Talk:The Football Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rules[edit]

"Central to the creation of the Football Association and modern football was Ebenezer Cobb Morley. He was a founding member of the Football Association in 1862. In 1863, as captain of the Mortlake-based club, he wrote to Bell's Life newspaper proposing a governing body for the sport that led to the first meeting at the Freemason's Tavern that created the FA. He was the FA's first secretary (1863-66) and its second president (1867-74) and drafted the Laws of football that determine the way the game is played internationally today at his home in Barnes, London. As a player, he played in the first ever match in 1863. He is, therefore, considered the father of Association Football."

This is incorrect. The Sheffield Association and the London Association (later to be the FA) argued about the rule for a number of years, playing games under Sheffield Rules, London Rules and Mixed Rules until April 1877 when finally a new set of rules (including a number of Sheffield Rules) were finally accepted to be principal laws of Football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storem (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Source[edit]

What is the source for a game being played on Dec 19 1863? I know that the first proper game was played in Battersa Park in Jan 1864, but I seem to remember reading that a kick-about game was played shortly after the foumation of the rules on Dec 8, but I've not been able to find more info. Jooler 14:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Official History of The Football Association ISBN 0356191451 Bornintheguz 00:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have that, I checked that out after posting here which is why I subsequently changed what I had written in the article. So I know that the book only briefly mentions the Barnes, Richmond game; but I also have "History of the Football Association", Naldrett Press, pub 1954, edited by Geoffrey Green (too old for an ISBN, check out AbeBooks). This has the minutes of the meetings of the FA in the Freemasons' Tavern. It notes that at the end of the final meeting the board proposed to play a friendly match in Battersea Park on Jan 2 1864. Elsewhere (and I can't remember where) I have read that members of the committee were very keen to try out the new rules before the first "official game" and so they played this game (as I said not much more than a kick-about with jumpers for goalposts probably) in Mortlake on Dec 19 1863. The Battersea Park game was obviously delayed because it actually took place on January 9 1864. See [1] Jooler 08:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC) - Of course there is always the possibility that this source is in error, for instance this site (amongst many others) list 13 laws for the original Laws of the Game, but this book and FIFA and the FA show 14 laws with slightly different wording. Jooler 09:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have it now in The Code Book ISBN 1874427658. However here it says that the Battersea Park game was scheduled for Jan 9 1863, (but the minutes in the other book definitely says Jan 2). Of the Mortlake game it says "Unable to wait that long to see the new rules in action Ebenezer Moreley arranged for his own club Barnes to meet their near neighbours Richmond at Mortlake on Saturday 19th December. By a strange twist of fate one of the teams to take part in the first match under FA rules had not even bothered to enrol! Although the match ended in a goalless draw play had proceeded smoothly. A watching correspondent from "The Field" was led to conclude that:- "The rules being so simple and easy of observance that it was difficult for disputes to arise.". the FA rules of play had passed their first public test. Three weeks later [Jan 9 1864] the FA staged their exhibition match, contested fourteen per side, between teams selected by the Secretary and the President without the involvement of a single Blackheath player. Disdainful of the FA proceedings of Battersea Park Blackheath travelled to meet Richmond FC on Richmond Green. That match played twenty five-per-side proved more agreeable to the Richmond membership than the FA code and proved to be the first encounter in a series which continues to the present day. " - This text makes it sound like the Richmond/Blackheath game was played on the same day or after the Battersea Park game, but most sources say that the game was played on January 2. Jooler 09:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Please also see Talk:The Football League, also listed for moving.

The Football Association → Football Association - use of "The" in titles is generally avoided, for organisations. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Against. The is part of the name and the current title follows the Naming_conventions Bornintheguz 16:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The is part of the official name. Jooler
  • Oppose. (see below) mbr25 17:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the official name of the organisation. – AxSkov (☏) 05:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree completely with sjorford. Proteus (Talk) 13:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Fully agree with mbr25's reasoning below. -- Arwel 14:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh gods, not again. Oppose. James F. (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Sjorford. Qwghlm 08:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support We can't be changing for every rebranding they do. josh 11:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Rule of thumb. I don't think many people would capitalise it in running text. CTOAGN 11:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on the contrary it is capitalised in running text. the wub "?/!" 13:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - see everyone else's comments below - Master Of Ninja 20:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "The" is part of the official name. - Pal 21:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "The" is part of the name, just like it is for The Beatles and The Body Shop. Surely you would not suggest the Fab Four need moving. Rje 23:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • My name's Ben and I'm from Opposeville, USA. Ben davison 21:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Capitalised 'The' is not commonly used in running text; it's also abbreviated FA, not TFA, even on their own website. -- Necrothesp 14:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 07:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

Reasons:

  • WP standard is generally not to use "The" for names of organisations such as this one
No it isn't see Naming_conventions Bornintheguz 17:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easier to link to Football Association in the middle of a sentence (yes, I know there's a redirect, but it's nice not to link directly to redirects, or to have to pipe the link)
I 'think' that in 99% of cases 'the' will be in front so this makes very little difference Bornintheguz 17:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that this article should remain as 'The Football Association' is that this is its official title. Every usage of 'The FA' on its own official website uses the capitalised indefinite article, including in such usages as 'The FA Premier League', when in the middle of a sentence. The 'The' in the title helps distinguish the article as being about 'The FA' of English football, rather than about what a football association is. mbr25 17:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The use of 'The' in the official title is not good enough reason - e.g. WP uses White House rather than The White House - virtually every organisation that would normally have a 'The' before it does not have the definite article in its WP title (e.g. Labour Party, Royal Mail, University of Oxford). If you want to differentiate between the FA and football associations in general, then you can just use capitalisation: Football Association v. Football association illustrates the distinction well enough.
As explained in naming convensions the White House is named as such because 'the' is not part of the name. The Football Association is used as an example of when you do use 'The'. josh 11:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[2] plainly shows that the White House uses the definite article in an official capacity. Qwghlm 11:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
However, they stop using the definite article within normal text [3]. Something The FA go to great pains to avoid doing[4] (shame they don't extend the same curtoisy to The Football League).
The Football League isn't any better [5]. If they can't sort out what their going to call each other what chance have we got. josh 12:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even the FA's website don't always use the 'The' [6] [7] [8], and nor do the major press. That White House link you supply uses the term both with and without the 'the', in the body text. The point is, that it is not a universal rule, unlike e.g. The Hague, which is always preceded with a capitalised 'The' by whoever refers to it. You admit yourself the rule isn't universal, when you say that the different organisations can't sort out what they call each other. The best option, thus, is to defer to the Manual of Style, which states: even if the subject of the page is usually preceded by the definite article "the" in speech or writing. The key word there is usually – if the FA were always referred to with a capitalised "The", then that title would be correct. But it isn't always used, and so it isn't correct. Qwghlm 14:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
FWIW I prefer Football Association as it makes wikification simpler; including the 'the' in the wikified link looks ugly ("...as the Football Association had said..." v. "...as the Football Association 1]]had said...") and is not done with wikilinks involving other organisations which are used with a definite article. I would speculate the only reason why the FA uses 'The' so much on its website is because http://www.thefa.com was available while http://www.fa.com was not. Qwghlm 08:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
You are supposing that the FA tried to get www.fa.com and couldn;t afford to buy it. Highly suspicious. Jooler 22:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ommitting "The" would probably lead to calls for this to be moved to "Football Association of England" or "Football Association (England)" or similar, but this is all wrong. There is only one "The Football Association" all others took their name from the original organization and added a qualification. "The Footbal Association" have primacy, just like The Times has primacy over the LA Times or the NYT. Jooler 13:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the FA has primacy, which means that it is entitled to have the page Football Association all to itself. Whether a "The" is there or not is irrelevant. No other organisation calls itself Football Association alone, so there would be no need for disambiguation. Qwghlm 14:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Found this snippet of info. They'll probably drop the 'The' bit in a couple of years after they get bored of it. If we have to restructure the entire page and all it's links every time the FA feels like an image change it's going to get stupid. Instead we could use something like
The Football Assocication (Officially rebranded The Football Association in 2001)
It's called the FA for the same reason the Open doesn't need 'British' before it because it got there first. josh 14:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the minutes of its first meeting .. now form themselves into an Association to be called "The Football Association" Bornintheguz 14:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...The FA's articles of association (PDF) specify its full name to be The Football Association Limited (as it has been a limited company since 1903), but the article title does not include the "Limited". The official name is not the most relevant detail; it is how the FA is referred to in day-to-day life, and the WP rules on nomenclature, which are more pertinent. Qwghlm 16:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Well it is virtually always referred to as THE FA. Jooler 22:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Scottish Football Association and the Football Association of Wales are nearly always used with a "the" in front (and no-one here is suggesting we add it to their titles). The point is that although "the" is nearly always used, you can still take it away and it doesn't change the meaning. Uses without the "the" are possible and understandable - e.g. "Football Association chairman" or "Football Association regulations". Qwghlm 08:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
But they (the Socttish and Welsh associations) do not have the definite article as part of their name. The FA uses "THE" as part of their name (and have done since the very first meeting 142 years ago) and they are commonly referred to as The FA. Jooler 19:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually both the SFA [9] and the FAW [10] have the word "The" officially part of the name, as described in their articles of association. But we do not include the "The". Nor should we. Wikipedia has its own naming conventions, and does not slavishly follow awkward official designations, but instead follows common usage. The rule of thumb in the relevant naming conventions states:
If the definite or indefinite article article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name.
This is not the case with the Football Association, certainly not outside their own website (and as noted above, that is merely part of a branding scheme). No major news website or newspaper capitalises the "the" in running text (as a quick Google will show: [11] [12] [13] [14]) and I'm pretty sure that's the norm here too. So why should Wikipedia break the rule in this case? Qwghlm 20:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
This is a manual of style exception. The FA is specifically cited on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name)#Official_names The FA should be capitalised in running text. What better authority in this particular case than FIFA? [15], [16],[17],[18],[19] (also as The F.A. [20], [21],[22],[23]) -sometimes writers do not adhere to this rule as you find when people write "the Hague", but it is the correct rule in this case. Jooler 06:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That exception seems entirely arbitrary (no rationale is given for it, either here or in the MoS discussion page) - after all, anyone could insert it into that list. Those FIFA pages also capitalise the "The" for the SFA, FAW and IFA, yet they remain without a definite article. And as I affirm, official titles should be subservient to common usage, and any glance at any newspaper, book, or website will show that the FA and all other associations are referred to, without exception used with a lower-case "the". Since the move is not going to take place, there's no point continuing this discussion, but I still contend that the current name is inconsistent and breaks WP guidelines. Qwghlm 10:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the exception is definitely arbitrary and irrational. The BBC uses lower case in running text when referring to 'the Football Association', as does The Times, the British newspaper of record. -- Necrothesp 16:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer clarification[edit]

This article should clarify that the association deals with soccer and not real football. It is quite confusing. Rmisiak 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go down that path. For 95% of the world's population "soccer" is real football. -- Arwel (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style states that articles pertaining to a particular English-speaking country should adopt the variety of English spoken in that country. Since it is plain from the very start that this article is to do with a British organisation, British English should be used, and in British English the word "football" on its own virtually always refers to association football. Thus, no clarification is needed. Qwghlm 11:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer is the older game and as was said if you go to the majority of countries and say "football" they wont be thinking of american football they will think of this version. Skitzouk 11:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President[edit]

Would someone explain why Wills is listed in 'inivsible text' as 'president desginate'? Surely he is just president, and should replace the duke of york in the infobox? Robdurbar 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew doesn't stop being president, and Wills take over, until after the FA Cup Final. -- Arwel (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move to Football Association[edit]

See WP:THE. Football Association is a redirect here. Any objections? Kickstarting this after a three-year wait to see if there's any change in consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical conservatism[edit]

I was a bit surprised that this article didn't have more on the historical conservatism of the FA. A number of their earlier decisions look bizarre in light of later developments, and probably fairly call for comment. I was thinking particularly of:

  • resistance to televising live games
  • refusal to allow national team to enter the earlier incarnations of the World Cup
  • refusal to allow national team to enter early incarnations of the European Championship
  • refusal to allow clubs to participate in the European Cup

There are probably others, but those on their own look very parochial and introverted looking back. Does someone with more expertise than me want to take up the baton?
--Legis (talk - contribs) 17:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the effective ban on women's football from 1922 to 1962 either. (20040302 (talk))

FA's role (if any)[edit]

In the intro, the text says: "The Football Association, also known as simply The FA, is a governing body of association football in England..." almost immediately followed by: "The Football League... is self-governing"

I think the article would be improved if it made the position clear. For example, the FIFA article has an excellent piece on its statutory composition and role. This seems lacking here. Kayman1uk (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main board is out of date[edit]

The latest board of directors is here: http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/WhoWeAre/TheOrganisation/Player/TheDecisionMakers


At the time of writing that includes: Alex Horne (FA General Secretary) Mervyn Leggett (n) Michael Game (n) Phil Gartside (p) David Gill (p) Roger Burden (n) (Acting Chairman) Anthony Kleanthous (f) Sir David Richards (Vice Chairman) (p) John Ward (n) David Sheepshanks (f) Barry Bright (Vice Chairman) (n)

n - National Game representative p - Premier League representative f - Football League representative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotofritz (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

chairman[edit]

The table of office holders had at least one spurious entry (the current chairman was incorrect, according to TheFA.com and wikipedia's article on Bernstein). I have fixed this, but it leads me to doubt the rest of the table. Months should probably be added if known too. (This is public wifi, please don't leave a message) 129.88.67.103 (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism[edit]

This article has been vandalised. It has not been corrected. The FA is referred to as inept!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.87.22 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just spent several minutes trying to find a viable means of electronic contact without success. (I do not have a FAN number etc); and various of the pages have not been updated in several years. (Trying to get information for London Wikia). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4 documentary and Sunday Times article: "FA accused of hiding drug tests on players"[edit]

  • "... the names of players who have tested positive for cocaine are to be broadcast in a Dispatches documentary on Channel 4. The FA and the clubs are required to name the players only if they test positive on match day. In the programme, to be aired tomorrow, David Howman, head of the World Anti Doping Agency, criticises the FA for failing to disclose how many Premier League players are tested and how many routine tests take place after league matches... The programme reports that on 240 occasions between April 2007 and August 2010 testers turned up at the training grounds of some of England’s 92 professional clubs to find that players were not there. The clubs included Manchester City, Liverpool, Fulham, Everton, Newcastle, Swansea and Crystal Palace... Richard Sadlier, a former Ireland international, says on the programme that he believes he took a banned supplement for the entire 2001-2 season, in which he scored a career best of 17 goals for Millwall. He was tested only once in his seven-year career. Peter Kay, chief executive of the Sporting Chance addiction clinic, says he knows several players who have used steroids and has treated one who was addicted but who never tested positive... Of 700 professional footballers who responded to a survey, 28% said they had not been drug tested in the past two years. They included 11 Premier League players... It is understood that the England players who were found to have suspicious levels of testosterone had been tested in the past decade."

Nicholas Hellen, Sunday Times, 11 September 2011
--Mais oui! (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question About The Lead In At The Top[edit]

It says the FA controls all aspects of football in the UK , both amateur and professional, I would like to know that if I hypotheticaly set up a football team that the FA would have a say. If it does not (as I suspect), then I think the wording is not quite right. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.167.234 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents[edit]

In the (unreferenced) Presidents section, the royals are listed by their name in cases in which a surname is needed, i.e. William Wales. However, the navbox for them lists them as their titles, i.e. HRH The Duke of Cambridge. Which is correct? '''tAD''' (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting FA Cup[edit]

Dear Sir, I would like to ask if there are differences to common laws of the game regarding substituting? Thank you in advance! --213.225.5.125 (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Number of clubs in the F.A. - and transfers?[edit]

Dear Sir: Is there recorded how many clubs are members in the F.A. ? - How many clubs there are only in England, how many in London? - Addition question: How many Referees there are? - Another question: When can players (amateurs) of low leagues in the F.A. transfer to another club? Thank you! --213.225.5.125 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Tables[edit]

Dear Sir, is there information available about reglements for the tables (rankings): Which indications are responsible if there are more teams on same lavel of points, and/or regarding team which me be punished with a 0-3 ? (are there differences between Premiere League and lower leagues ?). Thanks in advance. --213.225.38.186 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal[edit]

It was indeed the FA which invented modern football, some 150 years ago. Is really the chapter "UK football sexual abuse scandal" important enough for the long historical scope which this article ought to cover ? Couldn't it be an article outside of this ? I mean scandals are rarely important in historical examinations in general. Had this "story" occurred during the 1960's or in the 1890's - had it not been covered in this article, I presume. Having said that am I not aware of its magnitude, but I believe my reasoning holds. It's in the article just because it's a rather new matter. Hence I propose to move all of it to the main article of that story. Boeing720 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boeing720. The United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal is already included in a much longer separate article, linked from this article. It is a new matter in the sense that it has gained coverage in reliable sources since November 2016 - however, the allegations stretch back to the 1970s, and I think five decades gives it magnitude. I think the FA article should therefore continue to retain a summary of the pertinent information. Paul W (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And Crystal Palace and Wanderers have been refounded."[edit]

What? They have not been "refounded." They ceased to be clubs. There is a later club which calls itself "Crystal Palace" and another which calls itself "Wanderers" but neither of these has any links with the original clubs apart from using their name. 82.4.204.139 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC) The FA recently changed their crest. I tried to upload it to Wikipedia, but it would not allow it.[reply]

West Ham Disallowed goal against Chelsea[edit]

The decision to disallow the West Ham equalizer has got to rank up there with Maradona hand ball goal against England as the absolute worst decision ever no matter which way you look at it. The result should be returned to the justified draw. Mark Tattershall Kissimmee Florida 2603:9001:7003:18C2:74FF:E96E:A287:C417 (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

England FA, not just FA?[edit]

Shouldn't it be named "England football association" when all the other countries' associations are forced to have their country's name in front? 188.113.95.213 (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Football_Association&oldid=1205635800"