In a message dated Fri, 29 Jun 2001 2:44:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Roger Ruth) writes:
<< As I recall, the original concept for the WC was just that, and the selection of
the world's best, irrespective of nationality, was supposed to
distinguish it from the Olympics competition.
Can anyone who was involved in development of the WC concept give us more information
on why it reverted to national representation?>>
I may have a serious memory-loss problem here, but I recall no thoughts that the WC
would ever be conducted in a manner other than the OG (except in the eager minds of
hard-core fans who wanted a "real" WC).
But I can pretty much assure you that the "all qualifiers" WC concept will never fly.
Ever. Simply becuase at the same time as the original WC ('93), the IAAF changed its
voting rules to the "democratic" method of 1 nation, 1 vote. Which, of course, in
reality disenfranchises the bulk of the world's top-level athletes and gives their
votes to Tonga, et al.
(Prior to the change, nations were accorded votes according to size, which makes
sense.)
Now, w/ the small nations firmly in charge, they'll never vote for a system which
might produce a WC where the 1/2/4 finals were 80% American, and the St/5/10 finals
were 90% Kenyan/Ethiopian.
Now, at least, you have dozens of nations that can go home and say "we had a finalist"
even if they didn't have a medalist.
At a true worlds, the number of nations having finalists would plummet precipitously.
We were lucky to the get the wild card under these conditions.
gh
