Olympic sponsorship is restricted to the official sponsors who sign up years in advance so selecting Beckham wouldn't have added a penny to the sponsorship pot. How would selecting Beckham have increased advertising revenue? The Olympics were shown on the BBC. As for paying spectators, I went to a group game and the gold medal match. I would have been less inclined to go and watch the tournament if players had been picked because of their brand. That's not a competition, it's a circus. As ever you're talking nonsense and gradually digging a bigger hole as you try to add some kind of substance to your "argument".
he should had been named then way before to negotiate better prices with manager confirming he will be selected.. Beckham is an icon .. a Gold mine .. that is one of the reasons not to mention is more creative than whole mid (aside from Giggs) and has better long shots and is still deadly in set pieces more than any other player in the squad not to mention it would had been great gesture after all good job he did to land the Olympics to london .. remember is not only one reason, but many different other reasons, where one reason alone could not be that attractive option, but together it can tick too many boxes
TV rights are sold years in advance. They don't sit around waiting for Stuart Pearce to announce the football squad before green lighting the commercial team to start flogging TV rights. Anyway, as much as you clearly have a very hard one for Beckham, even if he had been selected he would not have been the main attraction at the Olympic Games. For a short, very enjoyable window, the focus of the sporting world was not on over rated, over paid footballers. Seriously, give it up.
He carried the Olympic torch, that's reward enough. All the competitors were picked on merit alone and that was the ONLY criteria. Everything else is just nonsense.
Oh, I must have misread this bit then: As for this bit, all utter bollocks. So we should be picking players on effort and marketing appeal now should we? Pearce had one job to do - pick a side to try and win a football tournament. Beckham wasn't the right player to do that, so he wasn't included. Mentioning Sinclair, Cork and Ramsey is just stupid - you can only have 3 over 23 players in an Olympic side, and none of them were over 23 so why are you even talking about them? And why for god's sake would anyone in their right mind ever want to attract more attention to a British national football side? They get plenty of that in every national paper regardless of who plays!
For Shwan seeing as he's got a stiffy for becks please log in to view this image and the gimp suit please log in to view this image You're sorted for tonight mate
man i said it before should had been including for many reason.. but mainly as a gesture of gratitude for playing a key role to land London the Olympics .. he was actually been named in the provisional squad to represent the GB Olympic football team weeks before the Olympics started, so is not like selecting him was something out of the order tbh ..
He would have been the only athlete at the Olympic Games selected as a gesture of gratitude instead of performance or ability so it would have been completely out of the ordinanry. Now shut up.
1- did you watched him playing in MLS before saying he is not good enough? 2- do you think Jack Cork or others did a better job than him ? bcz i seen a GB side who was flat with no creativity or a cutting edge
No I don't watch the MLS and I don't know why you keep comparing him with Jack Cork. It's been explained to you why Beckham couldn't have taken Jack Cork's place in the squad. Have you still not grasped that?
indeed including Richards was the best option when england clearly lacked creativity and a cutting edge? you are right .. it was the best option .. they must got the golden medal.. let me check... oh NO.. they were eliminated by Korea in UK (at home) straightaway after the group stages .. now if that was not a great decision and a selection , not sure what else can be better?
So, attempting to unravel what you just said, are you suggesting that England would have somehow been far better had they picked Beckham ahead of Richards? We'll never know but I contest it would have made **** all difference whatsoever. Apart from the fact we'd have been lacking a defender.
