Showing posts with label London 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London 2012. Show all posts

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Syrian footballers close in on London 2012


Amidst the chaotic political situation in Syria, one could be forgiven for presuming football is the last thing on the minds of many Syrians. Yet on Wednesday the Syrian Under-23 national football team travels to Bahrain where a victory would put them just one match away from qualifying for the London 2012 Olympic Games football tournament.

Sport has not been immune from the events of the past year in Syria. While the Syrian Premier League was suspended in 2011, matches have resumed, albeit with a large number of postponements. Syria was the only nation of twenty-two Arab countries not to send a team of athletes to the 2011 Pan Arab Games in Doha at protest of the Arab League’s suspension of their membership. Given the turbulence in the country, perhaps it was just as well that Syria were disqualified by FIFA in August 2011 from qualification for the 2014 World Cup after they fielded an ineligible player, George Murad, against Tajikistan.

But practically from nowhere and against all odds the Syrian Under-23 football side is making waves. A stunning 2-1 victory over group favourites Japan in early February, courtesy of a spectacular last-minute strike from Ahmad Al Salih, has catapulted Syria to the top of their qualification group and arguably installed them as favourites to qualify for the Olympics. Syria need to beat Bahrain this week and Malaysia next month, both of whom they have already defeated in this campaign, to guarantee their place in London, with South Korea and one of Uzbekistan or United Arab Emirates (at the expense of Australia) the other likely qualifiers from the region.

The situation is unprecedented given Syria’s previous lack of footballing pedigree, having never qualified for a World Cup or even got past the first round of the AFC Asian Cup. Even if they slip up and Japan top the group, Syria will still have further chances to reach the Olympics via playoffs first with other second place Asian teams and then potentially against Senegal in Coventry, venue for the AFC-CAF playoff.

However the victory over Japan, played on neutral territory in Amman, Jordan due to the unrest in Syria, also demonstrated the potential consequences of Syrian qualification for the Games. Although there were no direct clashes, the match was overshadowed by the politics of the conflict, with many Syrian fans opposed to President Bashar Assad cheering on Japan, while supporters of the regime chanted, "Long live, Bashar”. Should Syria qualify, it opens up the possibility of demonstrators opposed to the Syrian government and its violent repression descending on the London Olympics to protest against the regime, were the crisis not to be resolved by the summer.

The possibility of the Great Britain football team playing against Syria during the Olympics is both intriguing and sure to be immersed in political overtones. The current squad is drawn from all over Syria, from Damascus and Aleppo to Hama and Homs, cities at the sharp end of the current struggles. Both have been subject to army bombardment and fierce crackdowns in recent months.

Aside from the likely protests, the level of attention lavished on this group of young Syrians playing football in the UK at a global event would inevitably be monumental, with their actions and words under intense scrutiny. They have the potential to become the focus for a rallying cry against the Syrian government for opponents of the regime. Will the players present a united front or would political divisions manifest themselves in their performances and words? Would any players defect or speak out against their government with the world media watching and listening? What would the consequences of any resistance be?

On the other hand, a Syrian Olympic football team might represent the manifestation of sport overcoming violence and politics, possessing the ability to become a force for good. Representative as they are of all areas of Syria and its ethnic diversity, they could provide Syria a chance to show that sectarianism can be overcome and stoke a unity overcoming political chaos, violence and division.

There are distinct parallels with Libya, whose football team’s qualification for 2012 African Cup of Nations was set against the backdrop of civil war. Their impressive performance at the tournament presents a powerful example of revolution and unrest conspiring to unite, inspire and embolden a football team. In turn the exploits of the Libyan footballers offered some measure of respite, joy and unity to a beleaguered nation suffering the effects of war.

Thus it may not be simply coincidence that this upturn in performance for the Syrians is happening in the midst of national upheaval. There are indeed similarities with the form of other Arab nations’ football sides since the start of the Arab Spring. With the exception of Egypt, every North African football side (Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Sudan and Morocco) saw their results improve in 2011 since the outbreak of their particular versions of the Arab Spring, compared with the year prior. 

Through the power of experiencing seismic events at home, footballers in these countries have shown the ability to work together during tough periods towards a common goal and success. While their country is being torn apart, the Syrian Under-23 team is clearly fostering a sense of unity and strength through adversity. The results on the field are testament to this.

One player who is highly unlikely to feature is Abdelbasset Saroot, 20-year old goalkeeper for Syria's Under-23 team, but now a leader of the revolution and a marked man on the run from the Syrian authorities in battle-scarred Homs.

Saroot recently told Al Jazeera, "It's worth it. I'm free. I've travelled all over the world to play football. But freedom is not just about me or about travelling. What about everyone else? Freedom is a big word. It's about freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. If you see something wrong being done, freedom is being able to talk about it.”

Having already lost his home, brother and friends, and survived three attempts on his life, his story will doubtless be told during the summer if his Syrian teammates are competing in the Olympics, whether he is alive or not.


Tuesday, 12 July 2011

AV and the Great Olympic Ticket Debate

The endless debate and general negativity surrounding the Olympic ticketing process for London 2012 has also been marked by a curious lack of credible alternatives being put forward.

At the outset I must reveal that I was fortunate enough to receive Olympic tickets for Hockey, Handball, Football and Beach Volleyball (14 tickets in all) from the opening ballot. Very lucky yes, but I would also claim I played the system fairly well with my initial choices.


It is also worth pointing the overall success of the initial sale, with 23 sports sold out a year in advance. To quote the former IOC Director Michael Payne, “In the 115-year history of the Games, there has not been such a successful Olympic ticket programme” with a “democratic ticket distribution process…that will become a model for future Games.”

Compare this to the swathes of empty seats in Athens 20004, the Beijing 2008 ticket queues and questionable distribution process, or even Sydney 2000, which sold 92% of tickets.

Worse still, we might even look at the 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup (the ICC are currently investigating how thousands of World Cup tickets allegedly ended up on the black market or in the hands of VIPs, police or politicians) or the 2010 FIFA World Cup, which just months before the tournament had only sold 2.1m of 2.9m tickets, and 60,000 of 308,000 hospitality packages.

2011 ICC Cricket World Cup fans

Nevertheless, amidst the furore and attempts by LOCOG to ensure as many people get a chance in the second and third round of London 2012 ticket sales, it is worth asking; could there have been a better way? 

The answer may lie with 2011’s second most divisive process, the Alternative Vote (AV), the proposed change to the UK voting system that was so comprehensively crushed earlier this year. Or at least a version of it - I can hear electoral experts finding many flaws in my definition.

AV involves choosing your candidates in order of preference. AV when applied to the Olympic ticketing process could have seen the public choose their events by priority order.

 AV champion. Source: Liberal Democrats

An explanation: Apply for your Olympics tickets in rank order. The ballots for everyone’s first choice are held. Anyone who is unsuccessful is moved down into their second choice tickets ballot. And so on to third, fourth, fifth choice…

For example, you may have chosen four tickets to the 100m Final Athletics session as your first choice (along with 1m other people). If unsuccessful in this ballot (likely), you would drop down to the ballot for your second choice, four tickets to the Beach Volleyball. If you were unlucky enough to miss out on this (also very popular) sport, your third choice of the Basketball may have come up trumps. Otherwise, worst-case scenario, your fourth and fifth choices of Handball and Football are for you.

The main advantage of this system is that, rather than a random, scattergun approach, more people would actually have ended up with the tickets they really wanted. I am sure there are Swimming or Equestrian enthusiasts exasperated with a system that may have provided them with Gymnastics, Archery or Volleyball tickets, when in fact just one session at the Aquatic Centre or Greenwich Park would have sufficed.

Under the AV system, a good proportion of people would have got his or her first or second choice tickets (excepting those seeking ridiculously oversubscribed top level Athletics, Cycling and Swimming sessions).


 Will you be there? Source: Gerry Balding

Clearly plenty of people may still have missed out on their top choices, but by working down through their preferences would have ended up with at least some tickets. And clearly if the demand is not strong in certain sports, you could end up with plenty of tickets as you would be placed in every ballot you applied for until all the tickets are sold.

The chief problem with the process was the message of ‘Plan Your Games’ that the public was given by LOCOG, who probably never quite envisaged the surge of demand that took place. By encouraging people to aim high, to give them nothing in return was bound to cause some ill feeling.

If proof is required for the ability of my system to have worked, it was the numbers being provided by LOCOG that sparked off my thinking.

Around 6m tickets were available, 1.8m people applied. My mathematics suggests that to be 3-4 tickets per person. And often to that person’s first or second choice sport. Not too many would have complained.