A football team representing Great Britain will be participating at the 2012 London Olympics; that much we know. What remains unclear is almost everything else. Will the team be worthy of the name Great Britain, or will it essentially be an England U-23 side? Who will be the manager and whom will he select? With less than a year to go before the Olympics begin, it's time to sort it out.
There is no doubt that sending a 'true' British, as opposed to English, football team to what has been widely decreed the greatest sporting event on earth would be a good move. It would certainly be a wise decision for the British governments and the British Olympic Association (BOA), who both stand to benefit economically.
A multi-national side would propel interest in the Olympics beyond the current levels in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It would also mean Team GB matches at Hampden Park and the Millennium Stadium would be significantly more likely to sell out. The idea of an England U-23 side playing in half-empty grounds rankles in comparison to the ideal of a well-supported team from the home nations.
The merchandise sales from the Team GB football kit - already destined to be a big seller - would be boosted further still. And this in particular will be of interest to the BOA, who is likely to select it as one of the two items of merchandise it will reap the profits from. It is allowed to take the money from two items as part the settlement deal with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, after their ugly public row.
Furthermore if Britain can draw from a pool of four countries as opposed to merely one, they stand a far greater chance of being able to pick up a medal. The women's football team in particular would be hugely boosted by the availability of some of the Scottish squad, which boasts some of the games top players. A Great Britain Olympic football team would also raise the profile of the women's game, building on the platform which the recent women's World Cup constructed.
So why aren't we excitedly gearing up for next summer by constructing the teams which we would pick from the four nations if we were in charge? It seems to be a good thing for all parties, so what's the obstacle? Sadly, there are several, all related to the same sticking point: the fear of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland losing their footballing independence.
Over the years a team representing Great Britain was entered until 1974, when the English FA scrapped the distinction between professional and amateur football. The risk, according to the Celtic nations, was that FIFA would insist on a joint Great British national team outside of the Olympics. This is of concern to the well-paid members in the individual FAs who currently hold positions of influence; because should their countries lose their independence, they would lose their jobs.
So an Olympic collaboration may not only mean changes in the footballing set-up, but also poses a personal risk to many of the decision makers. And the latter point holds more weight than it should do, but it is only to be expected in the current world climate of self-preservation.
FIFA boss Sepp Blatter attempted to allay these fears in March, when he insisted the trio's international status would remain unaffected, even if they contributed players to Team GB. "It's very clear. If they play, there is no sanction," he said.
The message was obvious - how Britain constructs its Olympics team is its own business. He added: "This composition has no influence on any privileges existing actually with FIFA, according to the decisions taken in 1946 at a FIFA congress in Luxembourg."
Blatter's statement effectively gave the Celtic nations the go-ahead to permit a mixed Team GB, but it did not lead to this. Perhaps they were afraid to take FIFA's head honcho at his word, which would be no surprise as he has been known to renege on statements before. And existing doubts over FIFA's trustworthiness were magnified by the more recent scandalous revelations regarding corruption.
But let's not kid ourselves; if Blatter's words could be taken at face value, a whole host of other complications lurk below the surface. Even, shock horror, football related ones, for instance - the issue of player burn-out. Footballers like Arsenal's Jack Wilshere have announced their desire to play in a Great British football team, but their coaches are concerned. Wilshere said: "The Olympics are going to be massive in London. It will be brilliant. It would be a dream to play in the Olympics."
But Arsene Wenger might take a different view on the matter, having already voiced concerns over Wilshere on the fitness front. The FA would rather players who participate in Euro 2012 are not included in the Olympics squad, but it is difficult to see the forceful youngster being barred from fulfilling his dreams. Technically even players from the other home nations cannot be barred from playing, but if they do compete against their governance's wishes they will effectively ostracise themselves. Gareth Bale, for one, has affirmed his hope that he can star at the Olympics - something which the Welsh FA have been opposed to.
Some have suggested that the players would lack the passion and heart required to represent Great Britain at the Olympics, but when players like Wilshere and Bale speak out about their desire to play in the tournament it reaffirms that there will be not only sheer enthusiasm among the playing staff, but talent too.
If a deal was struck then the make-up of the squad would become a bone of contention. Would the potential manager (we'll get to that) have carte blanche to select a squad entirely of his own choosing? Or would he have to take an equal quota of players from each nation? The former is the more sensible, and more likely. But if the Celtic nations concede and give their collective blessing to Team GB, the imposition of such a condition would not be completely beneath them.
Another issue with the squad concerns the over-23 players, of which three are permitted in the squad. Or rather, two plus David Beckham, fitness providing, because he's been in and around the Olympics from the start, and as a globally recognised player would be a major draw and a relative coup for the BOA. Other older players will be scrabbling among themselves to play, with Charlie Adam, Johnny Evans and Ryan Giggs among the contenders for the remaining squad spots.
The decision of who to install as manager is tough. Stuart Pearce is, by default, an option, but his underwhelming performance in charge of the England U21s means he would be an underwhelming pick. Sir Alex Ferguson has been touted, but this is just idle conjecture. Back in 2008 Fabio Capello claimed he would like to take the helm at the Olympics, but even if he still harbours that ambition it is extremely unlikely to be fulfilled, given the weakness of his current standing as England manager.
Perhaps the best bet is Harry Redknapp, who has stated his interest in the role on multiple occasions and is among the favourites. Earlier this year he mentioned that he would not have a problem with any of his players attending the tournament. "It's a fantastic honour to represent your team in the Olympic Games," he said. "Whoever they pick, I wouldn't stand in their way."
Regardless of who is appointed manager, or the squad he picks, the most important issue is for the English FA to get the other home nations' governance bodies onside. Once the basic principle of uniting for the tournament has been agreed, they can squabble about the intricacies among themselves, to their hearts content, and finally allow the fans to begin to daydream.
Feature originally posted on dedicated football website Born Offside.