Talk:Names for association football

The article says: "some Americans involved in the sport have taken to using the more traditionalist Spanish language term fútbol; even parts of the media have followed suit.[4]". The citation is of an Adidas commercial spot. Personally, I've never heard a US-born person say futbol. Even if I did, in the speed of normal conversation, I'd imagine it'd be hard to distinguish from the British "football", which I almost never hear, either. My opinion is that ad campaigns aren't the best source of usage patterns, as they're in place often just to be memorable; since it's Beckham, they could also be playing off the fact that he just came from Real Madrid. In any case, it seems like such a trivial usage, that I'd cut the line. 24.183.28.6 11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watch MLS and speak with quite a few MLS fans in America, most of whom use the term fútbol as well as soccer. So with respect, some Americans do use the word. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Yank, and I personally refer to it as football when talking to my non-American friends, but call it soccer when I speak to my fellow countrymen to avoid confusion. The pointlessness of using the word 'futbol' as a substitute stems from: a) the written form of the word is irrelevant in speech as it is not discernible unless spoken with a Latin American accent, and b) regardless of the intent, the word is still 'football', not really a translation from English at all. It's merely a spelling that is phonetically equivalent. The word 'foot' in Spanish is 'pie' (pronounced: pee-YAY). Ryecatcher773 21:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following sentence from the American usage section:

Perhaps because of the ridicule and strong resentment of the term soccer in British English speaking countries, some Americans involved in the sport have taken to using the more traditionalist Spanish language term fútbol, even parts of the media have followed suit.

First of all, the link to the Times article is broken, but I know that the word "soccer" is disliked in Britain, so I assume the first part of the sentence is easily verifiable. My main problem is with the second half- the cited Adidas website doesn't actually say that the North American media or Americans use "fútbol" to mean soccer at all, let alone with any frequency. Arriving at that conclusion based on a 30-second video clip seems to be a stretch. In my opinion, that makes this sentence effectively unreferenced and ill-suited for this article. If anyone can find a reputable source to back it up, the sentence should definitely go back in, though. Confiteordeo 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I just saw that the section above this one addresses that same sentence. However, personal experience is original research, so I think that until we find a verifiable source, it should stay out of the article. Confiteordeo 06:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present the text says:

In Korea, football is called chook gu (축구).

In Chinese, the term 足球 (Hanyu Pinyin: zúqiú, Cantonese: juk kau) is used. The term, a calque, literally means football (足=foot, 球=ball), and is always associated with association football.

According to football in Korea and cuju, the terms chook gu, zúqiú, juk kau (etc; there are many languages in China) are all derived from the name of the ancient Chinese game cuju. This conflicts with the idea that the Chinese words are calques. Can anyone check/clarify this? Grant | Talk 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably due to similar pronunciations, you are confusing the terms 蹴球 (the name for football in Korean and formerly Japanese), 蹴鞠 (the name of the ancient game), and 足球 (the modern Chinese name for football). The Korean term is 蹴球 (축구, chukgu following Revised Romanization of Korean), and according to the article, Japanese also used 蹴球 (shūkyū) as its term for football before World War II. The term may indeed be influenced by the term for the ancient game 蹴鞠 (cuju), which in Korean is called chukguk; at least it shares the character 蹴, meaning 'to kick'. For whatever reason, modern Chinese uses the totally unrelated term 足球 for football, using the character 足, meaning 'foot', instead. So the Chinese words have no relationship to the name for the ancient East Asian game. I don't know if they are calques, but that seems a reasonable explanation. --Iceager (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map in the upper-right corner of this article isn't very helpful:

• Colors don't contrast one another very well,
• There are three columns of colors in the map legend, but they aren't labeled;
• China is striped red and green?
• As a whole, the map doesn't really show how much more popular football is in Latin America and Europe vs. the rest of the world. Most of the map is dark green or some other dark color! (One would expect that a map like this would show a significant difference in coloring/shading between the U.S. and Brazil, for example, but it doesn't.)

I'd be happy to create a better map if someone would please point me toward the data and a mapmaking widget. Bry9000 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think the map is misleading anyway. It is not a map of the sports popularity as a spectator sport, just how many people play football, and nothing more. The colours, as you say, don't contrast well. But regardless it isn't what it is labelled as being a map of the sports popularity.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. Besides, this article is about names of lots of different sports anyway; it doesn't make sense to have a map about the popularity of just one of several games. Bry9000 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how being a spectator sport versus playing is more important - the more important point is if it is the number 1 sport or not. As for the colors, the color differences show not just popularity, but also whether the sport is the number 1 sport in that country or not...this relates directly to the use of the word football or soccer to refer to the sports <which is the only reason I see it as relevant to this article>. I reverted Bry9000's removal of the image as I think this deserves more conversation than a few hours by two people. Perhaps we should wait for some form of consensus. Also, if you don't like the colors involved, why don't you guys contact the image author as he says where he got the data <National Geographic article and a FIFA study> and I am sure he would help create a new one or refer you to the raw data for you to do yourself. If the consensus disagrees, just revert me to remove <but this map seems to have been created specifically for this article as it is the only one that links to said image>. --otduff ^t/_c 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say, nor did I imply, that being a spectator sport is more important than playing. Not what I said at all in the slightest little bit. I said the map is misleading and I stand by that. The maps main focus comnes across as showing how many people play football. It does not therefore do what it says, and simply show the popularity of the sport worldwide. Also I didn't remove the image nor did I suggest it should be removed. The map shows how many people play football in countries and whether it is the number one sport or not. That is not just a map showing the sports popularity. Though as was said above this article is about the names of the sport and that only, it is not about the popularity of it. Perhaps it is more appropriate in the main

Football (soccer) article? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed. It was misleading, so I simply changed the caption. Now everyone can be happy. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the map itself, not the caption, is still unhelpful and confusing. The green, red, and blue colors aren't explained on the legend, the colors don't contrast one another well, and the map itself is of questionable value on this page.

As an aside, I found an explanation of the colors, set forth in the image description itself (click on the image for a close-up and scroll down). Green means that football is the #1 sport in that country, red means that it isn't, and blue means "unknown". And "China is striped since football is equally as popular as basketball," according to the author who didn't give a source.

I still think that we could do much better than this map; it should be removed and replaced with a better one. Bry9000 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where were the figure for this map obtained , i see its is sourced FIFA (1st party source) and National Geographic for the football figure but where did the other figures come from for other sports Gnevin (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what's the problem here? The map shows in what countries football is the most popular sport (according to the source I gave in the image description, the National Geographic edition), and the darker the shade of red or green or blue, the more players per 1,000 inhabitants in the country (as per National Geographic, which have taken their data from the FIFA survey, which I have used to double check). – Elisson • T • C • 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is where did the info for the other codes come from was this also included in the NatGeo article?Gnevin (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other codes? This map only concerns association football. – Elisson • T • C • 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it show where soccer is the most popular and where other codes are the number 1 . Also where was this information obtained if its only concern is soccer? ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs)

The countries coloured green have (association) football as the most popular sport. The countries coloured red have some other sport (hockey, basketball, rugby, skiing, volleyball, rally, doesn't matter) as the most popular sport. That information is obtained (as I've already said above!) from the the National Geographic edition mentioned on the image description page. What is unclear? – Elisson • T • C • 16:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was unclear at least to me where the information for other sport was obtained , if it was all in the NatGeo article i've no issue with it then Gnevin (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like

What about "the North of England"? The sport is called football in the North, Midlands and the South.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the part in the North American section that stated that the game is also known as "kickey." After reviewing Google search results where the word does not show up anywhere, coupling with the fact that I have never in my life heard that term applied to the sport, I decided rather than hunt for a citation it should just be deleted. (JL)

Why is Puerto Rico included under English-speaking countries? It is overwhelmingly Spanish speaking though both languages are official. In Spanish they call the sport fútbol like most Spanish-speaking countries, but I believe they call it "soccer" in English, not "football" as the article currently states. Their league is the "Puerto Rico Soccer League". --D. Monack | talk 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that necessary or even warranted when the name of the federation is next to it. This seems applicable for countries where association football is not the national sport, most played, most watched, etc type of football. The only country who have the word soccer in their title is the USA. Other countries play grid-iron, rugby union, Gaelic football, Aussie rules, rugby league, etc. and all can rightly claim to use the term Football in their title. Come on the Mothers (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point there, and it does seem a little redundant. I've gone ahead and removed the remaining ones. (By the way, the US is not the only country to have "soccer" in its national association title e.g. the

Tameamseo (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Reading it through a while ago it also gave the impression that association football had the only just claim on the word football. Works much better in its current format.Londo06 10:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the Serbian name of the sport is "fudbal", not "nogomet", which is used in Croatian and Slovenian only, apart from occasional usage in Bosnian. Maybe I'm wrong as I don't follow recent trends regarding the Serbian language, but here in Croatia we've always felt kind of proud of having our own name for football, while the Serbs used an internationalism. Also, this distinction was present in former Yugoslavia as well, where "nogomet" was used in Croatia and "fudbal" in Serbia. The Serbian wikipedia also uses "fudbal" as the main name of the sport. You might be thinking about changing that line in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.241.62 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this is a subject brought up many a times on the NZF page, but seriously, its time to change.

Firstly, as New Zealander myself, Rugby and Rugby League are never referred to as football. It may sometimes be called "Footy" (which is obviously a shortened word for football) but is really only used very rarely in casual situations. Anyone closely related to football will call football, football. It is only an outsider to football that would use the term "soccer."

Secondly, Football is its official name. Lets say I was talking about Lower Hutt. Since many outsiders to Lower Hutt call it, "The Hutt" doesn't make it the official name. Perhaps we should change all wikipedia articles and now place on them "The Hutt" instead of "Lower Hutt"

Thirdly, I was once told that by argument did not have much backing, and the user pointed me to media online publications that used the term soccer. Including a football club from the South Island that hadn't updated their name yet, well here is some websites that have adapted to the term football. These are also the defining reasons I believe shows the term should be changed.

[[5]] By clicking the link you will notice the predominant sport organisation committee refer to the sport as football. [[6]] Also refers to the game as football. [[7]] also refers to the sport as football.

203.97.212.114 (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 203.97.212.114. I'm also from New Zealand and have always referred to the game as Football. Generally in this country Rugby Union is usually referred to simply as 'Rugby', while Rugby League is referred to as 'League'. It is Football that is referred to as 'Football', except for some die-hard Rugby Union/Rugby League fans who insist on calling it 'Soccer'. It annoys me when people on wikipedia assume that it is called soccer by everyone in NZ, it is not. It also annoys me that people think that it is only recently that the governing body in NZ has started calling it Football. The governing body was called the 'New Zealand Football Association' 1891-1995, then 'Soccer New Zealand'/'New Zealand Soccer' 1995-2006 and now 'New Zealand Football' 2006- . Apart from eleven years when they thought they were being trendy, they have called it Football. Also it is interesting to note that the 'New Zealand Rugby Football Union' now calls themselves the 'New Zealand Rugby Union' dropping 'Football' from their name. Rugby League's governing body is the 'New Zealand Rugby League'. Note that in this country it is only Association Football that has the word 'Football' in the governing body's name. Footballworldworldfootball2 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article tells us that when FFA decreed around 2004 that the name would change from soccer to football in Australia "This was met with antipathy and bemusement by some followers of Australian rules and rugby league". In fact, as this very Talk page shows above, and personally, it was also met that way by a lot of soccer fans. One doesn't have to be a fan of another code to think that the "official" name change makes no sense. The reference to the other codes implies some sort of different view between supporters of different codes. That's not the case at all. As the article also states, most soccer fans in Australia still call the game soccer. The article should stop suggesting the name argument is a fight between supporters of the different codes. HiLo48 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in the English Wikipedia. It hardly needs to refer to the English speaking world. There is still debate about "the sport most commonly referred to...as football", depending on whether one counts countries or heads. (There are a lot of Americans.)

As was noted above, there is a simpler way to explain this. Where association football is the most popular form of football, it is known as football. Where it's not, it's known as soccer.

How about...

The Names of association football refer to the terms used to describe the sport known as football where it is the most popular football game, or in some countries where it is not the most prominent sport, soccer.

?

HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to be really careful when describing what's happening in Australia. As very recent additions to the article have shown, the Sydney based national body has changed from soccer to football. Some Sydney based parts of the media have followed suit. However, in the more than half of Australia where football has meant

There is plenty of evidence in Australia, that the game was referred to as 'Football' from at least the 1870's, and 'Football' was commonly used, especially between 1880 to the late 1920's, to describe the game. First of all between 1882 and 1914 we saw the formation of the following governing bodies: the English Football Association (NSW) which was replaced by the Southern British Football Association, the Anglo-Australian Football Association (VIC), the Anglo-Queensland Football Association which was replaced by the Queensland British Football Association, the Western Australian British Football Association, the South Australian British Football Association, the Tasmanian British Football Association, the Canberra British Football Association, the Commonwealth Football Association, the Victorian Amateur British Football Association etc. Also the clubs were usually called Football Club or Association Football Club. Far too many to list but a few examples are: Anglo-Australian Football Association Football Club (Melbourne), Rangers Football Club (Brisbane), Rugby And English Association Football Club (Perth), Hobart Football Club, Canberra Football Club and many, many more. Letters written to Australian newspapers from the 1870's onwards using the term 'Football' to talk about the game indicate that the term was used by the general public. Australian newspaper reports from 1879 onwards used the terms 'Football', 'Association Football', 'British Association Football', 'Association Game', 'English Association Rules', 'British Association Rules', 'Association Rules' or 'Anglo-Australian Game' to report on the game. Local variations such as 'Anglo-Queensland Game' were sometimes used also. The reports nearly always used 'Football' followed by one of the other terms to indicate what code was being played / reported on. By the 20th century, newspapers reports were using mainly 'Association Football' or 'British Association Football' to describe the game. The first Australian report I have come across that used 'soccer' was in 1915, but the same report also used 'Football', and most reports continued to use 'British Association Football' or a variation of it. In 1926 some reports started using the term 'Soccer Football'. The term 'soccer' appears to have been used more regularly from the late 1920's when the national governing body changed their name to the Australian Soccer Football Association. I have been on Australian websites that use 'Football' and others that use 'soccer'. I have been on plenty of Australian forums where many of the fans from all over the country have used 'Football' while the others have use 'soccer'. If you are happy to call it 'soccer' that is fine but leave the others who prefer to use 'Football', to do just that, they are just keeping up tradition. In my experience there should not be any confusion on what code you are referring to, by what else you say. If are you talking about goalkeepers, six yard box, centre circle, penalty box etc or mention the clubs or the players involved, what competition the match was being played in, then most people have the brains to work out what code of Football you are talking about. Footballworldworldfootball2 (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's terrific historical stuff. It wouldn't take much rewriting and the connection with a few references to put a new perspective into the article about what happened in those earlier days. I was unaware of it. I'd still say, however, that it's inaccurate to describe what's happening now as maintaining a tradition. Very few of the current fans would have been fans in the 1920s, in order to make that connection. What's happening now is all about the repackaging of the game within the past decade, with the FFA encouraging clubs and fans to use the name football. The problems with this, and describing it here, is that Australia is not a homogeneous language base when it comes to using the new name. Clearly, in those areas where Australian football is the established code, the name football will always mean Australian football when used with no specific context to highlight that the speaker or writer means association football. Australian football is the default meaning, and I can't see it changing soon. And there is confusion. Here in Wikipedia we recently had the silly situation in the

Melbourne Heart (soocer) article where in one paragraph there was mention of the South Melbourne Football Club, which needs clarification because, while it is now the name of a soccer club, it was previously the name of a major Australian football club, and the Carlton Football Club, which actually referred to the Australian football club in the AFL. A Carlton Soccer Club has existed in the past decade. I had to do a fair bit of research before I clarified what was really going on. I am a Melbourne based fan of both A League and AFL, and it makes no sense for me to call both games football, when there is a perfectly good, easily understood, alternative name for the former. I'm not convinced that those pushing the football name for soccer from outside the AFL states really understand the language dynamic in those places. In fact, I'd love to write more about those language differences here, but it's hard to find straightforward references. HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Surely though followers of Rugby League in Australia, also call their game 'Football' and have done so for years. So if two sports can both claim the name of Football, why not three? (Oh by the way, my comment about 'keeping up tradition' was only meant to be light-hearted!). Here in New Zealand we don't have so much of a problem. The three major codes, Association Football, Rugby Union and Rugby League have all called themselves 'Football'. But Rugby Union usually gets shorten down to 'Rugby', while Rugby League is usually shorten down to 'League'. Association Football is usually shorten down to 'Football' by followers and 'Soccer' by non-followers, even though more and more non-followers are starting to call it 'Football'. As Ricky Herbert, manager of the All Whites and Wellington Phoenix said in a recent book, "Every football-loving kid in New Zealand would adopt an English team to support." Maybe it's because of kiwis love of the British game that we use the word 'Football' in place of 'Soccer' more than our Aussie cousins do. Although an Australian publication that I have been buying for years is 'British Football Week', so there must be quite a few followers of the British game over your side of the pond too, and judging by the letters that used to appear in BFW, not all of them were from Brits. I take your point about South Melbourne and Carlton Football Clubs. The person who got them mixed up obviously didn't do their homework. In England, there were two Liverpool Football Clubs, one who plays Association Football, the other played Rugby Union. To the best of my knowledge the clubs were not mistaken for each other. In 1986 the Rugby playing Liverpool FC merged with St Helens RUFC to become Liverpool St Helens FC. However according to wikipedia, Liverpool St Helens FC is often confused with Liverpool FC and St Helens RLFC. I have read many Football, Rugby Union & League publications from the UK but have not come across any confusion. Footballworldworldfootball2 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main point is about the geographical differences within Australia. In most of NSW and Queensland, League is the strongest code. In the rest of the country it's Australian football. I'm in the latter area and can really only speak with certainty for that part of the country. My comments are explicitly about the place where football means Australian football, if it's said or written without further context or clarification. Because of the geographical divide, we should never see statements that simply start with "In Australia....." It MUST be further refined. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello, as it is the map really give wrong idea about the name. it's maybe a good idea to make a map where all contries are show, also non english speaking ones. where you have 3 colors :

• soccer
• football (and derivated : futbol...)
• other

because as it is, you may think half of countries use "soccer", which is far from real... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.207.5 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map apparently contends that in South Africa, usage is "disputed," but lists Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland as using "soccer." However, the text doesn't appear to support this - South Africa's situation appears to be virtually identical to the other countries mentioned.

I don't know how to edit articles. But I'd like to point out that in the artical it says the Danish word fodbold is derived from English. This is not true. Denmark should be in the same catagory as Iceland and Germany - this also applies to Nowegian and Swedish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.130.38 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In section of "non english speaking countries" Poland is in "other forms" cathegory while it actually falls in "literall translation of football" and "from english football" categories. In Poland most popular form is "piłka nożna" which is direct translation of word "football", word "futbol" is also very popular and of course it comes from word "football" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effyr (talk • contribs) 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, mates, but I think we're trying to do too much here. The article frequently wanders away from the topic suggested by its title.

Instead of only giving names for soccer, it tries to explain how the same word football is used to mean soccer (in most of the world) and

We should either narrow the scope and just give words used for soccer, or change the title to something like Definitions of football as we did with Definitions of Palestine. Or maybe just call it Names of football sports. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much appreciated if this happened. There are a number of Australian based editors here on Wikipedia who are disgruntled by the fact that the FFA and many media outlets adopted the term football as opposed to soccer in Australia. Many of these editors are Victorians whose ongoing interest is to bring the game into disrepute and at any cost to promote Australian Rules Football. Could other editors please keep an eye out on this one as there is an ongoing probability that the Oceania section will be subject to weasel words and vandalim. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to discuss your changes. That's not a discussion. It's an attack on the motives and behaviour of other editors. You have been abusing editors whose perspective you disagree with for weeks over at Talk:Soccer in Australia. I have been holding back, but am getting very close to an ANI report, something I very rarely and would very reluctantly do. HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been abused by yourself for weeks on end, you do not have a very clean track record. On the matter of discussion, you simply reverted this article without discussing the matters, you have shown a complete failure to maintain good faith and have done nothing but maintained ongoing hostility towards myself and other editors. This is not a matter of AN/I. If you have a problem with the edits on this page then discuss them. Otherwise assume good faith --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made the changes. You must justify them. Abusing other editors is not a justification. I won't revert again. I prefer to follow the rules and show good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must assume good faith, there is no common ground here for discussion, I was merely cleaning up weasel words and irrelevant text in this article, if you continue to harass me you will be reported at AN/I --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! The last three editors to try that all ended up with blocks themselves due to the application of

WP:BOOMERANG. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Using expletives on your talk page when I am trying to discuss the matter with yourself is getting you nowhere. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use an expletive on my Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I can see, you might want to check before you use four letter words next time in your edit summary --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I said "Fuck off" in my Edit summary, because, for the umpteenth time, I don't want any more soccer=football crap on my Talk page. I'm quite happy to discuss it in the right places. Got it yet? HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

WP:MEAT. This is ridiculous. You failed to discuss with me on either the appropriate talk page, I.E. this one, or on my user page, I am not the problem here --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, I see no problem with the edits made by Orestes1984. There was no reason for discussion nor for the edits to be reverted by HiLo48.--2nyte (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on all counts. You should study

WP:BRD. Afterwriting (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If you don't understand then don't simply undo, you must leave it as it is and discuss --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong ~ the process is Bold, REVERT, Discuss ~ NOT Bold, Discuss. Afterwriting (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Afterwriting, what is wrong with this edit.--2nyte (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it is unreferenced commentary and original research ~ which MUST be removed from articles without discussion. Next question? Afterwriting (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like all that stuff about the fringe theory on the Barassi line affecting soccer? Nothing out of what I added was original research, your claims above are nonsensical. Everything I added can be referenced, or is common knowledge. There is NOT a single published academic article to support the claims around the Barassi line and furthermore it detracts from the article with what amounts to nothing more than weasel words. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your silly little jokes. You really are totally clueless. Afterwriting (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing attempt at harassment like every other one of my football (in general) edits that you are tracking you are doing nothing more than hounding myself --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, GROW UP!!! Afterwriting (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the claims necessary the rest is common knowledge I do not need to cite the names of newspapers or football orginisiations, I'd suggest you grow up. You are doing nothing other than creating unnecessary bureaucracy, if I didn't know any better I'd say you were attempting to create another rfc like situation, here that will go nowhere as per usual --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when were Wikipedia articles based on "common knowledge"? If it's such "common knowledge" then there's not much need to mention it is there? Do you really need a lesson on what is considered original research and personal commentary? Afterwriting (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like a reference to the website of every football federation in this country to appease you? You're not going to find anything there. This is very hypocritical considering the ongoing campaign to use the essay

WP:BLUE

recently. Yeah whatever, I'm also a hypocrite, it could be worse. There is nothing in the edits that I have made that is not citable. I have removed broad claims and links to fringe theory such as the Barassi Line that have little substantial evidence out there to support them directly in connection to the sport of association football. The editors on the Barassi Line article have also stated the concept has nothing to do directly with footbal..

If you would like to keep information such as this in this article then provide a reliable source, as it goes, all unverifiable content may be challenged and removed. I went to great lengths to reframe the section in this article from a NPOV, I was bold, if you have a problem with anything else specifically that I've done then you must discuss what exactly that is, because none of the changes I have made are unverifiable. On the other hand citing claims about the Barassi line and its effects on soccer is much more difficult. IF anything this was the most problematic section of the article, IF you would like to keep the previous section on that, then discuss with me why you think that should be the case and why you think it's particularly relevant. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the

rugby codes on the other, for around 150 year. Where the rugby codes dominated, the population got used to two different sports routinely being called football. That meant that when another code chose to be called football, it was OK because people were used to the word "football" being ambiguous. Where Aussie Rules dominated however, "football" meant only one thing, for 150 years, and it wasn't "soccer". It wasn't ambiguous. One meaning only. 150 years of linguistic certainty. Nobody even thought about the possibility that it could mean anything else. So, the round ball game was called "soccer", and still is. The players call it "soccer". The clubs called it "soccer". Many still do, despite directives from the other side of the Barassi Line to change. (Ever wondered why?) All non-fans call it "soccer". The media calls it "soccer". It's a practical linguistic arrangement. One sport is called football. Another is called soccer. It doesn't bother anybody. There's no ambiguity. The word "soccer" carries no more nor no less baggage than the word "football" which, of course, uniquely means Aussie Rules. It's just like in the USA, except that there, "football" naturally means American football. THAT is the significance of the Barassi Line to the round ball game. Do you understand yet? HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Afterwriting, besides being unreferenced (which can be corrected), are there any other problems? Wording, new additions?--2nyte (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section was unreferenced as was the concept and now it would appear HiLo48 has changed his opinion as compared to when I last discussed this concept with him at Talk:Barassi Line. Anyway, to return to the issue and address HiLo48 directly, firstly, this article is about association football directly, and secondly you will be hard pressed to find references that address the majority of your claims, in fact I have added as with previous issues on this matter sources that counter just about everything you have stated above. If there are no further complains I don't see what is wrong with this version of the article which can be further referenced to address the majority of other problems. --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my opinion on nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect as per usual --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get back on topic? I'm sure you wouldn't want to be blocked or topic banned? Way the discussion is going here and in

RFC at the rate it's going. I suggest you follow what Gnangarra has stated, Disengage. Bidgee (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

As per other talk page discussion, I suggest you stop contributing your opinion on matters where there is no need for your contribution. For someone who is "retired" as an editor you seem to have a lot of time for getting involved in discussion in matters which are unrelated to yourself --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have largely kept the context and removed the majority of broad claims and weasel words from this article again, if any one else would like to suggest anything feel free to do so. I have also added tags where necessary specific claims about linguistics and code popularity must be referenced --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor really needs to realise that there is no consensus for significant changes to this article. He still doesn't understand, nor even seem to believe in the existence and impact of the Barassi Line. Denying something we have an article on seems particularly stupid behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on other pages are not relevant to this particular page, if you want to create a new consensus you must discuss rather than continuing to misuse policies such as BRD. Please refrain from insulting me unless you'd like to discuss your ongoing incivility at AN/I --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no insult there. Your behaviour and editing today do appear to me to be quite stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a clear cut case of incivility right there, please also see

WP:FILIBUSTERS for some info on Wikipedia:BRD misuse --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Who wrote that? HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being smart, if you cannot think of a logical reason to revert to a factually incorrect and biased version of this article then you must desist --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it was apparently you who failed to sign properly. Thank you for fixing it so we all now know who wrote that. It would have looked a bit silly otherwise, wouldn't it? Anyway, your incomprehensible failure to comprehend the Barassi Line astounds me. Come visit Melbourne some time. You don't have to watch a footy match if it doesn't appeal, but you do need to discover reality, even when it isn't what you want it to be. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuos inability to cite your claims astounds me beyond belief, if I did not know any better I would suggest that you were

filibustering which is something I might have chosen to bring up on AN/I if you persisted with reverting to factually incorrect pages here on wikipedia --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

WTF? You're acting moronically. I didn't make any claims to cite! It's YOUR edits we're discussing here, not mine! So, your claims, not mine. I was quite happy with the article's status quo. No new claims form me to cite. You want to change it? Fine. YOU have to justify the changes. Been here eight years, eh? I am further seriously doubting your

competence to edit on Wikipedia. It will certainly be obvious to any reader of this thread that having a rational discussion with you is not possible. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Quite the opposite, and if you want to discuss the cite tags re: the Barassi Line, you introduced the concept so cite it. Really it is that simple... In a particularly global environment such as this one, no one is going to know what you're on about. --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a fucking article on the Barassi Line!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Plenty of citations there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rules on internal referencing and get back to me, if you have valid references to the sport of association football, which is strangely absent from the page on the Barassi Line, then drag them over here --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You need to discuss your concerns. You have not done so. Meanwhile, my patience with your behaviour is wearing thin. I'll have a rest and think about where to take this. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is wearing thin is my ability to tolerate your filibustering with factually incorrect information, I note my most recent change with regards to the previous administration body and their liquidation status and many other facts. I also note the continued use of weasel words that could be used to push a POV agenda rather than one which is neutral to the topic of this page. If you continue to filibuster with pointless BRDs and reverts to factually incorrect pages I will report you at AN/I --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about addressing some strange wording? After a recent unsourced change the article now states "The current official name for the mens Australia national association football team is considered to be the Australian national football team". That's not good. It can't be "considered to be". It either is or it isn't. And there's no source. Want to tackle that one? HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove it until such time as there is a credible source suggesting so then go ahead, I've reworded this article in the context of the article while remaining neutral and playing both sides of the court e.g. on ethnic conflict as one example. If you think there is anything else problematic then flag it, otherwise I'm simply going to see it as filibustering good faith editing --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A look here makes it obvious that Socceroos is the official name. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, the FFA use Socceroos almost exclusively when they are referring to the men's national team. The exception is when they are referring to a match involving this team when they are required by FIFA to refer to the team as Australia. Hack (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I haven't read that yet, I've tentatively put a link into the means national team page, in the applicable place near where it was removed. I think we might actually be getting somewhere in terms of a reasonable compromise. Although I'm still not 100% happy with words such as partial slipping in as opposed to something that was and is still seen as continuing to be, ongoing. Partial implies that it is completed partially, when we all know the current state of the FFA, the A-League, and soccer (football) in Australia is far from completed. The second tier competition has barely gotten off the ground, the FFA cup has not been implemented, nor has promotion/relegation, and that is just the local game being played, the current structure of the FFA is far from being complete, nor is the FFAs long term vision, well may it never, of soccer dominance in this nation. The FFA said as much themselves way back in 2004-05. This really doesn't need to be as painful as we've all made it out to be--Orestes1984 (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really simple. We can only describe what HAS happened. We can never say what WILL happen. That would be

speculation, and unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no idea what the first sentence of that post means. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure myself. The Australian Soccer Federation/Soccer Australia was indeed wound up to make way for the Australian Soccer Association (later renamed Football Federation Australia). FIFA recognises the FFA as the successor of the preceding organisations despite them being separate legal entities. Hack (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes sense. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is that they are separate entities and if you understood the more recent history on this matter you may understand why one organisation imploded in public view and why the FFA was needed as a separate organisation, therefore why they are two separate and distinct organisations. You can't spin this into one organisation succeeding the other without engaging in alternative history perspectives. Soccer Australia had to die a slow and somewhat disgraceful public death so as we could have the FFA.

FIFA recognises the FFA as a successor to Soccer Australia, only in as much sense to promote non-governmental interference. See: The Crawford Report and why the Australian government could not resolve this conflict. There is a complete and utter lack of competence in the broader understanding of the history of this sport in Australia by some editors here. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you proposing? Hack (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really proposing anything other than the fact that if you want to edit association football related articles that you are informed of the history of the game in Australia that is also reflective here in other pages on Wikipedia as you can see in my edit difs. If you want to take up camp here, all I'm saying is be informed under the directive that

filibustering which takes into account the distribution of misinformation... If you are going to take up an opposing case, then at least be well informed in your position and be able to verify why this is the case -Orestes1984 (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This isn't a forum. If you have a problem with the content of an article or articles, take it up on the relevant talkpage or Wikiproject. Hack (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From

Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia: "Anyone can be bold and edit an existing article or create a new one, and volunteers do not need to have any formal training.". HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

"training" is not relevant to what is going on here, nor does it have anything to do with Competence and particularly factuality. You consistently edit here and elsewhere in a way that displays a lack of understanding of the facts and cultural context that is involved here which leads to you inserting your own biases, on those grounds I suggest you actually read the page on Competence. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse others of being incompetent but yet claim above that Soccer Australia went bankrupt. Refer

WP:BOOMERANG. Hack (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hack, the organisation had the word "soccer" in it's name. It is therefore, by definition, bad. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm just exposing my own ignorance here (in which case, I'd appreciate a little education), but I don't at all understand this:

"...as Australia does not have a codified language, popular usage of the word football is not fixed in any legal form."

Does any country have a codified language, and legally define the popular usage of common terms? LarryJeff (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "

Académie française" officially regulates the French language. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

There's a world map here demonstrating usage of the terms worldwide. However, since the image is a derivative work of a blank world map hosted on Commons, is it safe to say that the image would be free license and therefore can be used here? There is minimal threshold of originality as far as copyright is concerned. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48: Thank you for getting in touch and please forgive me for not responding earlier.

Oceania: This section has multiple defects that have been flagged by multiple editors. My version was self-evidently superior: concise, accurate, properly sourced, and, importantly, on-topic. Instead of using it as the basis for further improvement, you have simply reverted (twice) to rubbish. This is irrational.

The reaction against "soccer": This is the hottest issue in football nomenclature today, and this article is the place to cover it. The new section I added provided a sound foundation for further work. You have deleted it without acknowledgement or explanation. Again, irrational.

Failure to discuss: Wikipedia is probably not worth fixing; it is certainly not worth arguing about. 124.190.136.170 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To post that here, and then re-add your material before anyone had responded, is very bad faith editing. You have some good content to add, but you have completely failed to comply with Wikipedia procedures. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? 124.190.136.170 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't use words properly? HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Japanese news media in English (such as this), association football is "soccer", while American football is "football". Now, Japan isn't an English-speaking country, and I dunno who is the supposed audience of such media (expats?) but if there's such as thing as "

Korea's quite the same as Japan. In the Asian Games, their English blogs refer to "soccer" and "baseball" as the two most popular sports there. –HTD 17:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060413105746/http://www.mysummercamps.com/news/134/ to http://www.mysummercamps.com/news/134/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—

I have just modified 4 external links on Names for association football. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208172959/http://www.dcu.ie/alumni/summer02/p30.html to http://www.dcu.ie/alumni/summer02/p30.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229145946/http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/sixnations/2008/0220/osullivane.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/sixnations/2008/0220/osullivane.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119010636/http://skerriesrfc.ie/history.html to http://www.skerriesrfc.ie/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140423063549/http://www.pff.com.pk/president-messege.php to http://www.pff.com.pk/president-messege.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ylee: Article states "For nearly a hundred years after it was coined, soccer was an uncontroversial alternative to football, often in colloquial and juvenile contexts, but also in formal speech and writing." - Is that true for the UK , the US , all English speaking areas or Where ?. I'm strongly under the impression that a century ago, was the term "Soccer" invented in North America - it may have reached Australia and New Zealand, but it's origin is American. To accuse me of vandalism is just silly. Boeing720 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Szymanski article—cited at the end of the sentence you are trying to edit—explains the origin and usage of the word in detail. Short version: "Soccer" is from England, not North America, and was commonly used there until about 1980. Ylee (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, I simply have to agree. But why not be clear about that ? Preferably with the use of a reasonable source. Boeing720 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English is the largest of the Germanic languages, all of those uses the words for "foot" and "ball". So do several other languages as well. But it's worth mention, not at least due to how closely the two parts ("foot" and "ball") and the outcome ("football") relates to each other.

• English - football
• Dutch - voetball (in Dutch and German is "V" pronounced like "F" in English)
• German - Fußball (nouns are still Capitalised in German)
• Danish - fodbold
• Swedish - fotboll
• Norwegian - fotball
• Icelandic - fótbolti

Which languages that are

"In the first half of the 20th century, in Spanish and Portuguese, new words were created to replace "football" (fútbol in Spanish and futebol in Portuguese), balompié (balón and pie meaning "ball" and "foot") and ludopédio (from words meaning "game" and "foot") respectively. However, these words were not widely accepted and are now only used in club names such as Real Betis Balompié and Albacete Balompié." Boeing720 (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find at least one source stating the exact same conclusion, it's

Competency with the language is needed. oknazevad (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified 3 external links on Names for association football. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705121159/http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/its-football-to-you-soccer-to-me--fbintl_ro-soccervsfootball070110.html to http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/its-football-to-you-soccer-to-me--fbintl_ro-soccervsfootball070110.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217160019/http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/about/les-murray-106369/ to http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/about/les-murray-106369
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123064046/http://pmtranscripts.dpmc.gov.au/preview.php?did=17487 to http://pmtranscripts.dpmc.gov.au/preview.php?did=17487

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does that mean, especially since the word in not capitalized. what is non-association football? please be specific. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is non-association football? American football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football, Rugby league in parts of Australia, etc, etc, etc. They are all called simply football by their fans. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Association football" is that form of football codified by the "Football Association". Before that time, there were numerous local variations all called "football". Some were mostly kicking games, some were mostly carrying games, some were a mixture. The various modern games called football have a complex history of descent from these source games. --Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Football Association came into existence in 1863. Australian rules football was codified BEFORE that, in 1859. Dunno about other codes. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add to the confusion, in 1877 the Victorian Football Association was formed to play Australian rules football. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody uses the spelling "saker" in the Philippines. Where did this come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.141.16 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was from 2018, but the passage it was referring to was tagged as citation needed since October 2019; it's now December 2022 and no one has supplied a ref. It, and its surrounding paragraphs (which are also tagged since October 2019), have been deleted. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, i don't really know what i'm doing here technically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_association_football#Literal_translations_of_foot_ball_(calques)

The article says 'piłka nożna' literally means 'ball of the foot', with 'nożna' being the possessive form of 'noga'. That's incorrect. 'Nożna' is an adjective created from the noun 'noga'. The possessive form would be 'piłka nogi'.

The Polish version 'piłka nożna' is a one-to-one calque of 'foot ball'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.226.71.180 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyrail apparently branded their service to Liverpool FC and Everton games as Soccerbus, but I don't know enough about the background to judge if that's an intentional Americanism, a nod to linguistic history, or something else. I think it's interesting enough to mention here but sometimes one-off exceptions can make for clumsy writing on WP. Occasionally soccer shows up on Talksport, e.g. with some sort of affected American accent for "Soccer Saturday" (and the Wikipedia article says they had a magazine called Soccer Bet). Are there other examples of soccer in contemporary UK branding or everyday usage? Any opinions on how to weave this/these exception[s] into the article? - PhilipR (talk)

Hmmm, I guess pure sound values could have played a role here - Footballbus doesn't have the same flow, and "Soccer Saturday" is alliterative for both the s- and -er sounds. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes anyone think it's an Americanism? The Brits invented the word "soccer". Those who emigrated to my part of Australia in the 1950s, many from not so wealthy areas such as "Merseyside", chose to use "soccer" for the name of the game they effectively introduced to the country at that time. (Sure it existed before, but it was the post WWII immigrant boom that made it a popular game.) They played Soccer Pools, not Football Pools. It's still a very popular name for the game in Australia, where other football codes were stronger first and so captured the name "football" for their codes. It's no surprise to me that it should still be a useful name for the game in England. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "soccer" was commonly used in the UK, without any negative associations, until probably the 1990s. The Sun newspaper published a "Sun Soccer Annual" every year. Newspapers and magazines used the terms soccer and football pretty much interchangeably. Somehow, though, around the 1990s, a new generation of fans seem to have got it into their heads that "soccer" was a word invented by those awful Americans in an attempt to rebrand the beautiful game and should be avoided at all costs and mocked. No idea why..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone born in 1969, I couldn't agree more. It's absolutely bizarre. Soccer was used everywhere, without anyone expressing any comment, and that in a time when it was barely known in America. Virtually overnight people barely out of short trousers started to claim that nobody but Americans ever said soccer. I can't explain it. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably some sort of overreaction to the US getting to host the 94 World Cup. Like a whole "Who do these yanks think they are? They don't play the sport! They don't even call it by its proper name!" nonsense that clearly ignores the origin of the term. oknazevad (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]