Well I'm bored so decided to start a thread that I would be interested in. I know this was in the news earlier in the month but I just want to know what other's opinions on it are. :) An article on it can be found here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4206568.stm The main point is that for the 2012 olympic games in London the UK is entering a football team as a whole, whereas in the past we have always thought that if they did that then FIFA would not recognise the "home nations" (Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland) in other competitions, which I can kind of agree with. In past olympic games the UK hasn't entered a football team. This is a good thing I hear you saying? Well if you knew the british game then you would know that the English game, and the England national team for that matter, is better than the other home nations, to put it bluntly. I admit that. If/When an UK olympic team is chosen I can see it being run from England and contain nothing but English players, as this would be the strongest team. How can they expect me and others from Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland to support a team which is our biggest rivals? For the first time will I be supporting other nations to beat the UK? If they try to get round just choosing English players, by choosing say 5 players from each nation, then this will result in the UK having a poor team. Obviously the SFA is against a UK team but the English FA is all for it. If the SFA says that they object then how can the name 'UK' be used? It would be whatever teams minus Scotland. Should I even be bothered? The Olympic football competition has never been an important one, compared to the world cup, euro championships, the african nations cup or the copa america, in my opinion anyway. Only players under 23 (and 3 players over) can play in the olympic teams. Whatever decision is made in the end, we have about 7 years to discuss this :wink: