Talk:Football (word)/Archive 1

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



Etymology[edit]

Caspian wrote this:

"Football" (or "foot-ball") originally referred to a wide variety of games played in medieval Europe, which were played on foot — that is, by peasants — as opposed to the games played by horse-riding aristocrats. The name was used initially for any game played on foot, not just those that involved kicking a ball.

Sounds very interresting (and would also merit a mention in the football article), but rather unlikely. How many such horse-riding games were there? There must have been enough to merit such a separate name. I can only think of polo (well, maybe hunting). But the odd ting is that, football as we know it didn't exist in the middle ages. Why isn't, say, cricket called football then? Or is it that the forms of 'football' as we know them evolved from those varied version of peasant's games and cricket was invented (not evolved) much later? DirkvdM 09:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirk. There is nothing new about this etymology of "foot ball", there are many references to it on the web, e.g. this one from a US soccer referees' email list:

"Paul Gardner wrote in The Simplest Game
Soccer people like to claim that the word football should really be applied only to soccer. What else whould you call a game played with the feet and with a ball? Logical enough, but the argument is flawed. The word football came into use in England in the mid-fourteenth century to describe a game played not with the feet but on foot, in order to distinguish it from pastimes that were played on the horseback.'"[1]

Cricket is slightly more recent (probably medieval) than the football games, I think, especially if we bear in mind the alleged similiarities of some ancient Greek and Roman games to rugby, for instance. I'm not sure about the horseback games, although polo is actually very new unless you are from Pakistan, which is probably the only country where it was played until about 150 years ago. Grant65 (Talk) 12:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

But other European mounted sports such as jousting were around for a long time, so emphasising a sport on foot in not necessarily out of place. However as games like tennis were also played on foot... --Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting as well, from The Every-Day Book (1825-26) by William Hone:

FOOT-BALL.

This was, and remains, a game on Shrove Tuesday, in various parts of England.
Sir Frederick Morton Eden in the "Statistical account of Scotland," says that at the parish of Scone, county of Perth, every year on Shrove Tuesday the bachelors and married men drew themselves up at the cross of Scone, on opposite sides; a ball was then thrown up, and they played from two o'clock till sun-set. The game was this: he who at any time got the ball into his hands, run with it till overtaken by one of the opposite part; and then, if he could shake himself loose from those on the opposite side who seized him, he run on; if not, he threw the ball from him, unless it was wrested from him by the other party, but no person was allowed to kick it. The object of the married men was to hang it, that is, to put it three times into a small hole in the moor, which was the dool or limit on the one hand: that of the bachelors was to drown it, or dip it three times in a deep place in the river, the limit on the other: the party who could effect either of these objects won the game; if neither won, the ball was cut into equal parts at sun-set.[2]
(Emphasis added.) Grant65 (Talk) 14:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This explanation is supported by the fact that the word football has always implied a variety of wide games played on foot, not just those that involved kicking a ball. In fact, in some cases, the word has been applied to games which involved carrying a ball and specifically banned kicking.

If the theory that is is a game played on foot with a ball what about tennis, golf, hockey and cricket, which are all derived from older games involving hitting something with a stick. Hurling is defiantly a very old game played on foot. Why are they not called football? I have nothing against the idea that football means playing a game on foot, but the emphasis placed on this theory in this section seems to me like original research of the type one often finds in Wikipedia. I think this section should follow the OED for the Etymology, or it discredits Wikipedia. "First catch you hare", does anyone have access to the OED? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1. The "on foot" theory is one that I've heard many times over the years and it can be found in anecdotal form in many places on the web. I don't see how it can be regarded as original research! 2. To argue that other games would also justify the name "football" is a straw man; the fact is, many older varieties of football which did not revolve around kicking a ball (or even banned kicking) have long been called football, such as the Scone game referenced above. How else would one explain the naming of such games? Grant65 | Talk 17:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they straw men? Just because there was the odd game which was called football, where no foot struck the ball does not mean that the modern game of football is derived from them. AFAICT all modern version of football allow the foot to make contact with the ball without it being an automatic foul as it is in hockey. Much better that this article uses the OED as a reference on the etymology of the word, that is after all what the OED does best and does far better than Wikipedia. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The modern codes weren't around when the word emerged, so they are irrelevant to this issue. I'll ask the question again: how do you explain the naming of medieval/folk/traditional games called "football" which banned kicking? Other than than by reference to the fact that they were played "on foot"? Grant65 | Talk 19:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to, as I said I think this etymology should be based on the OED. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to, but the logic is inescapable. Grant65 | Talk 23:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you see my pov on the OED ;-) --Philip Baird Shearer 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can always see your POV, Philip, even when I don't agree with it :-) The OED is the best dictionary there is, but it is not an encyclopedia and it is not the final word on etymology. Grant65 | Talk 12:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

I can't see the attempts to use the word football to mean soccer catching on in Oz. There was an article on Fox about the opening round of the A-League, specifically the game at Lang Park, where the 20,000 odd crowd was descibed as "the largest ever attendance for a domestic football match in Australia". Even in context that causes a double-take, without context it's just nonsense. --Paul 12:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true, but it's irrelevant to this article what may or may not happen to usage in the future.Mralph72 23:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Australia is an embarrassing mess. We should hang our heads in shame at displaying to the world the fact that we get sooooo parochial about the use of a simple word. We start off saying Australians can be split into five groups (broadly agree) and then there are five little diatribes which often don't follow from this original statement. If I try to make an edit that DOES follow (eg that one of those groups is the people who follow soccer closely and who call that sport football) it gets edited out. Why? I can only assume because some people want to deny this reality because it doesn't fit with their vision of how the word OUGHT to be used. Pathetic. Mralph72 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good, arbitrary way of differentiating the names of codes would be the way schools do it. In my school (and I assume most others) you could join the rugby league team, rugby union team, Aussie rules team or soccer team. There was no football team. I think 'football' and 'footy' are nothing more than colloquialisms in Australia. Perhaps this article should reflect that.--Jeff79 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer AM[edit]

If UK football fans hate the word soccer, what about Soccer AM on Sky Sports? I would expect info on that article about how controversial or deliberately ironic the name was, reflective of the Americanized format of the show, the dumbing down of tv, etc. Somebody fix one or other please! Joestynes 13:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The name Soccer AM is indicative of Sky's parent company (News Corp) more than usage of the word in the UK, to say the word soccer is frowned apon in the UK is an understatement in all fairness. Beside, Football AM doesn't sound quite right, maybe that's the reason for the choice of name? The show isn't Americanised at all, quite the opposite. I'm sure you'd have to hear from the producers of the show to find out the reasons for it's naming scheme. streaky 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't buy the idea that Football AM doesn't "sound right" or that it has anything to do with News Corp. I think it's just an example of branding/marketing. I lived in London in 1991-92 and I even heard BBC announcers say "soccer" occasionally. I still have many English friends and I can safely say that soccer is universally understood as a synonym for "football" in the UK and is not "frowned upon". Grant65 | Talk 03:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's frowned apon by "true fans", London doesn't have many of those ;) - yes soccer is understood to mean football, but real football fans don't call football soccer, it's usually a derogatory term used by people that hate the game and our continental 'friends' streaky 06:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is correct. Soccer is a term that is generally disliked in the UK though is used by, for example, rugby league fans.GordyB 03:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soccer is used from time to time in Britain, but the main difference between its use in Britain and Australia or America is that in Britain it is firmly considered a slang term, much like calling the game footie or like calling the rugby code rugger. Also its use was very much more prevalent among the middle classes and the south of the country and almost unheard of in working class areas or in the North of England or Scotland. Jooler 01:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite true. Working class Northerners often follow rugby league and hence do use the term 'soccer'.GordyB


Gordy- rugby is virtually alien to the north. We only have the one team of note (well...maybe Leeds could count too) which only became prominent in the area after the Hall take over. We call football football and rugby rugby.
For usage of soccer in Britain...It generally depends where it comes from.

I'll agree that amongst the working classes it is a bad term seen as a horrible American influence (which it usually is) and generally disliked. Amongst the middle and upper classes though it has the old public school connections like rugger so is somewhat acceptable.--Josquius 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? Do you not make a distinction between rugby union and rugby league? What about this link BBC League Results which lists lots of Rugy League teams north of the Trent, (and north of the Tweed they play Union See Category:Scottish rugby union teams)! --Philip Baird Shearer 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We is the north. And yes there is a league/union distinction but its pretty obvious with the words league/union added onto the end of rugby.

I am only speaking of big professional teams here- of course there are minor leagues. There are probally leagues for all sorts of weird sports all around the country, the point is its not a big deal in general.--Josquius 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union is fairly alien to much of the North but Sale Sharks are pretty notable, just most people have never heard of 'Sale'. There are countless minor rugby union teams throughout the North, I don't think you could find a town that didn't have at least one union team.
I think only really the North East, Sheffield and Liverpool are so firmly in the round ball camp that rugby of either code is not a big deal21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Newcastle Falcons in the North-East, rugby union is alot more popular in Yorkshire than people imagine, rugby league was a fairly big thing within Liverpool many years back. Londo06 08:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

Is funny to see that as a result of this article we can learn that because north america, a region without any FIFA history having won nothing we have all the wikipedia spread with the word soccer instead of football when they simply could get another name for their american (or whatever) football

Ah, no. The word soccer has British upper class origins, not US origins. It is also the common or "street" name of the game in Canada (including French Canadians), Australia and New Zealand. The word soccer is also often used in Ireland, the rugby strongholds of Southern Africa, the Pacific Islands and in English language material from the governments and news agencies of non-English speaking countries. If it were not for the large numbers of English speakers in India and the rest of South Asia, then soccer would be the more common name.
And by the way the US soccer team is ranked number 5 in the world, according to the FIFA World Rankings. Grant65 | Talk 02:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just a comment, but most of the points earned by the US to get 5th were against CONCACAF teams, so you can make your own conclusion.

I recognize Im not an american football fan and I dont watch their games but please tell me if Im wrong if is not a game that is played most of the time with the hands, and if it is like that, why my sentence was removed ?. Thks --Jor70 17:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union, Rugby league, Gaelic football, Australian football, Canadian football etc are all played mostly with the hands. Most traditional forms of football were and are played with the hands. It wasn't possible to play a predominantly kicking game until it was possible to manufacture spherical balls which definitely wasn't possible for 90% of the history of football.GordyB 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small point, but doesnt most European countries also use the word "football" obviously translated into there own language (anon)
Most languages (not just European ones) use as close as they can get to 'football' e.g. Thai 'footborn' for Association football or more rarely make a literal translation of 'foot'+'ball' e.g. Welsh 'pedawr' (IIRC). The only exception I can think of is Italian which says 'Calcio' (literally 'kick') - I think this has something to do with Mussolini not liking Anglicanisms in Italian. Whilst this is interesting, it says nothing about what the word really means in English. Had the word Calcio caught on around the world, it would not mean that the game was correctly called Calcio in English.GordyB 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Speakers[edit]

How are we defining English Speakers in this article? English Language gives Americans+Canadians as seven out of every ten anglophones - suggesting that while most english speaking countries use football to mean soccer, most english speakers use football to mean North American football ... WilyD 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the British Empire, there is an impressive spread of native English speakers in every continent, and they generally favour "British" usage. Note the phrase "of the 45 national FIFA affiliates in which English is an official or primary language..." For example, according to the Indian English article, at least 8-15% — some 88-165 million people — of the population of India speaks English. In addition, many more Indians use English as a common language, when dealing with people who speak a different local language. The Times of India "sells 2.6 million copies daily, and has an average issue readership in excess of 7 million, which makes it by far the world's largest English Broadsheet Newspaper." Grant65 | Talk 10:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this conflicts with the English Language page, which has American English as the most commonly spoken variety of English, and Canadian English as the third most commonly spoken dialect among native speakers. While many in the Commonwealth speak English variants that are closer to British English than they are to American English, there are an impressive number of non-native speakers of English in non-Commonwealth countries as well, which may favour American English - for example, Japanese people tend to speak a very American form of English. In any event, I don't doubt that it's possible the majority of English speakers favour Football over Soccer, but it certainly not obvious, which is why I've requested a citation. WilyD 13:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't conflict with the English Language page; while American English may be the most widely spoken variety, it isn't spoken by an absolute majority of English speakers. Grant65 | Talk 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your comment specifically used the term native speaker - I didn't necessarily mean the article page. I apologise if I was unclear. Anyways, whilst Indians may (or may not, I have no idea) use Football for Soccer, I have no idea about the vast number of English speakers in non Commonwealth/Ex-Commonwealth countries like Japan and China, and stand by my call for a citation. WilyD 02:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I appreciate what you are saying and a citatation should be given. It may not be far away, see e.g. List of countries by English speaking population.
By the way, even in the Philippines, which was a US "colony" in 1898-41, and where there are 43 million speakers of Philippine English, the word "football" is used for soccer. See Philippines national football team and Philippines Football Federation. Grant65 | Talk 10:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to correct this, but since many Filipinos haven't watched a football (I myself use "football") match, "football" and "soccer" is used interchangeably, since there is no competing rival code of football. In fact, few Filipinos seem to care. --Howard the Duck 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In most English-speaking countries the word "football" usually refers to Association football, also known as soccer. Of the 45 national FIFA affiliates in which English is an official or primary language, only three — Canada, Samoa and the United States — use "soccer" in their governing bodies name.
This paragraph is so plainly twisted in Association football's favour. Take India, for example, English is one of India's many official languages but I'm not about to swallow the notion that India is an English-speaking country no matter how many copies of the Times of India they might sell. There may be a great number of English speakers in India but are we counting English speakers or English-speaking nations? (This is another way of twisting your stats.) Now take Australia, for another example, the governing body for Australian soccer uses "football" rather than "soccer" (this was recently changed) but how about the general population? The word "football" is rarely used to refer to soccer in Australian English, the word usually refers to either rugby or Aussie rules (depending on the state/territory). This is much the same as the case in Japan: whilst the governing body is the Japan Football Association the sport is called "サッカー" ("sakkaa") in Japanese. Finally why are we only counting national FIFA affiliates? I propose that the paragraph simply be removed. Jimp 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I know a bit about India, and believe me, to to all intents and purposes, India is an English-speaking nation, especially since none of the 1,652 indigenous dialects is dominant — Hindi comes closest with 495 million speakers (native and second language), ~45% of the population. Language is a controversial and politicised subject in India, but English (~90 million native and second) is probably the second most-commonly-spoken language, ahead of Telugu and Bengali. Furthermore, Hindi speakers are concentrated in the north-west whereas English is widely used to communicate between members of mutually unintelligible languages, and is obviously more important in international trade, such as the call centres which harrass me on a regular basis. :-) English will likely continue to increase in importance in India. Grant65 | Talk 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the original point here remains something like How do we determine if a country has english as a primary language? China has a couple hundred million english speakers - that's a pretty significant contribution. Roughly speaking, we can probly agree the majority of english-speakign countries use Football to mean Soccer, with Soccer apparently predominant in only four (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America). We could also say The majority of english speakers refer to Soccer as Football or The majority of english speakers refer to Soccer as Soccer if we had any idea which of these statements were true - but as far as I can see, we don't. Soccer club names seem to be a poor indicator, however, as to what the people of the country actually speak, as evidenced by Australia and New Zealand (and there are other examples of Soccer Snobs trying to use Football where it clearly means something else in the local dialect.) WilyD 13:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, I think it would be fair of me to say that I also know a little about India too and I'm afraid I cannot believe you when you say that "to all intents and purposes, India is an English-speaking nation" for this is just not the case according to my experience of India and Indian poeple and my understanding of the phrase "English-speaking nation". Take care with the phrase "most-commonly-spoken language". Are we considering how much English is actually spoken in India or are we simply doing a head-count of those who can speak English? I am aware of the importance of English when it comes to dealing with non-locals but most Indian people most of the time will be dealing with locals only. Certainly the use of English is widespread, yes, but inspite of this Hindi would have to be counted as being more dominant. However, I would not accept the proposition that "India is a Hindi-speaking nation." No, what India is is a multi-language nation. English has its place but as I see things this is not the place where you're putting it. Jimp 15:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. I think I'll tag the paragraph "disputed". Jimp 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put it this way, it would be absurd to say "India is not an English-speaking country". Just as it would be absurd to say "Switzerland, Belgium and Canada are not French-speaking countries", simply because other languages {German, Flemish and English respectively) are spoken by the majority. Language is a political issue and we should be careful not to be guided by local politics in our answers to such questions.
I don't see how anyone can seriously dispute that "football = soccer" in a majority of English-speaking countries, which is all that the paragraph is saying. The question of the absolute number of English-speakers worldwide who refer to soccer as "football" is a separate question. Grant65 | Talk 22:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I was the one who first called for a citation re: number of speakers - I believe the country data is probly right, but if it's disputed, add a cite call. Never hurts to cite. WilyD 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, I don't find it absurd. The difference between English in India and French in Switzerland, Belgium and Canada in that there is no region of India where English predominates nor is there any significant group of native-English-speakers who primarily use English. Given that the two of us interpret the phrase "English-speaking country" in such different ways I wonder whether this paragraph is helpful or even meaningful. You say India is an English-speaking country, I say it's not. The question is whether you, I or neither of us have a clear majority of readers agreeing with us.
How can anyone seriously dispute that "'football = soccer' in a majority of English-speaking countries"? How? Firstly one brings into question the meaning of the term "English-speaking countries". Secondly one brings into question how you determine whether "football = soccer" in that country. Going by what the national governing body of the sport calls itself is pointless as the Aussie example shows. Still you may be right here: what I'd like is to see this shown to be correct.
Yes, you're absolutely right that "The question of the absolute number of English-speakers worldwide who refer to soccer as 'football' is a separate question." However considering one question and not the other is so bleedin' obvious a way of tipping the scales when it comes to language disputes (especially (North) American vs. Commonwealth English ones). We both know this well enough. Jimp 03:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim.....why not stick to defining "English speaking country" as an official/legal category, as in "a country in which English is an official language". Then count 'em. Then deduct the number of countries in which we know "soccer" is the word used.
As for "tipping the scales", the rise of so-called "American" usages is a relatively recent thing, and British usages were well-established in international English, say 150 years ago. I'd be interested to see any quantitative research that shows that people from ESL/EFL/NESB backgrounds and ESL/EFL teachers now favour North American usages, but I doubt that such research exists. Grant65 | Talk 12:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your first proposition is problematic for a number of reasons, for example it would define the States as Not an english speaking country - something I think we can all agree is false. WilyD 12:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wily, you mistake my objective there, which is not to define the number of "English speaking countries", but to define the number of countries in which Association football = "football". As much as it pains me (as one born to Australian rules football) to agree with "soccer fundamentalists", it seems to me they are probably correct in asserting that soccer is called "football" by most English speakers. Grant65 | Talk 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, don't mistake me - I also believe it's probly the case that the majority of english speaking countries say football when they mean soccer. I became involved because I objected to the claim the majority of english speakers say football when they mean soccer because it's not true of native speakers, and none of us really have any idea whether it's true of english language speakers. I was merely saying that if we choose to talk about english speaking countries, english as an official language is not a good criterion. I also believe there's some merit to the argument that's been made claiming that talking about the prevelence per country may be POV pushing, because by speakers is much more natural a way to measure word usage ... anyways, I'm still chewing on that one. WilyD 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom non-NPOV[edit]

I dissagree with GordyB's statment in #Soccer AM that "Soccer is a term that is generally disliked in the UK". I have used the word soccer and football all my life and I have not had one person correct me for using either word in the UK. Both are understood and used in context. The idea that one little known punk band which had a minor hit with a song is representative of the attitude in the UK in general is not encyclopaedic. Even if every person who regularly attended soccer matches every weekend in the UK was to object to the term soccer, (which I would seriously doubt) that would still be a minority of the UK population. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To expand what I was saying above with examples taken from the British Media. If the word soccer was so offensive and so American why are articles like these written by the UK press (one from each Broadsheet and the BBC):

and the Red tops

The Star and the Express both used Reuters reports which use the term soccer and neither paper thought to replace the word soccer with football, which suggests that for most the word soccor and football can be used interchangably without causing any offense.

There are also many commersial sites involved with Association Football who use the term soccer:

Which again suggests that they do not think that they are alienating their potential customers by using the term. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to replace the current text with something like this:

Like other countries, in the UK an unqualified mention of football tends to refer to the most popular footballing sport in the country, that in the case of the UK is association football. However the term soccer is used by some and understood by all. For fans who are more interested in other codes of football, within their sporting community, the use the term football may refer to their own code and they may call association football soccer for brevity and clarity. However even within such sporting communities an unqualified mention of football would be a reference to association football.

There may be a need to explain how the word football is used in different areas of the UK. For example usage in South Wales (where rugby union dominates) may be different from the English Midlands (an area of the country where although rugby union is played, the predominant game is Association football), but it really needs someone from South Wales to explain what is the norm, hopefully with some written references. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is fair. But regarding your "evidence" - You will always find people using the word soccer in Britain. It was coined as slang as is still used as slang for the Association code. If you substitute the word "rugger" for "soccer" you will get similar results. e.g. Rugger girls are KO'd Regarding www.soccerbooks.co.uk I've actually ordered a ferw books from them. There is a very simple reason why that is their URL. They sell more books to Americans that way as a search for "football" will returns loads of stuff about Aamerican football. BTW "Stop spitting soccer stars" - is just tabloid alliteration. They are very fond of that. "Soccer Star" - "Football Fanatic" etc.. Jooler 09:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify my statement. 'Soccer' is not an Americanism, it is a completely British word and the Americans, Australians etc are quite correct to use 'football' to discribe their sports. Most Britons though do not understand the history involved and consider the word 'soccer' to be an annoying word the Americans invented and if the Aussies, Irish etc use it, it is because they are Americanised. The use of 'football' for American football is considered stupid and illogical. Long flamewars are held on this subject.GordyB 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World wide[edit]

Since it is possible that the normal usages of British English prevail worldwide — as opposed to American English, see international English and list of countries by English speaking population — it is also possible that "football" means Association football among an absolute majority of English-speakers. However, there is no way of proving or disproving such a theory.

Although I would agree with this, as Grant65 wrote, "However, there is no way of proving or disproving such a theory". I think we may be able to fix it in another way. As association football is the most popular world wide sport and in most languages it is called football, even if for the majority of monoglot English speakers a reference might be to another code, for most people speaking English an unqualified use of the word football would be to association football. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Philip, but do the majority of English speakers worldwide, such as the estimated 200-300 million(!) in China, favour the non-British or British usage of "football"? I'm not sure that we have any way of knowing that. Grant65 | Talk 10:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a way of proving or disproving it - we could ask everyone. It's not practical for us - but it can certainly be done. However, I think that sentence needs to be removed. A might be true. Or else it's false. I have no idea is not really an encyclopaedic statement. WilyD 11:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably some non-contentious ways that the popularity of the term can be stated. For example, once the cumilative viewing figures of the current world cup are published (along with the viewing populations in different countries) there can be made a factual statement that "as an indication of popularity of the term; among the X million/billion viewers of the 2006 World Cup approximately Y% (or Z hundred million people) use the term football (or a close phonetic equivalent) to mean Association Football."

Given that *any* term's precise usage is unlikely to ever be 'exact' the best that can be hoped is to refer to "majority" or "generally accepted" and other such words which give an indication of the term's prevelance and widespread use. For the majority of the 200+ country associtations in the FIFA federation (http://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/na/index.html) - themselves comprising a majority of all world countries (http://www.statoids.com/wab.html) - the term "football" is genrally taken to refer to "Association Football".

Another factor is that *even* disregarding the majority of countries which use the "football" term (or phonetically similar word) directly to mean Association Football, the term is *recognised* as meaning Association Football even by countries which do not have a phonetic equivalent (For example Italy, who's direct word for the sport is "Calcio" but if you were to mention the word "Football" they would naturally assume Association Football).

You can probably add up the total as follows:

  • countries where Football directly means Association Football
  • countries where Football phonetically means Association Football
  • countries where Football is assumed to mean Association Football
  • countries where Football "is likely to" or most often means Association Football

against the

  • countries where Football directly does not mean Association Football

against the

  • few countries where the term Football has no established meaning at all (either official or unofficial)

Mickangel 12:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Calcio' is the word most commonly used in Italian for 'soccer' but 'il footbal' does exist.GordyB 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calcio does not translate as "soccer"...

  • Calcio = "kick"
  • "Soccer" = an abbreviation of the word "association"
  • Football = exactly what it says on the tin.

In theory the translation of calcio is closer to "football" than "soccer", because it is to do with the foot and kicking. - Soprani 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that calcio did translate as "soccer" so what's your point exactly?GordyB 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK[edit]

Say that in UK "Football" equals "soccer", but not what other forms of football are refered to as. - Matthew238 08:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of English speakers like in the US[edit]

I've just removed a sentence that said that, because it isn't cited and frankly I don't believe it. There's a lot of discussion above, which seems to cast doubt on the statement, and until it's clearly shown to be true it should come out. Here are some of my arguments:

  1. A lot of US residents don't have English as their native language.
  2. The sum of the populations of the UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa and some former British colonies probably comes close to half the US population in terms of English speakers.
  3. Once we add in India it is highly likely that the English speakers there are enough to overwherlm the US speakers.
  4. What's the relevance of this? When did a discussion on the different uses of a word boil down to "there are more of us than there are of you, so your usage is wrong".

DJ Clayworth 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was meta-information and needed to be cut, yeah. Good work. But basically, the issue is:
  • The majority of native english speakers say Soccer (i.e. Canada+States = 70% of Anglophones)
  • Nobody has the slighest clue what percentage of English speakers say Soccer and what say Football, if you'll see List of countries by English-speaking population you'll note that country #2 is the real big problem for most of us. WilyD 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the vast majority of EFL / ESL learners football=soccer, I've spent years in the industry and this pretty true round the world. I don't see this as relevant though, they are simply transfering the habits of their first language to English. The 'debate' over the what football means is largely an Anglophone one, few other countries play any of the other codes to any degree (France being an exception).GordyB 20:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Round the world as in ESL speakers from around the world who I've worked with in Britain or In my time teaching ESL in Korea, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua and Madagascar? Either way it's problematic OR, but living in Toronto I've hung around a lot of ESL learners and the only one who ever said football when she meant soccer learnt english in England before coming to the colonies. Again, this claim on my part suffers from problematic OR. WilyD 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Round the world as in EFL learners I've worked with in Britain and in their own country. Soccer is the number 1 sport in most countries in the world and in virtually every language on the planet is similar to 'football'. If in your first language soccer=futbol what would you say if you were learning English? Only those who want to emigrate to the US or Canada bother with 'soccer'.GordyB 21:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I did learn english, I said soccer because that's the dialect of english I learnt. I would expect the same of all other people learning english, whether first, second, or nine hundred twenty first language. My suspicion would be that ex-British Empire countries would say football when they meant soccer, but that's problematic because it's not true in Canada, Australia, New Zealand. In any event, since none of us know which is more common, nevermind have citations for which is more common, we really can't include any info on that. We could include that Soccer dominates among anglophones, but I won't add it, because I don't see the point .... WilyD 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of English language learners don't really care too much about UK or US usage, they tend to learn English largely to communicate with other non-native speakers. If their language has borrowed the word 'lift' then they say 'lift' in English and if it has borrowed 'elevator' then they say 'elevator' in English.GordyB 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find this pretty dubious, but that's neither here nor there. Even if your argument were compelling, it's still prohibited from the article under WP:OR WilyD 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, I spent years teaching people English. Exactly what is your criteria for finding it dubious? If you want to argue about applied linguistics then at least give a reason or say what your experience / qualifications for finding things 'dubious'. In any case I have said on more than one occasion, what non-native speakers of English say is totally irrelevant, the word means what native speakers use it to mean.GordyB 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said, that's neither here nor there, eh? Anyhoo, does anyone dispute that native speakers favour American football as the default meaning for football and Soccer as the default term for soccer? WilyD 14:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I added the sentence "However, the significance of such facts is disputed, as an absolute majority of native English speakers live in the United States." I did it to address the concerns expressed above (by Jimp and others) that "countries in which English is an official language" is misleading, because few people in many of those countries actually speak English, and it does not convey usage by native speakers, rather than people who speak English occasionally. Any ideas on how we resolve this? Grant65 | Talk 00:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea - there are so many issues to address: Why do we prefer speakers to native speakers, or vice versa? Why do we measure by countries, but not by speakers? Why do we go by FIFA's naming, when it's highly suspect (i.e. Aussies & Kiwis), and sometimes at least marginally suspect (like Japan)? It's fairly clear to me that Soccer Snobs highly prefer football as a name (see, for example, Toronto's new Soccer team, Toronto FC, where FC explicitly does not stand for football club, even though I'm pretty sure it's secretly supposed to. Why are we interested in number of speakers at all?
FWIW, I don't think it's at all contraversial to say that Most native speakers of English mean American Football when they say Football or Most native speakers prefer Soccer to Football for the ball kicking game. Canadians+Americans = a majority of anglophones, if we're looking for "balance", whatever that is. I do think it's a worthwhile issue to address, but I'm not sure how to do so. WilyD 01:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

majority comments[edit]

I won't revert it again until we got this figured with some dialogue so we understand each other and make it less ambiguous. That last revert was to get attention to the talk page.

Okay, I slightly altered it so that the inference is clear that "most of NSW and QLD's population call it football" and that these two states are "the majority of Austraia's populations" and not the more ambiguous comment that said that may lead to the assumption that the most of NSW and QLD referred to, are the majority of Australia's population.

Is that fine with you? (Unsigned statement by User:60.225.219.33, August 3, 2006.)

No, sorry. I'm not sure what the point of such a statement would be, other than to suggest that the majority of Australia's population follows rugby league, when we know that significant numbers of people in NSW and Qld follow rugby union, soccer and Aussie rules. Grant65 | Talk 05:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Caribbean[edit]

Removed the following: Rugby football is always referred to as "rugby".

It means nothing as there is no sport called 'rugby football', there are two different sports called rugby union and rugby league. Even for those who rugby=rugby union don't say 'rugby football' as it is virtually archaic. Rugby is always called rugby makes a rather pointless sentence.

Could whoever wrote this please specify which code of rugby is meant by rugby football. I can only presume that it was union.GordyB 13:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who added that part. Honestly, I didn't know that there were those two types, and I suspect sentiments are similar throughout the region. Anyway, this and this Wiki article suggest that it's rugby league. I suppose we don't have to add that back in, though...unless we say that, in the Caribbean, the word "football" is never used to refer to any form of rugby. Hairouna 18:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rugby union is played in the Carribean.[3]. I suspect that given the history of the Anglophone CArribean that rugby union would be more established (as like cricket it was popular with the British establishment). But I doubt that either sport is popular enough to need a mention.GordyB 19:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In most of the Australian states..."[edit]

Pcpp objects to this wording: "In most of the Australian states, the word "football", or its shortened form "footy", refers to Australian rules football". He/she would prefer that we list the states in which most of the population follows Australian rules (South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia).

It seems that Pcpp is a contributor to articles on rugby league. There is an old (and tired) argument that South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia do not constitute the majority of the population, which lives in the "rugby football states" of New South Wales and Queensland. Nevertheless, Australian rules has been followed by a substantial minority in NSW and Qld for generations, that support is growing and nationwide it gets the largest TV audiences (bigger than almost all international sporting events), among the the biggest per capita crowds for major international sports leagues (see above) and has much higher participation levels.

Therefore it is not misleading in any way to say that Australian rules is followed in "most states", and I would also point out that the long-standing version is both accurate and simpler that Pcpp's proposed wording. Cheers, Grant65 | Talk 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to butt in, a fact that is often forgotten with t.v. audiences is that the figures usually given are only for capitols. When one remembers that the population of country NSW and country QLD is the equal of the population of both SA and WA, and off the top of my head, 5 or 6(depending on Penrith's qualification) NRL clubs are not in state capitals, whereas only one AFL club is not in a state capital. Therefore broadcast figures can be misleading, and I would prefer to see a revised t.v. figures to qualify those comments about t.v. as I believe week in/week out that friday night football would be more popular in the football states than the rules states. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.132.221.157 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You make a fair point about the populations of country NSW and Qld. The combined population of SA-Vic-WA-Tas is about 9 million/44% of the population, and the combined population of NSW and Qld is about 11 million/54% of the national pop. However, while there is significant interest in the AFL in NSW and Qld, the support for league in SA-Vic-Tas-WA is negligible, and we also need to subtract from the NSW-Qld "54%" the rugby union supporters, not to mention all the "Mexicans" on the Gold Coast, multi-code support in the Riverina, post-premiership Lions/Swans converts, soccer's cult following in the Sydney-Newcastle area, etc. As far as I'm aware league and union supporters don't like to be counted together. The number of union supporters alone would drag that "54%" down below the Aussie rules supporters. Then you look at the nationwide TV figures, match attendances, club memberships, juniors, etc and there is no comparison between league and Aussie rules. Grant | Talk 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am not saying that rugby league is the *most popular* or even *more popular*, just that in most comparisons on t.v., a huge chunk of rugby league support is just totally neglected. As to Friday night football, I still think the NRL would be on average more watched as it dominates in the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th biggest t.v. markets. But you are right in simple superior numbers of the states being a measure of higher popularity and interest, as the imported franchises do all right. In Sydney, it is definitely a passionate fringe interest(tell most Sydneysiders that the Swans were leaving and they would be ambivalent or some would cheer, tell a Swans supporter and they would start crying and than organise a BBQ fundraiser to help the franchise). But most Swans supporters would still watch friday night football, oly genuine AFL supporters would not(there are not that many in Sydney). Rugby Union supporters would still watch friday night football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
It also seems that you are a contributer to Australian Rules Football and therefore. My proposal is far more accurate than your proposal, especially considering that a "majority" is just four states out of six (even without going into the population majority). How are international readers supposed to know how many states Australia have if they are unfamiliar with it? It should be made clear to international readers that do not know this. The "most of the states" statement is just as misleading as if it said "In the majority of Australia's land mass, no football code is followed".
Its very amusing that you seem to go off on an unrelated tangent on NSW and QLD and on Australian football statistics. So what? What relevance does it have? This is about Victoria, Tasmania, WA and SA. Pcpp 10:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really hung up on this. Change it to "Victoria, Tasmania, WA and SA" if you must. I would just like to know how is it "misleading"? It's a statement of fact. No doubt if someone changed it to read "Australian rules is watched by a greatest proportion of the Australian population than any other code", that would be considered controversial. It's also true.
My main objection is that its not necessary to spell out each "Aussie rules state". There is a link to the Australian states and territories article in the phrase "most of the Australian states", and a non-Australian doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that "most of the states minus NSW & Qld" = "Victoria, Tasmania, WA and SA". If they really want to know, they will follow the link. You seem to assume that no-one is reading the third par ("Most people in the states of New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland...") in the "Australia" section, which seems a bit odd to me. Grant65 | Talk 17:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian states no differentiation between the two kinds of rugby - Yea right[edit]

Can someone substantiate this fact ??? This is a falacy which is often quoted by people from NSW and QLD who follow either rugby union or rugby league believing the reason their code is not supported is because it is mixed up with another inferior form of rugby. I live in Melbourne. I know the difference between Rugby League and Rugby Union. Both The Age and The Herald Sun have different categories for the two sports. Perth has had both a Rugby League and Rugby Union team, so I think they would know. Though this is probably true of Tasmania and South Australia, they represent a small minority of the Australian population. What league and union fans don't understand that the sport is not popular for a reason, and it has nothing to do with the ability of people in most states to differentiate their two codes ... --Biatch 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms B, I wouldn't interpret that sentence as meaning that people in the so-called "AFL states" don't know the difference, but that they often refer to rugby league simply as "rugby". That is the case here in Perth, anyway. It would never happen in NSW or Qld (where "rugby" only means union and "football" means league). Perhaps it needs to be worded differently. Grant65 | Talk 13:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.11.199 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've reworded our section a little bit to better reflect reality. In my experience, Union is rarely (if ever) referred to as footy or football.--Jeff79 03:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK and soccer[edit]

I have problems with this change:

  • However the term 'soccer' is used by some, and understood by all.

to

  • However the term "soccer" is used by some, and understood by all as a slang term for football in the same way that rugger is used for Rugby football.

Who says that "soccer" is any more of a slang term for association football than "football" is? I think that changing this sentence in this way introduces a POV which needs a citation. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Rugger' is also not that common, only people who were privately educated are likely to say that. I've only heard it used in the phrase 'rugger bugger'. It might be slang but its use is extremely restricted.GordyB 13:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Corrupt Page on Wikipedia[edit]

This page perfectly highlights just why wikipedia is no more than just a collection of enthusiast fan pages where the mob rules as opposed to an encyclopaedia of facts - with the Australia section the worst of all.

It’s staggering how many edits Aussie Rules contributors make to the Australian football pages and how desperate they are to work in the word ‘soccer’ while referencing AFL at every opportunity.

I sometimes wonder if these contributors are public relations people employed the Aussie Rules Association.--202.47.51.130 12:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinus, just give it up..GordyB13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the most corrupt comment on Wikipedia talk pages? ;-) matturn 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere close. Wahkeenah 13:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removal of two confusing sentences[edit]

I removed two sentences that didn't make any sense.

i was really puzzled about the whole "english" as a first language equates to american football sentence. did that ever make sense? anyway, it's gone now.

also, the next sentence contradicted itself by saying "in most english speaking countries 'football' refers to association football, except..." and then listed basically every english speaking country except the u.k.

so i took that stuff out. i think it makes much more sense without it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.170.124.139 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

1. There are more speakers of American English than any other form.
2. The passage did not list listed basically every english speaking country; there are about 50 countries in which English is an official language.
So I'm reverting/rewording. Grant | Talk 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, I’m probably in agreement with you on the generally idea of the use of the word “football,” but that doesn’t change the fact that those two sentences are poorly written. Reading the article, I was confused. I can’t figure out what point your trying to make. Read the next paragraph. It think it says what your trying to say, but better.
The sentence “In countries where English is a first language, the word "football" generally means the most popular form of football in that country,” says it all. The other two sentences just confuse the point being made.
Also, the sentence “In most of these countries, the most popular code is Association football (soccer)” isn’t true. The countries where “ENGLISH IS A FIRST LANGUAGE” (i.e., the language of the prevailing culture) are the UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. And maybe some random islands somewhere. But the key is that the prevailing culture is “Anglo-Saxon” (as the French would say). Just because a country has english speakers, or english as a nominal “official language” (i.e., was colonized by england), doesn’t make them an “English as a first language” country.
Now, of the list of English speaking countries (the UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), “football” only mean association football in one – the UK. In the other four countries, football refers to something else, probably with an oblong ball. So the sentence “In most of these countries, the most popular code is Association football (soccer)” is clearly untrue, and has to go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.170.124.139 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Deleting something simply because you don't understand it isn't a great policy. I hope my latest version has helped: in terms of absolute numbers, soccer is the preferred word for Association football; in terms of the number of countries, "football" is the preferred word for for Association football. This paradox is possible because (1) so many native English speakers are crammed into one country, the USA and (2) because English is a first language in many small countries and a minority language in so many countries.

Also, to restrict the definition of "English speaking" to the Anglosphere countries is false; as the article says there are 45 FIFA members in which English is the main langauge or one of several official languages. Grant | Talk 03:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grant, the paragraph is really convoluted. Most people would have trouble figuring out what the message is. That's all. If that's your personal taste, great. It will be your paragraph.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Football_(word)/Archive_1&oldid=1136733120"