Correct, except it's U-23. That makes sense for the women, since Olympic and World Cup years coincide, but I don't get it for the men, when the events are two years apart.

There is no question the World Cup is the premier "soccer" event, not the Olympics.


>as far as i remember there is a deal between the olympics and fifa, the olympics soccer tournament, for men anyway, is u21 only with 4 over age players allowed., this is done so that the olympics does not compete with the world cup.
>America is the best at football, but their football is American Football, in Ireland football is GAA, in OZ its Australian rules, UK its soccer, New Zealand its Rugby, football means very different things in different countries
>Slán
>~M
>
><snip>
>>As Metin said, I would not read to much into that. I don't know the story behind the women, but in the case of the men, a lot of countries just don't send off a team to the olympics for whatever reason. Though the netherlands on the average has a very good team, I don't recall them ever to be on the olympics. We do have women playing soccer, but it is very rare and hardly a mature sport over here. The olympics of course is never a good measure for world rankings, because only one tournament in 4 years is counted on it. Only when a nation has shown over a larger number of events to be at the top, you can draw any conclusion out of it.
>>
>>Walter,