Talk:Football

Football is fun brothers from other mothers chea

• Even if english speakers in North America (who may or may not be football fans) were the majority of english speakers, the English Wikipedia does not mean, The wikipeda for people from english speaking countries and all those funny people from countries that speak funny languages and eat funny food and worship funny gods should stay away... In wikipedia we must write articles from a Neutral point of view, which includes freedom from systemic bias, including Geographical Bias.

• User 68.36.112.169 is a vandal who has vandalised the Football page 5 times on 10 February 2007 (UTC), and is now attempting to put foward an argument to excuse his vandalism.

Disclaimer: Football does not generally mean association football (soccer), in my county either, but it would be absurd to have an Wikipedia article on Football without including association football (and others). --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Both arguments are quite strong. However:

While it is possible that there are more speakers of British English (and other forms that prefer "football = soccer"), this would only be the case if we were counting non-native speakers. And while I'm all in favour of the English Wikipedia being useful to non-native speakers, there is no logical reason why they should decide the location of articles ahead of native speakers. I mean even if I spoke/wrote fluent French or Japanese, I would still be hesitant to suggest how the French or Japanese Wikipedias could be better organised.

As far as English speakers in the EU are concerned, it is a myth that they overwhelmingly favour British usage. For instance, in German-speaking countries, soccer is füssball and "football" is used for American football. Similarly, if you Google for "soccer" on English language pages on .de, .fr, .it (etc) sites, you will get quite a few hits, because U.S. English is not uncommon in Europe.

I don't see how it REALLY matters. Seems like this whole discussion is not about names, but rather it's just a pretext for a fight between nationalities and sports. Everyone knows 'soccer' is the world's most popular sport, dwarfing American football by enormous numbers. The point about 'fussball' and 'football' is irrelevant: 'fussball' came first, then they needed a word for the american sport. It's true this is an English language encyclopedia, but it seems like it should be a factor that the majority of the world's languages' words for football are based on that word, rather than soccer.

And, to the comment above, you chose the country that's most influenced by American culture in Western Europe, that enjoys basketball and is even very remotely interested in American sports. I assure you that most countries would use the word that's most similar to their own language - FOOTBALL, and so would Germans if they didn't already have a word for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.84.215 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

China is debatable, but I am reliably informed that Japanese speakers of English favour U.S. usage, and the Japanese word for association football is sakkaa (derived from soccer). I suspect that South Americans have also mostly learnt U.S. English, so the same goes there.

There is simply not enough information/evidence about non-native speakers to decide either way, which is part of the reason why this page is not simply about American football or soccer, and never will be. Grant | Talk 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am someone who spent over five years working in that particular industry and just because someone prefers 'movie' over 'film' and 'elevator' over 'lift' does not mean that they will favour 'soccer' over 'football'. The choice is mostly down to their first language, Spanish speakers are likely to say 'football' not 'soccer'.

It's still no reason to change the page, if the page was given over to one sport or another, we would still need to find a new name for this page. What better name exists for this page other than football?GordyB 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an easy one...."soccer"!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.52.185 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I suspect it varies from country to country. Bear in mind the German usage of "football" I have quoted, and let me point out that someone who says fútbol or futebol in their own language, does not necessarily mean soccer if they say "football" when speaking English. Taking Google hits of Latin American sites as an example: "542,000 for soccer" site:.br" and "296,000 for football site:.br"; "206,000 for football site:.ar"; "189,000 for soccer site:.ar" and "199,000 for soccer site:.mx" and "90,500 for football site:.mx".

That says to me that Brazilians and Mexicans are likely to call the game "soccer" when speaking English, whereas Argentinians favour British usage. Some might consider that odd and/or ironic, but Argentina was long considered an anglophile country, prior to a certain disagreement in 1982. Grant | Talk 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Internet usage tends to be commercial. A lot of the 'soccer sites' seem to be trying to sell things to Americans. As for Argentinians, the old joke is that an Argentinian is an Italian who speaks Spanish and would like to be English.GordyB

Interesting info. "Fußball" is literally "football" in German, meaning soccer, whereas they have taken the English "football" into German as a "foreign word" for American football. There is or was a tabletop soccer game call "foosball" that was popular in the USA a couple of decades ago. "Fútbol" is what soccer is called in Spanish, a "spanishized" transliteration of "football", and the foreign word "football" is also used in Spanish. In French, supposedly "football" as a foreign word is used for soccer, and "football americain" is used for American football. If there isn't already such a section or article, maybe there could be one, of the different names for this family of games in various languages. Wahkeenah 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See football (word) Jooler 10:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And football (soccer) names. Grant | Talk 15:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger. It occurs to me there's a fair amount of overlap in those articles, as well as with the football article. Seems like overkill somehow... too many words. Maybe that situation will fix itself over time. Wahkeenah 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that this is vaguely analogous to the term "corn". Cereal grains are grown all over the world, and the main grain of a given country is usually called "corn". In the US it's varieties of maize. In the UK, as I understand it, it's wheat or rye... and so on. Basically you have the same situation. "Football", by itself, is the predominant version of football in a given country. In the US, it's American football. In Canada, it's Canadian football. In the UK and Europe and Latin America and so on, it's "soccer football", a longer version of the term that isn't used much nowadays, but it serves to distinguish the name. I guess poor li'l old Rugby isn't the predominant football game in any country. That's the way things go. Wahkeenah 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rugby union is the national sport in Wales, New Zealand and many of the Pacific Islands. Grant | Talk 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Whenever I think of Rugby, I think of a couple of bumper stickers I used to see around campus: "Give blood... play Rugby!" and "To play Rugby you need leather balls!" Why the women's Rugby team had that second one, I don't want to know. Wahkeenah 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not vote? Leotolstoy 22

17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this not a pretty irrelavant string to this conversation. Officially there is not one single sport on the planet that can be called true football. The original game fragmented as it spread around the world. The term football, as the article correctly points out, refers to a collection of sports which each have their own codes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeecher (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As to whether or not Football should be called Football or Soccer, I think that it should be called the latter. Football was a name given to the sport long before soccer and as the Americans didn't even invent the sport I think that they should not be allowed to start naming it. The only logical reason as to why they call it soccer is because using football in their country would suggest 'American Football'. Well sorry but I'm not bloody American and I don't play/watch American Football so I'm going to continue to use Football. Europeans seem to share a similar frame of mind when choosing which name, German's (as mentioned above, somewhere.. ##!?) call it Fussball, literally translated as Foot ball. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More flogging of a dead horse: A. Americans represent an absolute majority of native speakers of English, so whatever you, I or the whole of Wikipedia does is not going to affect the way that most native English speakers us the language; B. its not just Americans who call it soccer anyway; C. an Englishman invented the word soccer; D. Germans are a bad example for your case, as they also use "football", as a loanword, for American football (see German Football League). Grant | Talk 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully agreed, I use football and don't like the word soccer. However, I also fully realise that it is not just the United States that uses soccer. It's not as if the word is not even used in the UK. See Soccer AM and Soccer Saturday. But as you point out this is flogging a dead horse, and not only that a dead horse whose carcass is infested with worms. The last real debate in this topic took place nearly a year ago.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rugbys not a footballThisMunkey (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are simply wrong, rugby (both kinds) does call itself football and I'll give you as many references as you like.GordyB (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's absurd to say that rugby or rugby league are not called football. The reason that "soccer" is used instead of "football" in New Zealand and Australia is precisely for that reason—there are several codes that can go by that name. - Shudde ^talk 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to acknowledge how mistaken I was about what rugby gets called and its very obvious that these uses of the word football will continue but that doesn't mean they are being represented correctly on this wiki page.
Acknowledging information correctly is next on order of importance as providing information at all which is a blindingly obvious importance on this talk page where every one has something to say about the name of football. That has to indicate some thing unclear. Leotolstoy suggests a vote and my opinion is that undisputed information can be made out without the dispute.
I am pointing out the absurdity (thanks to the Shudde for the word) of misleading description. You might not appreciate it.
The game of Gaelic Football closely follows a foot ball game being that the foot and the ball are required in the game play. The rules are to carry the ball but you must use your foot. It is basically a high contact, hand ball game but the foot is required by rules and is most commonly used to attempt scoring but the contact rules are much less permissive than other rugby style games. Aussie rules might be in between Gaelic and Rugby regarding contact rules(or at least they seem to be when they are playing Gaelic rules).
Who knows the rules of rugby and would finish a try with the ball on your foot? No you wouldn't know the rules then. Hand ball is not only permitted but the rule is hand on ball or no score. I didn't have to look it up. I learnt it. Foot is allowed and free kicks seem to be taken with the foot but aside of mobility, foot is not such an essential part of the game play otherwise. I don't know if you can score between the bars with out a free but that will be irrelevant for this. The other rugby style games also require foot in some large part but are primarily hand ball wrestling games. This is relevant in any description therfore should be acknowledged on this page (it is not and that lacks something fundamental).
The fact they display their inspiration from football in the sport names and even the name of the ball should not be misrepresented or discarded as it is like displaying their colours and those games are a big part of sport as we know it.
Football is, surprisingly, unique in this variety of football games that it uses the foot and the ball primarily with rules governing contact and obstruction. This is considered extremely distinctive and requires ackowledgement. Hands are allowed in football for goal keeping but this fits into the game without lessening the basis distinguishing the styles.
Football is the primary of these sports in popularity and history (look through the page for instance) and so inspiring in this regard that hand based ball sports worldwide are most often named (regional) foot ball. Some exceptions including basketball (with the basket), baseball (bases), volleyball (volley the ball), cricket (er..ribbet), and handball itself. It is an indicator of fond the esteem of the football basis and should be treated as such and acknowledged boldly.
Some refer to a game of football and some refer to a game with a football. Rugby style football games are based on a form of wrestling. It seems that until these sort of facts are acknowledged around this page people are going to dispute its contents. Wrestling with a football - it's as valid as any other style of game I can think of, wrestling, football, or anything bar racing. I can't imagine any lovers of these games being dissapointed with that description of them and the disputes here dont go much into wether or not football is football but rather wether rugby or such is football. That school of thought also has a place in acknowledgment on a correct and concise page (if not what is the point?).
The brief description 'These games involve:' does not acknowledge the contact style which distinguishes the games for any fan. That is absurd and incitful to provocation. Some people hear that obvious information is kept back and they fight and die hoping to correct it.
As for refering it as 'Association Football' it has to be acknowledged that these days that is old hat and it is and will be FIFA football (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) since a long time back and will be as far as anyone beleives so in this opinion. FIFA being represented only by a mention of 5 a side on this page only is not only piss poorly disappointing but it is misleading like the rugby relation. What about Masters Football? If these facts were made out correctly there would be less gripes on the page and it would be more apparent that soccer was a name to suit a non football area where football was not seen as the more common football sport. Grant should know that only the English can represent the vast majority of native English speakers and that the English language includes the word greeble picked out at random.
The issue of naming football as soccer only applies to informing people that football is the more widely accepted name. (or fus or fut or etc)
I am going to leave a quote from the FIFA page before considering minor interference in both pages regarding the language (just a little) and the lack of mention of FIFA (a very important addition not included) which would be much more suited to some moderator who is a good football boffin which I am not but it's nice to see the right links and the major stuff on the wiki pages.
And quote from the FIFA page:-
""FIFA Anthem

Since the 1994 FIFA World Cup like the UEFA Champions League FIFA adopts a anthem composed by the German composer Franz Lambert. This anthem also known like Fair Play Hymn term used by the Mexican TV sport commentator Enrique Bermudez de la Serna known like El Perro Bermudez. The FIFA Anthem or Hymn is played at the beginning of FIFA structured matches and tournaments such as international friendlies, the FIFA World Cup, FIFA Women's World Cup, and FIFA U-20 World Cup.""
 :::I am not saying that the wolf is on the dog page. I am sayin that the munkeys are bein called apes by the scientists.ThisMunkey (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are labouring under several illusions, one is that the other types of football are derived from soccer - this is not the case; another is that football played with the hands was not in the original concept of football (which it was), thirdly you seem to think that the English have consistantly applied the word "football" to soccer which they have not and even today don't. I suggest you read the article from start to finish.

Your argument is what we would describe as original research which Wikipedia doesn't do. We aren't here to judge which sport deserves the name "football" and which does not.GordyB (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gordy but read the wopping big comment I worked on or don't bother remarking as I put a deal of thought into it and below in addition are some quotes from respectable sites about the knowledge of ancient football games not corroborated here and I know of at least one definite respected part of human footballing history that is definitely not chronicled on this page but I wont mention any more I do not get a worthwhile reference to online.ThisMunkey (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to tell you more clearly that you are wrong than simply you are wrong. Football has never referred solely to soccer in any Anglo country even England. This has been debated to death in the past, you are hardly the first person to make this point. However the consensus has always been that neither "soccer" nor "American football" will have sole use of the term "football" on Wikipedia.GordyB (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is incorrect Gordy as it doesnt distinguish the styles of play and no matter what you call it football is very unique. That is more important on the page than wether or not to call rugby or american football. It doesnt acknowledge FIFA or the IFAB and the ancient histories of kicking a football as sport are at least incomplete. Football also fills the largest followings of any other sport in the world which is not plaeced importantly on the page. The page is biased against the existence of football with no hands in the gameplay although that is the dominant sport of the entire world. Who thinks it is not neccesary to include these things on the page?ThisMunkey (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Read original research.GordyB (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And what you mean to say is that football has never refered solely to football. You may beg to differ but it boils down to the fact that the English did not invent the foot or the ball or the idea of kicking it. I have more respect for my feet and my balls than I do for protecting the pride of modern institutions when absolutely unnessecary. Neither FIFA or the IRB need to pretend they invented the foot or the ball. Come down off the horse and give it some hay.ThisMunkey (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC) http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/game/historygame1.html ThisMunkey (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Football is an ancient game. Some 2,500 years ago the Chinese played a form of it called Tsu chu, in which they kicked a ball of stuffed leather. Natives of Polynesia are known to have played a variation of the game with a ball made of bamboo fibres, while the Inuit had another form using a leather ball filled with moss. However, much of the game's development came about in England where it was first known in the 12th century. It became so popular that kings, including Edward II and Henry VI, tried to ban it on the grounds that it distracted men from the necessary military duty of regular archery practice. Such edicts had little effect.

Varieties developed in England and in Europe (in 14th-century Florence there was a form called calcio). A traditional version in England was known as Shrovetide football, common in the Midlands and the north of England for centuries. Such games might involve hundreds of men on each side and were usually a free-for-all between sections of a town, villages, or adjoining parishes that would often develop into a brawl. Many schools played football and some, notably Eton, Harrow, Winchester, and Rugby, evolved codes of their own, particularly Rugby, which established a code from which others (American football, for example) developed. During the 19th century there were concerted efforts to organize and structure the different forms and provide acceptable rules. "
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570265/Football.html /br>"The Greek 'Episkyros' - of which few concrete details survive - was much livelier, as was the Roman 'Harpastum'. The latter was played out with a smaller ball by two teams on a rectangular field marked by boundary lines and a centre line. The objective was to get the ball over the opposition's boundary lines and as players passed it between themselves, trickery was the order of the day. The game remained popular for 700-800 years, but, although the Romans took it to Britain with them, the use of feet was so small as to scarcely be of consequence. "

http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/game/historygame1.html
"Tlatchi was a game played by the Aztecs and some individuals have claimed that it is over 3000 years old. We cannot verify this but it is quite possible that the game was being played around 500 BCE. This would make it older than the Chinese game of Tsu Chu. However Tlachtli was more a mix of basketball, volleyball and football rather than just a forerunner of football. One key rule was that players could not use their hands, although they could use their heads, elbows, legs or hips(?).

The ruins of almost every ancient city include a walled court for the sacred game of Tlachtli. The courts were often close to temples, reinforcing the spiritual nature of the game. Tlatchi has been described as a spectator sport, an astrological study and a political engagement all at the same time.

The sense of astrology comes from the fact that the Aztecs and particularly the priests felt that the movement of the rubber ball during the game symbolised the future path of the sun.

Great prominence was given to the mystic similarities between ball and sun.Only the ruling elite were allowed to watch the game and gambling on the outcome of the game was very popular. Money, clothes and even slaves were bet on games.

Tlachtli was played in a sunken stone walled court surrounded by fans. The court was normally an 'I' or 'H' shape with one stone ring at each end of the court. (The stone rings were similar to basketball hoops and were 8-10 feet off the ground. The actual hole was less than 30 cm wide.

The actual game involved passing the ball from side to side without it touching the ground. If the ball fell to the ground on the other side your team would win a point and vice versa (similar to volleyball.) If you struck the ball with an incorrect part of your body you could lose points for your team.

However the real purpose of the game was to get the ball through the hoop at each end. The team that did this first won, irrespective of the current score of the game.

Players were given kneepads and helmets to protect them from the heavy rubber ball, although this was only a temporary measure as the losers of the game were sacrificed to the gods!

"
http://www.footballnetwork.org/dev/historyoffootball/earlierhistory_3.asp
ThisMunkey (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing, someone previously said that in México Association football is called soccer, that is a lie, in Mexico and latinoamerica (in other countries I'm not as sure as I'm about Mexico but I'm quite sure) Association football is called futbol pronunced football, it may sound stupid but futbol is actually a correct and accepted word and is more often used to name Association football than soccer. This is a link to the royal academy of the spanish language dictionary http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltGUIBusUsual?TIPO_HTML=2&TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=futbol that shows I'm telling the true, also if tou use google Mexico (searching in Mexican pages only) you'll find 262,000 results of soccer and 486,000 results of futbol. I don't know if this informations deserves to be in the article. I'm mexican and I'm sorry if made a mistake, my english sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.194.252.218 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

They called it Flashball in 1974 but what do you call it?

So far as I can tell, the game they had us play in our physical education class in Clackamas High School in the North Clackamas School District in Oregon was called Flashball, and it doesn't seem to be discussed anywhere in Wiki, so I might as well pipe up here, and ask if anybody knows a game similar to it.

The game was superficially similar to American Football because of the use of the single prolate spheroid football, and the idea that points could be had, by taking it to the other side of the rectangular field, somehow, and getting it over the goal line. However, it permitted bouncing the ball, rolling the ball, passing the ball, smuggling the ball, and wrestling for the ball. 'Wrestling' means you had to punch or pry the ball out of the bearer's arms, sometimes with the assistance of a team member trying to twist the guy's arm away, to make him let go, and you only had up to the count of ten to do so. Tackling and tripping was permitted. It was a good idea to wear a helmet because it was a little rough. You didn't have to be the guy carrying the ball to be in danger of being tackled, as anybody could tackle anybody, even members of your own team. As for Rugby, I don't exactly understand the terms ruck or maul, so I will simply leave that term to others, so they can go back to those articles so they can describe those terms better.

For one thing, does Rugby or Gaelic Football have Referees who are supposed to count to ten (very loudly) when a battle for possession begins? Flashball does.

To start the game, the opposing teams lined up on opposite ends of the field. Then the Referee would walk out and into the middle of the field, and throw the football towards the team that had fewer team members (thus allowing uneven numbers of players to play against each other). Anybody could snatch it up, and take off running with it, hopefully making it through the opposing team as they gathered to take him down. More often than not, one or more opposing team members would take him down and attempt to bury the ball. But he could pass or bounce the ball out of harm's way, such that his comrades could pick it up, and take off running with it. The ball has to be buried till the count of ten, at which point the Referee declares which team was in "possession" of the ball. It helps to have reversible T-shirts because the Referee would say something like, "Blue has the Ball" or "Red has the Ball" depending on who had the ball more firmly immobilized. If the ball rolls out of the mass of wrestling players, the Referee shouted "Ball in Motion." If the ball comes to rest without any players in possession of it, then the Referee (after counting to ten) shouts out the name of the team most properly (that is, previously) in possession of the ball.

Aside from the initial throw of the ball by the Referee to the team that needed a break, the rest of the game was played by lining up the team members and hiking the ball, and then running it to the other side of the field. You generally don't line up to "hike the ball" until the Referee blows on his whistle, after which, any players who are still wrestling in some other part of the field (not realizing that they were no longer in possession of the ball) are supposed to stop what they are doing, and come line up for the hike.

As I understand it, dropping the ball and kicking it over the goalie line doesn't count for any points. You actually had to physically transport or carry the ball over the goal line for it to count.

If opposing players were to rush the ball before it was hiked, the Referee had authority to penalize that team, and make them backup 5 yards, and everybody had to line up again. Unnecessary roughness (like punching somebody in the ribs, when you were simply trying to punch the ball out of somebody's arms) was another reason for a penalty. (And similarly for "accidentally" spraining somebody's fingers when he won't let go of the ball, and two or three people are simultaneously trying to make him let go. If you have that many people wrestling for the ball, any sane man will toss the ball before it comes to that.)

It was okay to tackle anybody you wanted, this being an interesting ploy for a more numerous team to employ against a less numerous team, inasmuch as two players could be taken down for the price of one. Unlike Rugby, there was no duty to move away from the ball after tacking the bearer. The game goes fast enough, that it isn't always immediately clear which player has the ball. Having one Referee is mandatory, but having two Referees is even better. As I seem to recall, eight touchdowns (carrying the ball physically over the goal line, and touching it to the ground) made a game. 198.177.27.22 04:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your contribution. From a quick Google, the places where it was/is played seem to be pretty limited. Anyway, if you have good, reliable information on it, feel free to write a separate article and link it from the "Modern inventions and hybrid games" section of this article. Grant | Talk 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it is played at Clackamas High School anymore, as I was a graduate of the Class of '76. My gut feeling, however, is that the perception of tort liability on the part of the public school system (resulting from a student's suffering grievous harm) led to the game's eventual demise. Darn shame, as I really wish video records of the game had been made so they could be preserved for posterity, and maybe re-broadcast on cable tv. 198.177.27.11 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In South America we keep it simple; Football for the real one, American Football, Australian Football. The name Soccer just sounds ridiculous. The English they teach here is the correct one (British) not American

This is a tes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.17.249 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well from most everyone I know it was called soccer or football. Azamiz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamiz (talk • contribs) 23:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Meterials

The football is made of mostly pigskin. Inside the football, there is a small but strong magnet. The magnet's purpose is to make sure the football never hits the feildgoal camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.146.101 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Association football

Can I have a reference from FIFA that shows that the name of the game is 'Association Football'? I dont trust British sources to be unbiased. If you guys dont have a source from FIFA, it would be more accurate to call the game Football.Rosiethegreat 21:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We do not need a source to call the sport 'Association football', after all the NFL don't call their sport 'American football'. We can't exactly call both of them 'football'. But in any case FIFA stands for 'International Federation of Association football' (only in French).GordyB 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

From FIFA's Statutes (http://www.fifa.com/documents/static/regulations/statutes_08_2006_en.pdf): "Association Football: the game controlled by FIFA and organised in accordance with the Laws of the Game." and "Each Member of FIFA shall play Association Football in compliance with the Laws of the Game issued by IFAB."ReadingOldBoy 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

FIFA's Statutes are now at (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/fifa_statutes_0719_en_14479.pdf)58.109.103.235 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No , FIFA stands for 'Fédération Internationale de Football Association' .If the Association actually came before the Football , it made some sense .But it doesnt - so the point of 'International Federation of Association Football ' is moot .

Coming to American football , only people in North america call it 'football ' .While I agree the official name of that sport is also football , the reality is that people outside of North America call it 'American Football ' to distinguish it from the more popular football .

Irrelevant, as it happens that this English language version of Wikipedia originates in the USA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.52.185 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i am still wondering where do people get the theory that 'Football' is called 'Association Football ' .Without a FIFA reference , its completely unacceptable to come up with such a name .Rosiethegreat 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. One only needs a dictionary but since you insist I shall find a reference though it will not necessarily be a FIFA reference. As for your point about French - French word order is different to English. It's pointless defining French words in terms of English grammar. THe translation is correct as I gave it.GordyB 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the US Embassy to London[1] Association football is correct.GordyB 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rosie - In FIFA It is not 'Associative football'. 'Association' is a noun in English. 'Association football' is a compound noun formed of two nouns like 'post office' or 'dinner guest'. In French it is also a compound noun but the order is reversed. CONCACAF stands for the 'Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean 'Association Football, The Football Association (after whom the sport is named) publish a book called Laws of Association Football, many clubs use AFC (for Association Football Club) in their names like Sunderland A.F.C. and Leeds United A.F.C. and hundreds of amateur clubs. Believe me there's more than enough "evidence" for this "theory". Jooler 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So now the big fight is why or whether or not soccer in parts of Europe is called Association Football. Who cares? As far as the relevant conversation (fight) is concerned, it's whether or not to use "football" in it's international usage (for "soccer"), or to resolve to use of "football" for the meaning of American football.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.52.185 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Associative Football - not to be confused with Commutative Football or Transitive Football. :) Wahkeenah 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Disassociative football? ;-) Grant | Talk 04:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a question maybe not entirely related but... it was brought up here. What do other countries refer to american football as? I mean you said they don't call it football, obviously, so do they just call it american football? XXLegendXx 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Usually yes, or Gridiron. In some countries in Europe, such as Germany, they use a local calque for soccer, such as fussball and use "football" for American football, as in Deutscher Fussball-Bund and German Football League. Grant | Talk 16:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that people are asking for a reference in relation to the term "Association Football" - grab any reference book, dictionary or encyclopaedia - and it most likely will have at least once reference to Association Football. Look up any historical work that investigates the origins of the football codes and you will find a reference to Association Football. I have to be blunt here, it strikes me as incredibly stupid that anyone would question the validity of the term Association Football. For what it's worth, here is the entry copied directly out of the Macquarie Dictionary (unadulterated):

• • Football Association

  /'footbawl uhsohsee.ayshuhn/.
  noun
  the body responsible for the organisation and administration of association football in England.

πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The only people who want it changed from football to association football or soccer are people who hate the sport or resent its popularity. Aussiball Rules stats are completely insignificant in this debate anyway. There are only 16 professional teams on the entire planet. --202.47.51.73 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true. It has never been 'football' to my knowledge on Wikipedia. I like the status quo and I'm a Leeds United supporter.GordyB 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed? It has always been called soccer in American English, Australian English, Canadian English, Irish English, New Zealand English, and South African English. I'm an Aussie soccer supporter. I support the Socceroos. Grant | Talk 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here in the USA we call it soccer because we already have a game called football. I'm neutral about soccer, but a lot of Americans love soccer, and they call it soccer for the reason just stated. Wahkeenah 02:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article is not for the purpose of debating which is the biggest, best and brightest form of football - it's about football in a generic sense. It covers the history of the football codes, most of which have a common or shared origin, and discusses where we are today in a generic sense - and it does it very well. Only people with a barrow to push would argue that that's not what should happen here. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, except that the debate over terminology speaks to article content. Wahkeenah 13:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the first point about the quantum of professional teams, I think there are no Gaelic Football professional teams on this planet - that does not mean it doesn't deserve a mention as a unique form of football. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Gaelic football is interesting in that the GAA strongly upholds amateurism in Ireland, but the New York GAA's domestic competition is semi-professional. Grant | Talk 04:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Native speakers of English throughout the world know what sport the term "soccer" refers to. However, the term "football" refers to too many different sports to be used in place of "soccer" in an international publication such as Wikipedia.Mathnarg 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to this page

The previous format of this page was great and lots of people put a lot of work into it.... so what happened. I think it should be reinstated. Jd

That was vandalism. I restored it. Whythis page is the subject of so much vandalism is beyond me. Jooler 23:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It has become a football. Wahkeenah 03:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Anybody know how to get the page protected? The amount of vandalism is crazy.GordyB 07:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Saw this request on my watchlist, and I've semi-protected for a week. Requests for protection can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RFP). Oldelpaso 09:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've requested semi-protection.GordyB 09:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, should have said future requests. I've already semi-protected it. Oldelpaso 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like permanent semi-protection because the vandalism is on-going and done by many different anonymous users. The content of this page is fairly near complete other than a lack of referencing and it is not really controversial. I've read the protocols on the page you've linked to but I can't see any way of getting permanent protection. Should I just request it after your temp protection expires or do I need to request temporary protection every week?GordyB 13:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) No, there's no permanent protection. Some high profile vandal-magnets (e.g. George W. Bush) are de facto permenantly semi-protected, but they are very much exceptions. I've not been an admin for long so I don't have much experience with protections, but if (or more likely when) the vandalism gets heavy again, you could probably request that it should be protected for a longer time, citing the previous history of vandalism. Oldelpaso 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've semi-protected it for 14 days, to have a little peace and quiet. -- Arwel (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We finally have indefinite semi-protection!GordyB 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on intro attribution to England

I had a minor concern on the following statement at the end of the first paragraph.

Many of the modern games have their origins in England, but many peoples around the world have played games which involved kicking and/or carrying a ball since ancient times.

I realize this statement is intended to be politically correct. Certainly it is true that England did not uniquely invent this type of sport and even England's inventions derive from sports originating in other places (this can be said of almost anything in any country). Nevertheless, my understanding is that everything in the world called "football" in English (and referred to by a phonetically similar word in other languages) came from England, at least indirectly. So it seems to me that this statement is unfairly politically correct, unless there is some aspect of the history that I am not aware of. Maybe the statement should be something like the following.

Although, games involving kicking and/or carrying balls have existed in many cultures, all modern games known in English as "football" derive from games that originated in England.

Just my opinion ... --Mcorazao 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The subject of the article is all football games and there were many traditional/pre-modern games which fed into the present day codes, although the extent of their influence is controversial. Grant | Talk 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument. What do you mean by "all football games"? Do you mean "all games that involve feet and balls"? Or "all cames that anybody in the world has ever called football"? Or "all games that are recognized by some some official body as football"? With any term you can find ambiguity. I tend to believe that, for the encyclopedia to be coherent, it should stick with definitions that are widely used and widely accepted. That is not to say it should be limited only to the single most widely used definition, but it should neither try to include every conceivable definition ever used in the history of mankind (except perhaps to make small mention of some of the alternatives in a small section at the end of the article). I believe the term "football" is widely accepted as referring to the games of English derivation (including the North American game, of course). Although occassionally some similar sports in other cultures are called "football" in very localized circles I have never heard of such a game being widely associated with this term.

Anyway, probably not important enough to make such a big deal about. I am not English, by the way, if it is not obvious from the way I write. I was just trying to be culturally respectful. --Mcorazao 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually my dictionary's definition starts with "any game in which the kicking of a ball has a large part". The thing is that saying the games "originated in England" is a very strong statement about games whose earliest history and influences are both complicated and obscured by time. We have to ask did the English forms of football strictly originate in England, or were they derived from games imported from other parts of Europe, even before considering how any effect of Marn Grook on Australian football fits in with such a statement, and so on. JPD (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mob football probably did not originate in England but nobody knows for sure. The article I think does deal with this. Other than Gaelic and Australian rules, it is quite clear that football games were codified in England or in the case of North American varients were derived from English games. Aussie rules may well have had an English origin (controversial) and at the very least we invented the pitch. There is some suggestion that Gaelic football incorporates English style rules as well.GordyB 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The point I was alluding to is that the Irish-Australian "family" of codes has both English and non-English antecedents. I think everyone would agree with that, although the exact antecedents, and the nature of their contributions to each of the family members is controversial.

So I think that makes the present statement "Many of the modern games..." concise and correct. Grant | Talk 04:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As to Ozzie Rules, I am pretty sure that upon comparing the first known rules of Melbourne Football Club Rules with its contemporaries in England, notably the 1863 association rules, Cambridge Rules, Rugby rules and Sheffield football club rules, as well as the acknowledgement that the writers of the rules attended the most prestigious English private schools, notably Cambridge college and Rugby school, any sane and rational person would conclude that at least 95% of the original game has its origins solely in England. That is not exactly controversial. As examples, the original goalposts were identical to the goalposts in Cambridge Rules and the original soccer rules, the pitch dimensions (that now to seem to individualise Ozzie Rules) were originally in the dimensions Cambridge Rules, running with the ball was like such in Rugby and the marks were a universal feature of all the football codes at that point in time. There have been a good many innovations since, but I think the establishment of the game was almost entirely and conclusively English. So I therefore think that football of all codes has a finite origin in England(except maybe Gaelic, but I am unconvinced about Gaelic being "caid"). --144.132.216.253 10:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Though the history of the game of Football can be traced back to Europe, the game evolved in the U.S.A. and there is no mention of the advances in the game accredited to Americans.

What on Earth are you talking about?GordyB 23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Further divergence of the two rugby codes

With the advent of full-time professionals in the early 1990s, and the consequent speeding up of the game, the five metre off-side distance between the two teams became 10 metres, and the replacement rule was superseded by various interchange rules, among other changes.

Which code is this referring to and is it true? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Rugby league (though the first part is only true of England; Australia already had full-time professionalism).GordyB 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't be, It was Union that became professional in early nineties. League had been professional in England for decades. Dainamo 12:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Union went pro in 1995 (about the same time as Super League). Rugby league permitted professionalism but only Wigan and Leeds had the money to be full-time professional; other teams had some pro players and others on part-time contracts.GordyB 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me clear that obvious one up. Rugby union paid their players through shamateurism etc. and rugby league with contracts. Neither of them were full time professionals except for mega teams like Brisbane. When Rupert Murdoch started the superleague concept, the payments guaranteed the players full time professionalism across the board for the first time. The NSWRU was forced to act because on this basis they would of lost all of their players as it was the first time that rugby league had the money to put the under threat. So within 2 weeks(from memory, maybe it was a little bit longer) of the super league war breaking out, the NSWRU declared that they were now professionals. Full time professionalism changed how rugby league was played as players were fitter and fitter and replacement rules were used in a more and more complex way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.249.40 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference to UK

I was intrigued to see that the change from England to UK has passed unchallenged. As far as the UK home countries go I do not think there is much evidence for football development in Wales or Ireland (later NI). Certainly there is a long history of football in Scotland, but the origin of the modern codes was in England (Eton/Harrow/Winchester etc, Cambridge rules, Sheffield rules, football association). Although there were significant scottish players, I believe that their contribution took place within England. I think that it should be changed back to England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballfan3000 (talk • contribs) August 1, 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've changed it back to the way it has been since almost the first version of this article. Jooler 07:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

S'funny, I thought England was part of the UK. Or is this post-devolution English nationalism expressing itself? The article is not purely about modern codes and there were many codes/forms of folk/traditional football in Britain before the modern era, quite literally from John O'Groats to Land's End. The public school codes did not spring out of thin air in the 19th century and the older games undoubted influenced them. Grant | Talk 08:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The way things are in the UK is that the English are forced to be British; the Scots and Welsh are always Scots and Welsh and the Northern Irish have either a bizarre definition of British or are violently opposed to it. Without looking I can guess that the article on golf will mention that it was invented in Scotland, the UK will not be mentioned. I think the treatment of the sports and constitutnet nations should be equal. If golf, shinty, curling etc are decibed as "Scottish" (and I have no doubts that they will be) then Football ought to be English rather than British.GordyB 12:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Grant. The English public school games gave rise to the rules of most of the modern games which is what the para says. I can't see how this is controversial. If the motive is to be all-encompassing then saying UK leaves out Southern Ireland. Jooler 20:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at the time that the sentence is referring to. As for the sentence, it is purely about the origin of the modern codes, so the question is whether there was enough non-English influence to mean the statement that "Most fo the modern codes have their origins in England" is not good enough. The difficulty is that it is fairly vague anyway. JPD (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't generalise without being vague. It's impossible to make a statement like "all modern codes were started in Coventry on 9 May 1867 just outside the Red Lion pub" because it wouldn't be true.GordyB 11:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But the result is that the disagreement is going to be subjective to some extent. JPD (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, all the major codes can be traced to England (except Gaelic and that's controversial). One can debate the relative contributions of Irish, Aboriginal and English sports to Aussie rules but there definitely is an English contribution.GordyB 13:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone generally agrees with what you have said, even if some would add more. The subjective disagreement is over whether the vague statement "Most of the modern codes have their origins in England" is an appropriate summary. It's not at all black and white what "have their origins" means, let alone "most". JPD (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay that's a bit clearer. I would say that "has their origins in" means that they were codified from games played at private schools which ultimately came from folk forms of football.GordyB 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Term

Please add or correct the following to the introduction:

The most popular of these world-wide is association football or "football" for short. The word "football" for association football is used basically in all the countries and languages around the world, including United Kingdom, all far east countries and Arabic countries. The exceptions are North American English and Italy where it is called Soccer and Calcio respectively.

I think is too late to leave the clarification of the term to the "Football Today" section.

Please read the article, what you say simply isn't true.GordyB 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blank?

Why is the page blank?

-This article sometimes appears blank Archael Tzaraath 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

split this article?

football and the other kind of football are different. there different in the game, and different in the spelling.. you really need to split this article -- 24.254.14.165 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The spelling is the same. The separate football codes do have their own articles.GordyB 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not completely, there is American football and Futbol there are two different names. But you are right that there are two different articles. Azamiz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azamiz (talk • contribs) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Futbol" is a Spanish transliteration of "football" which has passed into American English. It is not used by UEFA / FIFA or any organisation that I know of in any official capacity (aside from the obvious Hispanophone). It is an utterly unknown word in the UK and probably the rest of the English speaking world.GordyB (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

public school games and the forward pass

I think that the section on public school games should mention that the forward pass is permitted in rugby (and other school games) when the ball is kicked. This key feature of rugby is often over looked by historians of soccer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't true. You cannot kick the ball forward to a team-mate, if you did they would be off-side. You can only kick the ball forward and hope that they can run from behind where you are and collect it. That's not a pass by any definition.GordyB 14:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Insulting

Hi, as an Australian I am insulted by the opening paragraph that makes a mention of soccer and actually has the gall to call it football but seemingly forgets to mention that only a few pommy bastards call soccer football and that in the English speaking worlds(discounting Indians and other non-Brittanics) the English are in a tiny minority in their reference to soccer being football which they are actually wrong about. I am not sure that soccer should even be on a page in English wikipedia dedicated to football and think that people should remove it. Afterall, outside of a few imperialists, everyone in Australia hates the d***heads that are trying to call soccer football, and even more importantly, the Americans dont do it either, leaving the English on their lonesome. I tried to change this but I cant for some reason so I would like someone who can to change it. Think about it, football means ball on foot in every English speaking society that is not bitched by the English culturally. In particular, rugby football and its varying splinters stand out as the clearest meaning of the term football. like rugby league football, rugby union, American football, Canadian football. With gayfl, many of the original writers went to the rugby school and they were heavily influenced by the tour of the English football team to Australia in 1877, as well as them being undoubtedly influenced by the culturally superior and more densely populated states of NSW and QLD where rugby football is a religion. With Gaelic football, it was probably influenced by rugby football in the type of its posts. The only mention to soccer should be that it deviated from football in 1863 when it changed the emphasis of the game to kicking, and stopped being football when the average player was no longer allowed to catch the ball on foot and take a "mark". I mean, look in a dictionary at the words that have the adjectival foot- as the beginning of the word and most of them only make sense when you add by, with, in, on, from before the foot, like footmarch means a march on foot, or footnote means a note on foot (of page) whereas football could only mean soccer when you add the verb kick, as in ball kicked by foot/with foot, so it breaks the rule. In other cases like footstep meaning step FOR foot, it still does not give clarification for it meaning soccer ahead of rugby football, as ball for foot is ambiguous and is probably not the origin of the word, as the word was used for a sport originally and ball is not a sport. So that is why soccer should be kicked off the football page and I am insulted in the opening mention to it being the most popular form without giving the clarification that only the pommys call it football(and even than it has only become universal in the past 50 years, whereass before that clubs like Wigan FC definitely didnt play soccer and didnt compromise over the fact that they were a football club). So please change it somebody when they get the chance, and while we are at it, change the name of the soccer article. --Poo thrasher 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Soccer isn't played on foot? Go troll somewhere else. JPD (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not just trolling but also use of a socket puppet User:Oh come on pulease's first two edits (and only two edits) are to revert deletion of this and one other talk page "contribution" by Poo thrasher.GordyB 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable because Poothrasher was blocked for a bad Username. It is encouraged that he (or she) gain a new user name. Woodym555 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The insulting part about this article is that it's NOT about Football, but a disambiguation page. As football is called football (plus translations from countless countries) in almost everywhere but some stuck-up countries. Chandlertalk 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true, as described by many contributers above, "football" is not the universal word used for the sport known as "soccer" in the United states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.52.185 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether you include Ireland in your list of "stuck-up" countries.GordyB 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. just because a tiny overpopulated island in europe calls soccer football, it doesn't make it football. nobody else in the english speaking world calls it football. just because the british are stubborn idiots (see Falklands War) this article shouldn't be influenced by them. Football, canadian football and aussie football are real sports and are called football by far more people than soccer is. i heavily suggest the british bias be taken out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.221.5 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Get out of here. I'm Australian and I believe it should be called football. Hey it's actually played using the feet as opposed to others like Rugby League/Union/AFL <--That is their real name. The whole world bar the States, NZ and Aus call it football. We need to step in the right direction. Don't like it get out. Simple as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufffin man (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're Australian and you call it that you are part of a tiny minority. Congratulations. Oh and that tired old argument about soccer being played with the feet??? FFS name a code of football that isn't! Oh sure, the other codes also allow you to play using the rest of your body.... JUST LIKE SOCCER DOES! In soccer you can use your feet, shins, knees, legs, torso, chest, head and the goalie can use his arms and hands! So by your logic soccer can't be called football either! 89.100.101.40 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

• Since the British use 'football' in reference to soccer as well, this page should be a disambiguation page which shows options "Football(American)" and "Football(soccer)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.115.144 (talk • contribs)

Please read the article before making this kind of comment. Had you done so then yopu would have realised that your suggestion is completely unworkable.GordyB 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The term named football is used for the sport in which the ball is used by your fooot and nothing else, in northamerican football you don't use your foot, you can use your hands. that must be named handball or something, not football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.57.245 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Native speakers of English throughout the world know what sport the term "soccer" refers to. However, the term "football" refers to too many different sports to be used in place of "soccer" in an international publication such as Wikipedia.Mathnarg 20:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, read the article! Soccer is one small aspect of this article. Grant | Talk 07:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. this wants so before.. somebody must have changed the page.Dentren | ^Talk 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pommy bastards? Us British invented the modern game of football, so you should be thanking us for giving the world such a glorious game! I'm sorry but who made your country what it is today? Us. And what language do you Australians speak? English.. no clue as to where that came from. I think you should show us a tad more respect next time you start making personal remarks against a whole country. And besides, seeing as we invented the damn thing, we can call it whatever we bloody hell like! And the only reason the Americans call it 'soccer' is because if they called it football, like everyone else, then everyone would think they were talking about American Football! God this debate is annoying me! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeated comment.

Do we need:

IMPORTANT NOTE to editors: we have a length problem! That is why there is a Mediæval football article. Please do not add new material to this section unless it is significant -- please put any new material in the Mediæval football article _before_ you add it to this section. Thank you.

Repeated 10 times in the history section, is not once enough at the top of the section? --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No. People never read the full article before editing it.GordyB 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Gordy. I didn't put it there for no reason. Grant | Talk 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, 10 times is excessive, the not is till at the top of the section which appears 1st on clicking 'edit' and if people are going to not read they may go and add things anyway. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You need one comment per subsection, a lot of people just edit subsections.GordyB 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look I left it on the sub section. football#Medieval and early modern Europe--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article attracts a lot of interest and one consequence of this is it that it gets a lot of editing from people who don't read articles properly (see the numerous misinformed comments about the content above) and who don't understand understand the norms and style of Wikipedia. Grant | Talk 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed splitting off of page

Ever since I found this page a long time ago, I've thought we should split it off. Football should be a disambiguation page, with the main 3 uses (rugby, gridiron, and soccer) at the top. The bulk of this text could go in football (history), and what's left of this page could become a disambiguation. This makes much more sense. 95% of people typing in football are looking for information on one of the specific sports, and if they're interested in reading about the pre-split history, they can click on that in the disambiguation page. The Evil Spartan 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

When you say "the 3 main uses" what about Australia where the "main use" would be Aussie Rules football which is just as valid as Association football, Rugby football (which is divided into two anyway, Rugby League & Rugby Union) and American football.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Then we can have the top 6 uses at the top. I'm more worried about the page split right now than anything. The Evil Spartan 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The main uses are all at the top, in the first paragraph? -- Chuq (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death before. Most people who the page splitting up haven't actually read the article. There are dozens and possibly as many as a hundred different "football" games. Even a dismbiguation page would take up loads of space and since nobody would understand it, it would slowly grow until you have something very similar to this article.GordyB 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet the fact that it's been talked about before and so controversial shows that it's a real problem. Per WP:DISAMBIG, if a page is confusing, it should be a disambiguation page. To have a history page and a disambiguation page all smushed together is inappropriate. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is "confusing". On the contrary, I think the introduction is perfectly clear. As Gordy has suggested, this article began as a dab page, which became complicated to the point of confusion and uselessness. The historical development of these football games serves to explain why so many very different games are all called "football".Grant | Talk 07:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The "These games involve"

Well I get the impression these are suppose to be what all games involve? it starts of good... but then there are many "in some codes" etc. shouldn't they be removed? I at least thought that list was, things that are the same in all codes of football. Chandlertalk 18:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the points more specific to individual codes would be better removed from the bulleted list. The coudl be written as a pargraph immediately following the list. Leaving them out altogether is not a great idea, as each of the things mentioned is common to a majority of the football codes. JPD (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, all of the points refer to at least three codes. Points 1-5 apply to all of them; point 6 to all except Aussie rules and Gaelic; point 7 to the Rugby codes, American and Canadian football; point 8 to all codes except Aussie rules; point 9 to rugby union, Aussie rules and American football. Grant | Talk 01:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Good edit JPD, I like the new look intro. 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant65 (talk • contribs)

Conflicting Years

In 1363, King Edward III of England issued a proclamation banning "...handball, football, or hockey; coursing and cock-fighting, or other such idle games", showing that "football" — whatever its exact form in this case — was being differentiated from games involving other parts of the body, such as handball.

King Henry IV of England gives the earliest documented use of the English word "football", in 1409, when he issued a proclamation forbidding the levying of money for "foteball".[6][7]''

That was taken from this article, but doesn't it seem to be contradictory? If Edward III issued a proclamation banning football in 1363 why is Henry IV's proclamation being referred to as the "earliest documented use of football" if it came more than 40 years later? 157.252.165.109 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Grant | Talk 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

@Grant, this page is protected. Anonymous editors can't edit this page.GordyB (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

When people search for "Football" they are generally looking for a sport, be it Association football, American football, or anything else. They are generally NOT looking for a broad historical analysis of the term. So while I think this article has a lot of great information in it, I think it should start with a nice list of things colloquially called Football. Like a disambiguation page. 134.84.96.142 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrupt

Is the whole of wikipedia corrupt? First the stuff about Jimbo Wales misusing funds and now a football article that seems to be overrun by Victorians. Australian varieties of football?? LOL, AFL is a joke of a sport that was made in England private schools and exported to Australia by students of English private schools, and than it was only popular in half of the nation, in the other half of Australia it is rejected as "foreign". Australian variety of football my arse. --Youknowittoo (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison table

I find this Wikipedia entry is not about football itself, but about the *term* football. It is a linguistic study about the term and what it comes to mean in time and space. At any encyclopedia entry I expect to find the meaning, not merely the term. The article is too history-related, it misses to describe actual football. It is poorly designed too, it is difficult to find the variant of football you're searching for. We get to know there are so much variants, but we don't get accurate descriptions from them... what the number of player is, whether there is or not a goalkeeper, the dimensions of the football ground, the number of referees... Probably a comparison table would help. I think a photograph is strongly needed in order to illustrate every variant, and make it easier to find too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.246.185 (talk) 18:56, April 20, 2008

While I don't particularly agree that it's difficult to find information about the specific variants (in all probability, there's a link to your favourite variant in the very first paragraph of the article), I do see the usefulness of some kind of a comparison table. I'm pretty sure someone here would be up to creating one. -- Jao (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Too much details

Why so much attention is given to football. Football is producing stupidness around the world. If Einstein , Newton , Pitagora , etc were playing football in the past now all of us would live in caves. Come on - get serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.209.78 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this is an article about football....Were you expecting an article on astrophysics to be listed under "football"?GordyB (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Niels Bohr played football for a leading Danish team, Akademisk Boldklub. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No he played soccer ;) 89.100.101.40 (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Greek interwiki

Please can someone add a link to the Greek article in Βικιπαίδεια (el:Ποδόσφαιρο) —Saltmarsh 08:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate interwiki, as the Greek article is about Association football. It should be (and is) interwikied from Association football, but not this article, which has a different scope. JPD (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Quick one: I have only recently signed up to Wikipedia, and so cannot edit the Football page. Noticed that 'innovation' is spelled incorrectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football#Sheffield_rules Jrwjames (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I fixed it. And welcome to Wikipedia! -- Jao (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break

I type in football on an american website, heres my source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia and i see a history about soccer.. then when i type in soccer i get the same damn page.. you cant even find the correct website for FOOTBALL(nfl) someone edit this crap asap or my fellow anons will do this for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.200.170 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an American site, it is international. Lympathy ^Talk 11:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there should still definitely be an article for US/Canada football. If there already is one, it should be much easier to find than it is.--S00porz2 (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is here. If you did indeed just type in Football you would have found an article that mentions all codes of football with links in the first paragraph. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better title

This is a much more inclusive and international article now, covering all the footballs that we know of here in the western world. To me 'football' has always been Gaelic Football, as is the common meaning in Ireland (the GAA being far and away the largest and most popular organisation in Ireland, sporting or otherwise). Internationally, we are tiny. But it's still most definitely 'football', and we are ferociously passionate about it in a way not replicated in other western societies (for historical and cultural reasons). I'm glad the 'American Football' article didn't get the monopoly of the title 'Football' here, even though it is probably what most speakers of English know as 'football', just as I am glad that 'Association Football' didn't keep it. Well done to everybody involved. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Separation

I can't believe the article talks about two different sports at once, we should clearly have two different articles, one for American Football and another one for real Football (where you actually use your feet) instead of mixing both sports into one article. 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for the articles American football and Association football. -- Jao (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait I just checked and there is an American Football article, so when I tried to look for real Football, I found out that it was named "Association football", what's up with that? it should be simply called Football (since that's how most of the world calls it), and this should be a desambiguation page. Supaman89 (talk)

This has been debated endlessly. This essentially is a glorified diambiguation page for the hundreds (not two) of football varients. Association football is so-named because that is the official name of the sport.GordyB (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Real football"- you mean, of course, "the garrison game"? I was also looking for "real football" here, but I found it here. I'll get over it. God bless British nationalism and its endless quest to be at the centre of the world. Britain is a nation, not the world. Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia. Sorry. 86.42.104.201 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You could start an argument in an empty room.GordyB (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is "a glorified disambiguation page" but I think it should be un-glorified and made to look spartan, like all other disambig pages. People coming here for the American football article (most people, I'd claim) are going to think something's wrong with the website. There's no clear link to it up top. Tempshill (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlike most disambiguation pages, the histories of the various items that would be listed here are intertwined. There is easily enough justification for the existance of this page in its own right. If people really want a plain disambiguation page then the simple solution would be to create one and link to it at the top of the page.GordyB (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Only certain North Americans would go there expecting American football, perhaps those North Americans would even be so quick witted to realize that football = American football isn't a universal team and when they see "This article is about various sports known as "football"." they'll get that this article isnt about American football — CHANDLER^#10 — 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Chelsea Doubles

I think Chelsea Doubles should be put into the "Football Today ==> Association Football and Descendants" section.

I don't know what it might be called in other areas, but it seems that most areas know what I'm on about when I say "Lets play Chelsea Doubles". When there's, say, 11 of you and you split into 5 teams of 2, one ball and one goal (with goalie). You all fight for the ball and pass it to your partner til you score or you get knocked unconscious :-P Anyone know this by a different name? Kk_107 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Never heard it ever being referenced as Chelsea Doubles, I've played similar types of games (more like basketball against only one basket, where if you win the ball from the other team, you have to get it up to a certain position of the field to be able to attack again, or the goal still counts as yours), but never had a name for it. And I doubt Chelsea doubles would be a universally used name, perhaps not even outside of London. — CHANDLER^#10 — 06:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Played it hundreds of times, never heard it called "Chelsea doubles" or any proper name.GordyB (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

london? i'm from stoke...Kk_107 (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.177.190 (talk)

I call it 'Wembley Pairs'. Happypoems (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Eton rules of 1815

this article does not refer to the eton rules of 1815 and aldenham school rules of 1825 (see encyclopedia of british football). Given how early these are I think they should be included and probably the line that states that the rugby rules were the first written rules should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "football" in English-speaking countries

Sorry for being naive, but I would have thought an online encyclopedia, like this would write factual articles and not one using somebody's personal opinions. I refer to the statement below:-

"However, in some countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, use of the word "football" by soccer bodies is a recent change and has been controversial."

Did the person who wrote this piece actually do any research? The New Zealand Football Association was formed in 1891 and continued to use this name until 1995, when they first changed to Soccer New Zealand, then to New Zealand Soccer. After eleven years they went back to football, and are now known as New Zealand Football. There was no controversy, the national league competition was already called the New Zealand Football Championship and as NZF's chief executive, Graham Seatter said:-

“It’s interesting that when the New Zealand Football Association went to Soccer New Zealand and then New Zealand Soccer that most clubs stayed as ‘football clubs’…… many people in New Zealand call it football so we need to acknowledge that.”

As someone who comes from New Zealand and have lived all my life 'down under', I ask where was the controversy? There was none.

For many years, the governing body in Australia was known as the Australian Football Association, they too have simply gone back to using football.

The two weekly Australian publications, 'Australian Football Weekly' and 'British Football Week' are publications that both deal with Association Football. Go to Australian website 'Fox Sports' (the official website of the tv channel of the same name), click on Football and you will get Association Football, not Rugby Union, not Rugby League, not Australian Rules or any other game, but Association Football. 'SBS', another Australian television network, also use the name 'Football' for Association Football.

Back here in New Zealand, go to the (New Zealand) 'Sky Sport' website (the official website of the tv channel), click on Football and again you will get Association Football, not Rugby Union, not Rugby League or any other game, but Association Football. Go to 'TVNZ Sport' website and click on Football and surprise surprise you again get Association Football. Still not convinced? Pick up New Zealand Newspapers, 'Sunday News', 'Sunday Star Times', 'The Dominion Post' etc turn to the Football and what do you get? You guessed it, Association Football.

Most fans in both Australia and New Zealand prefer to call Association Football by the name of Football. In both countries it is the fans of the other codes that prefer to call Association Football by the name of Soccer.

Another statement used in the article:-

"The name "soccer" (or "soccer football") was originally a slang abbreviation of the word "association" from "association football" and is now the prevailing term in the United States, Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand where other codes of football are dominant."

Actually, Association Football is the most played sport in New Zealand. 198,757 people play Association Football in New Zealand (source: FIFA), while only 136,059 people play Rugby Union (source: NZRU).

There are plenty in Ireland that call the game football. Organisations: 'Football Association of Ireland', 'Football League of Ireland' (now known as 'FAI League of Ireland'), 'Football Association of Irish Schools', 'Leinster Football Association', 'Munster Football Association' and clubs are called 'Football Clubs'. Media: there has been 'The Irish Football Handbook', 'Irish Football Online', Irish writer, Roddy Doyle refers to the game as Football, as does other Irish writers / journalists, Declan Lynch, Dermot Bolger, Roisin Ingle, Marie Jones etc etc. Also the comedy 'Father Ted' also called the game Football.

Also in the United States, many ESPN commentators call the game Football. So to all those who think the UK is alone in being the only English speaking country that uses Football and not Soccer, think again. Also the former British West Indies countries and English speaking African countries also call Association Football, by the name of Football. Footballworldworldfootball (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The only ESPN anchors that ever call soccer "football" are the guys who cover English football when they play it. Other than, "football" is used for American football by everyone else on the channel. I watch ESPN almost all day and I never once hear any anchors refer to it as such. --71.36.137.79 (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this website, the numbers for soccer in NZ is less than netball. But to a certain degree the numbers need to include what is played at most schools in NZ (with a measure for the differentiation between primary and secondary schools), and not just the numbers who play in clubs. --PBS (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that I have had a couple of replies to my comments. First in reply to 71.36.137.79, thank you for your comments, but you will see that I was referring to ESPN match commentators and NOT anchors. As I do not live in the States I have no idea what your anchormen call the game. However, I have watched British, European and South American matches from ESPN and the commentators refer to the game as football. Also many Amateur clubs in the States prefer FC (Football Club) rather than SC (Soccer Club).

In reply to PBS, thanks for the link, however these figures are rather misleading. I will explain. The Football figure that is used on their website (105,000) is the one used by SPARC NZ back in 2002/03 and is for male footballers only (it also appears that it is only an estimate rather than an exact figure). However the rugby union figure (136,059) is the one used by the NZRU in 2007 and is for both sexes. According to FIFA, even back in 2000 New Zealand had 136,048 Association footballers (total for both sexes). The figure for Rugby Union players according to the NZRU in 2000-01 was 129,869. The latest figures from FIFA say that New Zealand now has 198,757 Association footballers while the IRB say that New Zealand now has 139,968 Rugby Union players. You will note that the gap between football and rugby has grown wider over the last nine years.Footballworldworldfootball2 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballworldworldfootball2 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Link error

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football - http://www.rfu.com/microsites/museum/page.aspx?section=89&sectionTitle=World+Rugby+Chronology replaces url=http://www.rfu.com/microsites/museum/index.cfm?fuseaction=faqs.chronology

{{editsemiprotected}}

Main article: Oldest football clubs

During this period, the Rugby school rules appear to have spread at least as far, perhaps further, than the other schools' codes. For example, two clubs which claim to be the world's first and/or oldest football club, in the sense of a club which is not part of a school or university, are strongholds of rugby football: the Barnes Club, said to have been founded in 1839, and Guy's Hospital Football Club, in 1843. Neither date nor the variety of football played is well-documented, but such claims nevertheless allude to the popularity of rugby before other modern codes emerged.

In 1845, three boys at Rugby school were tasked with codifying the rules then being used at the school. These were the first set of written rules (or code) for any form of football.  Done —Ms2ger (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"kicking a ball with the foot"

And what else does one kick with, exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.124.26 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the foot from that sentence. —JAO • T • C 21:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambig

I know this has been discussed before...

• Talk:Football/Archive 4#Name change
• Talk:Football/Archive 6#Split up the article
• Talk:Football/Archive 8#Can't this page just be a disambiguation?
• Talk:Football/Archive 9#Proposed move
• Talk:Football/Archive 11#This article's existence...
• #Proposed splitting off of page
• #Disambiguation
• #Disambiguation_2
• #Comparison table
• #Separation

...but I really think there needs to be a proper disambiguation page for "football". The main opposition arguments from previous discussion (apart from "this has been discussed before") seem to be the following:

• any disambiguation would eventually swell up to be as large as the current article.
• the current introduction already points anyone who's strayed here by mistake towards whichever article they intended to get to.

Now, it seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either what need to be disambiguated is the small list of sports given in the opening paragraph; or else it's the huge list in the "Present day codes and families" section and subsections; but not both. For my money, the small list is the necessary one. I've mocked up a disambiguation page at User:Jnestorius/Football.

With such a disambiguation page available, this current Football article could be moved and split into:

• History of football; made from Football#History
• List of football codes; made from Football#Present day codes and families. There is no need to add all of the list entries to the disambiguation page; WP:DPAGES says "Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term." which doesn't apply to beach soccer, arena football, futsal, et al; while someone might refer to the game as "football" in a certain context where it's already obvious what game they're referring to, nobody could seriously consider "football" to be the name of the game.

There is an additional problem that can't be addressed with the current setup: mistargeted wikilinks. Special:WhatLinksHere/Football, excluding redirects and transclusions, has over 3000 inlinks. My guess is that many of those really ought to point to association football/American football/etc rather than this page; but it would be quite tedious to check them all. OTOH, if "football" was a simple disambiguation page, then practically all WhatLinksHere would be misdirections, so it would be a minor housekeeping task to fix them as they arise. Currently, if an editor erroneously types [[football]] instead of [[association football|football]], then unless it's picked up quickly it will be lost among the 3000 inlinks.

There's some really good information on this page, and in a sense it would be a pity if readers bypassed it by being routed through a vanilla disambiguation page. However, it's not the place of editors to force readers to read something they're not looking for; instead, we must minimise the delay between searching for an article and finding it; I think the current structure is flawed. I don't know the details of querying Wikipedia's HTTP traffic, but it would be interesting to see how many readers get to football and immediately click out to American football, say; and how long the delay is. jnestorius^(talk) 09:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this proposal makes a lot of sense. While this article is a good one, it does not belong at Football. From our readers' viewpoint: people typing "football" will, with very few exceptions, either be expecting an article on American football, an article on Association football or a disambiguation page. The latter group will probably not care that this is not a standard disambiguation page; they find the links anyway. But the other groups will be confused for a short moment, and only then they will find the link to the article they're looking for (or even not find it, as this talk page shows is a real outcome for some people). And from an editor viewpoint, the incoming links thing really sold me. —JAO • T • C 18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the current approach is fine. The reality is that these sports have similar roots, thus the historical approach. An extra page for football (disambiguation) might help readers. No reader is going to read this thinking it refers to a specific code (be it American or association football), the scope is obvious from the start. The fact that all official names of the sports carry the moniker of "X" football show that the current topic is the correct one. Think of guitar as a similar article: the types have varying styles and roots but the fact is they are all guitars (or guitar types), just as the listed sports are all types of football. Just as the history of the guitar discusses obsolete or ancient instruments, so does this article.

However, I think your current draft would make a great dab page, meeting a demand which football (word) simply does not. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with SFB: this article deserves to be at [[Football]], but it might be good if there were a simpler, shorter [[Football (disambiguation)]], which could be referred to in the header. Kevin McE (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Sillyfolkboy or Kevin McE address the points I've raised.

• Neither of you address the point about misdirected inlinks.
• The fact that this article has "a historical approach" suggests history of football is an appropriate name.
• If you agree a separate football (disambiguation) page is needed, then the question is merely which of the two pages should be at the default name and which elsewhere.
• Saying the article "deserves" to be at football reeks of the danger I mentioned of wanting to show off a nice article to people who are not looking for it.
• Saying "No reader is going to read this thinking it refers to a specific code" is beside the point. If the article Paris, Texas was at Paris, it would be obvious from the start that it was an article about an American city and not about a French one; but it would still be incorrect. The issue is not what people understand once they have read the article; it's what the expect to find before they start reading it, which is certainly not a historical overview. If the article was moved to history of football, then it would be just as obvious from the start what it was about: so what's the problem with moving it?
• The analogy with the guitar article is spurious, for two reasons.

• The connect between different types of guitar is not merely historical origin, it is ongoing similarity. If you can play one type of guitar, you can play most types, and it's not unusual for people to play many different types. Have a look through the articles in Category:Guitarists and see how many begin "N N is a guitarist ..." versus something like "N N is an electric twelve-string bass guitarist ..." Getting into what guitar(s) a person favours will be mentioned further on. Compare that with Category:Footballers where the link will always be to the specific code the person plays, and if they play more than one each will be mentioned explicitly rather than using the umbrella term "football".
• Relatedly, there is a huge current commonality between all guitars. The guitar article has "history" and "types" sections analogous to those of the football article; but it also has further sections on construction and components, tuning, and accessories; i.e. the things all guitars have in common. The football article has no such common features section, because the only common features are those mentioned in the first sentence. Also, the guitar#History section is just a summary of a separate History of the classical guitar article.

jnestorius^(talk)

This article could be the basis of any disambiguation page List of types of football.GordyB (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that right now the naming of this article is a disservice to our readers. While it is true that the subject of this article is "football", it is also true that a general overview of sports involving kicked balls is not what the majority of the incoming links to this article are meant to point at, nor is it what most people who type "football" into the search bar are looking for. Our naming guidelines are meant to optimise article titles for findability and common use rather than accuracy; in this case, although this is true for a great many subjects, a generalist article is not the best fit for the root name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are no further objections in the next few days, I'll make the changes outlined above. jnestorius^(talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ahem; I meant, I will list this at Requested Moves. jnestorius^(talk) 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'football' searches should be taken to a normal disambiguation page, rather than this ~"History of Football" page. Chances are quite good that someone searching 'football' is looking for a specific sport, not to see how every sport derived from football originated. Troodon311 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

So poor section, linked on foreign articles. Please, add link to Русский. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.125.4.170 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, ru:Футбол is, as one would expect, about Association football, which is not the topic of this article. It is interlinked from the Association football article (and vice versa). —JAO • T • C 16:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is such a great article

There is so much stuff here! Lots of things I never knew. 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for this move. -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Football → History of football — Reasoning: See Talk:Football#Disambig. The automagical listing of this move request on WP:REQMOVE didn't work before, so I'm trying again to trigger it. jnestorius^(talk) 06:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Commenters below show that my comment above was too brief. Let me quote a fuller extract of the previous discussion in Talk:Football#Disambig:

I've mocked up a disambiguation page at User:Jnestorius/Football.

With such a disambiguation page available, this current Football article could be moved and split into:

• History of football; made from Football#History
• List of football codes; made from Football#Present day codes and families.

Some other objections made below have also been addressed in the Talk:Football#Disambig section. jnestorius^(talk) 02:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This suggested move really only makes sense from an editor's perspective. The only logic for this move seems to be based on the editing history of the article itself. As a reader, I'd expect to wind up at a dabpage. This will only complicate the issue further when the simplest solution is to set up a normal dabpage, as we would do with any other term with multiple meanings (even those that happend to share a common geneaology). There's also the rather obvious lack of consistency in implying that "XXX" is the same as "history of XXX". Let the readers choose for themselves on this one. Peter ^Isotalo 07:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand. Having a normal disambiguation page at Football is exactly what this proposal is all about. If you support that, you need to move the current content somewhere to free up the name, and what would be better than History of football? (I'm assuming you don't want to throw away the current content completely to not have a treatise on the history of football at all.) —JAO • T • C 10:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah. That made a bit more sense. The previous discussion was so voluminous that I misunderstood the jist of it (and the intention to create a dabpage here wasn't explicit in the request). I thought this was just another attempt to have the issue moved to yet another venue. If this is intended to simply create a proper football history article and make this a normal disambiguation, then I most definitely support it. Peter ^Isotalo 19:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support per my reply at #Disambig. I understand that creating a normal disambiguation page for "football" is more difficult than the average dab page, but the only really important thing is that it has prominent links to Association football and American football—certainly not the only sports called football, but certainly the only ones which people will think Football should be about (nobody who uses "football" to mean anything else thinks that his use is the only one or forgets that there are other kinds of football). —JAO • T • C 10:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If the article was purely about the History of Football, then the proposed move would make sense. But it isn't; it's also about the various games today. The real question is, as the page links to articles on every possible variety of football you can imagine, why would you need a disambiguation page? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You're supposed to be able to choose which topic you want to read without having to get through large amounts of prose. That's the whole point of having dabpages. This shouldn't be an exception just because sports happen to be over-represented among our editors. This isn't the only topic which has a lot of potential dablinks. Compare with Victoria. Peter ^Isotalo 05:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That doesn't answer the point that the article isn't about the History of Football; it's about Football. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The point is not to vote on what content goes where, but to provide easier navigation among the many articles on football. Terms with multiple meanings, even if they share a common origin, are always handled with disambiguation and this should be no exception. Besides, just about all of relevant prose content of this article really does belongs in history of football no matter what the consensus turns out to be concerning the move. There's more than enough content to merit a separate history article. The heading "Football today" is basically just a summary of the dicdef article football (word) (which is already summarized properly under "Etymology") and a long list of the many football variants that exist today (disambiguation links). Peter ^Isotalo 07:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I hope my recent elaboration answers your objection. jnestorius^(talk) 02:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Move this page to a history page and split the detailed list of all modern games off to a new page. Create a simple dabpage per Jnestorius' mockup. The only problem will be to keep the disambig page simple. Each code has a page with their own history and they can refer to the general history page for an overall view. Yimby (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Boy, you can tell (America) Football season is about to start... Anyway, moving this to "History of Football" just doesn't seem like a good idea. I like the general idea of making the page at "Football" a DAB page, but the "History of Football" name is never going to fly. "Football (Soccer)" would be better then "History of Football".
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• But this article is not only about soccer. The soccer article is at Association football. —JAO • T • C 12:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think someone needs to build a dab page (at football (disambiguation) or elsewhere) regardless of what happens. football (word) simply doesn't work well as one. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - If people here think its acceptable to have a "History of Football" article which covers the whole history of the different games known as football i dont quite understand why there can not be an article on Football for the same reason. The introduction of this article provides a link to each of the different types of "football", i think its nicer with an introduction / explanation than just a simple dab page. Also there are over 3000 links to this page, i hope those supporting this proposal will take the time to direct those links to the right articles and not leave it for someone else to do. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the History section relates to the common early history, before the different codes split; each of those codes' histories is merely briefly summarised with a link to the relevant history articles. There is no summary of any other aspect of the codes, apart from the two paras in the lead relating to "common features". As to whether it's "nicer", that's obviously a matter of opinion; I don't think it is. Finally, most of the 3000 inlinks are already mislinks that should point to one of the specific codes. (A random browse will prove this; look at all the biography and placename articles for starters.) So they need to be fixed either way. jnestorius^(talk) 02:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. As all of these sports are related, it makes sense to summarize them all in one place as a parent article. That doesn't mean there can't be a disambiguation page, but it's unnecessary to put it at the plain title when the applicable summary information is already guaranteed to be here. It's really not harder to navigate to a certain code here than on a disambiguation page; that's what the links in the table of contents are for. Dekimasuよ! 08:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The fact that this takes an historical approach as it is written does not mean that this article is only about history, nor that there is no use for a central football article. I like the disambig page in itself though - I support 76.66.200.21's idea of creating that at Football (disambiguation), and perhaps deleting Football (word). --Pretty Green (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I really don't get the reasoning of those opposing here. WP:DAB and common practice is always to create disambiguation for separate topics, even those with common origins. Take, for example, Joker or Victoria. And this is very clearly about separate topics, even if they all happen to be sports. That they happen to have a common origin is only an argument for keeping a joint article for the common history of the various sports. It's not, however, a tenable argument for keeping the modern, separate sports called "football" under a pseudo-summary rather than a normal dabpage. That would basically be the equivalent of making Springfield a common-history-but-also-a-kinda-dabpage-article just because they share the same name (and by extension the same origins). All of you opposing this move seem to be saying that this article should cover not one clearly defined topic, but multiple ones, including all the variants of football and their joint histories. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how any of this is compatible with some very basic policies and guidelines (unless you're actually invoking WP:IGNORE). Peter ^Isotalo 08:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the objections are because a dab page would be better off existing on *this* page, and not at "History of football"? --HighKing (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has ever suggested the dab page to be at "History of football" though. —JAO • T • C 10:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Follow-up on move

I thought it a bit unfortunate that the request above was closed after only about a week. I would at least would have liked to see the discussion progress beyond mere misunderstandings of the intentions of the request. From what I can tell, though, there's no need to hold straw polls concerning one part of this request, namely to create a separate history article. The history info is already over 60k and is in dire need of a summary. If people keep adding info here, then more effort should be made to redirect them to the separate history article.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have moved "Present day codes and families" from the bottom to the top. If someone comes here and wants an article on a modern game we may as well put the links near the top. However I don't think the history should be moved out of this article as there was no consensus to do so in the requested move. Further as the major part of the edit history of this article is for editing the history section, I do not think that the history section should be moved out of this article, rather if after six months there is a consensus to do so this article should be moved to "history of football" (or whatever) and a new article created here. There is no hurry over this issue as the history part of this article has been here for many years and six months is neither her nor there.

I suggested to Peter on his talk page that one way forward would be to create a Football (disambiguation), with a hatnotes on Football, leave it six months (the usual minimum time between requested name changes) and then try again when people are able to see what is being proposed. Perhaps then there will be a clear consensus for the move that was recently proposed. --PBS (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: this is about going half-way by establishing a proper history article for football to allow this article to concentrate on something other than just history. It's of rather limited relevance to the somewhat confused straw poll about making this a regular dabpage.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Concussion link

I added a link to Concussion because of research findings that many athletes later end up with dementia & other problems later in life. Stars4change (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Should this page be a disambiguation?

Does anyone think this page should be divided into a few articles and 'Football' be turned into a disambiguation? I'm not sure. Just want your opinion. Cheers!

--Flowersmadgirl11 (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See #Disambig above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And the proposed move that was spawned by that discussion in August/September. Short answer is yes, several people think so, but not enough people to be a consensus. —JAO • T • C 18:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Or rather, enough people consistently oppose, usually with reference to the previous vote, to effectively obstruct the issue.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issue

Although I don't disagree that in a majority of the world thinks of football as the one with the round ball, it seems like there is a serious lack of NPOV in this article if there is no minimal subsection for American football under "Present day codes and families", especially since there are subsections for Irish and Australian varieties which have little similarity to their round ball cousin as well. --63.175.18.130 (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The information on gridiron versions of the game is there in the section 'Rugby school football and descendants'. I'm not sure that there is a case for moving it as at the moment the games are arranged based on their origins. It doesn't look like a neutrality issue though, or anything to do with Association football.ReadingOldBoy (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cicero

Does anyone happen to know where specificially Cicero talks about the guy getting killed by a football in the barber shop? The two references don't seem to help (actually, pg. 777 in Smith is about music...). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Would the real article please stand up

India U-23 national football team results or India national under-23 football team results??? -- A puzzle underneath a riddle within an enigma. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)