brazil has medaled in 71% since 1996 and 20% overall. 

While the USWNT and Brazilian records are only split by ten percent and one tournament, the other medalists during the years between 1996 and today give a better picture of the variability in the men’s tournament and consistency in the women’s.

In the six Olympic tournaments, twelve separate countries hold medals on the men’s side while only nine countries hold medals on the women’s. Indeed, in the international sphere, the women’s team seems to boast a collection of powerhouses that trade medals between each other–teams like the US, Sweden, and Canada–while the men’s looks to have more variability. Perhaps some of this variability stems from cultural hindrances women face.

The first sign of this cultural hindrance is in the measly six tournaments that women have played in; it was only in the nineties that women’s soccer was deemed fit for the international stage, both in the Olympics and the World Cup.

As we read over the course of the semester, male opposition to women’s soccer is not new–the ban on the sport for women in Brazil was lifted in 1979, while the British ban was lifted in 1971.

In Latin America, CONEMBOL organized the first continental competition for women in 2009–decades after the male Libertores tournament began. Even in countries where there isn’t a specific ban, women still struggle against harmful social stereotypes that paint athletic women as hyper-masculine, and against regulations deeming that female athletes are unable to go pro.

Building a plethora of programs, then, is difficult–how can female leagues fight against all of society and become an international powerhouse? 

Personally, I wonder if women’s place in sport was carved out on the tail end of the National Park movement of the Gilded Age.

As women began working in factories in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and the suffrage movement gained momentum, American woman began to enjoy recreational activities such as riding bikes, and the wealthier class enjoyed “country club” sports like tennis and swimming  (source) .

As the American identity grew more connected to the separation of the work and life spheres and recreational fitness gained popularity, female athletes were granted more opportunities to compete. In some ways, women’s soccer emerged as a female counterpart to American football, from which women are still banned from playing (or, if they aren’t officially banned, it is at least taboo to play).

The American recreational leisure movement finds its place with young women today in their club teams across the country. Sport is a part of growing up, for girls and boys alike–and perhaps it is the American cultural focus on recreational sport that has allowed our country to build a sustainable women’s program. 

The cultural and codified barriers that female soccer players face throughout the world likely creates the lack of variability in the winners throughout Olympic history. It was only in 2023 that the women’s World Cup boasted 32 teams, which the men’s World Cups have been able to field since 1998.

The men’s tournament will not remain in-line with the women’s tournament for long, either–in 2026, the men’s World Cup will expand to 48 teams. 

With fewer countries in play, more barriers for players, and less time spent on the international stage, how could the winners of the women’s Olympic tournaments vary like the men’s?

When people describe the differences between men’s and women’s soccer, they often describe male play as faster, more aggressive, more graceful.

Some of these stereotypes are rooted in the same stereotype that has hindered women’s sports forever–for example, the “less aggressive” clause may be rooted in a societal image of women as gentle caregivers, as I have broken enough bones playing women’s soccer to consider the sport fairly physical. Women generally move the ball around more, opting to send a well-timed pass rather than taking on a defender one-on-one.

These differences are often what viewers cite as a reason to avoid women’s sports on television; if men’s soccer is depicted as more exciting and skilled, the average viewer would turn on that game over the “slow” women’s match. 

A recent NIH study attributed these differences in play style to restrictions in the differences between male and female play hinder women on the field. While the age requirement is slightly different between the men’s and women’s Olympic tournaments, the rules of play are identical for men and women. This study argued that the uniformity of these rules is a case of equality vs. equity–when women play with goals, balls, and even uniforms that are built for the average male stature, they lose opportunities to showcase their own grace, speed, and power.

Personally, I am not sure I wholly agree with this sentiment. Women’s soccer is not any less graceful, fast, or powerful than men’s soccer–it’s just different. And many of these differences likely stem from the societal expectations of women: for example, a woman who has been conditioned from birth to distance herself from her own accomplishments would be more likely to pass the ball than breakaway and dribble down the field, lest she be described as “cocky.” An immediate example of such language would be the harsh descriptions of Megan Rapinoe, such as Piers Morgan calling her arrogant. 

In this year’s Olympics, I believe that rising viewership and attention in women’s sports will continue. While in America the USWNT has long been a beloved part of the Olympic tradition, with the 2023 World Cup roster announced by A-list celebrities including Taylor Swift and Joe Biden, viewership in other parts of the world has steadily increased over the years.

Brazil, which has long been identified as a global soccer powerhouse, has only just seen an uptick in viewership of women’s tournaments. While viewership of the 2023 World Cup final dipped from 2019 in Europe, this change can largely be attributed to the unfortunate time difference. With the Olympic tournament taking place in France this year, viewership is likely to return to or exceed the 2019 figures.