From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Europe (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Football (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


, but if Turkey aren't a "European" nation, surely Russia should also be added to this parenthasis seeing as only a part of each of these nations lies in Europe. Comments? - 01:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --fvw* 01:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Both Turkey and Cyprus are in Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:34, 8 May 2006
Turkey is not in europe, neither is most of russia, or israel, however, they are all in UEFA, so what does it matter. And what did he mean by "sorry to be anal?", infact, what did he mean overall, what was he on about!? Philc TECI 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rangers FC[edit]

Why oh why did UEFA decide to punish Rangers FC when the "problems" are political surely to goodness the fine should be for the British/Scottish government as since time immemorial the indigenous population of Scotland has been let down. I urge all Rangers fans to e mail their MEP and the european parliament to fine the UK government because of generations of inaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:36, 27 May 2006

Sam Allardyce has also advocated that the British Government should exist with the purpose of maintaining Britain as a footballing nation. Suppose the Government would care for a such concept, what would be the future of the 4 or 5 different National teams that exist in the UK? If they are made to consolidate to one National team for Britain, how many of the young talents deserve a Diplomat Passport? If these consequenses may exist, the Scottish Parliament might want to counteract them. How much money is Hollyrood allowed to dump on the Scottish National team without being reprimanded by the Office of the Standard Audit? Maybe Wales should be allowed for twice as much relative to population number.

I would also question why the UEFA should pretend to be tough on British MP's, given FIFA last visited Russia. FIFA showed a map of Russia with the Crimea. Half a year before, FIFA was supposed to "investigate" claims about political stunts made by the Argentines. If the Argentines dare to pull of a similar stunt again, then the Argies are tougher than the rest (who respect FIFA or UEFAs authority).--Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Why Serbia and not Montenegro?[edit]

Why in the nations qualified to the world cup appears Serbia and not Montenegro if Serbia hasn't gone to the world cup by itself 01:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, Why is Serbia listed as a sole successor of former SFR Yugoslavia? If my memory serves me well, SFRY was constituted by 6 republics, not only Serbia... Serbia is a true successor of the FR Yugoslavia, which existed from 1992 until 2003, only! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:56, 22 August 2006
That's it, exactly the same problem with Russia and Czech Republic! Morkva 06:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
just gave a link to an official FIFA statistic where records are combined as stated in the note. It might be unfair, but since the FIFA holds this competition, they have the last word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:08, 5 February 2007
That's an odd statement. FIFA holds the last word over a list in the UEFA article at Wikipedia? Hardly. The list is POV. - BsL 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Because Serbia was the country calling the shots! ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xhandler (talkcontribs) 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
It is considered as Serbia because FIFA get the final say ove what countries take the history of one when it is split, because otherwise there would be some records missing, ie if Germany succeded East Germany, there would be 3 World cup winning teams 'missing' Chaza93 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If a country is missing then it's records are missing, too. Yugoslavian results belong to all it's republics. There is no way Serbia can be the sole successor. A country that doesn't exist cannot provide any records. It's factual and political nonsense. I just wanted to edit this but I saw the comment about it being FIFA's official stand, so I'm going to ask them about this. Wonder what they are going to say...paladin 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You cant have more than 1 country with the same history is basically the story of it Chaza1000 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your argument, but what we have now is that a nonexisting country seems to have provided results, which are, btw., mostly acieved by people who didn't have anything to do with it. UEFA falsifies sports history just to make it easy for itself. Why not let this 1 country be SFRYugoslavia and keep it the way it defined itself, a joint state of equal nations? Anyway, I sent a few e-mails and I'll post their explanation here. There is no point in using logic and having a discussion if UEFA's statistics is the only thing that counts here.paladin 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately UEFA dont have a choice, it is up to FIFA to make the decision, i have found a source to the argument on the fifa website -Serbia's FIFA Stats Montenegro's FIFA Stats Chaza1000 08:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Again Russia as well[edit]

As long as Wikipedia supposed to support neutrality, it is wrong to count all the USSR statistics to Russia. It would be terribly unjust in respect to other Soviet republics, and first of all UKRAINE !!! Morkva 06:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not un-neutral, Its how FIFA, UEFA and everybody see's it
It's because Russia is considered the legal succesor to the USSR, which is why they also have the USSR's seat in the Security Council. They've also inherited the USSR's debts and nukes. Check it out on the relevant wikipediapage. (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Turkey has geographic territory in Europe[edit]

Why is it that it is constantly being changed...TURKEY IS IN ASIA..accept it whoever you are... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:55, 4 October 2006

The "European" side of Turkey has a larger population than most European countries! Also, you can't use religion to justify your racism as Muslim Bosnians and Albanians are both nations near the heart of Europe and have both suffered greatly because of people like you. Greeks and Greek Cypriots both took part in and helped fund the Srebrenica massacre, the first act of genocide in Europe since the Nazi Holocaust.Waya 5 08:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow wow wow cry me a river there buddy...I never said anything about population or religion or genocides..where is that all comming from...its called LOOK AT A MAP!!!! 90% of turkey is in its almost an ALL ASIAN country!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:55, 4 October 2006
You will indeed be crying when you realise the futility of your argument. Again, you should look at a map and at the same time read the World Almanac 2006. Istanbul is more degrees longitude west than Russia. The European side of Turkey numbers in the millions and has a larger population than many European countries. Also, why are you ignoring Russia being nearly completely in Asia then? Again, you have no geographic, demographic or religous basis to make such a statement. Despite how bad you feel about it, Turkey will always be a member of UEFA.Waya 5 01:00, 4 September 2006

Europe is bounded to the north by the Arctic Ocean, to the west by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by the Mediterranean Sea, and – according to the traditional geographic definition – to the south-east by the waterways adjoining the Mediterranean to and including the Black Sea and the Caucasus Mountains (in Caucasia). Europe's eastern frontier is vague, but has traditionally been given as the divide of the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea to the south-east. The Urals are considered by most to be a geographical and tectonic landmark separating Asia from Europe

there you go...and why do you bring up religion?
Do you guys realize that you are arguing over an example, and one that's frankly of little or no importance to the article as a whole? Regardless of whether you think they qualify as an appropriate example or not, the fact is that Turkey doesn't NEED to be listed because there are already more than enough examples of such countries already given in that paragraph. Two or three is plenty, we don't have to come up with a comprehensive list. BTW, there's a separate wiki article that does a lovely job of defining and classifying transcontinental countries if either of you are interested. They basically say that Turkey is geographically Asian and politically/historically/culturally European, which is what I think both of you are arguing anyway except that you're each emphasizing one side (the side that favors your argument) and downplaying the other, when in fact both sides play an important role in how Turkey's national identity has evolved over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:11, 4 October 2006

Lets settle this, Turkey had the choice to join UEFA or the AFC, they chose UEFA so it was up to the Turkish FA Chaza93 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Turkey and Russia, which are transcontinental countries, and Georgia, which is a country in an ambiguous geographical position, should be given the choice to remain in UEFA, if they want so bad to be Europeans... But what I find really fucked up is to see Kazakhstan, Arzebaidjan, Armenia and Israel on UEFA. One can always argue these countries should be on UEFA because they have political issues with their neighbours but... Let's imagine if one actual European country couldn't go to the World Cup because it was disclassified after losing a match to Arzebaidjan, and Arzebaidjan goes to the Cup instead... It would sound quite unfair, wouldn't it? Same goes for Australia in AFC, wouldn't Japaneses or Chineses feel really angry if they lost their chance to go to the Cup because of Australia wining over them? I would assume Kurdistan will need to join the African Confederation because they will have issues with both Turkey (in UEFA) and Iraq (in AFC). See how much politics fuck everything up. If certain countries can't even host a soccer game without being able to avoid terrorism against the adversary, FIFA should feel free to write them off the board, instead of having to screw up the whole world geography because of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

disputed/contradiction section[edit]

NOTE: FIFA considers Germany to carry West Germany's record. The same goes for Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (not Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - SFRY); Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia; and Russia and the USSR. For purposes of these articles the latter three have been separated because they represent different peoples and areas.

The last sentence is not true and contradicts whats displayed in the section. Does any have any sources that confirm the continuity of FAs/world cup records as I think all of the team articles can be improved as well. // Laughing Man 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I at least removed the contradiction, but we still need sources for this section, so I left the disputed tag. // Laughing Man 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I dont know about a bit of argument, but what I love is how people utilise their time in things that most of us, see, stare, and then just leave it as is........ Best of Luck Guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:09, December 26, 2006 (UTC)
The West German DFB team is the same team like the German team today Yoda1893 14:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
i added a reference to a statistic from the official fifa homepage, it is not explicitly stated that the records are combined the way said in the note, however looking at the individual records you can see that they are. I hope that's sufficient. Since appearances are included in that table, it really should be enough, I'll remove the disputed tag now :) I also removed Montenegro due to the same source —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:08, 5 February 2007

Requested move[edit]

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 to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

UEFAUnion of European Football Associations — Parity with other continental governing bodies, which live at their official, expanded titles; page intro already leads with expanded title. DeLarge 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]

  1. Oppose. Contrary to the nomination at WP:Requested moves, many other articles are NOT at pages named for the spelled out acronym (see CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, FIFA), only those avoiding disambiguation. WP:Naming conventions says "Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form." Googling "UEFA" = 55.3 million hits, googling "Union of European Football Associations" = 47,400. I'd say this meets those criteria --DeLarge 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- UEFA is more common =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per DeLarge. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 18:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
  4. Oppose: "almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation". Archibald99  18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. OpposeDeLarge's argument is convincing. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per WP:NCA (thus per DeLarge). – Elisson • T • C • 18:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose — Let me add that the English acronym "UEFA" is truly universal, in that it's used in all the other languages, including French. This is significant because, for example, the UN is ONU in French, but the UEFA is always UEFA. Nobody ever uses the full name in common usage.--Endroit 12:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Per Above Chaza93 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


That was the point. The reason given for reverting these moves was that the expanded versions are only expanded because the short versions are ambiguous. But if all the pages can live at the expanded versions, why not expand them all? Chris Cunningham 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Either entirely expanded or entirely abbreviated. That's why I have doubts on my "vote". Parutakupiu talk || contribs 17:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Like many other international sporting bodies, isn't the acronym a shortened form of a French name? If it is, that would make the proposed title a backronym. Chris cheese whine 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.


Can we shrink these at all? I'm seeing about 3 screenfuls. Either that, or use the show/hide mechanism, perhaps. Chris cheese whine 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

William Gaillard[edit]

Would a link on the UEFA page be relevant, given that Gaillard would be the figure that is most commonly seen and heard from, obviously along with Michel Platini. Londo06 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


You-ee-fah? Some people pronounce UEFA that way Londo06 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"UEFA Elite stadium specification"[edit]

Does anybody know what this is, to write an article about it? It is referenced at Stadium:mk, the new stadium in Milton Keynes (and on its own website). --Concrete Cowboy 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they mean the UEFA Stadia List? StuartFreeloader 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradictionary Sentence?[edit]

"Of the 32 available spots in the 2006 FIFA World Cup, 14 were allocated to UEFA national teams, and currently 15 of the top 20 teams in the FIFA World Rankings are UEFA members."

If there are 14 UEFA teams, how can there be 15 top teams from UEFA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:45, 17 November 2007

What is contradictory about it? 14 spots out of 32 in the World Cup were allocated to UEFA teams, while 15 of the top 20 in the FIFA rankings are UEFA members. It doesn't say there are only 14 UEFA teams, in fact there are 53 in total. - MTC (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


I am going to be bold and remove these, half the numbers are missing. Whilst FIFA supplies UEFA rankings. These are on the FIFA page, and aren't really needed here. F9T 16:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Is it me or is the opening sentence of this article non-sense? It reads "The Union des associations européennes de football, or Union of European Football Associations in English". The article is about the UEFA not about the UAEF. Am I missing something? Acronyms are, well, acronyms! So can we correct the opening anglophobic reversal of reality please? LookingGlass (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

'== Club Competitions =='Bold text

The article says this: "Only three teams [1] (Juventus FC, AFC Ajax and FC Bayern Munich) have won each of the three competitions [1], a feat that is no longer possible for any team that did not win the Cup Winners' Cup. There are currently ten teams throughout Europe that have won two of the three trophies; all have won the Cup Winners Cup, six require a win in the Champions League and four require a UEFA Cup win."

Either I'm not reading it as it's meant to be read, or there is an error. Liverpool FC has won both the Champions League and the UEFA Cup, but not the Cup Winners Cup. i.e. they have won two of the three trophies, but have not won the Cup Winners Cup. --Ftumch (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You have misread it - Liverpool are unable to win the Cup Winners' Cup, since it was discontinued after 1999. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel is not in Europe[edit]

I would like to raise attention to the fact that Israel is not in Europe. It is in the Middle East, which is part of Asia. They should not be members of UEFA, nor should they consider themselves part of Europe (for the basis of performing in the Eurovision Song Contest). Can anyone explain to me why they are part of UEFA? I know that this talk page won't lead to them being kicked out, but I would like it if someone could explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea. They are right next to Europe though, so I suppose their membership of UEFA is reasonable. It may be because the other association is not as popular, or competing in a European competition gets more money. Whatever. DeMoN2008 08:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, or maybe - just maybe - it's becasue half the teams in Asia (ie all the other middle-eastern teams) refuse to play against Israel. They even played in the OFC for a while because a bunch of fanatics can't distinguish between sports and politics/religion. (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
A few points, first off the reason Israel don't compete in Asia is because a number of Middle Eastern countries refuse to play against them. Secondly entering Eurovision is nothing to do with being "European" as all the countries in the Maghreb and Levant are eligible due to them being members of the European Broadcasting Union. Morocco have competed in the past. The reason they don't compete is again because of Israel. Thirdly this isn't a forum.

Ok, thanks for the answer.

Results of Yugoslavia[edit]

Why the results of Yugoslavia are only computed for Serbia? -- (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


If Czech Republic carries Czechoslovakia's record, the same should be done for Slovakia. Indeed, FIFA does it as can be noted on its website:

Reference n.4 is a broken link. WTer (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, but something will be done wiki-wide since every article right now only recognizes Czechia as successor. I'll post on WP:FOOTY chandler ··· 00:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Why the dooooche is Argentina in the "UEFA clubs in the WC" and down as never having won it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

English translation of UEFA[edit]

Surely the English translation of l'Union Européenne de Football Association is "European Union of Association Football"? The article uses "Union of European Football Associations". Can we have a citation for this? Mooretwin (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Mooretwin (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not called l'Union Européenne de Football Association in French, rather Union des associations européennes de football. The acronym UEFA comes from the English as a quick click on their website will confirm. Valenciano (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The article said l'Union Européenne de Football Association is "European Union of Association Football" when I posted the question. Mooretwin (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs rephrasing[edit]

First of all, what is up with sentence involving exclusively Cyprus? Why does it not have any supporting documents in that regard? Second of all, if you list so many nations why were the Russian Federation and Turkey omitted? That makes like no sense at all. Aren't those countries in Asia either? Kazakhstan apparently marginally in Europe by geographic definition, so are Georgia and Azerbaijan as some of they territories lay at the northern foothills of the Caucasian mountains. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a pickle: Borders of the continents. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My proposition is instead of pointlessly list countries, portraying ones unmeasurable knowledge in geography, simply state that "Several national football associations countries of which are located on the border between Asia and Europe such as Kazakhstan, Cyprus, and others have chosen to join the European football community. The latest addition of the UEFA, Kazakhstan, joined the Union in 2002 (or whenever) by surrendering their Asian membership on the grounds of participating in the Soviet Top League or whatever." Of course, it does not have to be exactly that way, but this way it is less confusing. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The other subsequent sentences of the article is also bunch of gay B/S. I do not understand how it passes the WP:PEACOCK issue. Several sentences do not even carry any valuable meanings. UEFA is undoubtedly the best established football organization, but adding so many epithets will not make it any better than it actually is. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Faroe Islands is the only member of UEFA, which is not a sovereign state[edit]

England, Wales, Scoland and the Irish FA (Northern Ireland) are also not sovereign states. They are constituent parts of the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

UEFAUnion of European Football Associations – Per the move of ASEAN. It should not be acronym. Il223334234 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Please explain why it shouldn't be acronym. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. Are you referring to WP:ACRONYMTITLE? What makes "UEFA" different from "NASA" then? Barocci (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per unanimous opposition to move of FIFA, especially David Levy's extract from WP:ACRONYMTITLE, "an acronym or initialism should be used in a page name if the subject is almost exclusively known by its acronym or is widely known and used in that form (e.g. NASA and radar)." Note:
33 Google News hits for "Union of European Football Associations"
17,200 Google News hits for "UEFA"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes Goodyear (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose. Agree with Hobbes Goodyear that this is similar to FIFA in that it almost always known by its acronym. Jenks24 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

File:Uefa logo since 2007.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Uefa logo since 2007.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Uefa logo since 2007.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

what's with the "citation needed" in the World Cup table?[edit]

Sometime's Wikipedia's bots just make Wikipedia look ridiculous. Can anyone think of a valid reason to have "citation needed" after the team names in the World Cup participation (Mens) table? There doesn't seem to be anything in that column that could be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6030:44:1B6:90A5:EC7A:E5A6 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll explain what happened here. It seems that this table was copied from another article. Originally there were tags in the table that looked like this <ref name="Yugoslavia" />. Those were links to footnotes explaining the situation when a country has become independent, or when their football team has been succeeded by that of another country. But this article didn't have a <ref> tag named "Yugoslavia". So there were errors in the footnote section. To get rid of the errors, someone replaced all of those named tags with {{citation needed}}. To get rid of those, I added footnotes for teams with successor teams. For the newly independent teams, I just deleted the {{citation needed}} tags, because that seems self explanatory. --Margin1522 (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs more information about UEFA[edit]

This article has a lot of good information about UEFA members, but not so much about the organization itself. I think it could be improved by describing the history of its founding, the relationship with FIFA, its role in organizing European championships, relationship with clubs (often seen as a spokesman for the clubs vs. FIFA), and its role in controlling advertising revenues, etc. There are good sources about UEFA and the business of football on Google Books. A history of football in Europe should have a lot of information about UEFA. --Margin1522 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

list of current titel holders[edit]

concacaf has a list of all current title holders of all the concacaf competitions. maybe that could be added, including the champions league, europa league, euro, u21/u19/u17 euro, women's competitions, ... (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Serbia FA founding[edit]

From uefa site

   Founded: 1919
   UEFA affiliation: 1954
   FIFA affiliation: 1921

data from this site:

   Founded: 1948
   UEFA affiliation: 2006
   FIFA affiliation: 2006  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC) 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on UEFA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)