Talk:2017 FIFA Confederations Cup squads

nationalities of clubs

@J man708 and S.A. Julio: There has been recently and edit discussion on which nationalities should clubs get - the country they're in or the league they represent. Either way, currently it is not consistent within the page, with Wellington Phoenix and Monaco with the nationalities of their leagues (Australia and France) while Whitecaps and Montreal Impact are with the nationalities of their country (Canada, when they play in the US leagues). Please hash this out here, and at the minimum get to a consistency on the page. Looking back at previous years, both 2009 and 2005 seem inconsistent themselves, having Wellington Phoenix and Cardiff City with the nationalities of their country (New Zealand and Wales), while Monaco is with the nationality of their league (France). Cheers :) --SuperJew (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the nationality for AS Monaco should be listed as French, as the Monégasque Football Federation is not recognised by UEFA or FIFA. Montreal Impact and Whitecaps FC 2 should be listed as Canadian for nationality, as they are members of the Canadian Soccer Association, and professional Canadian teams, like Montreal Impact, compete in the Canadian Championship. Wellington Phoenix also should be listed as from New Zealand, they're not even allowed to qualify for the AFC Champions League since they are not recognised as an AFC club. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, because the Monegasque Football Federation isn't recognised by FIFA, we should show them with a French flag, but the Wellington Phoenix which aren't an AFC club are to be shown as from NZ (even though they're not an OFC club)? Where's the consistency there? What about clubs like Cardiff City? Swansea City? FC Vaduz? Why should they be shown as Welsh, Liechtensteiners? What do you have against the idea of all clubs showing the nationality of the league they are in? The UEFA Champions League articles show clubs like TNS as Welsh, even though they are geographically in England. Why should the rules be different for certain clubs, but not others? - J man708 (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - Should Kosovo's national team show the flag of Serbia before they had UEFA/FIFA recognition, as they were a part of Serbia? What about Crimean clubs that've since joined the Russian football pyramid? - J man708 (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708: Monaco are a part of the French Football Federation, and the Principality of Monaco might as well be nonexistent to FIFA. Wellington Phoenix are a member of New Zealand Football, but are given an A-League licence. See UEFA Euro 2016 squads for clubs like Swansea City, the club nationality is Welsh. However for this article, Wellington Phoenix should remain excluded from New Zealand's tally for the "representatives of domestic league" table. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again though, what's wrong with using a rule that incorporates all clubs, regardless of their status - Either showing the club's physical location or the nationality of their leagues. It should be one or the other. Not a bit of this and a bit of that, depending on certain non-specified criteria. - J man708 (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708: Yes, that is what we are doing, the club's location based on FIFA recognised members, AS Monaco falls under the control of the French Football Federation. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what WE are doing, or what you are wanting to see? You haven't given any reason why basing it on FIFA recognition is better to disambiguate for the reader than showing a blanket rule where the clubs are listed purely by physical locale or nationality of the league they play in. What makes your way easier for the standard reader to understand?

If we showed AS Monaco as French, Wellington Phoenix as Australian, Cardiff City as English and FC Vaduz as Swiss, fine. If we showed AS Monaco as Monegasque, Wellington Phoenix as New Zealanders, Cardiff City as Welsh and FC Vaduz as Liechtensteiners, I'm okay with that, too! What I'm not okay with is us showing a non-blanket rule for clubs defined on whether their national league has chosen to affiliate them in some random way or not. It's so much easier for the reader to see either of the two ways I've suggested than the idea you've presented which is conflicting.
- J man708 (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708: I'm saying that is what is partially being done right now. Club nationalities should be defined as the club's location on FIFA's membership map, i.e. which of the 211 national associations the team is registered in. AS Monaco is covered by the French Football Federation, Wellington Phoenix is covered by New Zealand Football, and Whitecaps/Montreal Impact are covered by the Canadian Soccer Association. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But how is that meant to make it easier for the average Joe to follow? - J man708 (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a flag, not sure how it's difficult to follow. AS Monaco is registered with the FFF, therefore the flag of France should be used. Wellington Phoenix is registered with the NZF, therefore the flag of New Zealand should be used. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when Swansea City is shown as English and Vancouver Whitecaps are shown as Canadian, we're left with ambiguity for the average reader. Also, are you saying that a hypothetical player registered with a non-FIFA affiliated club like Nuuk Idraetslag should be shown as Free Agents, as they're not signed with a FIFA club? - J man708 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea City should be shown as Welsh, they are registered with the Football Association of Wales. Why all the hypotheticals? This is from past consensus, see Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 squads. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Swansea City play in the FA Cup and qualify through Europe as an English team? You have to think, how the average reader is meant to know that Swansea is Welsh and Vancouver is Canadian, but AS Monaco is French and TNS is Welsh (seeing as they compete under Wales in the Champions League)? I understand that you're saying that some teams are registered in other countries, but it's not helpful to show some expatriate football teams as their location and others as the nationality of their leagues.
I'm not trying to stress my point, I'm trying to ask why you think showing their countries of registration is a better idea for the reader? - J man708 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the consensus (e.g. Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 squads#Swansea and Cardiff Flags) says they have a Welsh flag since they are registered with the FAW. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But how does that make it easier for the reader to determine that certain expatriate clubs show the flag of their location, but others show the nationality of the league? - J man708 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree with J man708 here. The flags should be signify something unambiguous and clear to the average reader, not some secret "who are they registered to" which only die-hard fans and officials would care about --SuperJew (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say is the easiest way to show them, SJ? I'm not phased (I'm like 60-40 about it) on how it's done as much as it being done consistently. - J man708 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely, there is a note on 2014 FIFA World Cup squads and UEFA Euro 2016 squads to prevent confusion, but I'm not really invested in the method, just that it be consistently. It is my understanding that this is the current consensus, seeing that two previous major international tournaments used this, but I could be wrong and maybe more input is needed from WP:FOOTY. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we have the "By representatives of domestic league" table, I would say it makes a little more sense and consistency within the article to list them by the country of the domestic league they play in. Otherwise a reader might wonder why there are 5 players in New Zealand with an NZL flag (4 at Phoenix), but in the table it only says 1. --SuperJew (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: the average reader doesn't differentiate between affiliated association to affiliated league... that's a technicality. --SuperJew (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, half of the WP:Football project members themselves wouldn't know that some expat clubs are associated and some aren't! - J man708 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why there's a note on other articles I guess, but again I don't have a strong preference to either side, just that a general agreement be reached for this and future articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The shitty thing is, a note could work if we had just one club who had this issue, but we have four or five, so it's a little more complex to just show an annotation. - J man708 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about what would make the most sense to readers, we should list Swansea as Welsh, Vancouver as Canadian and Wellington Phoenix as New Zealand. Although Swansea play in the English league system, putting an English flag next to a club that is clearly Welsh (i.e. they play in Wales, are registered with the FAW and they themselves identify as Welsh exiles in the English leagues) would be bonkers; same goes for Vancouver and Wellington and their respective leagues. When Swansea qualify for UEFA competitions, of course we put the English flag since they're representing the English FA in that regard, but they're not doing that here. – Pee Jay 20:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: I assume you'd do the opposite for TNS aswell, showing them with an English flag, despite being the Welsh national champions as they play out of England? - J man708 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. They're registered with the FAW and play in the Welsh league, so obviously they get a Welsh flag. The actual physical location of their stadium is largely irrelevant, especially for border clubs. Of course, it's entirely moot, since when has a TNS player ever been called up to a national team? – Pee Jay 20:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it! I meant "opposite" in the way that their information would be the direct opposite of Swansea City's... Anyway, @SuperJew and S.A. Julio: would either of you have any issues with what PeeJay suggested above?
- J man708 (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also clarify that I would give Monaco a French flag, since they're registered with the French Football Federation and play in the French league. – Pee Jay 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... Really? How does showing AS Monaco as French, but Wellington Phoenix, Vancouver Whitecaps and Cardiff City as from NZ, Canada and Wales disambiguate the issue for the average reader, PeeJay?
- J man708 (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You give the average reader too little credit. I doubt that the average reader would have any problem with those designations. – Pee Jay 09:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say like PeeJay but give Monaco a Monaco flag, and also have a note for clubs like Wellington Phoenix, who are in their country but play in a different league, so that the table will be understood too (or have the note in the table maybe). --SuperJew (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Monegasque league, and AS Monaco are not registered with the Monegasque Football Federation. To all intents and purposes, Monaco does not exist as an independent nation in footballing terms. – Pee Jay 09:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I just can't figure out how you guys can support the following bolded table info.

Team	League's Nationality	Geographical Location
AS Monaco	France	Monaco
Cardiff City	England	Wales
Montreal Impact	United States	Canada
The New Saints	Wales	England
Wellington Phoenix	Australia	New Zealand

To me, that makes little sense and only adds to the confusion. - J man708 (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This makes more sense:

Team	League Nationality	Geographical Location	National Association
AS Monaco	France	Monaco	France
Cardiff City	England	Wales	Wales
Montreal Impact	United States	Canada	Canada
The New Saints	Wales	England	Wales
Wellington Phoenix	Australia	New Zealand	New Zealand

Doesn't it? – Pee Jay 09:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Monaco, a french flag is the correct thing to do. Kante4 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The average reader has in their mental scope the first table though... that's exactly the issue being discussed here imo --SuperJew (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? It would take tremendous mental fortitude to ignore the cognitive dissonance that would arise from tagging the club from the capital of Wales with an English flag just because they play in the English league system. – Pee Jay 20:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you seem to have no problem ignoring the cognitive dissonance that would arise from tagging the club literally named the same as the country Monaco with a French flag just because they play in the French league system. --SuperJew (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not because they play in the French league, but because they are registered with the French Football Federation. I see no cognitive dissonance there. – Pee Jay 20:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the exact same thing - the club is listed under a different flag than the one you'd expect from it's name and location. And again, the average reader doesn't have in their thoughts the federation the club is registered with (I'd say I'm an above average reader regarding soccer, and I don't know or think about or particularly care which federation a club is registered with). --SuperJew (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect a French flag for a team that is registered with the FFF. I doubt readers would be that confused over a flag, and if they were the aforementioned note should suffice. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense for me is that people think Monaco has a french flag. That's how it should be. Kante4 (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol, it's like you're not even reading the comments. I'm telling you that as an editor I have no clue what federation any club is registered to. --SuperJew (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA also identifies the clubs by national association, see the squad list PDF. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, I'm happier to have this (both) issue(s) referenced so it's not WP:OR and also less friction between editors' opinions. OTOH, honestly, does it make sense to anyone that Kruse is listed as a Liaoning Whowin player, when he last played for them in April and was officially released in mid-May? --SuperJew (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Showing Cardiff City with the Welsh flag and TNS with the Welsh flag defies all logic. That's implying they play in the same football pyramid, when they clearly don't. - J man708 (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This simply put is too confusing for people to follow! - J man708 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team	League	Confusing Proposed Flag
Auckland City	New Zealand Football Championship	New Zealand
Melbourne Victory	Australian A-League	Australia
Wellington Phoenix	Australian A-League	New Zealand
Cardiff City	English Championship	Wales
Queens Park Rangers	English Championship	England
The New Saints	Welsh Premier League	Wales

(Showing Victory and QPR here as control samples of clubs without ambiguity). Also, how on Earth can we justify showing a club with the name of a country with another country's flag, but not when it's a capital city? You're saying you're cool with

AS Monaco and

New Zealand Knights, but showing

Wellington Phoenix, despite them having the same league status? - J man708 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian players' clubs

@SuperJew: Why the revert? The club listed should be that which the player last played a competitive match (see UEFA Euro 2016 squads). I'd say Kruse is an exception, however, seeing that his contract was terminated. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But to the question itself, that logic is not a good logic. Under that, if a player played for club X a year ago, moved to club Y a few weeks after that, but hasn't made his debut for club Y, you'd list him under club X? They should be listed by the club they're contracted to at the beginning of the tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: Regarding Wellington Phoenix, the matter is still being discussed above. And while in that hypothetical scenario it might make more sense to list the club the player is contracted under, there is no such issue here. This style is consistent with 2014 FIFA World Cup squads as well as the consensus reached at Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 squads. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: It is exactly the issue here with Kruse. You can't just make a rule and then randomly say who's an exception. If that's the case make a better rule. Club contracted too makes much more sense. Also, you can see before the game that the clubs players are contracted to are the clubs tweeting "good luck" messages for the players, not the last club they played a match for. --SuperJew (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: Apparently you can make rules like that. It's why we've GOT to have some teams playing in other countries shown with their flag and others showing the flags of their leagues. ;) - J man708 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "making" any rules, I'm just trying to be consistent with past squad pages, such as that for the 2014 World Cup and Euro 2016, the style shouldn't change from tournament to tournament. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not actually answer the issue instead of evading with "other stuff exists"? --SuperJew (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: I'm not evading, I'm just saying there have already been long discussions in the past regarding this (Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 squads#Consensus), and the current consensus dictates that this style be used. I could be wrong about Kruse, though, that was the one player I was unsure about. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: A. I see no consensus there - it's a discussion like this one (though more based on facts and ideas relating to the case instead of referring to other discussions) which doesn't have a conclusion. B. Consensus can change! C. Now, do you actually want to answer the issue? --SuperJew (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: There seems to be a consensus (as far as I can tell) to use this style, seeing that the last two major international tournaments use the same method. But the method used isn't of the greatest importance, just that it be consistent and based off consensus. Of course consensus can change, why not start a discussion at WT:FOOTY then? It would be preferable to have a clear set of rules going forward instead of each tournament using a slightly different style. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped a note there --SuperJew (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My issue here is that Mat Ryan who indeed did last play for Genk is now listed on the Brighton & Hove Albion website as "New Brighton & Hove Albion goalkeeper Mathew Ryan" before Australia's first match in Russia. Showing Mat Ryan at Genk doesn't seem to be the best thing to do, but I can live with it, provided we're showing all the recent transfers at their previous clubs. But to show Robbie Kruse as a player for Liaoning Whowin is ridiculous. It's same as showing in the 2010 World Cup New Zealand's #7 Simon Elliott as at San Jose Earthquakes, even though he is shown as a player for them only until 2009! - J man708 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been disagreements of whether the parent club should be listed or the club which the player is/was on loan at, which is possibly why the "last competitive match" rule was adopted. Either way is fine to me, but I'm unsure about listing the future club. The Kruse situation is a bit abnormal, though. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just list them at the club they were contracted to at the beginning of the tournament? What's the difficulty? --SuperJew (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which we could easily define by their club at the first day of the tournament, which is exactly what we do with the player's ages. - J man708 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could go by the clubs listed on FIFA's official squad list PDF. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but again, it shows Kruse playing in China. Showing where they're at on Day 1 of the competition makes it a lot more certain. - J man708 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]