Women’s football at the Olympics is not working – it needs to change | Sophie Downey

As dusk drew in on Paris on Saturday so the curtain closed on another Olympic tournament. The joy of the USA players securing their country’s fifth gold medal was palpable. From Emma Hayes’s roar of joy in the dugout, achieving the remarkable after 78 days in charge, to the players piling on top of the goalkeeper, Alyssa Naeher, on the field, the significance for this group was undeniable.

However, once the celebrations have subsided and players return to their clubs, questions will inevitably resume about the position this competition holds within the ever-expanding women’s football ecosystem. Will the Olympics continue to retain its prestigious reputation of years gone by or does it need to adapt? Are we able to find the balance between major international tournaments and the need for players to have adequate rest? How can we attract audiences to a game that for two weeks every four years has to cede its dominance of the airwaves to sports that are much more underrepresented?

These questions have taken up a lot of consideration, individually and in wider circles, during the past fortnight. Being English, I am constantly wary of my potential bias. Team GB’s inclusion has been almost nonexistent, marred by the intricacies of having four countries involved. Bar London 2012, the first of two times a GB team has entered, there has been wavering enthusiasm. This is not necessarily the case for those outside GB or even Europe.

What being an Olympian means to the players is not in doubt – the tears of joy or despair are testament to its significance – but there does come a point when the international federations in charge, in this case Fifa and the International Olympic Committee, must address some glaring issues. Whether small alterations are the solution or whether more substantive changes are required, the time for that conversation is now.

A relatively simple fix would be to make the format less gruelling. The two finalists played six games in 17 days. The USA required two periods of extra time to progress to the final; Brazil, while never going beyond the standard 90 minutes, played almost as much in injury time. Combine this schedule with 18-player squads plus four reserves and the heat of a French summer – Los Angeles in 2028 will even be more extreme – and the strain is obvious. Many matches were reduced to slow, low-energy football that relied on occasional injections of pace.

The demands on players go far beyond the Olympics. As a result of the pandemic, the calendar was so condensed that this was the fourth straight year of international competition. It comes as little surprise that the casualty list was extensive. France’s Wendie Renard and Pauline Peyraud-Magnin, Brazil’s Rafaelle, Colombia’s Catalina Usme, Manuela Paví and Linda Caicedo and Japan’s Aoba Fujino and Risa Shimizu were just a few of those struggling with injury. A switch to 23-player squads plus four on stand-by would alleviate pressure while extra-time should be removed, with draws going straight to penalties.

Another solution would be to make it an under-23 tournament with the flexibility of including three over-age players, mirroring the men. There are wider issues concerning the lack of competition for young talent that need to be addressed. The Olympics could play a significant role in bridging that gap, providing a platform for the next generation to shine and allowing respite for older players while preserving the longevity of its reputation.

The attractiveness of Olympic football is also a question this tournament raised. For those watching on TV, match days were a marathon. The quarter-finals produced more than eight hours of back-to-back football, which is taxing for even the most ardent of fan. Attendances in venues other than Paris will have been disappointing to organisers. While there are multiple underlying reasons, it is worthwhile interrogating ways to improve the product.

The women’s tournament involves 12 teams, the men’s has 16. This may seem contradictory to the scheduling point above but it is also a salient one. Not only does this limit global interest, it also has an effect on the tournament. The semi-finals – USA v Germany and Brazil v Spain – were replays of group games less than a week before, making it seem stale.

Unfortunately, there is little desire from the IOC to make the change despite the clear question of gender inequality. In a statement to Sky News, it said: “The men’s football tournament is an exception … Raising the number of women’s teams would potentially trigger requests from other team sports, which would then have an even greater impact on the cost, complexity, size and sustainability of the Games.”

One positive is that the IOC and Fifa have some time to find solutions. However, is there is truly the appetite to do so? If the Olympics are to continue as a mainstay of the football calendar, issues must be addressed. Hopefully, by 2028 there will be an improved and more sustainable product on show.

Get in touch

If you have any questions or comments about any of our newsletters please email moving.goalposts@theguardian.com

• This is an extract from our free weekly email, Moving the Goalposts. To get the full edition visit this page and follow the instructions .