BY JAMES ROSS – FAN FUEL BLOGGER
Last week the three finalists for the FIFA World Player of the Year in women’s soccer were announced, and it certainly didn’t take long for the dissenting opinions to appear on the surprise omission of Canada’s Christine Sinclair from the trio of finalists. National team coach John Herdman called Sinclair’s exclusion a “travesty” and Brazilian superstar and five team winner of the award Marta, when asked whom she would vote for, had indicated Sinclair was her first choice.
Naturally, there has been much outcry within our borders over the supposed oversight. And while it is certainly nice to see our nationalistic fervour actually being expressed about a soccer player of either gender, I’m not quite sure I agree with the outcry, and here are a couple of reasons why.
First, one has to examine the process to denote how the three finalists are nominated. The coach, captain, and select journalist from each member nation all receive a single vote. So, to shoot down the conspiracy theorists immediately, if there is some sort of conspiracy, it’s a very ubiquitous one. This is to say, in short, there is no conspiracy. So, let’s put that to rest, shall we?
Second, let’s look at the wording of FIFA’s criteria for making the selection. The following statement is the defining one, “Sporting performance and general conduct both on and off the pitch.”
So, two components, sporting performance and conduct on and off the pitch. And here is where we hit our snag. While male athletes say all kinds of things post match to reporters and anyone willing to listen, for a female athlete to out and out criticize the referees post match, this is a rare occasion.
Have your say: Have an opinion on the news of the day? Better yet, want to become a Fan Fuel blogger? Email us here. | Who is the greatest Canadian MLB player?
So, Sinclair’s post match comments on the referee after the loss to the USA in the semi-final of the Olympics, while perhaps having some weight, are a no-no, and she did pay the price for that with a post tournament suspension. A suspension, I might add, that FIFA conveniently allowed to begin after the bronze medal game we ended up winning. And, to go back to the original defining statement of the selection process, the second part obviously hurts Sinclair. If you accuse the referee of being biased in the media, you’ve crossed a line. That easily falls under “conduct both on and off the pitch.”
I suppose that would be enough as a rationale for her exclusion, but let’s look at some other omissions.
Japan, who really were the better side in the gold medal game, controlling the match through possession, didn’t have a single player nominated. Last year one of their players was the recipient of the honour, 34-year-old Homare Sawa. One could argue she, or one of her two teammates, 22-year-old defender Saki Kumagai or 25-year-old striker Yuki Ogimi, would have been worthy choices to be in the final three. Or French player Camile Abily (whom our coach Herdman voted for as one of the three choices) or American Carli Lloyd, the hero of the gold medal match (and nominated by our own journalist Neil Davidson as one of his trio) would have also, most certainly, have been worthy nominees. And while there has been some criticism of Marta even being nominated, quite frankly, she’s been the best player in the sport for the past decade, and she also had very strong season for her club team.
I am disappointed Christine was not nominated. But I don’t think in any way that there has been any sort of slight. It’s a very tough gig to make it as one of the final three nominees. And there are plenty of outstanding players from a variety of countries who play women’s soccer on this planet. There is a measure of honour in even being considered for the award and Sinclair knows that, a few comments into a microphone aside, she probably would have been there fretting over that final announcement on January 7 in Zurich.
Related read:
More MLB: Five free agents for Blue jays to target