Q: I've never heard of this sport being called "Association football".
A: The term "association football" is the original name for the sport. However, its usage has diminished in recent years, with different cultures developing their own word(s) for the sport. Even the word "soccer" derives from the -soc- in "association".
A: In the United Kingdom, the usage of the term "soccer", a term which originated in South East England, is sometimes viewed as being derogatory, or an example of American culture being forced onto the rest of the world. Therefore, although the word "soccer" would be an unambiguous title for this article, there would be discontent from a large number of people who object to their word for the sport being ignored. Others point to "soccer" being the most widely used name for the sport in English-speaking nations—however the statistics for this are not readily available or are confusing (e.g. India is the largest country with English as an official language and refers to the game as "football", but English is not the primary language for most Indians) and others where countries change their official name for the sport (as Australia have done by now referring to the sport as "football", renaming Soccer Australia to Football Federation Australia and changing the local associations' names to reflect this, whilst the general populace refer to the game as "soccer").
Q: What about "Football (soccer)"?
A: On Wikipedia, the placing of a word in parentheses in the title of an article is used as a method of disambiguation, with the parenthesised word usually being a set of which the article's subject is a part. Therefore, the title "Football (soccer)" implies that football is a form of soccer, which is not the case.
This article is written in British English which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, realise, aeroplane), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page was previously nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move discussions listed below.
Thank you heaps for that. I have been seeking precisely such an article. As an Australian, I have been involved in some very heated discussions over the name to be used in Wikipedia for the game in Australia. I am of mature years and grew up with a population of British immigrants in the couple of decades following WWII. I simply knew those people called the game "soccer", but was continually asked by younger fans for evidence, who insisted that the name "soccer" is derogatory and insulting. So, I now have evidence, for both points. Those younger fans weren't very good at explaining why the name is derogatory and insulting, but the American connection at least explains that perspective for people currently in, recently from, or currently obsessed with soccer in the UK. Fortunately, there is currently (a somewhat enforced) peace on that front in the Australian Wikipedia world. But at least I know that my memories are not yet too affected by senility. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Personally, I'd simply assumed that countries where "Soccer" is in common use are those where another (arguably) more popular variant of the game is known locally as "football", for example NFL rules in the U.S., CFL rules in Canada, and AFL rules in Australia. Rugby's an outlier in that regard, since I don't know anyone who refers to it as "(Rugby) Football". -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It's complicated in Australia. On one side of the Barassi Line, Australian football dominates. There, "football" almost exclusively means that sport. On the other side rugby league is the most popular code, followed some distance away by rugby union, soccer and Australian football. Fans of rugby league frequently call their game "football". Union fans less so, but still sometimes. Soccer administrators and fans now want their game to be called "football" too. You can find American football clubs and Gaelic football clubs here too. Not aware of any Canadian football clubs. And the the AFL has occasional games of International rules football against Irish teams. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Back in the nineteenth century when the games' rules were first codified and governing bodies first formed there were several types of game in-which the ball was kicked using the foot. These all had the term 'football' in the full name of the game, e..g, Rugby Union Football, Rugby League Football, Association Football, etc., and to people playing these games each one was usually informally referred to as just 'football' however, perhaps due to the very simple equipment requirements for Association Football, i.e., no special boots, pads, etc., just basically a football and a couple of jumpers or shirts on the ground for goal posts, the game was more popular with children than Rugby or the other types. So more people ended up playing Association Football, or in many children's case, a simplified version of it. As a result, and due to the widespread influence of the British Empire, for the majority of people in the world, when referring to just 'football' they mean Association Football. Even the poorest of children can play soccer, as only a ball needs to be obtained. It is thus very popular all over the world in many areas that the other types of football have never even been heard of. Other types of football such as Rugby tended to be confined to countries that had English-type Public Schools.
The term 'soccer' is merely an abbreviation of 'association', although perhaps a slang term. And AFAIK there has never been any negative view if it as a term within the UK, except perhaps from language purists and some club managers. But all the proper 'soccer' clubs will have the full term 'Association Football' in their title. It's 'association' because the various clubs came together originally and formed an association of their members to agree on a set of rules. That was The Football Association - the FA. Hence the 'FA Cup'. Association Football was also the first, and is probably still, the only truly international football game.
BTW, you can play Association Football, with minor rule variations, with almost any number of players. Some impromptu kickabouts at British Army camps in North Africa during WW II had as many as several hundred players on each side. You only need a football, see. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a separate Wikipedia article on the offside penalty. That should really be linked to from this article I would expect. I'm not sure how to do that though or if the change would even be accepted. Evonj (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The mention of offside in the article is Wikilinked to the offside article. This means that when you click on the word 'offside' it takes you to the article on offside. This is the standard practise :-) Cls14 (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Though there is already a section on the history of football, there is little discussion on the effects of the sport on Africa. Nationalism in Africa can closely be followed by studying the history of football (see Wikipedia edit on nationalism found in the Bacongo people). Acknowledgement of the sport being originally European is not enough to document the spread of football to other countries. For example, football was initially introduced to the Republic of Congo for discipline and military training purposes; the French hoped that football would serve as a way to control the Bacongo and Poto-Poto people and eventually recruit them into the French military. The sport was quickly appropriated by Africans and led to the downfall of oppressive European initiatives, such as the Native Sports Federation, and ultimately contributed to the growing sense of nationalism for Africans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjlee859 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
History of the usage of red and yellow cards
I'd like to add some information regarding how the use of red and yellow cards came by. If I am going to do so, would this article be allowed as a proper citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silevern (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
No one has answered. I'll say no because the author is not provided, there is no information on the About Us page and there are spelling and grammatical errors through the whole thing. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I just want to ask the question, why do goalkeepers have 'Goals' next to appearances. We know most goalkeepers wont even score a goal in their career. Why can't it show 'Clean Sheets' because that is what Goalkeepers are known for!
May I please have this question justified with clear reason, because I believe there should be a change to how readers view Goalkeepers on Wikipedia. Thanks, Stefan Milosevic— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Milosevic (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 February 2015 (NZT)
This isn't the right place to ask that question. If you want it answered properly, go to WT:FOOTY. – PeeJay 11:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
As an aside I imagine it would be very hard to find stats for goalies clean sheets. Goals and scorers are recorded for nearly any games, I doubt most leagues would list number of clean sheets. Cls14 (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, you have pretty much no chance of finding clean sheet stats for any player who played more than about 10 years ago (or at all in many countries), so the vast majority of articles on keeprs would have silly-looking question marks in those fields...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it really relevant to mention bandy as a variant, just because it is played on a field of similar size with some rules that are similar? The basic idea is very different, bandy involves skating on ice and shooting a ball with a club. I tried deleting the mention but my change got reverted so I invite a discussion here. Oh yeah, the supposed name "football of the winter" is one I have never heard so there should definitely be some citation for that if the mention is to be kept. MathHisSci (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Explanation of what is "top flight" and use of tier
For those not familiar with the game would it not be best to include an explanation about what is the meaning of "top flight" and if it is different from top division. Also the word division is used so often it becomes confusing to differentiate that Primera Division is the top tier, Segundo Division 2nd tier etc. Would it be acceptable to use tier when describing at what level is the subject of the statement being mentioned. "Division" seems to proliferate in the football articles. So when describing what is the Primera Division that tier but used of whatever sport appropriate term should be used to eliminate confusion. Mind you, those familiar with the topic are aware of the meaning of the different divisions but the layperson who just might be more of a user of articles would be left with a better understanding instead of division being described as a division?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see an argument for explaining those terms at Glossary of association football terms (although they're not exclusive to football), but they don't seem to be used in this article, so why bother explaining them? – PeeJay 11:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
So are you saying that because they are not in a particular article they should go unexplained particularly to the general reader that consults WP articles because it certainly is being used throughout football-related articles (search on "top flight + "football" = 7467 hits) so the terms are used within WP often and probably would be used far more to reduce the multitudes of "division" that appear in the same sentence. It seems the term may be more than a colloquial creation.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
No he's saying that they're not described in this article. This talk page is here so that we can discuss changes to this article. If you want to suggest changes to multiple articles then you should really post somewhere that would be relavent to them, maybe a noticeboard with many watchers like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.
Never assume that what you know is known by everyone else especially for the newbies and the complicated procedures and explanations in the help section, etc. But if it is at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football then that is were it should go. So, what is the WP recognized procedure to get it there?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
There isn't a "recognised procedure", you just post a thread there just like you did here. – PeeJay 19:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Phaninda, Episkirus and Harpastum are more rugby than soccer if not entirely. These three games are most closely related to rugby football, North American football and wrestling, more distant than anything you'd recognise as soccer, according to this link for example https://books.google.com/books?id=IGy_QNv-J4oC&pg=PT32&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false . Maybe all these can be placed under the category football of which rugby football is part, but only for soccer it seems that only Cuju is suitable as this is the first recognized form of soccer by FIFA, now it is said that Phaninda is in the article. In fact Phaninda is an earlier form but unrecognised by FIFA and widely recognised as rugby, the statement considering Phaninda as such needs to be changed. Furthermore FIFA denies that modern football derives from these. For these reasons, I am going to move Phaninda, Episkitus and Harpastum to rugby football. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelosbrain (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said in my earlier edit summary, they may all more closely resemble modern rugby, but rugby itself is derived from the same root as soccer, i.e. mob football. Mob football, by extension, has its roots in the games of harpastum, phaninda and episkirus, therefore it is not beyond the realms of reality to say that those three are ancestors of modern soccer as well as rugby. – PeeJay 08:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add another paragraph under Players, equipment, and officials: Rules may vary depending on the level of play. For example, teams may consist of 7, 9, or 11 players depending on level of play, or size of field. Also, the size of the field may vary depending on level of play, or whether the game is indoor or outdoor. Also, there may be less than 3 referees depending on the level of play.
Also, the hardness and the size of the ball will vary depending on whether is it used in a youth, collegiate, or professional game. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Good suggestion, but the paragraph needs some work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Sam SailorTalk! 10:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)