It doesn't seem to be that such a thing exists: standard ontological classification:
Like there are a whole bunch of categorization systems:
The latter being more of an application of Ontology in the domain of computer science.
But it still seems as if "universal" and "abstracts" are sets (relations, properties, propositions) and particulars and concretes are elements of such a set (things, specifics, examples).
So concerning your questions individuals would likely fall in the more element side rather than the set side and at least some use them synonymously with particulars. Though you can make distinctions like as RudolfoAP has remarked, individual comes from indivisible and implies a distinct whole, while particular rather implies that it is just a part of a bigger whole.
With regards to those examples. Well it heavily depends on the context in which you use them. Like "the french national football team" could be:
- The players on the field
- the entire crew including substitutes (and staff)
- The idea of a national football team
- Both the male and female football team
- One national team among many
Like the french national football team as a concept won the world cup twice, but with a 20 year difference none of the players won it twice (except for maybe Zidane(trainer)). So if you pointed at the players of 1998 in 1998 and called them "the french national football team" you'd be correct 20 years later you'd be wrong. As a concept they are an abstract with particulars in space and time, while among other national teams they are an individual entity. They are distinguishable from others and unique.
Similar things can apply to the city of Paris which is both a concrete distinguishable entity and a concept that is changing in space and time that is more of a relation between people or a property of a place.
So yes and yes but you can still make it complicated.