Should David Beckham have been named in the Team GB football squad for the Olympic Games?

Following the controversial omission of David Beckham from the Team GB squad for the Olympic Games, I've decided to take a look at whether he should have been named in the squad. I have enlisted my good friend David Spereall to provide one side of the argument, and I will write the other. Fortunately he and I usually disagree on matters like this so it should make for a good debate. You can follow David on Twitter or visit his political blog, Politics Through Young Leftish Eyes. He is also an aspiring young journalist and he is the editor of the Leeds Trinity University Magazine.

Please feel free to join the debate in the comments at the bottom of the page!

DAVID SPEREALL: STUART PEARCE WAS CORRECT NOT TO SELECT DAVID BECKHAM FOR TEAM GB

Moreover, if you were to compare the long-term fitness and injury records of the two, Giggs beats his former colleague hands down. With a potentially gruelling schedule at the hottest time of the year, Giggs’ stamina wins out over Beckham’s increasingly dodgy ankles. It’s a similar story with the two other over-age players Stuart Pearce has selected. Micah Richards, fresh from his harsh omission from Roy Hodgson’s England squad for the Euros, will be raring to prove a point. Pearce cites defensive cover as his reason for selecting Richards ahead of Beckham, which is a point that cannot be disputed. Add to the list Craig Bellamy, whose incisive displays in an otherwise poor team last season perhaps summed up his own career. For a man of Bellamy’s unquestionable talent, he has won precious few winners’ medals to show for it. GB success represents a rare opportunity for hard evidence of success for him.

Whilst David Beckham’s inclusion in the GB squad would have represented a victory for sentimentality, Stuart Pearce has never really been a man of sentiment. And from a practical footballing perspective, he’s made the right decision. Beckham was easily the best English footballer of his generation, but the broken metatarsal that had the country on tenterhooks for three months prior to the World Cup in Japan and South Korea was ten years ago now.

At 37, Becks is undeniably in his twilight years, and it is highly likely that he now regrets moving to LA Galaxy in 2007 – at least at that point in his career, when he had just played a pivotal role in helping Fabio Capello’s Real Madrid to the La Liga title, and was clearly still capable of playing at the top of one of the best leagues in the world. But run to the States he did, probably because Steve McLaren had prematurely called time on his England career, and it was a move that bought him money, but cost him ambition.

His old friend Ryan Giggs meanwhile, has continued to defy his own age with some brilliant performances for Manchester United last season. He might be eighteen months older than Beckham, but the context is crucial. Whilst Giggs plies his trade in a pulsating league boasting the cream of the world’s best players – a league unrecognisable from the one he started as a fresh-faced, bubble-permed 17 year-old in 1991, Beckham can point to little more than Landon Donovan and Robbie Keane in the form of respectable company nowadays.

Whilst all three players are all at a higher footballing standard than Beckham in 2012, it is also worth remembering they come off the back of a two-month rest. Beckham may well have felt the effects of fatigue from his ongoing season in the MLS, as well as having to contend with jetlag.

Yes, I understand Beckham is one of our great patriots who wears his heart on his sleeve, and that’s why the British public rightly love him and have forgiven him for past wrongs on and off the pitch. In an era where the likes of Jamie Carragher and Ben Foster to name a couple, have shown they couldn’t care less about national service by ditching the England team so early in their careers, Beckham’s loss of temper over a rather trivial matter in his club’s game this week showed the wounds of national rejection were fresh and deep. The affection and respect of his country only grew as a result.

It does seem harsh to axe a man who has gone to great lengths to spearhead the Olympic bid and its preparations, not to mention his tireless lobbying for England’s ill-fated attempts to host the 2018 World Cup. But it is quite clear that he will still have some part to play and Pearce will create an avenue for his talismanic qualities to be practised. Ultimately, the country has a choice going into this most significant of all British summers. Do we want medals or success, or do nothing more than simply turn up and host a good party? If Stuart Pearce was under instruction to fill a team of national treasures, he might as well have gone and personally dragged Baroness Williams from the House of Lords and flown Hugh Laurie back home on the same plane as Beckham. But that’s not his job. His decision was wise, and it is ultimately a victory for sense over sentiment.

MICHAEL THURLOWAY: DAVID BECKHAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR TEAM GB

The omission of David Beckham from the Team GB football squad, announced earlier this week, came as a shock to many people who had complacently expected him to be included. Stuart Pearce is clearly putting his own stamp on the squad. He has refused to be dictated to by the emotions of the nation. However in this case I think Pearce has gone wide of the mark. To me he has missed the point.

The Olympic Games football tournament consists of teams made up almost completely of players aged twenty-three or under. The only exceptions are the three more experienced players which each squad is permitted. One must ask the question why this is. Footballers play at all age levels without the participation of older players to help them along. By the time players reach the age of twenty-one, effectively the end of regular age defined football teams in England at least, they should certainly not be in need of old heads to guide them along. In reality it is not the experience of these older players which is important. It is the experience of playing with them. And who has been more iconic in British football over the last fifteen years than David Beckham?

Let’s not kid ourselves here. The British football team is nothing but a novelty. Though I will be supporting them all the way, with the hope they can win the gold medal, it will be with nowhere near the fervour with which I supported England during last month’s European Championships. What it is, however, is a chance for lesser known players to be recognised on the international stage. If they were given the choice, I’m sure they would prefer to have the once in a lifetime opportunity to play alongside Beckham. The obvious omission would be Micah Richards: his well publicised refusal to be on the standby list for England’s Euro 2012 squad is a sign of petulance contrary to the spirit of the Olympic Games. Ironically, the injury to Gary Cahill which ruled him out of the tournament would surely have meant Richard’s was called up, had be been available. Martin Kelly was called up instead.

Pearce has claimed that “no manager picks on sentiment.” What he is forgetting is that Team GB is not an ordinary managerial job. It is a one-off experiment. There has not been a British Olympic football team since 1960, and may never be one again. To omit Beckham, a man who has been recognised for his services to football and sport in general, appears ill advised. It comes from a manager who seems to be overplaying exactly what his job entails. This is no equivalent to being the England manager. He may use “football reasons” as his excuse, but as Beckham showed earlier this week in the MLS, his dead ball ability has not deteriorated. Beckham has also come out in defence of the quality of the MLS, convincingly stating that, if it were not of a good standard, Manchester United would not make regular pre-season trips to the USA. The Glazer connection may also be a factor, but Sir Alex Ferguson would never go along with it if wasn’t useful preparation for his team.

The additional defensive cover cited in defence of the inclusion of Micah Richards seems to be at odds with the make-up of the rest of the squad. Pearce has selected only three forwards, one of whom is Bellamy who has played mostly on the right of midfield this season for Liverpool. Daniel Sturridge has also seen most of his playing time on the left of a front three, leaving England short of a true centre forward. He might question Beckham’s form, but form has not prevented his selection of a number of players who have had little game time all season. This is not to say that Pearce should not have picked some of the younger players who are not regulars for their clubs. It just seems to invalidate his explanation for Beckham’s omission. Pearce’s claims to have picked a squad bearing in mind “football reasons” do not seem to stack up.

Overall, Beckham has received a harsh snub, which will surely come as a disappointment to fans and other players as well as the man himself. He has not been granted one last hurrah on home soil. I have been unconvinced by Pearce’s arguments in favour of his omission. He has claimed not to pick on sentiment, yet the inclusion of his former player at Manchester City, Richards, belies that. On the basis that Pearce’s explanations do not add up, I believe Beckham should have been included in the England squad.