Whilst I agree with you on this point, the fact is that football was an Olympic event long before the World Cup came to be. As such it is very much an intergrated part of Olympic history (even if it has long been essentially an expanded U-21 tournament). Although it probably ceased to be the pinnacle achievement within football sometime in the 1950's.

The other sports you mention above though definately have no part in the games in my opinion. But the simply truth is that the IOC want to make the games the number one sporting event on the planet and as such see the inclusion of those sports as being beneficial to raising the profile & standing of the movement (not to mention the level of corporate sponsorship from the really big guns of 21st Century global business).

In much the same way, this line of thinking led to the Olympic movement quitely dropping the amatuer only stance in the 1980's because they realised that a continuation of that rather exclusive ideal would ultimately lead to the Olympic Games becoming a second rate sporting event. Faced with the prospect of hosting an out-dated anachronistic event or adjusting their stance in order to compete with the increasingly powerful worldwide sports, they not too surprisingly jumped headlong into professionlism. It was a choice which was quite frankly unavoidable.

Having made this decision, it was inevitable that the IOC would then seek to include any sport that it feels will enable it to enhance its position as the World's number one sporting spectacle, regardless of whether winning Gold within the games is the ultimate in that particular sport.

One of the most obvious examples of this is Tennis, a sport with a decent global profile. Does anyone even remotely believe that, given half a chance , Andy Murray wouldn't swap his performance against Roger Federer last Sunday for his result against the same player on the same court just 28 days earlier when the greatest prize in tennis slipped away from him. Murray's shattered reaction at losing the Wimbledon singles final contrasted sharply with Federer's rather more shrug of the shoulders response to coming second last week, which can't be merely put down to the two players very different temperements.

As for Rugby League's possible role in future Olympics? As nice as it would be to see the game's top stars being a part of the sporting jamboree, it is highly doubtful that the game has a high enough profile to meet the criteria that the IOC look for when considering new sports. I guess it wouldn't do any harm in trying to get the sport included at some future date, but I think we all know the RL powers that be would have their work cut out in order to make the case for inclusion convincing. It's a nice pipe dream but I think most of us would be amazed if it ever came to pass.

Rugby union isn't at the Olympics, it's 7's. And there nothing to say who can and can't be selected

yeh because RU are going to want to show case RL talent! Our best bet would be to get some proper 9's competitions happening around the world, we can then at least legitmely claim it is a version of the sport that is actually played in some meaningful way. Until then we don't deserve to be even considered.

You are very wrong unfortunately.

[i"Rugby sevens, also known as seven-a-side or VIIs, is a variant of rugby union in which teams are made up of seven players, instead of the usual 15, with shorter matches. Rugby sevens is administered by the International Rugby Board (IRB), the body responsible for rugby union worldwide.

Rugby sevens is now recognised as an Olympic sport and will make its debut in the 2016 Summer Olympics. This follows a vote by the executive board of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to include the sport."[/i

As a matter of interest, who picked Tomkins to play for the Barbarians?

Someone at the RFU.

So, do you now accept that there is indeed someone who can " say who can and can't be selected"?

If Rugby sevens had been included in the current games, then I reckon whoever was the coach of the GB side (McGeechan/Lancaster/whoever) would have looked at Sam Tomkins as a possible for inclusion in the squad, possibly Roby as well.
I don't think a whole raft of league players would get picked over their union counterparts but I would lay any money one or two would be approached (club commitments notwithstanding).

Golf! What a joke..same with football, tennis.

Whats next Olympic F1....20/20 cricket....darts? FFS!

I've absolutely loved these Olympics. Regardless of whether or not it's the sport's main event, it's a great showcase for all major sport. It would be amazing if RL ever got Olympic status, and a great shop window for the sport.

For the poster who said "there's obviously no need for 2 codes of a rugby format at the olympics", are you having a laugh?! Why? There are tons of forms of swimming, cycling, running, rowing, shooting, etc. There's singles tennis and doubles tennis. There's even two forms of volleyball. Why isn't there need for different forms of rugby (two of which are completely separate sports)? It's just a rather unusual comment to make.

RU 7s, 15s and RL 9s and 13s would be great to see (both sexes), along with wheelchair RL in the Paralympics. RL would need to strive to increase the number of countries played in in order to get Olympic status. Commonwealth Games might be a better target first.

Why is it a joke?

Motor Sport will never be allowed in.

If Cricket is popular enough worldwide, I don't see why not. Same with darts. What's so different between darts and archery? They're both target sports with arrows.

Horses have always been allowed in, why not their replacement?

fwiw I agree with you.

As long as the Olympics don't have more events than a city can handle I don't see why not for most sports tbh

Erm nope. Who says RL players can't be picked? You? It's highly unlikely but they are not "banned" from playing 7's

No-one has said RL players are banned, but you are living on another planet if you think for a moment that the IRB will allow even the possibility of RL getting a look in at the "Greatest Show on Earth".

I don't think any RL players will be anywhere near, especially in GB. But I was just stating there's nothing to stop it if, say, Fiji wanted Uate to represent them. Anyway...

It would be great for RL to have that stage but like another poster says, Commonwealth games is a more realistic ambition.

Commonwealth Games in Manchester would have been the perfect stage...missed that boat didn't we!

I don't think RL was in any where near a good enough position in 2002 to even think about it.

It was mooted, but you are right, we (RL), were miles off.

Suggestions that we, 10 years on, are in a better position to be leveraging an Olympic slot, are, unfortunately, bonkers.

great thread though

Well a Hull FC fan has just won Gold.

I thought we were talking Commonwealth now?

Is RU really played in that many more countries than RL?
There must be 18-20 countries that could field a RL 9's team? 4 pools of 5 teams. Top team from each pool through to semis.

As I said until we get some proper 9's tournaments happening around the world it is just a pipe dream. Could be a great vehicle for developing nations.

GB
France
Italy
Holland
USA
Russia
Georgia
Jamaica
Morroco
Lebanon
Fiji
Samoa
Tonga
Australia
NZ
Png
Sth Africa
Cook islands

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few RL players approached to make up the squad.

It would give a better 'all encompasing' image for the RFU but, possibly more importantly, it'd give RL fans reason to watch the sport and so pleasing the event sponsors.

What's the odds it is marketed as "Rugby" 7's. No wonder the world doesn't know the difference or that RUGBY league even exists. In UK the pinnacle is called SuperLEague and in OZ and nz NRL. why are we so ashamed of using "rugby"?

The IRB ranks 96 countries........RLIF 28....someone said earlier that a sport needs to be played in 75 countries to be considered. Rugby Union may well be a minority sport, but it dwarfs rugby league in nearly every area on and off the pitch.

The #1 team in Union will play matches against Australia, South Africa, Argentina,Italy, Scotland, Wales and England before the end of the year.......the #1 Ranked League side will play New Zealand whilst earlier this tear the #3 ranked team played 2 games against an invented side that nobody went to watch and attracted only 100,000 viewers.

Cash is King for the IOC, this is one of the reasons why tennis, soccer and now golf are included. Sports that draw fans/sponsors globally = Kerching = handouts/plush hotels/lavish dinners/gifts/best seats etc etc for the privileged few. It's a legalised cartel in essence
I love the endeavor, bravery, comaraderie & absolute determination to be the best you can and whilst I understand that sponsorship are now neccessary the fat cats creaming of millions is pretty sickening.
Though I don't think golf, tennis or soccer should be included I can think of a few events (such as Equestrian & Dressage) which could be removed because they are out of reach (& will forever remain so) of all but the few higher up Westernised countries who can afford to fund such.
Darts isn't a bad shout because it is such a simplistic sport that you could get good at it with just a few basic pieces of equipment, snooker as well to a slightly further degree.
As for '7s' well as the inclusion is being pushed for & sanctioned by the IRB, they will be the sole arbitors of who is included I reckon. Probably something like you have to be a registered player of onion to compete.
We will never get RL into the olympics, (long) past & present administrators of the game have seen to that. The really sad thing is is that the inclusion of 7s in the Olympics will popularise onion even more & potentially have a far greater reaching effect on RL as a whole than many people realise.
Even the Dutch women have a 7's side!