Talk:List of men's national association football teams

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the national teams task force (assessed as Top-importance).

This is a nomination for this week's football article improvement drive collaboration!
Please review this page's entry and voice your opinion.

Vatican City[edit]

Ŕ I seriously doubt Vatican City has a national football team!24.201.40.80 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Vatican City national football team article, there is such a team and they only played one game so far in their history. S iva1979^{Talk to me} 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teams not affiliated to FIFA[edit]

I remember once reading in an issue of When Saturday Comes about an alternative World Cup for nations that don't exist as such (Northen Cyprus & Åland, for example) and so aren't recognised by FIFA. It would be nice to expand on this, and probably have a new page for whatever the tournament is called. Dancarney 23:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should have a new article about this. But are you able to get the necessary information? Credible references need to be cited for this as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shetland Islands & Orkney Islands[edit]

I believe that these two island chains are considered part of Scotland for sporting (and governmental) purposes. User: TimothyHorrigan Timothy Horrigan 01:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed part of Scotland, and anyone from any of those islands is eligble to play for Scotland. However, the two island groups do compete as separate entities in the International Island Games, which includes football as one of its sports. Other teams that compete in this are Ynys Môn (part of Wales) and the Isle of Wight (part of England). Dancarney 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need to avoid confusion of two definitions of international: the stricter and more literal definition, between nations would only be applicable when a match is between national sides; a looser definition, which amounts to involving different nationalities, applies to competitions such as the Champions' League in football, and gives rise to phrases such as "international club match" which are oxymoronic by the first definition. The International Island Games Association, as is clear from their documentation, rely on the second definition of the word for its inclusion in their title: they make neither insistence nor assumption that the physical islands that comprise their membership be island nations. Thus membership of that body does not make the teams of Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Shetlands or the Orkneys into national teams. Kevin McE 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I believe it is confusing to call the teams from the British Islands (Orkney, Shetland) as national football teams. They are regional football teams at best. =hnder 12:52, 31 March 2008

Teams of non-sovereign or unrecognized nations -- cleanup required[edit]

Someone's gone overboard adding imaginary football teams to this list. For example, Anglesey, Cornwall and the Isle of Wight are UK counties. They have never had "national" teams. A lot of the other teams in this list look similarly suspicious. "Shetland national football team" may have its own page in Wikipedia, but a search at Google turns up absolutely nothing about this team except for the Wikipedia page and its mirrors. Does it really exist? Can someone provide references? And what about all the other teams in there?

I can't tell if this is original research or just patent nonsense, but it certainly doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 16:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them seem to be at best regional teams, or putative teams of nations that might one day exist (or exist again) with some degree of self determination. I would suggest that a team is not overseen by a body that describes itself as a national football association, it cannot meaningfully claim to be a national football team, and the article and its link on this page should be deleted. Kevin McE 14:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this Football at the Island Games, Shetland, Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Wight, Isle of Man.. they play in it, so by same way, that needs to be a "national" selection.. --Calapez 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a requirement that members of the Island Games Association make any claim to nationhood, nor that their sporting bodies have, or seek, the status national associations. I can perceive of no definition of "nation" by which the Isle of Wight, for example, would be described, and therefore to talk of it having a national team is meaningless. It might have a representative team, but so does every county, at several different age groups. Kevin McE 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things have gone from bad to worse. We now have 5 "national" football teams for Antarctica, of all places. Including the UNINHABITED Bouvet Island. Obviously this section is never going to contain anything useful or encyclopedic. Would anyone mind if I just go ahead and delete it? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 16:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think you can't make a generalization of the problem.. i think it's usefull to remove the non-sense "national teams", but others, no! because they really exists and play games. e.g all Spanish related nations

i think it's good to remove all the national teams that have no page on wikipedia..the others exists as a local federation Calapez (talk • contribs) 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Calpez. I really need you to back up these assertions, because as far as I can tell, none of these teams exist at all. The main problem is that none of these places are "nations" of any kind, so they can't possibly have "national" teams. Just a few examples:

Australian Indigenous national football team: 2 hits at Google (both Wikipedia)
Christmas Island national football team: 15 hits, but only from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors
Cocos (Keeling) Islands national football team: 5 hits. All Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors

I could go on, but I'd be wasting my time. If you want to save this section, please start looking for reliable sources to back up this information. And please bear in mind that Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. You can't just claim that these teams exist because they have their own Wikipedia pages. That's not how things work here. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of course, well, the non-exist wiki pages, i don't know, but the one that exists, at least the ones i've created are based in this website www.fedefutbol.net, that's in spanish, but you can surf by the confederation icons and see the "Potencial N.F.Board" as they call it

Cocos Islands - [1]

Chritmas Islands - [2] .... and so on--Calapez 22:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that doesn't solve anything. As I said before, none of these places are "nations". I expect football/soccer is played in most inhabited parts of the world. But this page is for national teams. Not for local football associations. The pages you mentioned refer to "CHRISTMAS ISLAND SOCCER ASSOCIATION" and "COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS SOCCER ASSOCIATION". These are not national teams. It seems that several people have explained this to you already. What exactly don't you understand about the word "national"? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of N.F.Board in the same page:

NF-Board

These teams are full or provisional members of the NF-Board, an organisation to promote international football among sovereign nations, UNRECOGNIZED NATIONS, REGIONS and STATELESS PEOPLES that are not members of FIFA, and to assist in their possible future membership of FIFA.

If they are NFB candidates that means that can be FIFA candidates in the future..

By the way, Wales, Scotland, England are not nations..Liechtenstein neither, Gibraltar is a nations?no but they are close to get in UEFA, in CONCACAF Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana are not nations, they are part of France and teams compete in French cup, but they are considered nations..

--Calapez 23:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and by the way "several people have explained this to you already" where is the others? i just see you talking about that.. the other guy that questioned about that, was answered by other guy defending the same point that i am..--Calapez 23:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few things for you to consider:

This article lists approximately 200 imaginary international football teams. There are only 22 teams listed in the NF-Board article.
According to your own quoted text, membership of the NF-Board is open to (a) unrecognized nations, (b) regions, and (c) stateless people. Tibet is an example of an unrecognized nation. To the best of my knowledge, all of the other regions in the list come under (b) or (c). They are not nations. Therefore they do not have national teams.
Here's a quote from the FIFA statutes:

Any Association which is responsible for organising and supervising football in its country may become a Member of FIFA. In this context, the expression “country" shall refer to an independent state recognised by the international community.

None of the regions in your list are currently recognized as countries, so they don't qualify for FIFA membership. It is completely pointless assigning fictional teams to countries that don't exist. We need verifiable facts, not vague suppositions. There's even a team listed for "Korea (unified)". What on earth is that doing in there?

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are separate countries. From the United Kingdom article:

The United Kingdom is a political union made up of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

So apparently they do qualify for FIFA membership.

Re "several people": In addition to myself, Timothy Horrigan pointed out that the Shetland and Orkney Islands are part of Scotland, and Kevin McE (the other guy?) suggested we adhere to a definition similar to FIFA's, which seems sensible, given the title of this article. Your assertion that membership of the Island Games Association somehow promotes these islands to the status of "nations" does not make any sense. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why you just consider the a) point? regions, and stateless people can also join the NF-Board

Of course, half of that 200 are non-existant teams, but what i'm trying to say since the beginning is that some of them exists in reality..e.g the Spanish ones (have you ever checked Catalonia or Basque County page?).. they play almost every year as you can see in their pages

you want to remove all that have no article..you have my fully support..because nothing support their existence.. but the others, that have article exists in reality, nation or not that's not the main question..

as a NF-Board guy said, Faroe Island and Greenland have exactly the same political situation..so why one of them is "Nation" and the other not?, just because FIFA say that? this is more than FIFA opinion since the creation of NF-Board --Calapez 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teams of non-sovereign or unrecognized nations: Partial cleanup[edit]

OK, I've removed all the the teams that had red links. But please don't remove the {{cleanup}} tag just yet. There are still some major problems with this list. For example, the Isle of Wight national football team may have its own page in Wikipedia, but I can assure you there is no such thing. We still need to discuss the following:

Removal of non-existent teams
Possible move of this information to a page with a more suitable title.

And by the way, if anyone is considering reinstating the teams I just removed from this page, please justify your actions here first, otherwise you can expect your edits to be reverted. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's a good option the one you take.. i'm not from UK, so i don't know nothing about Isle of Wight, but if they don't exists, who play all that games recorded in that page http://www.fedefutbol.net/fedenf.aspx?id=WGT? --Calapez 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not making myself clear?

The Isle of Wight exists. I'm not disputing that.
It also has a football team, which participates in the Island Games. I'm not disputing that either.
But the Isle of Wight is not a nation. It is a UK county.
It therefore has a county football team, not a national football team.
Since it is an island, it is also eligible to participate in the Island Games. The teams participating in the Island games do not have to be national teams. They have to be island teams. That's why it's called the Island Games.
Since the Isle of Wight is a county, and not a nation, it cannot have a national football team.
There is no such thing as the Isle of Wight National Football team.

Is it really that difficult to understand? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 16:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you say, but don't you understand that the word "National" is just a convention??

There is a lot of "FIFA Nations" that are not nations in fact! but you are calling it that way.. Faroe Island is a nation? Martinique? French Guiana? Guadeloupe? Liechtenstein? Andorra? Tahiti? Macau? Hong Kong?none of these are nations neither..
NF-Board are opened for non-nations too!! These article is not about The FIFA Nations..these one are under content "1. FIFA Affiliates", the regions you are talking about are under content 3. Where the NF-Board teams are discribed too..
I never said Isle of Wight is a nation.. i just say that they are in the same level as Chechnya or Monaco, that are part of NF-Board
What you want to do? change Martinique national team to Martinique Regional team? or change the Liechtenstein national team to Liechtenstein Principality team?? Macau national team to Macau Special Administrative Regional team?? you have to understand that call is "national team" is just a convention

if you don't want to understand that fact...ok--Calapez 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of crap. Liechtenstein and Andorra all independent nations. Check your facts before making a joke of yourself. Ohnder 13:00, 31 March 2008

A convention? Whose convention? They're either nations or they're not nations. If they're not nations, then it makes no sense to call them nations, or to list them in an article that claims to be a list of nations, or to refer to their football teams as national football teams. What's wrong with "Isle of Wight football team", or "Martinique football team"? You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support the existence of a "convention" for inserting "national" into team names where it doesn't belong. What is this "fact" you're referring to? What is it that I don't want to understand? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 23:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so, you almost want to change every team article name..if you want to do that..ok, do it..

there's nothing wrong with that.. but you will have no change the name of articles that exists for a long time..

according to your view, you have to change this article name..because it says "men's national teams" and there are FIFA members that are not nations, so what you do? you don't list all confederation members? will you remove Andorra and Liechtenstein from UEFA list?? Hong Kong and Macau from AFC list? that's non sense...
finally, you just have acess to this article from International football template, and that template is about what? UEFA, AFC, CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, OFC, CAF and NF-BOARD, so when when you see "teams" there it's suppose to see all those teams, nations or not-nations, right?--Calapez 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teams of non-sovereign or unrecognized nations: A proposal[edit]

The discussion above is difficult to follow, not least because of multi-paragraph messages that make it difficult to keep track of who is saying what, and because it has become argument rather than construction of a possible consensus. I suggest, therefore, that a team should be included in this section only if the following criteria can be met:

There is sufficient verifiable information on the team to justify a Wikipedia article;
The team represents a nation (although this need not be an autonomous nation-state: England, and the Australian Indigenous Peoples, are nations) or a region that has significant independence;
The team is administered by a body whose existence can be verified independently of Wikipedia and which styles, or can be shown to understand itself, as a national body;
Being currently active is not necessary, but there must be genuine evidence of either historic or genuinely plausible future fixtures;
The majority of fixtures are against sides that would otherwise meet these criteria;
If a team has no acknowledgement (which need not necessarily equate to membership) by FIFA, one of its confederations, or the NF Board, then the burden of proof should be on those who wish to list it here.

Could I suggest that, for the moment, we restrict our conversation in this section to the principles for inclusion/exclusion, rather than the merits or otherwise of particular teams. Kevin McE 12:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about restricting the article to FIFA members? The NF-Board has its own article, so there's no point in reduplicating the list here. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 13:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA has also its own article..so they are duplicated too..

I think it should be a overall list, because who wants to see a small list, can see it in each confederation page, like Sakurambo is saying for the NF-Board ones..

That's why it is a list, to see all of them...

The question is: This article is linked just in International Football template, that talks about, UEFA, CAF, AFC, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, OFC and NF-BOARD, so all of them have to be here.. --Calapez 22:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If FIFA has its own article, then do we really need this page at all? Why not just change the International Football template? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of this list is to put together all teams playing at the level of selection-teams. The Brazilians never stress the national team but the selecao. But what Sakurambo and Kevin McE are not willing to admit is that some full CONCACAF-members do not yet meet those criteria: for instance Saint-Martin is half an Island, that belongs to the French département Guadeloupe approximately as the Isle of White belongs to England. Can you accept the expression official football team, as I have tried to implement in Frøyan official football team and Hitra official football team? They are official teams representing an entity (either territorial or ethnic) in fixtures or championships, in its majority against sides that would otherwise meet these criteria. But I would want to stress (as justification of such a new practice), that Saint-Martin should be renamed to Saint-Martin official football team with a redirect from Saint-Martin national football team. The full-FIFA-member Montserrat is not a "nation" but an an overseas territory of the United Kingdom. And full-FIFA-member Macao was a Portuguese colony and is now a Special administrative region (People's Republic of China). --Rheinländer 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Calapez has done, I would suggest that you are confusing nation with nation-state. The Isle of Wight has never had, nor sought, a national identity: Macao and Saint-Martin have: it means far more to describe oneself as "Montserratian" (it that is the appropriate demonym) than as a Shetlander. It is not a case of whether the team represents an official football association (every county in the UK would have a team listed by that criterion) but whether (in my proposal) that association consideres itself to be a national or quasi-national body. Kevin McE 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A normal County in England does not represent its county in fixtures or championships with other selection-teams representing an entity officially. To me the Isle of White, by taking part in the Island Games (against sides like Greenland, Åland Islands, Jersey and (till they became full-FIFA-member) Faroe Islands), represents itself officially with its official football selection-team. The Isle of White team is not less representing a quasi-national-body than the Saint-Martin team is. Both are representing their Island or Part of the Island (being an Entity in the sense of a territorial or ethnic Legal entity). To me Saint-Martin becomes an entity in this sense only in combination of territorial distinction from Guadeloupe and ethnic (in this special case culture, language) distinction from Sint Maarten.

I would not miss Ceuta, Melilla or Alaska, who have not yet represented their entity and therefore are not even entities in this sense, as they have not yet acted as entities. But for instance Tasmania national football team has played against Tahiti (as we know a full-FIFA-member) 01 May 1985 as well as against Australia (10 October 1984). Just as full-FIFA-member Macao played against China (30 January 1996 and 12 May 1985). --Rheinländer 14:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Wight (note spelling) is a "normal" county, and its participation in the Island Games reflects nothing more than the geographical fact of its being surrounded by water, not any special status among the counties. Participation in these games is by no means the main function or raison d'être for the IoW FA, and it is by no stretch of the imagination a national association. Föhr or Sylt or any other of the Frisian Islands would be equally eligible to enter the Island Games: would this make such a team an internationally representative team? I would suggest not. Kevin McE 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think that the problem of some guys are just the names choosen.. if we replace all " ... national football team" by "... official football team" there are no more discussions about Nations, States, Islands and so on...--Calapez 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But "Official" football team means nothing. No team is described as the "official Football team" and any team, apart from the most casual participants in a kick around in the park, is as official as the organisation fielding the side wants it to be. Is a county team less "official" than a national one? Is a school team less official than a club side? Kevin McE 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup- what should go, what should stay.[edit]

let's vote on what should go and what should stay, cause a cleanup is needed in some places, Spain in particular. the only thing that should stay in spain are the Canary islands and The Basque Country.

Before u should vote u should know how to vote on what will go.

Islands such as the canary islands should stay because it's like USA and Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico isn't even considerd a state of USA so they are able to have there own team. Islands liek the Canaries and Azores are teams

And The Basque Country represents the basque speaking people of spain and france. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazingferret36 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

i think it's completelly non-sense.. all spanish regions has equal status.. Canary Island is part of Spain like Balearic Islands (that you don't talk in your post).. and you haven't mencioned the most known and active football team, Catalonia. --Calapez 16:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yah i was sorta in a rush and did it very quickly, Catalonia will stay, Canary islands should be voted on, Balearic islands will go, and Basque will stay, rest of spain will go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazingferret36 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok it's me again and i'm gonna clean this page up of all the crap that people put in there and take everything that does not diserve to be inm there into a new sub catagory at the bottom of the page.

If u noticed i edited the page on spain, i have a line cutting through the provinces of spain, and the things that should be in the section, (Basque, Canary(will vote on it) catalonia)

And also before anyone asks, Norfolk island for australia is in and will stay in, it should not be deleted. and no i did not put it in, it's just that people always make a fuss about australia --amazingferret36

Are you from spain or near the country? i think you are completely out of the reality of the country.. Canary Islands is one of the less active teams.. just to give you an idea of how it is working.. registered matches: Andalucia 12 games - Aragon 9 - Asturias 10 - Cantabria 6 - Castilla y Leon 2 - Catalonia 44 - Valencia Community 12 - Galicia 4 - Balearic Islands 1 - Navarra 3 - Basque County 41 - Canary Islands 4!

All spanish counties have equal status, so it's hard to understand your criterium...--Calapez 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At User:amazingferret36: Please do not describe the work of other authors as crap. Mostly the authors are inserting interesting and precious information, see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Which page did you edit in Spanish? I am asking, because the linked page es:Lista de selecciones de fútbol does not contain the non-FIFA selection-teams. Not to forget Murcian national football team, added by 87.218.53.117 and needing a new article, having played two matches (against Lithuania and Ecuador see [3]). You have added Galapagos; please give references of any match. About Norfolk: It has already been deleted once: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norfolk Island national football team, note especially the delete-vote and comments of OzLawyer. You can still see the unreferenced former article here: [4]. The matches named there were most probably only hoax. There is a Norfolk Island Soccer Association, as in ebay you just missed to bye a badge for 2 Pounds [5] and [6]--Rheinländer

11:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Galapagos shows promise of a future team, that's why i put them in. If u search on google u can find norfolk island soccer association so which means they might have a team in the future, i'm still looking up to see if they played games, i'll keep posted on that. --[[User:amazingferret36|amazingferret36]

Somebody might have matches in the future: if that is not an admission of speculation, I don't know what is. This is an encyclopedia, and therefore deals with verifiable established facts, not speculation. Thank you for confirming that deletion is proper. Kevin McE 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i understand everything now, 1st of all, when i say basque i mean the basque speaking people of spain and france, when u say basque you mean the basque country or the basque province of spain. i take the blame because i didn't explain myself clearly enough. Basque should be in the list, but not as a province of spain but as a people. Sorta like Kurdistan.

2nd of all i withdrew my possition over canary islands because i thought that they were a seperate nation of spain, not a province of spain, my fault and i believe i owe u guys an apology. But i want to point out that i said nothing about the bealaric islands, bealaric islands is obviously a province of spain(i don't think i'm that stupid)

3rd let's get back on topic, as the thread i created said, it's time to clean it up. it got messed up when people started putting down the provinces of spain and britain. so i was thinking it's a chance to re-organise this section to avoid clean ups in the future. My idea is to organise everything into contenants(eg: North America, Europe, Asia) that way we won't have this problem happen again. And for those who would like to have some info about it being part of a country for example we will put it like this: Isle Of Man, Britain. That way people would know it's part of britain. i geuss this will be the end of my post and i hope we can clean this up soon. [[User:# Amazingferret36|# Amazingferret36]]

Except, of course, that the Isle of Man is not part of the UK, and, so long as it has an active team, it is one of the minorityon the list whose nationhood I would not challenge. Kevin McE 22:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, You know what i mean =\ # Amazingferret36

i heard of alaska having a team, someone look in on this. Also a list of possible teams are: Saaremaa, Ascension Island, Caprivi, French Polynesia, Tokelau,

Saarema and Caprivi exists, i can confirm that.. French Polynesia is Tahiti, and Tokelau is already listed--Calapez 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah i was about to edit my posts, i just took a couple of teams from a list, when i came back and realised i posted some teams that are already there.. i felt stupid, i wish i got a chance to edit it before anyone psoted.

i have edited the NF Board section with the most current up to date standings which are that Sealand, South Lower Saxony and Saugeais all have made it into Provisinal Status and that there is no longer any associete members at the moment. [7] according to the official site. --[[User:# Amazingferret36|# Amazingferret36]]

Deleted Texas[edit]

I have deleted

Texas

There is absolutely no team representing Texas officially in football (soccer). There is no reference to be found for such a team. Neither on www.rsssf.com: Electronic Reachability of Football Associations nor on www.national-football-teams.com nor on rsssf: International Country Results nor on www.roonba.co.nr, for example Button Non-FIFA nor on www.fedefutbol.net. No soccer-matches can be recorded. The only hit in google is: "The University of Texas National Football Team" on Fan-page for Texas Longhorns, obviously for an American football team of the The University of Texas at Austin see: www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com and Texas Longhorns.--Rheinländer 13:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you know this is getting out of hand.. why would someone put in texas? stop putting in states/provinces for countries like england, spain, and usa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazingferret36 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And what about remove that "chapter" and put there a link to a new page, where we can list the regional and peoples selections that really exists?--Calapez 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that'd be great,but remember this is a list of Mens Football Teams. So it is a list of all teams, Fifa and NF Board. But that made me realized, this is a list, so to make this actually live up to it's name, shouldn't we have a list of ALL Teams from Island Games, To the NF Board and the Fifa World cup. Wasn't that the point of this Article? so instead of doing this, we should get this clean up over with, and put ALL the teams on it? If this article is not going to include a full list of teams from all shapes and sizes then shouldn't this articles title be changed? --Amazingferret36

and what about to change the title of that chapter to "Regional, Islands and Peoples selection-teams currently active" ?--Calapez 00:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia should include an option to close a chapter after it's been fully finished/completed, and to keep people from editing it for the wrong reasons. that way this discussion wouldn't even be happening. and No it is for teams like Kurdistan and Aland Islands, not for Tortola and virgin Gorda, There's a reason why there's a British and American Virgin islands Team, it's so we don't have to go through 30 different island teams.

Aland Islands are islands too.. Tortola and so on plays matches against CONCACAF members.. Kurdistan..ever played?--Calapez 01:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe lord howe island and cococ(keeling)islands have soccer teams.

Cocos have, they play reguraly against Christmas islands... what about sign your posts??? --Calapez 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow ur right! who would belive from an island of only 629 inabitants, it's able to find a team. But what about Lord Howe Island? --Amazingferret36

Isn't Ulster northern Ireland? why is it here? --Amazingferret36

It happened again[edit]

What happened to the list? it even includes Antartica which for the best of my knowledge has NO PERMANENT INHABITANTS! Heard and Mcdonald Islands have no inhabitants, French Polynesia is Tahiti, French Antartic Territories? Do i even have to say anything? Ross dependancy ounce again is part of antartica (oh my god) Chatham islands is a possibility if it's proven toi have any team at all. I'm not gonna comment on britain till later when i do some resaerch on it, THERE'S A TEAM THAT IS BRITISH AND USA VIRGIN ISLANDS TOGATHER! i'm gonna do some research but isn't sardinia a province of italy? SAAR DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE! Crete is part of greece, Rhodes there because they participate in the island games where Crete does not, Nagorno-Karabakh... not even gonna say anything, wake island is.. uninhabited, only people there are American military, A team for both east and west timor.. i didn't even look at africa yet... but i think there's gonna be alot more... --Amazingferret36

Calm down.. You know that anyone can write what they want without read the discussion.. instead of whilling why don't you remove the non-sense "teams"? I've removed all the teams based in an unknown source--Calapez 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol i freaked out there, i think some were ok, like a few in europe. --Amazingferret36

New names[edit]

I suspect that this list is being edited to reflect changes of names of nations. However, this is a list of national football teams, not a list of nations, and so any instances of name change on this list should reflect a change of the name under which the national team played. Kevin McE 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree --Calapez 23:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree to but the problem with this is that if you click on ceylon, it goes to sri lanka, as with many other of those nations. this requires major searching on google or another search engine. I strongly don't believe that the african teams were playing that long ago since that most of them didn't start playing to the 80's and 90's (correct me if i'm wrong) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.249.178 (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey!!!! Svalbard...Norfolk...Ascension...Tristan da cunha...Pitcairns...Herm...Jan Mayen...Antarctica...have got a national team? I found on a old wikipedia article some results of antarctica.... On the roon ba website all other... and on other websites the image and shirt of many others... so....i know that many of these don't have played matches yet...but... have got the national team???

umm you do know what Antarctica is right? Also there's a difference beetwin regional and national team where those teams might be regional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.122.180.120 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Southern Rhodesia i think don't exist but the others yes!!!the only one that i'm not sure is Aden.South Yemen played 4 international matches in 1965 as Lahej. Manchuria PLAYED international matches: 09-08-1942 • Manchuria 0-3 Japan • Friendly • in Manchuria; 07-06-1940 • Japan 7-0 Manchuria • Friendly • in Japan; 03-09-1939 • Manchuria 0-6 Japan • Friendly • in Manchuria. Maybe exists other old names...

Deleted Cocos Island (Guam) from this list[edit]

This tiny island one mile off the coast of Guam is not represented by a soccer team. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands national football team represents the Cocos Islands (also only 628 Inhabitants; between Australia and Sumatra) and has already been on this list. also deleted, because they do not have a soccer-team representing them, nor do they have a soccer-association (yet):

Svalbard, Norway
Lord Howe Island.

--Rheinländer 09:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Zulu Team?[edit]

I have found some sources saying that there is a team Representing the Zulu people, Someone look into this.

Will do! ¢нαzα93 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are not cunfused with This? ¢нαzα93 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for new section[edit]

I suggest adding a new section to this list, about affiliation switches. Turkey and Kazakhstan have moved from Asia to Europe, Australia has moved from Oceania to Asia, Israel has moved from Asia to Oceania to Europe. I believe there are a few more. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability[edit]

The key criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia is verifiability. There is clearly no question over the existence of a team that is a member of FIFA, or a member or associate member of one of the Confederations or the NF board. I would be willing to accept that any team listed in the ELO rankings as "immune" from the need of any additional verification. Beyond that, if there is to be any team listed here, there must be some verifiable justification. Note that the Island Games makes no claim to be a competition between nations, merely between geological islands: some members of that organisation have a reasonable claim to nationhood, others do not, and I would not consider participation in that competition to prove the existence of a national team (a team that plays in an international competition is not thereby an international team). I had already proposed some suggestions, I have changed them slightly here:

There is sufficient verifiable information on the team to create at least a stub article in Wikipedia;
The team represents a nation, fulfilling at least some part of the definition at that article;
The team is administered by a body which styles, or can be shown to understand itself, as an organisation that represents the nation in the sport, and eligibility for selection to the team relies on some sense of belonging to the nation involved (i.e. it is not merely a subdivision of a national FA or a club side which has the name of a nation);
a considerable proportion of fixtures are against sides that would themselves meet these criteria.

Verifiability is not an optional extra, and is clearly lacking in the section "Teams of non-sovereign or unrecognized nations", which has been tagged as substandard for more than 6 months. I propose to revisit the page with a ruthless deletion policy towards that which is not verified in 2 weeks or so, unless reasons here, which are in keeping with encyclopedic policy and the definition of this page, provide compelling grounds to stay my hand. Kevin McE 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! That section is a mess. I fully support your proposed criteria for inclusion and your planned efforts to trim back that section. Andrwsc 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks later, no voice has been raised in opposition, and no verification offered to defend the retention of any team not acknowledged by ELO ratings (it is on this basis that Wallis and Futuna and Mayotte escaped the knife). Future additions should include verification that they meet the above criteria. Kevin McE 00:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies that I didn't reply within your two-week period - I'd never even seen this talk page until your most recent edit here prevented my 90-minute total reorganisation from being put up by mere minutes (i.e. edit conflict). No hard feelings, of course, but I wish I had seen this first.

It would seem to me that perhaps a more fair and, most importantly, encyclopaedic, thing to do would be to reform this category slightly, changing it from a list of unrecognised national teams (or whatever the specific thing is) to a list of unrecognised regional teams (or some name for the category which would correctly categorise them). That, or perhaps you/we should rethink what would make a team qualify for inclusion on this list. If you look at the two teams which now remain, Mayotte may be on ELO but it's only ever played two friendlies (both against Reunion) and no competitive matches. It's shortly to play in the Indian Ocean Island Games, but then you just dismissed a large number of teams from this list which can also claim to play/have played in an Island Games tournament, or equivalent. If we remove Mayotte, that leaves Wallis and Futuna, who have only a slightly more verifiable claim in that they contest the South Pacific Games, which does purport to be a national organisation - though Wallis and Futuna is clearly not a sovereign nation, so that brings up a whole new and rather large issue over what actually qualifies as a national tournament - and that leaves a list of one team...which doesn't really qualify as a list at all, really. Infact, if we are to be strictly correct, a "national" team would represent a nation, which is NOT a country but instead an ethnic group - and that description would actually justify many of the teams previously on that list, which seem to often have been put together for no other reason than to semi-politically increase nationalist feelings in multi-national countries.

Of course, I can see where you were coming from when you proposed this, and I agree that some of the teams on this list can't/aren't verified well enough to even really prove the teams' existences. But personally I believe that many of the teams you deleted have justified their inclusion far more than Mayotte and Wallis and Futuna have, and should be restored. Also, remember this is an article about lists of teams, and it's inside an encyclopaedia. We're collectively trying to compile all human knowledge, within reason (such is Wikipedia's very mandate) and so a list of sub-national teams would seem to justify a place in this article. If the team justifies an article of its own (which very many of those deleted did, in my opinion), then surely together they justify having a list to categorise them on this page? Falastur2 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, apologies that I made changes on this page while your comments were here without addressing them: it was late and I wanted to get to bed, and I have had problems with IE7 freezing on Wikipedia since then, including as I went to post a lengthy reply. Enough excuses…

While "a list of unrecognised regional teams" might be a worthwhile article, I cannot support it being a section on this page, because regions are not a subsection of the class nations. This article is called List of men's national football (soccer) teams, and so it should not include any entity that does not have a verifiable claim to be that: a national football team. I do see some problems in where to draw the line with your proposal for a list of regional teams: every sizable nation in the world has some form of regionalisation for the purposes of local government, and most national Football Associations will have corresponding subdivisions. The list would either be woefully incomplete, or would be a vast list of redlinks.

The deletions I made were on the basis of verifiability: do the teams exist (now, or at least while the “nation” has been extant in its current form) and, in the absence of other evidence, is it acknowledged by a reliable source outside Wikipedia? Maybe I misjudged in allowing ELO ratings publishers such a status, but the (much shortened) list I ended up with was genuinely the result of deciding on a criterion and applying it, without knowing in advance the result, rather than thinking about who I would like to include, and then finding a reason to include them. I would consider this to be the key to being an editor, rather than a promoter. I am very happy to debate the criteria (I invited anyone else to join the debate and allowed for 2 weeks for them to do so), but I was not willing to leave a list that had neither clear criteria nor expectation of evidence. Maybe participation in events such as the South Pacific Games should be a qualification for inclusion in this list: I would support it in discussion if it can be shown that the principle of the tournament is that it is an event for national teams (and not merely for teams from many nations): the Island Games has no such stipulation, and therefore does not meet the expectations that I would have for meeting the definition of a national team.

I agree entirely that nation is not synonymous with sovereign-state, which is why I linked to the definition at nation. I was more than happy to be able to retain teams such as Sápmi and the Roma people (by virtue of their membership of the NF board), and I would have been delighted to have found that verification had been posted for teams such as Australian Indigenous People or Navajo Nation. I have no philosophical or political axe to grind, I simply think that when so many dubious additions had been made, a radical insistence on the basic principles of encyclopedic verification had become necessary. I agree that some teams I deleted deserve to be on the list, and will be delighted when someone provides the verification that allows them to be resubmitted (for example, see my reply about Gibraltar below).

I must however disagree with some of your closing comments. This is not “an article about lists of teams”, it is a list of teams, albeit subdivided; a list of sub-national teams, by definition, is not part of a list of national teams; and Wikipedia does not exist to “compile all human knowledge”, but to present that which is noteworthy and verifiable.

In summary, I did not wish or expect my clearing out of the bulk of the “Unrecognised” section to be final or definitive, but to clear the way for an ordered and orderly reconstruction, based on proof that the teams exist, and exist as representatives of a nation, as the article’s title demands. Kevin McE 21:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with Falastur.. that 2 regions, Mayote and Wallis/Futuna are in the list why? what's the difference between them and Catalonia, Basque County, Andalucia ... just to talk about the Spanish related? These 3 regions have more matches that a lot of "real countries".. and they play friendly matches almost anually.Calapez 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Mayotte and Wallis & Futuna and all the others deleted is that a recognized source (ELO ratings organisation) lists them. The number of matches that anyone plays is irrelevant: it is national team status that is in question. In the case of the Spanish regions, this is a difficult one: some regions, most notably Catalonia and the Basque country, have a genuine claim to meet the definition of nationhood; other regions do not, and are clearly no more than units of sub-national organisation. I fear that many editors will say that this must be an all or nothing matter (i.e. they will argue that we can’t include the Basques without also including Extremadura), and it was largely with this situation in mind that I proposed (and I only proposed it, but the only voice added to the debate agreed) that the self understanding of the Football Association who the team represents be considered key. If, for example, it can be demonstrated that the Catalan team is made up of those who would consider themselves Catalans, then I would totally favour the inclusion of that team in this list: if, on the other hand, it is simply a regional representation, based on residence in a particular part of Spain, then I see no grounds for inclusion in a list of national teams. Kevin McE 21:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the Spanish regional teams only plays footballers born in the region. As you can see in the Catalonia page, [[Catalonia_national_football_team] (click on the link to each player) there are guys that plays in France and Holland, and the only thing they unit them, is that they born in Catalonia Region. The same ocours to Basque Country and the others Calapez 23:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly goes some way towards what I would expect in this list. Do the Basque and Catalán teams include people born in the French areas of those nationalist regions? If so, I would certainly be convinced for those two. The problem is whether it is meaningful to apply the word "national" to many of the other provinces: are there genuine cultural/historical/linguistic distinctions that identify Castilla La Mancha or La Rioja as deserving of the description "nations"? (later note: 25th July. I have subsequently read that 7 of the 17 autonomous communities are legally defined as nationalities: is it tenable to hope that if these are admitted to the list, the other 10 will be kept off it?) My fear is that if some of the Autonomous communities are included, then editors will argue that they all should, regardless of ethnic identity, and then we are open to have a list with every state of Germany, each region of Denmark, and every oblast, republic and krai in Russia.

The situation of some sub-divisions having a greater claim to nationhood than others is by no means reserved to Spain; Hawaii has ethnic distinctiveness that South Dakota does not; it means far more to describe oneself as Cornish than Berkshirian (if there is such a word). But it is not for Wikipedia to take a position on such claims to distinctiveness, that is where external verification is key. If you can find an authority that describes these sides as representatives of those ethnic nations, please cite them and include them. Kevin McE 10:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Catalonia don't have a French area, so the question you've done don't apply to them. Basque County has, but i don't know if any Basque-French has ever played by Basque County. I just remember that Lizarazu from France, played in Athletic Bilbau (a team in Spanish League that only field Basque players) based in the fact he has bord in the French Basque County Calapez 14:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to left again to avoid too wide a margin) I would refer you the article Catalan people, and the existence of the rugby team Catalans Dragons based in Perpignan. I find it interesting that you are now referring to Basque and Catalan counties, not nations. It does look to me like these are provincial selections, not national ones, and so are comparable to the State of Origin teams in Australia. Kevin McE 11:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has a point, Calapez. If you remember your Spanish history, the Catalan Revolt or Reapers' War which began in 1640 led to the proclamation of a Catalan Republic. Seeking strength against the Spanish, the Republic offered an informal rulership in the form of the title Count of Barcelona. The French then of course tried to press their advantage as the Spanish fought to combat the breakaway Republic, and in the ensuing peace treaty in 1659 the Spanish were forced to release the County of Roussillon to the French. Previously, Roussillon had been the Northern-Eastern 1/10th or so of Catalonia, and after that it was never returned to Spain. It still identifies as Northern Catalonia, and if you check this list, you can see that there is still a desire to break free of France and join a united Catalan country.

On another point, perhaps we should create a new article, for all the regionalised teams? Sure, we'd still have to monitor it for all the teams people would add which truly don't exist, but perhaps if we made it, and linked to it well, it would reduce editors' desires to add every concievable team to this article. Falastur2 14:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i agree to create a new article..

Falatur2, i didn't know that about the "French" part. i don't know anything about Spanish history, i'm not from Spain

My mistake, it's not Basque County, the correct name is Basque Country. Catalonia is Catalonia.. i'm just saying their names, not telling that they are nations, counties, regions...Calapez 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad there, though my term "if you remember your Spanish history" was a general one. I didn't mean to specifically say that you should know the history of Spain, just that if you were to look at Spanish history, you would find reference to that event which I linked you to. Falastur2 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar[edit]

At least, from the deleted teams.. i thing Gibraltar should stay.. because they already have tried to register in UEFA last year (same time as Montenegro).. so i think it's a proof of Verifiability Calapez 01:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree. Gibraltar, in the opinions of many important pundits, would have been granted UEFA membership if the Spanish hadn't brought up the issue of Gibraltar's sovereignity debate before the vote. Falastur2 02:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is precisely because there is debate over Gibraltar's sovereignty that verification is needed that it is properly describable as a national football team. I think that it probably would be possible, however, to gain the evidence that the Gibraltarian FA considers itself to act at a national level, and that it would meet the criteria that I propose. Get the verification to support reposting it, and I would have no problem with it being there. Kevin McE 20:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute that that sovereignity dispute was in any way conclusive to inclusion, unless you are willing to remove Chinese Taipei's team from the list too, and Northern Cyprus', or at least query their presence. I understand the situation over verifiability - that Chinese Taipei's, and even Northern Cyprus', teams are so much more well-established that only the ignorant (literally, not insultingly) would question their existence. But to me, I just can't dig the idea that when a country is governed as a fully-autonomous unit, or - well, something which would qualify it to be at least marginally a national team, like Gibraltar - then international opinions on the matter should be needed to verify this. I can see it's a contentious issue, and in individual cases, such as the Cyprus issue, I may not support the presence of the Government in question, but if the region is being governed as an independent unit, then to me that makes it's team (supposing it is in existence) worthy of inclusion here. Obviously this is a dodgy issue, and I dare say that I have the weaker argument, but to me that's how it works.

That said, I agree enough with your logic to go with it. When you want "verification", I assume you mean a reference in the article? I would assume that naturally to be the answer, yet somehow it seems a little out of place. Falastur2 00:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there were no dispute over sovereignty, there would be no doubt that the team can be included as a national team. No-one seriously doubts the claims of Brazil (for example) to nationhood, so no further evidence or justification is needed to call Brazil a national football team. But the way I see it is that since the status of Chinese Taipei, Northern Cyprus and Gibraltar is contentious, we need to rely on more than the judgment and opinion of editors here. In the case of Chinese Taipei, we can rely on the sound reputation of FIFA; for Northern Cyprus we have to accept the word of the rather less established NF Board, but I am willing to do so; when we come to Gibraltar, we have to ask what body, which acknowledges them as a national team (and UEFA patently does not), can speak up for their holding this status. As I have said before, if there is such a body (does RSSSF list Gibraltar's results in a manner equivalent to that of the indisputably national teams?) I will be happy to see it here. As regards the organization of references, I would suggest that a single reference in the top line of the article could cover FIFA/Confederations/NF Board/ELO acceptance, and other teams (or groups of teams, for example if others judge that Calapez' arguments for the Spanish regions hold water) can have a reference to a footnote. Having said that, I personally would be satisfied with justifications presented here or in edit notes, but those more stringent on Wiki policies than I am might opine otherwise. Kevin McE 20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, RSSSF.com lists Gibraltar's matches. See here for them - it doesn't look long, but then you can't expect them to have played that many matches, given their circumstance. See this page on the Chinese team for a comparison with an undisputedly FIFA-recognised team's page. In the article, when I added Gibraltar, I also added a reference to the website of their Football Association, which makes no mention to affiliation as a regional organisation, since you were looking for proof of an FA which acts as an independent body.

And I'll back down on the whole idea of whether international recognisation is necessary for acceptance on this list. I stand to my beliefs, and could argue them all day, but I have long accepted that on many matters, most of Wikipedia disagrees with me, and it's least disruptive this way. Though before I close, I will point out that UEFA didn't refuse to acknowledge Gibraltar. It was given provisional member status only a few months ago. Here's the BBC article. Not only that, but to get that place, it had to pass tests by FIFA to ensure that it had all the necessary institutions and infrastructure to qualify, and obviously it passed them. It's just, as I pointed out earlier, and as that article makes clear, the Spanish told UEFA flat out that they would boycott every competition that Gibraltar was given permission to play until they were removed from UEFA again, and when they failed to pass the membership vote (for this very reason), they then lost their provisional status. It was bullying tactics, nothing else, which made UEFA reject Gibraltar. If the Spaniards hadn't complained so bitterly, they would have got in, whether Gibraltar was in a sovereignity dispute or not.Falastur2 23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great: I wasn't aware of all that, and that certainly would seem to me sufficient reason to re-include Gibraltar on the list, as I see you have done. Can I take your deletion of the Falkland Islands' entry as evidence that we are thinking along the same lines as me?. As I have said all along, this is not about what entities I do or do not believe should have independence, it is about what can be demonstrated. I'll include something in the header of the contested section to allow inclusion of peoples as well as regions. Kevin McE 09:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can take it that we're on the same wavelength, although I have to admit I didn't delete the Falkland Islands team without trying quite hard to find an online justification for their inclusion. When you say that you're changing the title to include regions, though, should I take it that you're slightly altering your views on inclusion to allow more regionalised but well-established teams in, like the Spanish regions? Or by "regions" are you just adding a caveat for non-sovereign but virtually independent and truly representative teams like Gibraltar? Falastur2 11:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My change was to include ethnic groups: it already said "regions" (although that might have been me). I don't like the world regions lest it be read as licence to add all sorts of sub-national teams, but I could not think of another word to apply to a coherent geographical unit: province is even more geo-political than region: zone or area seemed too vague. Any ideas? Kevin McE 14:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the spanish teams are called Autonomous Communities.. i think it also can be said about Gibraltar, they are all part of a nation or a dependence (like the french overseas territories), but have certain autonomy, politicaly and in sportCalapez 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "territories" springs to mind to replace "regions", but I admit that it's not a perfect word either. Falastur2 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going back onto the list[edit]

Maybe this is a weakening from the stance I have been taking (but at least now we have a small list and the chance to consider the merits of each new/resubmitted entry individually), but... Editors had replaced several non-sovereign states, on which I have acted for the following reasons:

Channel Islands and Isle of Man: The teams clearly exist (I have some reticence over Alderney, who exist only to play against other CI teams) and the territories are not covered by any other entity on this list. I am happy to leave them on the list.

Aland Islands: article provides clear evidence that team exists: territory has unique political and ethnic status in Finland, and more autonomy than any other part of that country. My inclination is that this does not really amount to nationhood, so I am deleting, but I would consider this a close call.

Juan Fernandez Islands No special status in Chile: in fact, they are not even a separate province. No evidence provided that a football team exists. Removed.

Abkhazia, Norfolk Island, Saint Helena, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Tokelau No evidence of existence of a football team, so deleted.

Falkland Islands Reference to FIOGA in edit notes led me to a link: team exists, territory is not covered by any other entity in this list, so I am happy for it to stay.

Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands: Territories of Australia, with no status different from the mainland: no evidence that they ever play matches except against each other, which does not imply that they consider themselves to be part of the international football community.

I am not claiming any personal authority over this page: I simply want whatever happens on this (or any other page of Wikipedia) to happen for sound encyclopedic reasons. Kevin McE 11:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree with you on your stance here, though I'm a little uncertain over your retention of the Isle of Man team. It seems to have a very...interesting...status - some of its matches it contests as a regional select - a select not of players from the region, but of players currently playing in the region. It also plays in quite a few competitions which require the team to be semi-professional or amateur - while they may well qualify for this because there are no Isle of Man players who play at professional level, I don't know, but it has something of an impact on the status of the team, IMO. Also, it contests the Island Games, which has been a sticking point for us for a while. Personally, I can see why you might want to keep it, but it just doesn't seem right, given our agreed position on teams, especially when you removed the Aland Islands team when it exists on almost the same level as the Isle of Man team. I can't help thinking that if we are to be true to our policy, then the Isle of Man team should go - either that, or I would agree with retaining it and reintroducing the Alands team. Thoughts? Falastur2 14:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the key difference is that the Aland Islands are a part of Finland, the Isle of Man is not a part of England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, or any other entity. There is a Manx parliament, Manx language, it is not a member of the EU: Aland has greater autonomy than other Finnish provinces, but not as much as Man. However, I acknowledge that the language is different, and maybe there are claims for nationhood there that I don't know about (that's why we need verification). In practice, a Manx player of sufficient standard would no doubt get called up for one of the 4 UK constituent countries, but the would be as a non UK born UK passport holder, not as a native English- (or Scots- or Welsh- or Northern Irish-) man. Matt Le Tissier and Graeme Le Saux, Channel Islanders both, could have elected to play for any one of the "home nations". Island Games participation is not a disqualification, but is not of itself a qualification for this list. Kevin McE 15:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I guess I can't argue with it too much, at least on the aspect of the Alands team. It would seem to me that if that is the aspect you are taking, then Alderney becomes a more questionable choice, however, since it, unlike the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, is not a technically-independent country, but is a part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Falastur2 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah: I hadn't realised that: I always thought of all 4 Channel Islands as equal in status. Excuse me being lazy (it's late!), but what is Sark's status? Kevin McE 00:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sark is also part of Guernsey. Alderney and Sark have their own local Government - they have their own States (read: Parliaments), Alderney has a Lieutenant-Governor and Sark has its own feudal Lord, but at the end of the day though they are essentially self-governing, they aren't independent states like Guernsey and Jersey. In a rather small-scale imitation of the mainland situation, Alderney sends representatives to the States of Guernsey, too, while maintaining its own Parliament, though I think Sark misses out on this arrangement by being too small for representation - its population is 1/100th that of Guernsey, after all, and the States of Guernsey has only 47 members, including Alderney's. Falastur2 13:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just this article needs updating....[edit]

I have been following the dicussion here, and don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about a team's inclusion on this list, but I want to point out that the list also needs to be consistent with other parts of Wikipedia. For example, an editor might be tempted to include all the teams on Template:Non-FIFA teams here, or all the teams in the subcategories of Category:National and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA. My suggestion would be to perhaps enumerate them on a different list than here, if we want to adhere to a stricter definition of "national team", or perhaps rename this page to something like that category name. In any case, we need to have some internal consistency so that edit-warring does not ensue. Andrwsc 18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: I'm aware of the mess that is the template that you mention. I hope that by placing the onus on verification, that edit warring is made less likely. Kevin McE 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a plan to trim back that template considerably, and WP:PROD or WP:AFD for many of those articles.... Andrwsc 01:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confederations map[edit]

Greetings, the map is wrong, French Guiana ia a CONCACAF member, it is showed as part of the UEFA, I hope someone can fix the map. Thank you. JC 19:15 26 Jul 2007 (PST).

i already said that in the image talk Calapez 02:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yap and Wallonia[edit]

According to NF-Board [8] this two FA's are new provisional members of the organization. so i'll add them Calapez 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional and Island selection-teams[edit]

I propose to create a new page (article), where we can list all the regions and islands that really played international matches against FIFA/NF-Board teams, like Catalonya, Basque County, Tobago..and so on .. what do youCalapez 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC) think?[reply]

Having already advocated this idea, I'm certainly in support. Falastur2 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --necronudist 11:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree, and hope that it cuts down on inappropriate additions here, I wish you luck in avoiding it being overpopulated with spurious claims ("Gillingham played United Arab Emirates in a pre-season friendly a few years ago, so they should be included", and so on...) Kevin McE 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficed to say it'll be on my watchlist, though I agree that that will only help me remove the junk, not discourage it. Falastur2 21:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It happend AGAIN[edit]

OK WTF?More people are adding teams that don't exsit.More of them are being added.And a bigger problem,According to fedefutbol,they have antarcitica as a team.Just check out [9],Check the "NF-Board teams,Then look on south america and see what i mean.Remember,"Antártida" means antarcitica in spanish.--Cokepepsi 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Fedefutbol has to do with Wiki? I don't see any Antartica here..Calapez 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fedefutbolo, and particularly its list of potential NF board members, cannot be taken as evidence for inclusion here. It is no more than a list that an individual, with no accountability, considers might possibly one day consider application to the NF board. Kevin McE 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in that list, Antarctica has no link! The only teams that really has a link are the one that exists. It's one of the clauses we decided to had some country in the list, to have played at least one match in their history. i don't see in any place of Fedefutbol saying they have played. In South America in Fedefutbol only Easter Island and Falklands have a link to a pageCalapez 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many claimed potential NFB members on that list have a link, but no meaningful information, and no reason why they should be considered to be national rather than regional teams. Kevin McE 08:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said that they are national teams. Neither in Fedefutbol they say that.. NFB is a football union, like CONCACAF, OFC (the difference is that CONCACAF are part of FIFA, and NFB not, but this article is not about FIFA national teams)... Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana, Anguilla and so on.. are not national teams, they are not nations, but they belongs to CONCACAF and/or FIFA.. so an organization says that a team are a member of them, we can't do nothing about it.Calapez 11:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But fedefutbol is not an organisation: it is a website with no accountability or acknowledged reliability. I agree that if the NF Board has a team as a member, they should be included here (although I do not think that their criteria exactly meet the description of this article): I am simply saying, (and judging by your comments on Antarctica, I think you agree) that inclusion in fedefutbols "potential NFB members list" is not grounds for inclusion here. Kevin McE 11:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for sure. potential teams should not be in this article. There are already another article about non-national teams, where that teams (with reliable sources like Catalonia, Falkland, Isle of Man and so on) can be placed in. About Artarctida i don't see what's the question..there is no federation, there is no matches played..so there is no teamCalapez 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Pierre & Miquelon[edit]

Evidence has now been provided that a match was played against Belize in 1999, so this is a big step towards inclusion here. A single match does not necessarily establish an international team. Other issues that would be relevant:

Does St P & M enjoy a political status that suggests greater authority than other parts of France?

Does the LFSPM act as an independent entity, or is it a sub-division of the French (or even Canadian) FA?

Is the LFSPM a football association, or is it purely the organising body of a league competition?

What were the circumstances of the match against Belize? Were international caps awarded to the Belizean players? Was the St P & M team drawn from a number of club sides?

If the team is to be listed as active and current, what evidence is there that further fixtures are being sought?

I am neutral about the inclusion of this team: I am not neutral about the need for verifiability of any entry on the list. Kevin McE 08:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SP&M is an overseas collectivity since 2003 as Wallis And Futuna & Mayotte. So I think we can add this page! I don't know why I can't add the result on the part:"first international"and"biggest win". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanza13 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of that match against Belize?Calapez 14:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is in rsssf a very important soccer statistics foundation:http://www.rsssf.com/intldetails/1999matches.html#nca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanza13 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFB and its subsiduary CSNAF[edit]

Presumably in an attempt to grow, The NF Board seems to be lowering somewhat the bar for its inclusion criteria. Until now, recognition by the NF Board has been seen as sufficient qualification inclusion in this list, BUT, it seems to me that it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no meaningful requirement on the part of the NFB (and even less so from CSNAF) that its members are national, whether that be interpreted as ethnically or politicly defined. Can anyone provide a reference for NFB's membership criteria? It looks like they are being very literal about the "new federation" of their name: anyone who wants to set up a body and declare it a federation is in. Could I found the Football Federation of North East Colchester and affiliate? It would have as much political independence as Isla Margarita, and more football clubs within its territory that Sealand. Has the time come to drop the assumption that any affiliate of the NFB can be said to merit a place on this list? Kevin McE 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of flags[edit]

I noticed that on this page, the flag representing Saint-Martin is the French Tricolore, while on SM's national football team page (and any other time the team is mentioned), the local flag is used. Since the team uses the local flag as representation, can we change this on the LOMNFT page? --Paploo (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little more investigating, and this is true for most of the French territories. We should go to a one team per flag philosophy (except when there is not a local flag). --Paploo (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CONCACAF uses the French flag for Saint-Martin (see here), so it would be original research for Wikipedia to disregard that and use something else. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, all local flags should be disregarded as the official flag for the French overseas entities is the French one. Only Tahiti has a recognized flag of its own. Ohnder) 13:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobago "National" football team[edit]

okay, couldn't find any place but here to discuss this, but I would like to know why the various articles have to go overboard. I mean a "Tobago" national team? From an island which could never send a representative to FIFA much less CONCACAF? On the article page there is mention of an "international" between "Tobago" and "Trinidad and Tobago" and between "Tobago" and "Finland". Did anyone ever stop to think that national teams can play against non-national teams? It's called "touring" and simply means that a national team will play against a domestic team as a warm-up or for practice. Much as how when the Indian (national) cricket team plays against the Victoria (state) criket team, it is not considered an international cricket match. The same thing happens in Rugby. Why just the other the day I think the Jamaican football team went on some kind of tour in Brazil and played against club sides (not even state sides), but this doesn't mean that those clubs played international football nor did it turn the clubs into national football teams. I would like to propose that the term "national" be removed from all the articles and if not then it should at least be removed from the articles about truly domestic teams (like Tobago). The "national" term is rather redundant (since, for example, "the Italian football team" that plays in FIFA competitions is by definition a national side anyway and readers shouldn't necessarily have to be told in the article name what with the article itself describing the team and the team being listed under national teams in templates and lists) and only serves to cause confusion when being used without abandon by users seemingly eager to put the word "national" in the name of every football team. In fact I think the term "national" should be removed from every name of every article detailing a sports team (association football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket, baseball, hockey, etc.)72.27.72.211 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo[edit]

Kosovo remained included in thi list for several weeks after its declaration of independence without challenge. In recent days, 2 anonymous editors, neither of whom has made any other edits or given any reasoning for their actions in edit notes, hve sought to undo this. My arguments fo9r including Kosovo is that although it has far from universal recognition, it is plainly not true to describe it as unrecognised; that the number of countries recognising Kosovo's independence is considerably higher than that acknowledging Taiwan, whose inclusion is unchallenged, and that more countries recognise Kosovo than have declared a determination to not do so. If the anonymous editors, or others opposed to including Kosovo in the list, wish to challenge the inclusion, please do so here rather than by edit warring. 11:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Jersey,Guernsey and Man aren't FIFA members? They are not parts of England and even UK/--212.86.230.114 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countries of the United Kingdom[edit]

The national teams of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are full affiliates of FIFA and UEFA. In the section headed "Current FIFA affiliates" they each have a note attached to them saying "Constituent country of the United Kingdom, but individual member of UEFA and FIFA". These notes are irrelevant to whether they are affiliated to UEFA and FIFA or not. i.e. if they were not FIFA and UEFA affiliates they would not be in the section headed "Current FIFA affiliates". Unless there are any objections, I will remove the notes. Daicaregos (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree it is important for an explanation, as the United Kingdom is treated as a special case through an agreement. There for a note that they are all part of the United Kingdom seems reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be changed to Countries of the United Kingdom rather than constituent countries, but a note seems useful to those who do not understand why not all are sovereign states in the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dai. Scotland, Wales, England and N.Ireland also have their own FIFA country codes. Also, this is not an article concerning politics. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bring politics into sport. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BritishWatcher, before anything is changed back, could you point out where FIFA refer to E/S/W/N.I as countries of the United Kingdom or constituent countries. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it was unacceptable politics. The four countries of the United Kingdom are ONLY able to compete as such because of a special agreement reached. They are the only ones in Europe treated as such a special case, it is there for important to include a note about it. The change that has been made today to an explanation that has been there for a very long time is unacceptbale. Removing it should atleast require agreement of people who do not have "political motivations". BritishWatcher (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it was keeping it in line with the only source for this article. Where is the "political motivation" in that? Titch Tucker (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom is treated as a special case and that is confirmed in FIFA statutes.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/fifa%5fstatutes%5f0719%5fen%5f14479.pdf

However you are correct they do not use the term countries of the United Kingdom, they dont use constituent countries either. They use "Each of the four British associations is recognized as a separate member of FIFA. So the explanation note should point out they are British associations. As i said before the UK countries are only able to play because of a specific agreement, which as the link above shows is part of their governing rules. The UK is the only country in Europe which has such exceptions currently there for it should be noted. It should either be changed back to the way it has been for some time, or the note changed to "British associations" BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the link, above. Please advise the page to which you refer. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mind which method is used be it Countries of the UK which would help bring it inline with everything else, or the way its been for a long time, or using the term British associations. We do not have to follow their wording, i just think its important theres a note explaining why they are individual members and perhaps linking to that statute as a source to justify it (which should of been the case previously). BritishWatcher (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be obscure. I meant the please provide page number on the FIFA link you gave above that you quoted from. I couldn't find the quote to which you refer. BTW, you didn't give any terminal quotation marks. I assume that your quote ended after the "FIFA." and before "So ...". Daicaregos (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right sorry, if you do a search on that document for the "British associations" it talks about how they are treated as a special case. Its term 4 on the definitions page. Article 6 page 6 explains the United Kingdoms 4 associations are part of IFAB which sets the rules for football. The UK basically has permanent seats on the board equal to that of FIFA because we invented the sport and most of its rules. and page 8 article 10 point 5. Each of the 4 British associations is recognized as a separate member of FIFA. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/statutes.html - This link has the 2008 statutes on. Like the other link, it treats the United Kingdom as a special case always explaining the British associations. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the links (& page nos). They were very interesting. However, I do not agree with you that the Associations of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England are anything other than full members of FIFA. As such there is no necessity for them to have a note attached to their names. I will reinstate the edit I made last week. There was ample opportunity for you to have made an objection on the talk page, and I explicitly invited objections, if there were any, There were none. In view of this the status quo was after my edit, which should not have been reverted without going to talk. I agree that the status of the British Associations as having half the membership of the IFAB is notable. Perhaps we should have note of that on the article, but as narrative, not as a note attached to those countries. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not object because i only saw your edit today. Had i seen the comment on the talk page before then i would of replied explaining that i think it should remain the case. The fact the offical statutes of FIFA clearly explain and make note of the fact the 4 British associations are individual members of FIFA is a reason to include the note. Now i wont revert the edit again as its been done 3 times now but the current situation is unacceptable. You wanted to make a change, i undid it which means there is no consensus for the change. You did not justify why it is not worthy of inclusion. The note itself states they are equal members of FIFA, but explained they were parts of the United Kingdom which was reason. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with an explanation above or below the actual list of FIFA members explaining that the four countries of the United Kingdom are separate members of FIFA linking to the FIFA statute. However this should be explained somewhere and there is clear justification for doing so. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What harm did the note which had been there for a very long time? You did not give specific reasons for why the note should be removed other than that they are full members. The reason the UK countries had a note which had not been removed for such a long a time is because the United Kingdom is treated as a special case as explained above with the FIFA statute to prove it. IF major explanations are justified in the offfical FIFA statute approved every year, i would think its worth a mention in the notes under their entry. What harm does providing more information to people actually do? Some are confused about WHY ENgland is able to compete as a single team, well the note and linking to that source would explain it to them very clearly. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BW, sorry I didn't get to reply to you earlier, I've been out (doing real life stuff). My reasons for deleting the note attached to each of the 'Home Nations' (for want of a better phrase) are pretty much as noted above. That, as the national teams of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are full affiliates of FIFA and UEFA, it is irrelevant why. This has nothing to do with E/W/S/NI being countries of the UK. It is apolitical, so any note relating to the UK is not relevant to their status as members. Nevertheless, as I say, I think it is notable that the British Associations have permanent seats on the board/half the membership of the IFAB, and maybe a couple of other things from the Statutes you highlighted too. Would you like to draft something together that could be included on the article. It could really improve what is quite a 'bare bones' article. I thought it would be relevant in the section "Currently unaffiliated sovereign nations", which only has a couple of sentences about the UK in the notes. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well IFAB has its own article where thats all covered so its not really needed here. I dont understand the big problem with the note, it is not like the UK was the only note under the members list. Some of the other regional associations have alot more notes. I certainly would not argue for an explanation on all the other FIFA / UEFA articles or the world rankings list etc, but i just think there should be some explanation of why the UK competes as individual countries on the main members list page. As i say i dont mind how its worded, i just think a note is valid like theres one for Ireland, Israel etc just explaining it and giving a link to the FIFA Statutes so people can take a look at that for more detail. I agree this is nothing to do with the country issue, i fully agree when it comes to sports (where the UK countries compete individually) they should be listed as such, but we should remember this does cause confusion for some people and a note would help. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons[edit]

A drive-by tag, claiming excessive use of icons on this article, has been reinserted noting "Flagcruft#Do_not_use_icons_in_general_article_prose" in the edit summary. That guideline notes at the top of the page to "Use common sense in applying it" and "it will have occasional exceptions". This article is not a "general article" - it is a list (clue is in the article title: "List of men's national association football teams". The WP:MOS guideline referred to relates to general articles. In the same guideline MOS:ICON#Appropriate_use states "Icons may be helpful in certain situations: They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon." If there are specific instances of icons used inappropriately on this article (clearly. it would not improve the article for them all to be removed), such instances should be noted here. Tagging should be a last, not a first, resort. Daicaregos (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So basically , you don't like this guideline so you will ignore it? Flagcruft#Do_not_use_icons_in_general_article_prose is a near universally accepted section of WP:MOSICON and List_of_men's_national_association_football_teams#Former_national_football_teams is in breach but what ever 86.42.83.202 Gnevin (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a police and it does not have editing laws we cannot breach. As it goes I think the section could do with the removal of the flags. But justify this and respond to the questions raised; I am also against such petty tagging with no comments on the talk page, particularly in reference to a guideline. --Pretty Green (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Sovereign teams once more[edit]

OK, been reading over the discussion and I think it petered out? Anyway, someone has recently readded a lot of 'nations'. I've cleared all of those with red links as a starting point, on the basis that a none existent team cannot be not-affiliated to anyone. I don't know if we ever came up with criteria for this list? --Pretty Green (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've cleared this list for now. There were links to the likes of the Ceuta Football Federation on which it is stated that no attempt to form a representative team has ever been made! The NF/IFU lists are at least verifiable in certain ways. I propose that we split this section as such:

1. 'Associate Members' - clear, fine and obvious. Note I've changed the wording so it doesn't stipulate whether or not they are nations, territories etc - it's not needed

2. 'Non-affiliated sovereign nation-states' - but remove Kosovo so that only unambiguously sovereign nations are listed here

3. 'NF Board' - at least a clear category

4. 'IFU' - as above

5. 'Non-affiliated teams from unrecognised states or regions seaking autonomy or secession' - with the two pipelinked articles being our guides as who to include.

I'd also willingly consider a 'teams from the Island Games' bit if necessary, or perhaps 'other teams competing in multi-sport tournaments' if we want to go beyond the IG. --Pretty Green (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New names[edit]

Four quibbles with the "New names" section:

Cambodia: since the Khmer Republic only came into existence in 1972, what was the team called before that? Cambodia? If so, shouldn't we list that?
Malaya: we say that the criteria for inclusion in this section is nations which have been renamed without changing their borders. But in becoming Malaysia, Malaya did expand its borders: it came to include North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, and (briefly) Singapore.
Tanganyika: similarly, Tanganyika became Tanzania when it annexed Zanzibar.
Russia: the Soviet Union did not come into existence until 1922, so it seems unlikely the name was changed in 1917. The article on the Soviet team shows a Russian SFSR team playing in 1923, and the Soviet team only playing its first match in 1924. I'd add that there's nothing in either that article or the one about the Russian team which suggests the existence of a Russian national team before the revolution.

These should be addressed, I think. john k (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what the edit button is for?

1. Yes, you are correct

2. The failure there is in the wording, which could be improved along the lines of "In addition to the above, the following name changes have also taken place:"

3. Yes, this example should be added to the changes table.

4. The article on the Russia team shows a first match as being played in 1912, which is supported by the RSSF (which as far as I know is generally accepted as accurate). The fault there is with the article for not describing this in the prose section. It does, however, seem that the date should be changed to 1923. Pretty Green (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I wasn't sure about the proper course for these. I'll change the Russia one. john k (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zanzibar[edit]

On CAF's site there is no mention to Zanzibar as a member - and they list all members. including Reunion, which would be in the same situation as Zanzibar. Should we delete it from CAF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.123.93 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it. john k (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Zanzibar team says that it was an associate CAF member from 2007-2009, but is no longer such. Perhaps we should list it in the same way we list Gibraltar? john k (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in listing it like Gibraltar. And it will be also in the NF-Board Associate Members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.123.93 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NF board[edit]

Their section here is a little of a mess. I've removed all teams and replaced with only currently ranked teams, as per their last release in April 2010. I can find no other source for a list of current members. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number/quantity of members by confederation[edit]

in this article is dificult find the number/quantity of members by confederation, is UEFA 50 members or 55? is that data in this article? it should--Feroang (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland[edit]

Greenland is a constituent country of Denmark, just as England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maartenand the Faroe Islands, has special status and rights within Denmark, is further from Denmark than the Faroe Islands, officially self-governed, has it own association and team, plays semi-regularly, have a FIFA recognized field. Why isn't it in the list? 113.187.0.192 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Niue and the Cook Islands are constituent countries too.

And the only thing that I think could have disqualified Greenland is that it's not a FIFA member, nor a member of a confederation, nor a fully or partially recognized state. But that cannot be enough to disqualify Greenland, citing numerous similarities with FiFa members. 113.187.0.192 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly enough to exclude it! What's important here is footballing recognition: it isn't recognized by UEFA, CONCACAF or FIFA. In a footballing context, a 'nation' is only a nation if recongized by at least a confederation, but this has no necessary relationship to wider recognition of national sovereignty. There is a List of non-national representative teams in men's football, where Greenland is currently placed. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "nation" is a purely geo-political term and regardless of what FIFA do, Greenland is a nation. 116.12.232.212 (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical Notes[edit]

Hello, Just a comment - I don't really see any value in the 'geographical notes' attached to countries such as Sunriname, Guyana, explaining that they are in a different continent: I don't think it adds anything, and unless we do it for all transcontinental or 'shifted' nations then it's misleading. I do think we should go into having too many footnotes! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis and Futuna national football team[edit]

No veo que se hable de la selección de Wallis y Futuna en este artículo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.116.50 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my poor Spanish: la selección de Wallis y Futuna no representan a un país soberano y no es un miembro de una confederación. Por lo tanto no está incluido. Wallis and Futuna national football team does not represent a sovereign nation, and it is not a member of a FIFA confederation. Therefore it is not included here. See List of non-national representative teams in men's football. The team's page in Spanish: [10]. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of active regional football teams[edit]

@Miljan-80: and@Krila krajine: have added a 'list of active regional teams' to the page. I've removed it on the grounds that there's a fairly long-standing consensus that this list will include only teams competing in FIFA-recongised football or teams representing fully or partially-recognised sovereign states. I'm happy to open up for disucssion to change this if editors are interested. Either way, 'active regional teams' is vague - any additional parts of this list would need referencing, and clearer permeteres. My suggestion would be that this list could be incorporated in some form into the article Non-FIFA international football. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion and Zanzibar[edit]

Should the national teams of these countries be listed alongside all national teams which are members of CAF? As far as I can tell, associate membership of CAF allows these countries to field club sides in tournaments like the CAF Champions League. This doesn't necessarily mean that the national teams themselves are sanctioned by CAF. The national teams do not participate in any Africa-wide tournaments. I don't believe either of these teams is recognized by CAF (please correct me if I'm wrong). Ladril (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well what associate members can and can't do in each confederation is a little unclear. Only in North American and Europe do they enter the confederation cup each time. In Asia, Northern Mariana Islands national football team don't enter the Asian Cup but do enter their regional EAFF East Asian Cup cup. This is the same as Zanzibar, who compete in the CECAFA Cup courtesy of their associate membership. Presumably, Reunion could presumably enter a similar competition, but the Indian Ocean Island Games seems to be their outlet. In Oceania (where teams like Niue haven't competed for years) associates have entered in the past but not since they merged OFC Nations Cup matches with FIFA World Cup matches, effectively prohibiting associates.

Either way, these rules have changed in the past and there's no reason to think that confederations could change their minds on a whim. For some of these, it's also unclear if associate members can't compete or just don't enter. I'm not sure it's the strongest grounds on separating teams out.

To that end, I think we should tread all associate members equally. We could either list them separately (for which I see merit) or keep the current situation (for which I also see merit). I don't think it's too important either way. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the situation varies from confederation to confederation (Northern Marianas Islands, for examples, participates in the AFC Challenge Cup, which is an Asia-wide tournament). I have found no equivalent participation in CAF from either Reunion or Zanzibar. Please also note that Zanzibar is an "unrecognized" team that because of its status has had to participate in tournaments like the VIVA World Cup. Ladril (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Emanating from a previous thread. Here is what I propose:

Rationale. This is a list of national teams, not of national football federations. However, the list currently looks much more like the latter. In my view, the fact that a national association has been awarded "associate" or "provisional" status by a continental confederation is not reason enough to list its national team in the confederation's entry. Quite a few of the associate confederations only participate in non-FIFA tournaments (such as the Indian Ocean Games and the Pacific Games), so including them alongside all the more established football teams may be misleading to the reader.

So here are the organization criteria I propose:

1. If a national team has participated in qualification for the continental confederation's championship, it should be listed alongside all the full member teams of the confederation.

2. If a national team has participated in a confederation-wide tournament organized by the confederation (such as the AFC Challenge Cup), it should be listed alongside all the full member teams of the confederation.

3. If a national team has participated in at least one subregional tournament (such as the Caribbean Cup or the CECAFA Cup), , it should be listed alongside all the full member teams of the confederation. Note that "subregional tournament" refers to tournaments organized by a recognized regional union (such as the Caribbean Football Union). Friendly tournaments between groups of countries do not count.

4. If the team does not meet the above conditions, it should be listed in a separate section which would contain all the national teams that belong to associations that are registered with their local confederations but are not active in competition with members of said confederation.

So here is how the "associate" teams would be split:

Listed under the AFC section with all the other teams:
Northern Mariana Islands (participates in the AFC Challenge Cup)

Listed under the CAF section with all the other teams:
Zanzibar (participates in the CECAFA Cup)

New section containing other teams that are not active in actual confederation tournaments

CAF
Reunion (has only participated in the Olympic-level Indian Ocean Games)

OFC
Kiribati (has only participated in the Olympic-level South Pacific Games)
Niue (has only participated in the Olympic-level South Pacific Games)
Tuvalu (has only participated in the Olympic-level South Pacific Games)

Thoughts? Ladril (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd prefer either an inclusion of all of them in the main entry or none. If we start adding criterion after criterion for how we list then we over-complicate the matter and move closer towards original research. Equally, if you're highly motivated to do this then I don't see a huge issue with it, and I do appreciate the point being made. So a lukewarm response from me - I think on the balance of things I wouldn't do it but if others wanted to then I'd trust their better judgement. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the changes, that you've made I'd say that I'm more against it. The point that you're making - that 4 teams haven't competed in federation level events - could easily be made in a footnote, rather than relying on wholesale changes to the page. The headings are clunky and unclear. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also more strongly against the extensive footnoting and annotation of this list. All that detail is not needed here; it's a list and it's over-complicating matters. I've undone the changes and ask you to reconisder them, but if you really want to go ahead with it all then I won't undo again. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to go with the general thrust of your counterproposal, but I've made some fixes I think were needed. Ladril (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff - I like the new version. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Vietnam[edit]

Recently, an entry for Manchuria was removed from the page because the team was allegedly (and in all likelihood) never recognized by FIFA. Not to be a dick, but I have seen no evidence that North Vietnam was recognized by FIFA or the AFC (South Vietnam, on the other hand, definitely was). Also, the current Vietnam team is apparently seen as a successor to South Vietnam, not to North Vietnam. I would argue that using the same logic, North Vietnam should be removed from the list. Thoughts? Ladril (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the following source: [11] "North Vietnam... [N]or did it become a member of FIFA, and it played only 24 soccer internationals, almost all of which were part of the GANEFO festival or against Communist-bloc allies." (Source: Routledge Companion to Sports History, by Pope and Nauright, 2009). Since the current consensus is to include only former FIFA members in the last table, I will remove North Vietnam from it. If consensus changes or anyone finds strong evidence of FIFA membership by North Vietnam, it can be reinstated. Ladril (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo shouldn't be in the table[edit]

In the table of former national teams, Kosovo shouldn't be listed along with Montenegro as a non-inheriting successor of FRY/SCG. First, the split of Serbia and Montenegro and the secession of Kosovo from Serbia were two different events – the former took place in 2006 and the latter in 2008 – so they can't be listed as one. Second, this table only lists instances where both the name and the territory of a country changed – and that was not the case with Serbia in 2008, so that event is outside the scope of the table. South Sudan seceded from Sudan in 2011, but there isn't a row in the table with pre-partition Sudan as the preceding team, the current Sudan as the inheriting successor and South Sudan as the non-inheriting successor. --Theurgist (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the table slightly; it's for defunct national teams. The columns indicate either those successor teams which received the results (USSR > CIS > Russia) or other teams which played in the territory covered by the defunct team. Sudan/South Sudan is a different relationship: Sudan did not stop existing after South Sudan succeeded (in the same way that Serbia persists without Kosovo).

I think Kosovo is a first: I can't think of another case where a national team has ended, and then there has been further (recognised) succession from one of the subsequent sates. There's nothing about the table that says we can't include Kosovo in there, but I can see why we might chose not to. Perhaps the easiest option is to add Kosovo into the notes for that entry. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I approve your addition of Kosovo into the notes; I was thinking of doing that myself for the sake of clarity and informativeness, but was too lazy to do it.

However, I fail to understand the rest of your points.

How is the Serbia/Kosovo relationship different from the Sudan/South Sudan relationship? Serbia did not stop existing after Kosovo's secession, either. Notice: You say that South Sudan "succeeded" [sic] Sudan, but in fact it did not succeed Sudan's records; it seceded (i.e. broke away) from it. And it's the very same with Kosovo.

To sum up, Sudan with South Sudan and Sudan without South Sudan are the same entity, and likewise Serbia with Kosovo and Serbia without Kosovo are the same entity. South Sudan and Kosovo themselves started as "new" teams.

And it's not that Serbia has no history from the brief period when it was Serbia with Kosovo – it completed an entire qualifying campaign during that time.

The only difference is that Kosovo's independence is disputed while South Sudan's is not; but I don't think that's relevant here.

The table already contains a couple of cases of the type you say you can't think of.

USSR:

(1a) USSR became CIS + Latvia + Lithuania + Estonia

(1b) then CIS became Russia + 11 more republics

Yugoslavia:

(2a) Yugoslavia became FRY (later renamed as SCG) + Croatia + Slovenia + Bosnia&Herzegovina + Macedonia

(2b) then SCG became Serbia (incl. Kosovo) + Montenegro

(2c) then Kosovo seceded from Serbia

And, for comparison, Sudan:

(3a) South Sudan seceded from Sudan

So, if we agree on the definition that the table is for defunct national teams, that again leaves both (2c) and (3a) outside the table's scope, because none of these teams is a defunct team (as we said, Serbia continued to be Serbia, and Sudan continued to be Sudan). --Theurgist (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, @Theurgist: I meant 'seceded', not 'suceeded'. The relationship which I was describing was Kosovo to Fed Rep of Yugoslavia, not Kosovo to Serbia; I agree that the Serbia-Kosovo and the Sudan-South Sudan relationship is the same. But the entry under question is FRY, not Serbia, and so the question is whether Kosovo, as a team playing in what was once Yugoslavia, requires describing in that entry. The entries you note are different to this; in USSR & 2a-2b, the cases are not an issue as there is a subsequent secession (eg no need to list Kazakhstan etc under USSR as they listed under CIS; no need to list Montenegro or Serbia under Yugoslavia as they are listed under FRY). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Apologies if my post has sounded "partonising". I was just trying to get the things clear and precise.

I think the logic of the table is to list synchronic events separately, even if there is a historical (diachronic) connection between the events. If an event affects Country A and results in the "birth" of Country B, that's one event. If a later event affects Country B and results in something else, that's another event. And each event may or may not be listed in the table, depending on whether it belongs there or not. In this case, FRY is Country A and Serbia is Country B.

In any case, whatever the table should contain, having some text to explain and clarify things is always a good idea. --Theurgist (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former teams[edit]

I have deleted Tanganyika and North Vietnam, since there is no evidence to show that they were ever FIFA members. Tanzania only joined FIFA in 1964, which is the same year Tanganyika was united with Zanzibar. Even if Tanganyika played any matches before this time, it would still be ineligible for the table. For North Vietnam, see the discussion above. For Tanganyika, see [12]. Ladril (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of men's national association football teams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140607100019/http://worldfootballcup.org:80/team/nagorno-karabakh-fa/ to http://worldfootballcup.org/team/nagorno-karabakh-fa/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaya incorrect link[edit]

The Malaya link points to the Malaysia team rather than Malaya_national_football_team. Not sure how the fb template works, so hoping someone who knows can fix.

Flamefew (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for pages renaming[edit]

I propose to rename all 'national football team' pages to 'men's national football team' following the same pattern as for 'women's national football team'. In short you would all agree the it is not fair to assume that we are talking about the mens football teams. ziMBRicchio (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia does not inherit the results of Czechoslovakia; Czechia does[edit]

Only one federation can inherit the results of former countries. In the case of Czechoslovakia its Czechia, similarly to Russia for U.S.S.R., Serbia for Yugoslavia, etc. User who changed this in February, please fix it back. 2.36.49.117 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football games[edit]

the Football Games is pes efootball and fc 24 for long phones 46.99.42.146 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]