Neither "it" seems to refer to any specific thing that the reader would be expected to know of, so yes, I'd consider both to be dummy pronouns. (In Wikipedia's language, I'd say it doesn't "provide a contextually explicit meaning of its referent", and in Wiktionary's language, I'd say it doesn't have "a specific referent".)
Note that the second sentence seems incomplete without some context; something like this would be more common:
It was the promise of better job opportunities versus the inconvenience of moving away and leaving her friends that convinced her to stay with the company.
In this case, the that-clause has been "extraposed" from the subject position (which is now occupied by the dummy pronoun "it").
In casual speech, one might say "the match" and "the dilemma" in each of those sentences. However, I think that that would be imprecise. (For example, the first sentence would say "the match is France", but a match is not a team.) I might instead say:
The match pitted France versus Brazil in the final.
The dilemma concerned the promise of better job opportunities versus the inconvenience of moving away and leaving her friends.