Talk:Association football: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Grant65 (talk | contribs)

1 user group
26,420 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ruckabumpkus (talk | contribs)
405 edits
Grant65 (talk | contribs)
Administrators
26,420 edits
→History pre-1848: reply to Ruckabumpkus
Line 312: Line 312:
: [[Football#Early_history]] has more details on earlier/similar games. This article is about [[Association football]], which by definition, existed only after 1863. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
: [[Football#Early_history]] has more details on earlier/similar games. This article is about [[Association football]], which by definition, existed only after 1863. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks. Would it be appropriate to put that link in the history section, too? [[User:Ruckabumpkus|Ruckabumpkus]] ([[User talk:Ruckabumpkus|talk]]) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks. Would it be appropriate to put that link in the history section, too? [[User:Ruckabumpkus|Ruckabumpkus]] ([[User talk:Ruckabumpkus|talk]]) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:::If you mean this article, I would say "no": before the 19th century there were many different games resembling this game, in various parts of the world. While it has been argued that present day Association football/soccer is linked to the Ancient Greek games ''phaininda'' and/or ''episkuros'', there is little evidence for this. There is even less evidence that similar games from outside Europe (such as ''Marn Grook'', ''Aqsaqtuk'', ''Pahaseman'', ''Cuju'' etc) influenced the rules devised in England in 1863. The non-European games seem to have been cases of "parallel evolution". In fact, the [[Football]] article took its present form , in part, because there was a need for a page linking all the various kinds of football. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 12:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:13, 13 July 2010

Featured articleAssociation football is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 20, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
October 15, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Unpopularity in the United States

Should a section on association football's unpopularity in the U.S. be added to this page? Considering association football's nearly worldwide popularity, it would seem to me that this phenomenon is notable. There is a large quantity of sources that have analyzed this phenomenon and come to different conclusions. All could be represented here. Thoughts? -User in Washington DC, Max...no account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better as a seperate article. There are probably loads of similar topics that could be suggested but as soon as you start to cover them in any detail it would be impractical to keep them in this article. If it's just a couple of sentences it could go here but, as you mention, there are probably loads of theories so it would quickly become reasonably lengthy. If you do write something you could always post it here on the talk page and let people discuss whether to put it in this article or start a new one. Mah favourite (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there an article about Soccer in the United States? There is already a section about the sport's popularity in that country there, so if you feel the need to add anything, I suggest you add it there. – PeeJay 09:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PeeJay. Moreover, singling out the US as opposed to say Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Ireland, or Australia, seems to me to hint at a sort of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. But a brief, balanced mention in this article about areas of the world where association football isn't the unquestioned #1 sport is probably reasonable. - PhilipR (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is the 4th biggest sport in the US and growing. It is also the biggest recreational sport in the US. Therefore for these reasons I oppose. IJA (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't play succer in the US like they do in Europe and around the world. Soccer is less of a sport in the US and popular worldwide but the sad thing is US pays more money to the American players than any other country. It is sad, why do the Americans have to pay for much for it's players. Imagine making $50 million a year in soccer making make less than 2% of that in some other country? Doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are suggesting that football players earn more in the US than any other countries you are mistaken. The highest earning footballers play in England and Spain Zarcadia (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I'll reword it, but we should have a area of the page which explains about the Soccer/Football thing explaining it in detail!!

Simba1409 (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it untouched, wouldnt even link the other article. Making any modification would make a direct reference to a specific country (I know its the most powerfull in the world), & by doing this the article would lose its neutral point off view.--Elloza (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Association Football

what s this? a minor scottish league?--Ntucu (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? – PeeJay 03:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they’re referring to the fact that, before this article no one knew wtf “association football” means (football and soccer speakers included). —Wiki Wikardo 22:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean no-one knows what Association Football is? If you're primary language is not English then I'll let you off but if you're from the UK and you've never heard of it you're either a three year old footie fan or you're not a fan. Cls14 (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means the prefix "Association" to Football, not the sport itself. And I agree. It has a certain ring over it, like wikipedia wants to push this jargon for the sake of a few other, less known football varieties. 88.159.72.144 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you have a better name yourself please lets hear it. After all it is easy to criticise. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that Association football is by far the best name for it as per all the discussions that we've had in the past. And I appreciate the fact its the Assocation bit he's never heard of but no English speaker who hasn't heard of the name is a real fan. Cls14 (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No i'm a huge british football fan and i have never heard of association football to everyone else it's simply football.

(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.80.7 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United States, which encompasses most of the English speaking world, Soccer is not commonly refered to as "football" or "association football". It's just called "soccer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA call it "association football". End of story. Admittedly, it's a formal name that no one uses in actual conversation, but it's still the best name for the Wikipedia article. "Football" is ambiguous and "soccer" is a regionalism. 96.45.196.227 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Soccer" in lead

The only place the word appears in the lead is in the hat. As an American I find it odd that an article on this sport doesn't have the word "soccer" anywhere in the intro section. Granted, we Americans aren't known for our wordly view, and perhaps "football" exceeds use of "soccer" by leaps and bounds in the overall globe. Still though, America is a pretty big place, makes up a large percentage of the English-speaking world that reads the English Wikipedia, and we all call it soccer here. Since soccer redirects here, and it's a prominent enough term to warrant the hat statement, there should be some mention in the lead, however brief. That's my 2 pence. Equazcion (talk) 06:59, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Yes but that's America, how many of the Pro American players/those playing in the American League call it Football most of them! The majority of the world calls it Football, it was the first Football and the only Football which uses the feet for most of the game so shouldn't it have the right to be called Football. Additionally the countries that call it Soccer (most of them anyway) try to enforce the word Football as the correct term, all of the governing bodies of those countries refer to it as Football, take Australia for example. They have AFL and both of the Rugbys, The AFL and Rugby fans usually call it Soccer but those who play the sport call it Football and the correct/official term for the sport in Australia is Football! The sport is not commonly known as Soccer, Soccer is in the nicknames as it should be but most people call it Football! Simba1409 (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simba1409, you are clearly a very dense individual. We do not care what the "official" name for a sport is in a particular country; we simply care what Joe Public on the street calls it. There are people in the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand who call the sport "soccer", and there are even British people who use that name. It is just as valid a nickname as "football". – PeeJay 09:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is way more refereed to as Football than Soccer, Football is not a nickname of the sport noting the knowledge of FIFA= International Federation of Association Football!

Um, as far as I know, FIFA is not an English abbreviation. The French word can be translated into English as football or soccer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.144.229 (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sport is called Footie or the World Game more than what it is called Soccer so why don't we just leave the most common name (Football) at the top and leave the nicknames on the side! Simba1409 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just in your experience. There are millions of people worldwide who call it "soccer", even more than those who regularly call it "the world game" or "the beautiful game". This encyclopaedia is intended to serve the entire planet, not just your tiny corner of it. – PeeJay 09:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the most common name for the sport? Football, I'm not saying people don't call the sport Soccer hence the reason it is in the nicknames on the side! We keep the most common name at the top, the other names at the side!

More people call it Football than Soccer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simba1409 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you know that "football" and "soccer" are not used in equal measure? Usage of those terms varies depending on where you are; even within countries, usage of a particular term can change. As far as most people are concerned, "football" and "soccer" are equally valid nicknames for association football. – PeeJay 10:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count the countries, which would be more people? [1] Football would! They aren't the population of countries that call it Soccer is overpowered by the larger list of countires which call it Football [2] They are not used equally, Players, Fans, Governing bodies, Commentators, Coaches etc call it Football since it is the world most popular sport that leaves a small amount of people who call it Soccer Fact and math over rules opinion! Simba1409 (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously not listening to what I'm saying. "Football" may be more popular as a primary nickname, but how many of those people do you think use "soccer" as well? Probably most of them. Anyway, this discussion is clearly still in progress, so stop removing "soccer" from the article until the conversation is over. – PeeJay 10:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No most of them wouldn't call it Football and Soccer, and seeing that there is more countries (with bigger populations) that refer to the sport as Football the discussion is other due to the reason that Wikipedia follows facts!

Again read here [3]

Simba1409 (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're the one making assumptions. Just because someone uses one name primarily does not mean they are incapable of using another name. For example, my dad is Welsh and he uses "football" and "soccer" interchangeably. Your argument is a non-starter. – PeeJay 10:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the most common name for the Sport is Football EVERYONE KNOWS that the way the page is worded makes it sound like the terms are equaly used which they are not!

How about we reword it to something like this 'more commonly as Football in most countries and Soccer in countries with other codes of Football?'

Simba1409 (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you any more over the prevalence of either term. However, I do agree that a rewording is probably necessary. Whether the wording you suggest is appropriate or not is not for me to decide. – PeeJay 10:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EVERYONE else seems to be happy with it as it is, which is why you keep being reverted - while Wikipedia uses consensus not majority, this should be a pretty strong hint. Your arguments are valid reasons why the article titles should be (association) football rather than soccer (and believe me, that argument has been done to death), but not valid reasons to remove the word soccer as an alternative name for the sport, which it is. BEVE (talk)  10:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't usually matter how prominent an "also known as" term is. How often one word is used over another is a hard thing to source, so claiming something like you're suggesting is usually not done in leads, and would be original research anyway. How often on Wikipedia does some editor make the argument that, "Well everyone knows this", and actually end up winning? That's really not a respected argument here. Equazcion (talk) 15:00, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)
PS. I also oppose this "other codes" wording, not only because it sounds totally awkward, but because it doesn't make much sense. "Codes" other than what? Are you saying the rules of the game in countries that call it "football" are more "official" than the one calling it "soccer"? It's a very odd statement that seems again like original research, and even if not, is too cryptic for the lead. Equazcion (talk) 15:04, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)

This argument, if you want to call it that, has been done to death. I'm surprised you guys are being so patient here. The fact is not only is soccer just a "nickname", it's also a name used exclusively (and officially) for the sport in the U.S. and Canada, which is over 300 million English speaking people right there. Not to mention many other countries also commonly call it soccer. It's also irrelevant which name is used more for the sport in this case, so let's not even argue about that. Backing up your argument by linking to another Wikipedia article is also not the way to go. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other codes of Football means AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union, American Football etc. And how is it irrelevant, the article claims that Football and Soccer are equally terms which they clearly are not! Football is the offical word for the majorty of the world, so it should be re worded.

If you think Soccer is a more common term then your an idiot! It should be noted that only general public call it Soccer (excluding America who have MLS) all the other leagues call it Football. It should be noted that the sport is officially called Football excluding America and a few other countries!

Count the countries which have Football for the official name of Association Football and which have Soccer, then count the people, which has more! Football!

THE ARTICLE NEEDS REWORDING! If they want the sport called football they would have called it FISA!Simba1409 (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one said soccer is the more common term. It doesn't matter if they're equally used or not, even if you had a source for that, which you don't. And don't call people idiots -- WP:NPA. Equazcion (talk) 22:26, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point, the article suggests that Soccer is a equal or more common term which is why it must be re worded, and I can get sources to prove which word is more common! I could even do the math!

124.179.243.193 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead makes no claim which name is more popular, and football is even listed first. More information about the differing names for the sport is covered in length in the etymology section of this article. The etymology section even makes clear that most official organizations use football. There is absolutely no need to get into an argument about whether football or soccer is the more common name. If you want to force the argument, the United Kingdom has ~60 million people; the United States and Canada have ~340 million people. And why force the issue, the article is already titled association football, let it go. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly it leaves the user blank, another reason why we should reword it! Well all know which term is official and more common!

Simba1409 (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the easy way out of this is to change the wording to 'also known as football or soccer'. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that change of wording would help with this user's complaint of alleged ambiguity. And I don't think a change of wording is necessary. No one else seems to have a problem with the current wording. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer is by far the most popular name of this sport throughout the English speaking world. Football is a confusing name which can refer to a variety of sports. Plus, no one ever calls it Association Football. So, soccer is the only logical name. Just because some Poms don't like the name soccer should not really matter. Jonas.maj (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a subjective issue. Your perception of the popularity of either word will obviously depend on where you are from. If you are from a place where American football, Australian rules football or rugby league football is more popular, then it is almost certain that you will refer to association football as "soccer". However, this does vary across countries, regions and even cities, so it is not fair to say whether "football" is more popular a term than "soccer" or vice versa. – PeeJay 16:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think interpreting the above comments as an assertion about the popularity of the word soccer vis-à-vis football is beside the point. Instead, it points out what I think should be obvious, and the reasons I would strongly support a move to soccer (though the article should still use the majority wording football): that very few people are familiar with the term association football, while technically correct and incorporating the commonly used word football; and that soccer is unambiguous, and is understood and used throughout the English-speaking word, even when not the preferred term.
FWIW, though (not much), football (soccer) makes my eyes bleed.—Wiki Wikardo 00:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly words derived from the English word "football" are the most common terms for this sport; however, the Spanish word for the sport is "fútbol" and the German word for the sport is "fußball". These words, though similar to "football", are spelled and pronounced differently and are therefore different words. How many non-English speaking countries actually use the word "football" for the sport? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the interwiki links on the article to get an idea. Arguably, "fútbol" is the same word, just with an unavoidable accent by non-English speakers, and then naturalized to Spanish orthography. French, for example, also spells it football. —Wiki Wikardo 00:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn! The article is fine at 'association football' - that is the sport's name. Admittedly it is the more formal version but, as you note Wiki Wikardo, football (soccer) is ugly and both football/soccer are unacceptable for a variety of reasons. 'Association Football' is perhaps more common than many think - FIFA, for example, includes it in its name.
As for the whole soccer in lead stuff; the phrase Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer is completely accurate, it doesn't state which is most common, ie, it is fair and neutral. As I have pointed out many times too, the American/Rest of World soccer/football binary simply isn't true; 'soccer' is less common in Europe/Africa than America/Australia but isn't absent (I was at a match yesterday at Wembley where the fans were chanting "We're the famous Barrow soccer and we're going to Wembley"); whilst 'Toronto FC' proves that some in NAmerica are at least familiar with football for this sport.
What I'm trying to say is - the lead is fine, the title is fine, leave it be! --Pretty Green (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify (fuck it, I am not wading through the reams of circular debate to try and make sense of all this), what, exactly, is the problem with soccer, again? It’s certainly more common than association football; is it because some Brits erroneously perceive it as North American? —Wiki Wikardo 07:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The commonality of the terms soccer/football is difficult (impossible?) to prove and depends on your definition of common. 'Soccer' is probably the most common term for a wider number of people, in that the majority of the English-speaking world is American English speaking, and the majority of American English speakers use 'soccer'. But, American English writers will also write a hell of a lot less about soccer than those using British English; so the majority of documentation about the sport probably calls it football. So from an archival/literary POV - and this is, after all, a source-based encyclopaedia - football is probably the most common. Add to that that many non-English languages have terms similar to football - futbol, Fussball etc. - and the waters become muddier. And yes, there are also the language bigots on both sides of the pond (oh sod it - in every country), who are the sort that can make Wikipedia a hell hole if they want. Pretty Green (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a laugh to come on here and read the arguments about what it should be called. The game is officially called Association Football, always has been and probably always will be. It's been discussed (to death) on here dozens of times and frankly if anyone on here taking part in this discussion hasn't heard of the term Association Football they shouldn't be discussing the issue. No-one is ever going to stop it being discussed but some of the stuff being written about it is pure nonsense, lol. Cls14 (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. There are no more arguments regarding what we call the sport here than there have already been for several years in the talk archive pages. I wish people would read all the archives before posting their messages here - then they might actually see that it's been discussed to death years ago. Can we now please talk about something more interesting? EuroSong talk 16:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the names of the national associations which are FIFA members. Because the English list doesn't show the association' full names, please have a look at this List from the German wiki. You can see: out of 208 national organisations only three (= 1.4%!) call their subject "soccer": USA, US Virgin Islands and Canada. In contrast, 129 (= 62.0%) of them call it literally "football" (only Samoa adds "soccer" in brackets). Except from 13 countries, all others (63) use names, that obviously derive from "football" - like Futbol, Fútbol, Futebol, Futbollit, Fußball, Fussball, Voetbal, Futbola, Voetbal, Fudbalski, Futbolen, Fudbalska, Fótbóltss, Fodbold, etc. If you add these countries, 92.2% of all national association play "football", whereas a miniscule minority of 1.4% play "soccer". Those are the facts, but I guess this minority will nevertheless keep on lobbying for their POV. --Eberhard Cornelius (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sport is referred to as football throughout the article. It is standard for articles to list common names of the subject in the lead and that is all that is being done here. This is the English Wikipedia, and the populations of the US and Canada make up a large part of the English speaking world. Plus other English speaking countries like Australia and New Zealand still commonly use soccer despite the recent name change of their official organizations. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The percentage composition of the wikipedia audience is not relevant: "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia" WP:AUDIENCE. --Eberhard Cornelius (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible."
How, in your interpretation, does this mean that we should omit a term by which the sport is known to hundreds of millions of people around the world? —David Levy 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why the article is titled "soccer." Oh, wait...it isn't. So what's the objection?
Also note that a percentage of persons (and more specifically, English-speaking persons) would be of far greater relevance than a percentage of countries is (with the latter measure assigning equal weight to the USA's ~309,000,000 residents and Aruba's ~105,000 residents).
And as noted above, a national association's terminology does not necessarily reflect that of its country's citizens; the Australian Soccer Association and New Zealand Soccer were renamed Football Federation Australia and New Zealand Football in 2005 and 2007, but "soccer" remains the usual term among Australians and New Zealanders.
But again, we aren't assigning prevalence to "soccer" within the article, so what's the issue? —David Levy 18:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I just came to this page to read about soccer, and I'm really surprised to see that it's not even called that! It should say "soccer" in the first sentence. "Soccer" is the most common name for the sport in every English speaking country except those in the U.K. (USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Belize all use "soccer"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fútbol is not a nickname for the sport

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I don't see why fútbol/futbol needs to be put up as one of the nicknames for football (on the English Wikipedia), when it is merely the Spanish translation (correct me if I'm wrong). Having fútbol as a nickname would be similar to referring to calcio (Italian for football) or fußball (German) as nicknames, which they aren't. Azzurro2882 (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely: Many Americans (esp. teens) use some Spanish terms in their slang (hola, amigo, chupas mis huevos, etc.) But you're right that this instance still isn't not common enough to warrant anything but a link to es:fútbol. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football - who is calling soccer to the real "football"??????

I do not understand why some countries are calling soccer to the real "football" - Others like rugby or AFL are more handball than football - A great respect should be for the millions that call the football "football" instead of soccer - Defenitely should be call "football" as all administration, publicity and tradition is about football.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.204.49 (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer - Samoa

The association in Samoas is called Football Federation Samoa or Football Federation of American Samoa [4]. In the etymology section, this article wrongly says that the Samoan associations refer to the game as soccer in their names. This should be corrected. 65.93.193.22 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that entire sentence in the etymology section because it was uncited, therefore removing the Samoa reference. If someone wants to add a source that verifies which organizations use football or soccer go ahead. However, it may be hard to find a source that specifically mentions countries that speak English as a primary language, which would be the relevant organizations to note. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is still beneficial to add that the United States and Canada refer to it as "soccer". I will re-add that little bit. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording to reflect that Canada and the US are not the only countries to refer to football as soccer. Even South Africa uses soccer somewhat. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures are all of men's football

Why aren't there any pictures of women's football. It seems like at least one is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.105.35 (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defenders corner

I heard once there are sometimes corner kicks for the defending side in its own half. Does this happen, if so in what circumstances? BillMasen (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing under standard football rules that would allow for this: if a player from the attacking team puts the ball out over the dead ball line in the defending team's half, a goal kick is awarded. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Popularity of football" map is unclear

It is unclear what the colors mean on the map. I guess darker colors mean countries where football is more popular - but then America is the darkest shade of red? Really? Also, what's the difference between green, red, and blue? Why is China striped? There should be a key explaining these things. Westknife (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Westknife. The map's color code is totally confusing, at best. Son of Somebody (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that it does not really show the popularity of football but just the number or people per 1000 inhabitants playing the game. To fully figure out what that map was saying I had to look at File:Football world popularity.png page and then scroll down and then at the full size image. then look at England, France and Spain as they compare with the US. All four countries had <50 players per 1000 inhabitants with the first three countries being listed as having football as the number 1 sport, which it is not in the US. Look at Canada and Brazil who both have 25-50 players per 1000 inhabitants. I really don't think that it's possible to say that football enjoys the same popularity in Canada as Brazil or in the US as in England, France or Spain. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 07:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I need to chime in on this discussion, too. The map isn't at all useful. I would like to recommend that someone clarify the legend or remove the map altogether. Toropop (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Map showing the number of players per 1,000 inhabitants around the world.
I have created a version without the varying colour - simply a map showing the number of players per thousand in green. Is this worth being used on the page? What do people think? Woodgreener (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Please use it. I found the old map incredibly confusing as well. Though I'm guessing the red indicates that it's not watched very much in those countries. 24.69.107.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think the old map, with three colours should be used. It just needs a better legend. (A) to clarify that it's not popularity but participation and (B) to show that countries in red are those where soccer is not the de facto national sport (aka No 1 sport). It's an important piece of info; to see, for example, that soccer is so popular as a participation sport in N.America but not the national sport. The countries in Blue are of unknown status Redred514 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivorian War Citation, 2005?

Where does the citation say 2005? --Mistakefinder (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misconduct rules should be amended

If a goalkeeper is being sent off with red card, the penalised team can bring in a substitute goalkeeper and bring a field player off instead. If there are no more subsitute goalkeepers, a field player can play as goalkeeper, wearing a distintive jersey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.52.2 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reference for these specific rules, then it can be amended. Simples. Woodgreener (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title should be or contain "Soccer"

I am an Australia and have visited New Zealand, America, Japan, Papua New Guinea, Ireland, and India amongst others. In all these countries the term soccer is commonly used to refer to this sport. These countries also have very high player numbers and possibly the highest popularity per capita.

By these, and other examples such as Canada, South Korea, and South Africa it is quite clear that it isn't just the U.S. where the term is.

Although some media organizations attempt to propagandize the citizens in these countries, the majority of the citizens prefer to use the term "soccer".

It appears that the primary origin of the complaint against the words use is some countries of Europe and that the word is far more widely used than some would have us believe.

I am surprised at how offended I am that the title does not contain the word "soccer". Perhaps this is because I am a soccer player.

The most compelling argument is that whilst other languages may well use phrases that sound similar to "football" in reference to the sport, the majority of the English speaking world uses "soccer": Country whose citizens use the phrase "soccer" : English speakers

  • United States : 251,388,301
  • India : 232,000,000
  • Canada : 25,246,220
  • Australia : 17,357,833
  • Japan : 15,000,000
  • South Africa : 13,700,000
  • Ireland : 4,350,000
  • New Zealand : 3,673,623
  • Papua New Guinea : 3,150,000

Country which may use the phrase "soccer" : English speakers

  • Nigeria : 79,000,000
  • Philippines : 49,800,000 (very certain that this country uses "soccer")

Country which uses the phrase "football" : English speakers

  • United Kingdom : 59,600,000
  • Germany : 46,000,000
  • France : 23,000,000
  • Spain : 12,500,000


Perhaps we could turn the above information into a map? Please feel free to add to it.

120.16.52.31 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult this talk page's archives for the massive amounts of past discussion on this matter.
Whether you agree or disagree with the resultant decision to name the article "Association football," it certainly shouldn't "offend" you. I'm an American who knows the sport as "soccer," and I honestly regard the current title as the best solution. —David Levy 04:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should use the word my country uses for it, because we are totally bigger than you are. Better change the article name or I'll pummel you! Signed, an idiot who completely misses the point. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well Latin America has a population of 569,000,000 and you have excluded them. Everyone in Latin America says "football", or "futbol" (pronounced futibol in Brazil). Considering these countries, your argument can be used against your purpose. The game is called football by most people, despite the fact that some countries have derived some other sports from the game and decided to call these sports football. However, the right name for what you would call soccer is football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.116.26 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is flawed, because this is English Wikipedia, and you are citing non-English speaking sources for the name. Also, "football" does not necessarily refer to soccer. "Football" also refers to American football, rugby union, rugby league, and Austrlian rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people on here seem to have no ability to simply read the debates before. There is a very good reason its called Association Football, because that's it's official name. No biased towards nationality of language, that's what it's called. Anyone who thinks it should be called otherwise, that's fine but you're wrong. Stop talking about it, it's boring and you're wasting your time. Cls14 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football was not the cause of the war between Honduras and El Salvador

It is now widely known (at least in Spanish-speaking academic environments) that the cause of the war between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969 had nothing to do with football. Certain Europeans and North Americans have ever since 1969 continued to repeat this lie. It probably seems amusing, interesting and it falls within stereotypes of Central Americans. Ryszard Kapuscinski was the first one, with his book "The football war". This book is considered a joke amongst Central American historians and serves more as a record of European and North American simplistic views of Central American histories, rather than a serious account of what really led to the 100- hours war between El Salvador and Honduras. Just imagine if a Nicaraguan reporter had been in Poland, to witness a football match between England and Germany, just before Germany invaded Poland in the September Campaign of 1939. This Nicaraguan journalist could easily have written at home that the following war between England and Germany was caused by the football match. But this is obvioulsy ridiculous. The same goes for the mistakenly called "football war" between Honduras and El Salavador. It is a ridiculous proposition. It was as much a football war as the II WW was a football war. There was casually a tense series of matches between Honduras and El Salvador, when there were already political tensions between the countries. These tensions had to do with disagreements within the Central American common market, Salvadoran immigrants in Honduras and pressures in both countries to undertake an agrarian reform. Both countries were led by military dictatorships. These factors combined to render a war that lasted 100 hours. Football had nothing to do with the war, just as people going to the toilet during those days was not a cause of the war. The war would have happened, with or without football. How many times do Central Americans have to clarify this? Probably just as long as there are prejudiced and irresponsible "historians" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.116.26 (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment is sufficiently guarded - "widely considered to be the final proximate cause" ie it didn't cause it, but was a tipping point, the way that shooting Archduke Franz Ferdinand caused World War One. The article doesn't say that it was a war over football. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear to a reader almost completely unfamiliar with the sport

I'm a non-sports-fan in the United States. I don't even know a lot of the details of American football, baseball, and basketball. But this is the #1 sport of the world as a whole, so with the World Cup being in the news I thought I would have a look and get a vague idea how it works. I already knew that players other than the goalkeeper aren't allowed to use their hands, and that running along with the ball is called dribbling, but that's about it. This article doesn't give me a basic understanding of why the players are running one place instead of another, on the level a small child would have in soccer-playing countries. What's the basic effect of the offside rule, for example? Does it mean that you dribble with your toe never extending past the front of the ball (even though it only matters when there's at most one defender between you and the goal line)? Or does it mean that attempts on goal are normally made from farther back so that two defenders are closer to the goal line? Or does it mean that defenders try to get farther from the goal line than the player with the ball, so that the ball goes out of bounds because kicking it away from the goal line would involve putting part of your foot closer to the goal line than the ball? Or what? I expect that these are really stupid questions to any fan, but there are a lot of people in the world who aren't sports fans. This article should contain the basic explanation that fans absorb by the time they're four years old. It shouldn't be that difficult. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the hyperlink on offside you can get to this article: Offside (association football). That article should give you a better explanation of the rule. However I agree this sentence in the "Laws" section of this article is rather confusing: "The offside law limits the ability of attacking players to remain forward (i.e. closer to the opponent's goal line) of the ball, the second-to-last defending player (which can include the goalkeeper), and the half-way line.[28]" Maybe someone can reword it or explain offside better in this article. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a coincidence, if you are watching the Argentina - Mexico game maybe you understand offside better. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording was poor. I've changed this to 'receive the ball'; you can move wherever you want on the pitch, and are only offside if you receive the ball in front of two defenders. So it is not offside to run with the ball beyond two defenders, for example. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"call back" - reference needed

hi,

Can a reference be given for the sentence: " The referee may "call back" play and penalise the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue within a short period, typically taken to be four to five seconds". I believe it is a relatively new rule, so a direct quote which explains is important.

213.131.238.28 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History pre-1848

The earliest date in the history section is 1848. Is anything known about the history before that? I'm asking because I recently ran across a legend that the Wampanoag people were playing a similar game when the English colonists arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620, and that it was brought back to England from there. I had always heard that the English claimed to have invented the game and am curious if the truth is know with any kind of certainty. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football#Early_history has more details on earlier/similar games. This article is about Association football, which by definition, existed only after 1863. Grant | Talk 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would it be appropriate to put that link in the history section, too? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean this article, I would say "no": before the 19th century there were many different games resembling this game, in various parts of the world. While it has been argued that present day Association football/soccer is linked to the Ancient Greek games phaininda and/or episkuros, there is little evidence for this. There is even less evidence that similar games from outside Europe (such as Marn Grook, Aqsaqtuk, Pahaseman, Cuju etc) influenced the rules devised in England in 1863. The non-European games seem to have been cases of "parallel evolution". In fact, the Football article took its present form , in part, because there was a need for a page linking all the various kinds of football. Grant | Talk 12:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F373246460