Talk:Association football/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Rugby football vs association football

Phaninda, Episkirus and Harpastum are more rugby than soccer if not entirely. These three games are most closely related to rugby football, North American football and wrestling, more distant than anything you'd recognise as soccer, according to this link for example https://books.google.com/books?id=IGy_QNv-J4oC&pg=PT32&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false . Maybe all these can be placed under the category football of which rugby football is part, but only for soccer it seems that only Cuju is suitable as this is the first recognized form of soccer by FIFA, now it is said that Phaninda is in the article. In fact Phaninda is an earlier form but unrecognised by FIFA and widely recognised as rugby, the statement considering Phaninda as such needs to be changed. Furthermore FIFA denies that modern football derives from these. For these reasons, I am going to move Phaninda, Episkitus and Harpastum to rugby football. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelosbrain (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my earlier edit summary, they may all more closely resemble modern rugby, but rugby itself is derived from the same root as soccer, i.e. mob football. Mob football, by extension, has its roots in the games of harpastum, phaninda and episkirus, therefore it is not beyond the realms of reality to say that those three are ancestors of modern soccer as well as rugby. – PeeJay 08:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

History of the usage of red and yellow cards

I'd like to add some information regarding how the use of red and yellow cards came by. If I am going to do so, would this article be allowed as a proper citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silevern (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No one has answered. I'll say no because the author is not provided, there is no information on the About Us page and there are spelling and grammatical errors through the whole thing. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

History of the usage of red and yellow cards

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Please add another paragraph under Players, equipment, and officials: Rules may vary depending on the level of play. For example, teams may consist of 7, 9, or 11 players depending on level of play, or size of field. Also, the size of the field may vary depending on level of play, or whether the game is indoor or outdoor. Also, there may be less than 3 referees depending on the level of play.

Also, the hardness and the size of the ball will vary depending on whether is it used in a youth, collegiate, or professional game. 192.234.38.43 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Good suggestion, but the paragraph needs some work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

nickname "the world game"

the ref-citation given in the "infobox" for the nickname "the world game" doesn't actually provide evidence that it is called "the world game" by anybody, it is more a suggestion that calling it fingerquotes "the world game" would be appropriate. Here is the citation for your convenience http://theconversation.com/in-a-globalised-world-the-football-world-cup-is-a-force-for-good-28727 That article itself references another article which is perhaps better evidence that it is called in some parts "the world game", but that reference itself also requires inference on the part of the reader https://theconversation.com/it-may-be-the-world-cup-but-how-global-is-the-world-game-27330 71.190.240.122 (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

more commonly known

more commonly known, a phrase meaning the correct lemma everywhere else on this planet is just the perfect sign for the abuse of language.--213.39.142.44 (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You, sir, are talking rubbish. The game has an official name (association football) and two other common names (football and soccer), neither of which has demonstrable prominence the world over. Therefore, we introduce the sport with its official names and then immediately make note of the two common names. – PeeJay 15:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The game is pretty demonstrably "football" the world over, the problem being that in English Americans outnumber the other native speakers and the Aussies have their own variant game as well. In any case, this discussion seems to belong at the Article name subpage. — LlywelynII 21:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

First, linking the UK and US is a violation of WP:OVERLINK.

Second, it's an over-simplification to indicate that it's known as football in British English. I would accept "in most locations in the English-speaking world", but not simply the UK. It's also known as soccer in locations that are not the United States. I happen to live in one of those locations. Please gain consensus for a change in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is dealt with much better in the name section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that the US and UK links are WP:OVERLINK is nonsense. The only question is whether to link to British and American English or to Differences between American and British English.

Second, it's British English and most of the rest of the English-speaking world does not uniformally know it as "football". We have an entire article on the topic if you'd care to read up on it. In any case, it is an improvement over what went before, with no clarification in the lead as to who is using what.

That said, fair enough about consensus and won't push it past 3rr, despite you being (as noted above) completely in the wrong as a matter of policy and standard practice and unhelpful to our readers in this particular instance. — LlywelynII 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking US and UK is an overlink as is linking the languages. No one is coming to the article to be redirected to the US or UK articles so it makes no sense to link them. They are common terms to any English-reader. Linking the languages is similarly an overlink. If you doubt, go ask on the talk page of the article that describes what it is.

You're confusing British English with International English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I also don't see this as necessary. Both "football" and "soccer" are known outside of these two major varieties. This is a matter for the article body, not the first sentence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is, which has been discussed a load of times, that the name of the sport is association football. Football is a type of sport, not a sport. You wouldn't call the tawny owl or barn owl article "owl" would you? I don't EVER say "I'm going to an association football match", or "I'm going to the association football" because everyone who knows me is fully aware of what I mean when I say football as it's the only code of football I watch. However if I was a fan of several codes of football I'd have to specify. The name of the article is Association Football. It will remain so as that is the correct name as discussed at great length several times. Cls14 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

When introducing the subject of barn owls, we start by explaining that it's a type of owl.

And the points for me are linking common English-language terms, such as a nation or a variant of the English language, is against an editing guideline. The second point is that if we're going to make a point in the article, it needs to be accurate, and your wording was not. It is known as "football" in every variant of English, but it is most frequently used in locations where English is spoken and that are not the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. To limit that to the United Kingdom is simply wrong. And to limit "soccer" only to the United States is also simply wrong.

So wrong editing guidelines and an overgeneralization make it wrong on multiple levels. It is explained sufficiently in the lede and expanded on in the first section. This means a it's not needed in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2016

24.108.143.166 (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC) socer is one of the worlds smallest sports. in other countries it is called football,in the united states of america football is a violent and a much bigger game played around the world in australia,china,europe and many other citys and countreis around the world. one fact about socer is that the players usualy over exaguate their injuries to make the ohter player get penalties, there are two types of cards the yellow one and the red one, the yellow card means that whatever you did was good the red card means that whate whatever you did is worthy of a privet dinner with the pressident.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Kahlia Hogg

Notable? I dont think so. Should be AfD'ed? Murry1975 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Played in the A-League and at international U21 level. Seems notable enough Cls14 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong forum. Take it to the talk page at WP:FOOTY. I would say not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2016

250 million to 300 million and 200 countries 182.255.118.110 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Your change cannot be made because it is not supported with a reference. There are four references there and the first is most clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

India?

I can not understand the relevance of the India Football information given in the article. I find it too focused on an otherwise generalistic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltor0pt (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with that. Never noticed before. Paragraph removed. Cls14 (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/en/marketing/newmedia/index/0,3509,10,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/flash/lotg/football/en/Laws7_03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft outline

There is a draft for a outline of this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of association football. There's also a RM request on the talk page for moving it to draftspace if anyone is interested. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2016

The first line of the "History" section says that "cuju ... is the earliest form of football for which there is scientific evidence." Instead of "scientific evidence," it should be "historical evidence." The FIFA article doesn't mention any use of scientific or archaeological techniques to determine that cuju was a sport. There are only historical records that describe cuju such that we know that it was similar activity to football.

jonyen (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/en/marketing/newmedia/index/0%2C3509%2C10%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821115849/http://www.usembassy.org.uk/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html to http://www.usembassy.org.uk/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/History/HistoryDetail/0%2C%2C10794~1357277%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://access.fifa.com/en/history/history/0%2C3504%2C3%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/football/2007/feb/21/theknowledge.sport
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament%3D103/awards/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://access.fifa.com/en/history/history/0%2C3504%2C4%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://olympics.sportinglife.com/olympics/story/0%2C23911%2C14986%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/clubworldcup/japan2007/releases/newsid%3D570740.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20161119053959/http://quality.fifa.com/en/Footballs/Become-a-licensee/Tests/Circumference/ to http://quality.fifa.com/en/Footballs/Become-a-licensee/Tests/Circumference/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160904193101/http://quality.fifa.com/en/Footballs/Football-facts/Football-manufacturing to http://quality.fifa.com/en/Footballs/Football-facts/Football-manufacturing/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 13:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20160722061112/http://www.namuseum.gr/collections/sculpture/classical/classic12-en.html to http://www.namuseum.gr/collections/sculpture/classical/classic12-en.html%23
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521234151/http://www.theglobalgame.com/aboutus.html to http://www.theglobalgame.com/aboutus.html

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

ADD footie to the nicknames section as many people around the world refer to it by that name. 71.231.63.216 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane ^talk 07:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

People have messed with the information and I would like to change it so it will be fixed. I know a very good amount of info. on the topic of soccer. Also I used to play college soccer for the Maryland University team down in College Park,Maryland Prof.John Jackson (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Favonian (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any country where this sport is called "Association football"?

If so, we should list those countries in the name section. If not, then it is crucial that we mention this. I'm not here to argue about the name of the article, but people reading the article should be able to get a realistic representation of this sport's name and that the current title reflects more a technicality in Wikipedia than widespread acceptance. I think this is definitely noteworthy. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It's called Association Football in every English speaking country. We're not going to list them. Please read the discussions on the name of the sport from the previous talk pages :-) Cls14 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What title would you recommend, Hamster? Neither "football" nor "soccer" predominates in any significant way, so "association football" - which is the official name for the sport in every country that plays it - is the only viable title. – PeeJay 23:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

He's not saying to change the title, just asking if the sport is commonly known as "association football" in any English-speaking countries. I do agree with him that the article should note that the name is not used commonly. Calidum ¤ 04:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the opening sentence of the article not clear enough? "Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer" Cls14 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No it is not clear. My original question was: "Is there any country in the world where it is called Association football?". Maybe we should explain: "Although technically called association football this name is not used to refer to the sport in any country". Unless this statement is not true. If that is the case, which countries are the exception? Also, as I said in my first comment, I am NOT here to try to change the title of the article but just to make the issue known to a casual reader. One shouldn't have to dig into the wiki talk pages to discern what is real information and what is the aftermath of a big wikipedia argument on technicalities. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"I am NOT here to try to change the title of the article" -- then what on earth are you doing here? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

From what he wrote, he wants the countries that call it "association football" to be itemize in a list. In other words, he seems to want a phrase like "No country in the world calls it association football." I assume he wants it immediately before "Within the English-speaking world, association football is now usually called". I'm just guessing. I don't think it's necessary though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

His question was "Is there any country where this sport is called "association football"?" The answer is still yes. It's called Association Football in many countries, it's just not commonly known as it there. Cls14 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

In German spoken countries (Germany, Austria, German part of Switzerland) there is it called "Football" (if they are meaning kinds of rugby, the say "American Football"). But I presume that "Association Football" is the correct name in English (in order to be differential to other broadly similar kinds of football)... --213.225.38.186 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC).

The game is called "Association football" in all the countries that play it, simply because that is the name of the game rules that it is played by and that is also why most or all the 'football' clubs have 'association football' in their titles or official documents. So the answers is ALL of them do. They do this to disambiguate themselves from people who play or follow Rugby football, which confusingly is also often just called 'football' by it's players and followers.

The official name of the game is "Association football" but most people who play or follow it will call it just 'football' or 'soccer'.

BTW, it is called "association football" because the rules of the game were drawn up by The Football Association (FA) back in the nineteenth century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2017

I wish to edit wikipedia because you forgot to write player's names, which are very important. You have also forgot to write some of the best players in the world like Ronaldo (the best player in the world) and Messi (the second) 74.79.254.103 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Further comment to the underlying request: adding player names. I suspect that we could link to articles in the "Players, equipment, and officials" section. There are many players who were No. 1 in the world at one point and it would imply recentism to list Ronaldo over all of them. We could discuss how the Ballon d'Or is awarded and link to the article. Messi won more often, however we would need to discuss wording and seek consensus before adding something that would alter the article so significantly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2017

I need to know about cribbean football is there any way I can fin it -- 2601:4A:C401:EE17:B862:79BB:EF72:DF59 (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Yes. You could start by reading the article. It links to North/Central America & Caribbean: Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF). It links each region's associations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a project for class

I believe each fact is cited, and in addition I'm very impressed by the amount of citations. I never would have thought it necessary for something as simple as soccer. Since this is a general, introductory page, I don't believe that any of the information is outdated. That being said, I am not up to date with all of the various new rules and regulations FIFA and UEFA routinely come out with. Frankquaranta (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

yes it is , we need to have a reliable source before to add any thing.--AlfaRocket (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

physical education

Give details for games Ashok kr (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018

Delete duplicate "most" in sentence: "Before the inception of the World Cup, the Olympics (especially during the 1920s) were the most most prestigious international event." in section "International Competitions". 82.1.122.99 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that!. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20100626030739/http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?sid=1&id=2079 to http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?sid=1&id=2079

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 07:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018

Raymondrocks (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)adfgj

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Discuss 00:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

write more about the team matches in association football 39.37.156.255 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

contradictions by Inclusion of history of antique games

Multiple times in the article it states that Association Football traces its roots to China, eg. “first played” in the info box, a paragraph in the opener and in the history section. However, as is also stated in the article, these games are unrelated to modern Association football, and as much a part of Rugby, American and Australian football as they are to AF. This information belongs on the Football page, not the Association Football page.

118.211.59.209 (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an absolute nonsense to say that cuju is an ancestor of association football. If anyone could prove that association football started because the game was brought back from China by Marco Polo or something, that would be different, but all we have are records that a ball-kicking game was played in China a very long time ago. Kicking a ball is not exactly rocket science, so to suggest that the Chinese game influenced Medieval football or the Italian game of calcio and ultimately the development of association football is ridiculous. – PeeJay 09:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sleeves

"First, this contradicts the earlier sentence. If defenders and keepers wear long sleeves, how does that differentiate the keeper. Second, keepers wear a different colour"

If anyone ever watched or played football match, one can clearly see 4 different lengths of sleeves: attacker - very short, centre - short, defense - medium, goalkeeper - full length. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Everywhere? In all climates? HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally. The color is also used.Erkinalp9035 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t true in all scenarios. Ronaldo wears long sleeves and he’s a forward. Fabien Barthez used to wear short sleeves and he was a goalkeeper. User:Erkinalp9035 is making things up and we should just ignore them. – PeeJay 08:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems unlikely, but in the absence of reliable sourcing, this conversation is irrelevant anyway. Nzd (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There are central defenders in MLS who wear short sleeves all year long, and yes, without a RS, it's irrelevant. The point is that the earlier sentence states that keeper must wear a distinct colour jersey to distinguish them from other players. Colour has nothing to do with length of sleeve, and he sleeve-length content was entire WP:OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request, 21 July 2018

In the last section: "Variants of football have been codified for reduced-sized teams (i.e. five-a-side football) play in non-field environments (i.e. beach soccer, indoor soccer, and futsal) and for teams with disabilities (i.e. paralympic association football)."

All three occurrences of "i.e." are incorrect and should be "e.g." (exempli gratia, "for example"). They specify examples of what is previously said, rather than elucidating the meaning of the previous terms. 195.157.65.228 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Woggabaliri

User:Giants2008 has just added a mention of this "game" to the article. This is not a good move. It's a game many of us think probably never existed. Most Australians know that soccer, as it was universally known then in that country, became derogatorily known as "wogball" during the 1950s and 60s, because it was largely played by recent immigrants from Europe, also derogatorily known as "wogs". See our articles on the play Wogs Out of Work and the film The Wog Boy for examples of this usage. The final section on that article's Talk page shows the unresolved concerns about this issue. Woggabaliri is a poor, very thinly and dangerously sourced article, on something that probably never existed. It's addition here will just make many people laugh because of the big joke happening here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problems with removing the addition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have left a message for User:Giants2008 to let him know about this discussion. He's an established user so it would be sensible to wait to see if he comment, I reckon Cls14 (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

My edit was an addition of a book cite to something that had already been there since June 2012, from what I can tell. Can't say that I know much about this controversy myself, but if you want to take it out, please feel free. I'm just surprised that something that might not be real would have been in the article that long to begin with. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of us have tried to get rid of the Woggabaliri article before, but some hard core owners got in the way. It wasn't worth the fight. What bothers me is that those who want to keep the article tend to be soccer fans, and cannot see that the name Woggabaliri is actually poking fun at and being a bit rude about their favourite game. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Having come back after 10 days to see the content still in the article, I decided to go ahead and remove it in the spirit of being bold given the concerns here. Sorry if the source addition caused any problems, but hopefully this edit took care of the underlying issue, at least as it pertains to this page. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Women's football

I would consider a little more research over Woman playing soccer. More importantly on what year they got started and what year did woman soccer become popular to play. Judypen (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Judith PenaJudypen (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think women started playing football in a particular year and I imagine it became popular at different times around the world. Plus "popular" is very subjective. Also it appears this is covered in the article. Cls14 (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wording issue

One of the phrases reads: "The teams finishing at the top of a country's league may be eligible also to play in international club competitions in the following season." This reads that you need to finish top of the league to qualify for the international club competitions. However this is not the case in many leagues as teams finishing anything up to 7th in some league can qualify. I amended it so it read "The teams finishing at, or near the top, of a country's league" as this is more accurate but it was reverted and I was told I was being pedantic. Thoughts? Cls14 (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you were being pedantic; that carries certain negative connotations that I didn't intend to be inferred. I said you were splitting hairs. The sentence says "The teams finishing at the top of a country's league..." Obviously you can't have multiple teams all finishing at the top, so it is implied that teams "near the top" are also included. You don't have to be at the very top to be included in a group that is at the top. – PeeJay 09:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't read. I am so sorry! Comment retracted! Cls14 (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image, 2018

The consensus is to use the current image (File:Football in Bloomington, Indiana, 1996.jpg).

Cunard (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request for comments on the four succeeding images. Which one is better for the lead section of Association football? There are four options: "Current image", "Alternative image", "Option 3" and "Option 4". One Factor (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• 
  The attacking player (No. 10) attempts to kick the ball beyond the opposing team's goalkeeper, between the goalposts, and beneath the crossbar to score a goal. (Current image)
• 
  Association football is typically played on a football pitch where two teams compete offensively and defensively to score goals and control ball movement. (Alternative image)
• 
  (Option 3)
• 
  (Option 4)

• Current, it shows the game and a lot of the elements. A generic picture of a pitch in a stadium doesn't. Nanonic (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Alternative image - The current image is too specific with too many subjects the alternative is more general. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Current The long shot doesn't offer any value to understanding the people involved in the game, which the current image does. If you can't see the people, you can't see the ball. And the percentage of matches that are played in a stadium of that size pales in comparison. both Niclas Jensen shooting FC Copenhagen FC Vestsjælland 05.04.2009.JPG and 90度システム広告 ナビスコ チップスター 2014 (15746577465).jpg are better than the proposed image, and I'm sure we could easily find a dozen more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Current - The current image is fine as a representation of the sport. – PeeJay 14:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Current, as it establishes the most basic fundamental of the sport (kicking a ball on a field), unlike the overhead shot that should be introduced later on. SounderBruce 07:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Current. The goal of the game is scored the ball in the goal. Matthew hk (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Current Best illustration of the game. Number 57 09:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

SharmaBoy7 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

{i really want to change this because there is more information about soccer that i want to add}17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)~~——————————

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC) ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be useful to have the abbreviation at the end of " ... were originally codified in England by The Football Association.", e.g., " ... were originally codified in England by The Football Association - the 'FA'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Change article title

It would be more useful to use the term "football" instead of association football because not many people include "associate" to the game of soccer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.104.202.215 (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash all the arguments we've had here before, but suffice it to say, we're not going to move the article. – PeeJay 08:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

Jimmithy101.1 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fun Facts about Soccer you may not know! Soccer is a sport played between two teams of eleven players with a ball and is known as football in most countries outside of Australia and the United States. It is played by 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport.

Where exactly in the article would you like this "fun fact" to be added? And considering it's a WP:COPYVIO from https://grasshoppersoccer.com.au/alert/news/news-category-2/fun-facts-about-soccer-you-may-not-know (among other possible locations) how do you propose Wikipedia avoid litigation for using this "fun fact"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This article should be moved to football

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In my opinion this article should be moved to its WP:COMMONNAME, which is football. It's rarely called anything else than football, and virtually noone calls it association football; more than 99% of reliable sources probably just call it football. It's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as far as the term football is concerned. --Tataral (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. When you wrote the above, did you happen to notice the big pink box, just above where you would have typed, saying....

Attention editors

Several move proposals have been made concerning the name of this article.

All discussion related to the naming of this article should take place at Talk:Association football/Article name. Any discussion here will be deleted.

HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand, HiLo. The OP's opinion far outweighs a mere edit notice! - BilCat (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Silly me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad you understand now. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

And @Tataral: you're not from where I live, where it's not the commonname for the sport at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Nor here. Where I live THIS is a football....

An Australian Rules football

HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not as far as the vast majority of reliable sources are concerned. The use of the term "football" to describe the oddly named "American football" (which is really handball and not football) is a minority opinion of only one single country, the one led by Donald Trump. It doesn't change the fact that football as the rest of the world understands it is the primary topic. We can still have a hatnote mentioning "American football". US-centric views don't take precedence on Wikipedia. The key issue here is that noone calls football "association football". Most people in Europe and many other places probably wouldn't even understand what "association football" is, as opposed to plain football. From the perspective of the clear majority of reliable sources, there is football and there is American football, and that should be the titles of the two articles in question. --Tataral (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what who is president of a country has to do with anything under discussion.here other than to reveal the OP's own biases. As to common name, Wikipedia's guidelines applies to usage in English-speaking countries, and in those countries, football can mean association football/soccer, American football, Canadian football, Australian rules football, or Gaelic football. I actually prefer this article's old title of football (soccer) to the current one, but it's not likely to ever get a consensus again. - BilCat (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Tataral, do pay attention. The ball in the pic above is not American. It is Australian. Here in Australia there are four different sports played professionally that are call football by at least some (in one case all) of their fans. There's maybe four other sports I can think of played non-professionally in Australia also called football. Other countries where "football" does not mean what you think it means include Ireland, Canada, South Africa, Japan, and New Zealand. The name is ambiguous. Insisting on it meaning only the version you like would obviously confuse readers from those other countries. We need a non-ambiguous name. I too prefer soccer. Everyone knows what it means, and it's non-ambiguous, but some soccer fans don't seem to like it. I have never understood why. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, "soccer" is a term only used in the US, so that term is itself an example of US centrism. I don't think the majority in Europe would even know what the term means, until you explain to them that you mean "football". Personally I don't prefer and am not interested in any form of ball game. I'm interested in reliable sources, primary topics, and the avoidance of US centrism in Wikipedia articles, whether they are related to sports or something else entirely. --Tataral (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

"Soccer" is also used in Australia and, I believe, in the other countries I listed above. Have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) to see how Wikipedia has embraced the term "soccer" for Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure that this article references the locales where it is used. I am not American and the term is used in my country as well yet we do refer to team colours. We're so messed up, linguistically speaking. I trust that you'll spend some time reading to learn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If this were US centric, this would be football and this would be soccer. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And as far as "primary topic" goes, the number of English sources about association football and about American football are probably closer than you realize. Non-English sources are good for facts, but they have no bearing on questions of English usage (such as primary topic and common name). --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not going to move because we've discussed this to death and the outcome was the current name. If you want it called "football" you clearly don't understand enough about the topic to discuss it Cls14 (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer this article to be called Soccer. Mind you, I'm a North American, so no surprise :) GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This Australian feels the same way. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Why? – PeeJay 10:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll begin my repsonse by saying I don't expect it to happen, and I won't be fighting over the matter at a global level, but it's a simple fact that "soccer" is the common name of the game around where I live. There's another sport comonly known as football. It's the language I have used all my longish life. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you understand why the article exists at the current name, right? – PeeJay 12:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a majority of native English speakers call this sport SOCCER. The arrogance of Englishmen (a minority among English speakers) to think that they have a monopoly and the final say on the English language is appalling. (And I don't care what the sport is called in other languages, that's an irrelevant argument.)

71.226.227.121 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

But not those who are interested in the sport. Neither national variant is supported so I guess no one is happy.

An American is not probably the best source of claiming who is and is not arrogant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm on your radar, so you're editing articles I've edited to suit your agenda; all this over Soccer?? Very strange and unappealing. I expressed my opinion about this article in this article's talk page, based mainly on comments I read above. You seem to have major biases in a general sense. Also, your comments here are very uneditor-like.

The argument that most people who are interested in the sport call it "football," therefore, that should be the article title doesn't hold water. This is an encyclopedia. I'm more interested in the reader looking to learn something, not fans defending their precious shrine pages. Be encyclopedic or piss off. The most common English language name for this sport is indeed SOCCER, nationalities and fan interest notwithstanding. 71.226.227.121 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, editors who make dubious edits end up on my radar. I mimicked your comments. If you don't like them, consider them to be a mirror and an opportunity for self-correction. No, the most common English name for this sport is not Soccer. Check the name of the US-based clubs such as Seattle Sounders FC, Houston FC and the list goes on. You do understand what the title of this article is, right? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

My comments clearly bothered you. Your comments simply make me wary of some Wikipedia editors and their unencyclopedic behavior and "logic." Scary stuff. I'll post on your talk page. 71.226.227.121 (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My changes

@Walter Görlitz: I unbolded "football" because there is another article called Football, and there is no direct redirect from Football to this page. This is how I understand WP:Lead re bolding. Technical reason only; I also call it football. I changed the asterisked list to Plainlist because of a discussion I came across just recently saying that it is better for people with hearing disabilities who use voice software - but perhaps this is only compared with line breaks? Anyway what I took away from that was that plainlist is preferable. Just answering your questions because you asked - happy to be corrected! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that in a previous edit. MOS:BOLDLEAD is our guidance here. That the term football is not a redirect does not mean it is not a significant alternative title. It should remain bold in my opinion. What do others think? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be a slightly grey area, but actually upon revisiting, it does look better bolded, and it is indirectly redirected, via the disambiguation page. And of course is significant. Happy to leave as is. (P.S. I just fixed a typo in my earlier comment - line breaks.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Leave bold. American football also has football in bold. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 05:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 05 October 2019

Corona3102 (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Soccer (also known as “football”) is one of the most popular sports in the world, with a growing number of enthusiasts and players world-wide. Despite this fact, strength and conditioning programs for soccer are often neglected or outdated. Except at the professional level, many athletes and coaches still focus only on skill development and endurance training (ie- running), and ignore other important elements of fitness such as:  Strength and strength endurance  Speed and power  Flexibility  Agility  Nutrition Athletes of other popular sports such as hockey or American football typically understand the importance of a complementary strength and conditioning program (especially off-season) to improve their performance, but it seems that some soccer players don‟t believe that elements such as strength or power development are necessary for their sport. This couldn‟t be further from the truth. In this article I will take a closer look at the different components of fitness involved in the sport of soccer, and then suggest a simple way to organize your high performance training program. I will not be discussing skill development in this article.

Endurance in Soccer

A soccer fitness program should be built around developing a good aerobic base. Several studies into the physiological demands of soccer have shown that outfield players can travel up to 13 km or 8 miles during a 90-minute game. This places a significant demand on the athlete‟s cardiovascular system and muscular endurance. Having said that, I believe this is one aspect of training that is already over-emphasized in this sport.

It‟s not uncommon to hear of soccer players running for at least an hour at a time several days per week in an attempt to improve their performance on the field. However, if you start to analyze the „sport-specific‟ requirements of the athletes, you will realize that they are actually engaging in varying intensities of activity for different durations while playing, including: walking, jogging, running, and sprinting, and in various directions. Incorporating interval training into your program, that involves high and low intensities of activity, will provide better results than long duration, low intensity jogging alone

 Not done It's not clear what you want changed or why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019

Corona3102 (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Soccer (also known as “football”) is one of the most popular sports in the world, with a growing number of enthusiasts and players world-wide. Despite this fact, strength and conditioning programs for soccer are often neglected or outdated. Except at the professional level, many athletes and coaches still focus only on skill development and endurance training (ie- running), and ignore other important elements of fitness such as:  Strength and strength endurance  Speed and power  Flexibility  Agility  Nutrition Athletes of other popular sports such as hockey or American football typically understand the importance of a complementary strength and conditioning program (especially off-season) to improve their performance, but it seems that some soccer players don‟t believe that elements such as strength or power development are necessary for their sport. This couldn‟t be further from the truth. In this article I will take a closer look at the different components of fitness involved in the sport of soccer, and then suggest a simple way to organize your high performance training program. I will not be discussing skill development in this article.

Endurance in Soccer

A soccer fitness program should be built around developing a good aerobic base. Several studies into the physiological demands of soccer have shown that outfield players can travel up to 13 km or 8 miles during a 90-minute game. This places a significant demand on the athlete‟s cardiovascular system and muscular endurance. Having said that, I believe this is one aspect of training that is already over-emphasized in this sport.

It‟s not uncommon to hear of soccer players running for at least an hour at a time several days per week in an attempt to improve their performance on the field. However, if you start to analyze the „sport-specific‟ requirements of the athletes, you will realize that they are actually engaging in varying intensities of activity for different durations while playing, including: walking, jogging, running, and sprinting, and in various directions. Incorporating interval training into your program, that involves high and low intensities of activity, will provide better results than long duration, low intensity jogging alone

 Not done It's not clear what you want changed or why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2020

I feel that all of the names for football should be included, like adding Calcio, or soccer. And also talk about the origins of the game. 10soccer28 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@10soccer28: Could you please give more details. Where would you like to see this? The lede sentence currently states "Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer", so the second is listed. Calcio is a foreign word for the sport and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is a list of what it's called in each language on the side. Which specific change would you like to see? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020

8arsenal invincibles 49 49 undefeated 62.150.1.204 (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Were exactly in the article would you like this to be placed and with what wording? And do you have a source for this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

161.0.138.89 (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - QuadColour (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"Voetbal" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Voetbal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#Voetbal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Futébol" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Futébol. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#Futébol until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Fútbol" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fútbol. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#Fútbol until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Futebol" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Futebol. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#Futebol until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Futbol" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Futbol. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#Futbol until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Football(soccer)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Football(soccer). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Football(soccer) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that this is for Football(soccer) and NOT Football (soccer), the space is crucial. Nanonic (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2020

Contact should be just referred as "limited" or "limited-contact". Not "Permitted (limited)", to better correlate with the "contact sport" Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_sport). As that page only refers it as "limited-contact", not "Permitted (limited)". 83.187.165.93 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Please add a hyphen (-) between "Limited contact" (Limited-contact). 83.187.165.93 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done If someone disagrees with adding a hyphen they may be intrested in this edit request. DarthFlappy (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Change Association football Contact from limited-contact to Full 80.233.42.233 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Contact should be just referred as "Full" as there is plenty of tackles in Association football like slide tackles, blocking, headers and knock a player off the ball in several ways.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Darren-M talk 21:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Contact should be just referred as "Full" instead of "limited-contact". Not "limited-contact", to better correlate with the "contact sport" Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_sport). As that page only refers it as Full Contact sport, not "limited contact". 80.233.35.132 (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Soccer: Definition and History

I've been doing reports on Soccer/Football since the mid-90s and have an Eidetic memory. All the research, books, Encyclopedias, and articles I've read were written way before the internet was even around. I noticed most of your citations were made from literature written after 2005 and my citations go as far back as the '70s, which was before most of the Authors were even born. I have also read books on the Haung Dynasty written before these Authors were even born none of which mentioned any form of sport other than their classic fighting styles. The sport Originated near the British Isles and was quickly spread across the North Atlantic seas and even into North America by Vikings who would invade countries and cut off their captures heads and kick them around a field to show dominance to their future conquest. I think most of the citations have been modified, via the internet, or edited to fit their social Norm; but it is truly a British, Norwegian, and Dutch-based sport that spread quickly due to the Vikings well built Scandinavian Boats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:610:A490:145B:B428:D024:7318 (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe you. – PeeJay 09:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Changing "limited-contact" to just "limited"

Please change "limited-contact" to just "limited" as contact is already defined in the table. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.158.11 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Makes sense, the second contact was redundant. Woody (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

And now removed, see below. Woody (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Debate if Association Football should be a Limited or Full Contact Sports?

In the recent months there have been debate if Association football (Soccer) should be classification as a Full Contact or Limited Contact Sports by some Wikipedia users. A few months ago I have removed Association football from Wikipedia Contact Sports pages due to lack of references to support it. Back in June 2020, I did added reference mention hard tackles in soccer but the sources I have added are not reliable enough. Then I did try to find the reliable sources weeks ago if Soccer is a limited or full contact sports, but it seems I can't find the reliable sources to support contact grades on Soccer. But there is difference opinion about it, For Examples:

Some people does call Soccer a full contact sports as Injuries can happened frequent due to hard tackles, Injury to head or hard hit by the ball. Another reason why soccer could be a full contact is because it have contact actions like slide tackles, blocking, headers and also have perfectly legal to knock a player off the ball, or even to the ground in several ways (e.g) it is a fast sports as the soccer ball can travel up to 100 km/hour;. Soccer also have a high rate concussions along with American Football, Ice Hockey and Rugby.

Some people does call Soccer a limited contact sports as it have rules are specifically designed to prevent contact between players either intentionally or unintentionally. Contact can still happen, but penalties are often used to disallow substantial contact between players. In soccer player cannot tackling from behind, kicking and holding opponent.

80.233.55.39 (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We have to go with what we can verify from reliable sources. Personal opinions really aren't relevant here I'm afraid. I've had a quick look on google and come up with a good source that talks about it specifically either way. Woody (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Following on from this logically, I've removed contact from the infobox as it isn't sourced and I can't find sources for how to describe it. The amount of contact is already described in the gameplay section which should be enough for readers to understand without having to put a label on it in the infobox. Woody (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Problematic name

Folks, nobody calls this "association football" in reallife. I think the main article should be either football or soccer, whatever is more prevalent globally (I don't care), but to have Wikipedia default to the more cumbersome name "association football" ... sorry, I disagree with that. What was the history leading to this situation? It should not be up to whoever was the first to write the article and establish that redirect, but really to "common use" of words instead. As it is, with that default name given, it insinuates that this name would be more commonly used and thus be more important, and this is simply WRONG. So please, put it as football, or soccer first, or perhaps both; but not "association football", that just makes no sense at all. This is also why I in general agree with the move proposals out of principle, it makes no sense as it is right now. 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:1641:8380:f57d:59ae:a2ae:b491 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It may make no sense to you, but to most of the rest of us, it's perfectly logical. The name "football" is not appropriate, as that name is shared by a large number of different codes of the sport worldwide (American football in the US, Canadian football in Canada, Gaelic football in Ireland, rugby union in New Zealand, Australian rules football in Australia, etc.), and "soccer" is not appropriate as that name is in the minority when it comes to coverage of the sport worldwide. Only a handful of national associations use the word "soccer" in their titles, for example. Meanwhile, "association football" is used by FIFA in both their name ("Fédération Internationale de Football Association") and their descriptions of the sport. I'm sorry you find the title of this article problematic, but I'm sure you'll come to terms with it eventually. – PeeJay 12:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As an editor from Austria, the term Fußball is not not ambiguous to you or your German-speaking neighbours, but that's not the case in the English-speaking world. In my country and the one next to mine, the sport that first comes to mind when you say "football" is gridiron football. In Australia and a few other English-speaking places, you have different sports that come to mind. The way that the articles are laid-out now makes sense in the English-speaking world. Football is a general article about the history of the various codes and sports that are related to the term. Other articles have carved out their own name space. However, in an article about a European or South American league, team or player, you will usually see the term "football" be used, while for American, Australian and Canadian subjects you will see soccer. Those should be linked back to this article for reasons of clarity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz and PeeJay have explained this well. If you want to go further into the naming complexities that can arise, even in just one country, have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). It mentions six different sporting codes called football at times by their fans in that country. (I think it should also mention a seventh, Gaelic football). HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia mate, if you want to edit in football then do it in the other sites/language of Wikipedia, where they use football for the sport associated with FIFA. PyroFloe (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Assistance please

Hello! I am currently working on an article to be placed at Roland (Japanese host), and am in the process of translating the section about his involvement with this sport. Unfortunately, I don't know much about it and am not sure I'm using the right terminology. I was careful to put the right Wiki links, but there's a lot I don't know about the sport and also in line with Wikipedia standards. I have kept it as "soccer" because that's what it's called in Japan/the original article, but should I change it to football? I would appreciate any assistance, especially if anyone who is familiar with the sport here is also fluent in Japanese. The article draft is currently in my sandbox. Thank you! Londonbeat41692 (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Also, I am having difficulty finding a category that accurately reflects his involvement with the sport (as he isn't technically a member of any team, but is affiliated with some). Does anybody more familiar with it have any ideas that might be appropriate? Londonbeat41692 (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

Wasserkneipkur (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

For the date listed of soccer being first played the article shows mid 19 hundred's. The specific date it 19th December 1863. It was played between Barnes Football Club and Richmond Football Club.

You'll need to provide a source for this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

Goalkeeper - photo of Gianluca Paterniti Martello

Gianluca Paterniti Martello (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a typical photo of a keeper, and it's not clear where it should be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the uploader of the image is the individual requesting it be added to this article. It's still not clear where in this article we would place it. Perhaps placing it in the article on goalkeepers, but even then, this appears to be a free kick of some sort (offside? foul?), and does not give any perspective of the field so is of minimal value. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

With regards to "contact"

I would like to add my take into the contact discussion. I have found these 2 sources from the IFAB (International Football Association Board) themselves. The body which determines the rules of association football itself and works extremely close and are in ties with the governing body of the sport, of course being the "International Federation of Association Football" (FIFA).

Here is the PDF document of the latest laws of the game (20/21): https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/ifab-laws-of-the-game-2020-21.pdf?cloudid=d6g1medsi8jrrd3e4imp

In page 103 of the "fouls and misconduct section" it states:

"using excessive force: • charges • jumps at ... • pushes ... • tackles or challenges"

It also states in the next page (104):

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: ... • impedes an opponent with contact"

Which I believe leans a lot more on the "limited contact" term/group than others.

I also found this in the IFAB website with regards to a new term they created in the latest 20/21 laws of the game which I believe sides with the "limited" contact group again. The term is called "Holding offence" and its defined by the IFAB as: https://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/39/section/121/ (it is among the "H" section of course)

Note, I am not at all demanding "limited" contact to be entered in the table of this Wikipedia page in any way. I'm just stating what I have found, and it face value and with what the IFAB has written in their rules/laws of the games. As well as their definitions in their glossary of the laws of the game document. It really does seem to lean more towards the "limited" contact side of the spectrum than others.

(Also it literally does say "however, physical contact between opponents is restricted." in the "Gameplay" section of this Wikipedia page lol. Restricted being a synonym of "limited" or "permitted")

Anyways, thanks for taking time out of your day to read this who ever chose to do so. It's greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.216.132 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

I am an proffesional writer and I could correct some things in your articles and passages. Itzmetoottoot033 (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're "an proffesional writer", we could have both grammar and spelling problems if you started to edit this article. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

it is missing some details on her past life POlopgman (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Arising independently across multiple cultures

Kicking ball games arose independently multiple times across multiple cultures. The Chinese competitive game cuju ... resembles modern association football. ... Other games included kemari in Japan and chuk-guk in Korea.

This seems a little problematic, as the implication is that the multiple examples are ball games that "arose independently multiple times across multiple cultures", especially given that the Korean and Japanese games are given separately from the Chinese one with no reference to the possibility of a single Chinese origin. I don't actually know a lot about this topic so I recognize the possibility that these games were all developed independently, but their names seem to be identical in writing, and given the lack of substantial written records in either Korea or Japan until well after the Han Dynasty (206 BCE – 220 CE), [when] cuju games were standardised and rules were established it seems difficult to prove one way or the other.

So wouldn't it be better to specify at the top that the section lists examples of football-like games in various cultures regardless of whether they developed independently, or at least name the Japanese and Korean ones in the same paragraph as the Chinese one?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the point about the Japanese and Korean games is that they developed independently of association football. Too many people think that soccer is based on cuju, so we need to specify that it’s an unrelated but similar game. – PeeJay 11:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"Football(soccer)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Football(soccer) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#Football(soccer) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• For commenters, note that this relates to the redirect Football(soccer) with NO SPACING. Not Football (soccer). Nanonic (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 review and FA concerns

Hi editors, I reviewed this article for WP:URFA/2020, a working group dedicated to reviewing and fixing up older featured articles. I am concerned that this article might not meet the featured article criteria in its current state and needs some updating. My concerns are outlined below:

• The history section does not have many events from the 2000s, and no 2000s events for women's football. Are there major events in association football that should be included?
• I found this statement: "At a professional level, most matches produce only a few goals. For example, the 2005–06 season of the English Premier League produced an average of 2.48 goals per match." Is this still the case in 2022?
• There are lots of sentences at the end of paragraphs and sometimes whole paragraphs that do not have citations. For example, the first and second-to-last paragraphs of the international section are uncited, and the last sentence in "Off-field" needs a citation.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Going to leave a few items from the 20th and 21st centuries that need to be covered:

• Substitutes officially added to the Laws of the Game in 1958; allowed in World Cup beginning in 1970
• Red and yellow cards introduced in 1970
• Penalty shoot-outs introduced in 1970, later experimented on in the U.S. by NASL and MLS
• Reforms to the offside rule in 1990
• Back-pass rule added in 1992
• Golden goal's short-lived existence from 1993 to 2004
• Goal-line technology and VAR sanctioned in the 2010s
• Increased player valuations and the need for financial limits on European clubs
• COVID's effects on the sport, including the fifth substitute and rescheduled tournaments

Not sure if I'll have time to add these in, but I figured it'd be useful to have some notes for someone else to start on fixing the section. SounderBruce 21:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Editorial Error

“The objective of the game is to score more goals than the opposition by moving the ball beyond the goal line into the opposing side's a rectangular framed goal.”

Should be changed to:

The objective of the game is to score more goals than the opposition by moving the ball beyond the goal line into the opposing side's rectangular framed goal.

The omitted “a” is a grammatical error and needs to be removed. 24.9.184.48 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Please remove this statement:

Goal line technology is used to measure if the whole ball has crossed the goal-line thereby determining whether a goal has been scored or not; this was brought in to prevent there being controversy.

and add this one:

Goal line technology is used to measure if the whole ball has crossed the goal-line thereby determining whether a goal has been scored or not; this was brought in to prevent controversy.

"there being" makes the sentence sound unusual. It sounds like the sentence says that the technology exists to prevent controversy arising, and "there being" is unnecessary for that. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

balls are normaly size 5 Jarrayeet (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Whose goal is it, really?

The article says "The two teams compete to get the ball into the other team's goal". To Association football fans, this will seem perfectly correct and logical, but when looked at from outside the game, it's actually quite confusing. In normal English, YOUR goal is something you are aiming for. The opposite is true in football language. You aim for what is described as your opponent's goal. You try to stop the ball going into your own goal. This a global encyclopaedia. We should write in language that is clear to someone not used to the jargon of the game. There must be a better way of writing that sentence at the beginning of this comment, but I'm struggling. HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough, as in this case "goal" isn't alluding to an unspecified objective, but to the literal goalposts of each team. In that sense, if one team were to say "defend our goal" they would be referring to their own goalpost and not to the opponent's. It follows that the other team's goal must be the goalpost they're aiming to get the ball into. Even if you take the literal definition of "goal", the sentence would make no sense as you can't "get a ball" into some shared abstract objective that is also the place the other team is aiming for. What would that look like, like playing basketball with only one basket?

Maybe rephrasing to the opposite team's goal would help a bit? Or clarifying that each team has a goal of their own, in the sense of the structure consisting of two posts and a bar located at the end of their side of the playing field. Of course, such a description that tries to get rid of every possible ambiguity could get quite lengthy. NicoSkater97 (let's talk!) 03:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"Each team attempts to get the ball into a goal defended by the other"? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's not overthink this. The current wording hardly takes an above-average IQ to decipher. – PeeJay 14:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Really? Because, I agree with Hi-Lo, if I am trying to get something into somewhere, that somewhere is my goal. Not someone else's. Is soccer (or sports in general) really this illogical? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate Text

In the History section the Greek origin story is written twice in the article. 24.194.175.156 (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

FIFA did not 'officially' Recognize Cuju

If you're referring to the 2004 news article about Cuju on FIFA Magazine, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say FIFA recognized it as the earliest form of football. It was not an editorial or an official document, and was written by a professor of Oriental Studies (the German Helmut Brinker) as a piece of trivia and entertainment. The same can be said about the current article calling Britain the "home of football", which is certainly more accurate, but still, not an editorial by FIFA, just a piece of news trivia.

This English Wikipedia about Association Football also alleges that FIFA recognized it as the earliest form of football, but the given reference page is broken, and I couldn't find any screening on "Wayback Machine" of a previous version showing it.

That said, I think we should be aware that every sport is a potential object of geopolitical dispute, which includes the creation of those foundational myths. Neither the east-asian nor the mesoamerican sports were football, and calling them so is an anachronism.

Regardless, I think the "officially recognize" part should be deleted. Because it is not, and it is embarrassing to have this on the Wikipedia article of the most relevant sport on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d01:76c0:a1a3:83b2:5b7f:d748 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I Agree, when they make this British english, they should rename recognize into marketed in this context (or Blattered).

Dribbling in soccer

Dribbling is done by striking the ball with lace or instep part of the boot.Giving the ball n ot more than a one metre gap at a moderate pace.the knee of foot in use should be bent forward and hands raised slightly for balance and the head is raised up.

Sprinting with the ball could only be best when coming from a flank more especially when the opponent is at a distance .

The use of skills could help confuse the opponent , mostly a fake would be suitable. A step-over are best used when an oncoming opponent is sprinting .faking of passes,crosses and shorts could help a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99Kings (talk • contribs) 09:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

Remove repeated paragraph ("Phaininda and episkyros were Greek ball games. An image of an episkyros player depicted in low relief on a stele of c. 375–400 BCE in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens appears on the UEFA European Championship trophy. Athenaeus, writing in 228 CE, mentions the Roman ball game harpastum. Phaininda, episkyros and harpastum were played involving hands and violence. They all appear to have resembled rugby football, wrestling and volleyball more than what is recognizable as modern football. As with pre-codified mob football, the antecedent of all modern football codes, these three games involved more handling the ball than kicking.") CrisantemoFlor (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Football pitch

A football pitch describes any area on which association football, in all of its derivative forms, is played. "Football field" does not adequately describe a football pitch under all circumstances which the game and its derivatives are played. Therefore, I would like to change the application of "field" in the introductory text to "playing area".

Because football can be played on a variety of surfaces, it is not adequate to use the words "field" and "pitch" synonymously. While it is true that the Law of the Game for 11-a-side Association football (real football) define the playing area as "the field of play", it cannot be assumed that all derivative form of football based on "the laws…" are played on a field. Indeed, as derivative forms of football have progressed, the game is frequently played on a variety of surfaces, including but not limited to grass, dirt, gravel, concrete, asphalt, parquet and rubber. All such areas are pitches, yet not all pitches are situated in fields. SteadyJames (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that this article should only (or mostly) be about association football "proper", that is, the sport that started with the publication of the Laws of the Game by The Football Association in 1863. The current version of the Laws that are kept by IFAB evolved directly from that original set of rules. Therefore, this article should follow it, reflecting its guidelines and terminology. Variants of football such as futsal and beach soccer, which have different sets of rules and playing areas, have their own separate articles already. The Laws of the Game use the terms "field", "football field" and "field of play", so it's not inaccurate to use them in this article as well. Besides, it states that the pitch must be either "wholly natural" or of a green "artificial surface". TLSOSLT (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem with such a strict definition is that misses the obvious fact that those subcodes (if you will) of football referenced are directly derived from the Laws of the Game and in principle maintain most of the same rule, albeit augmented to meet different needs and circumstances. Unlike other codes derived from the Laws of the Game--such as rugby football and American football--these subcodes are recognisably the same simple game. They might be a family of games but i think that's talking it too far. SteadyJames (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Number of players

The number of players defined in the introduction is inaccurate and should be updated.

The Laws of the Game define that there should be no more than 11 and no fewer than 7 players per team if a game of football is to proceed.

In addition, alternative forms of football that are derived from the laws of the game and maintain the central premises of Association football also vary in the number of players included on teams. Although these varient games can include teams comprised of one player or unlimited numbers players per team, it is more typical to have between 5 and 8 players per side. For Example, these varieties of football are commonly known as 5-a-side, 7-a-side or by other relevant corresponding denomination or specific name.

With this considered I propose that the text be changed to reflect this. SteadyJames (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity, it's better to keep the information that the game is "played between two teams of 11 players" in the introduction, because it's already mentioned in Association football#Players, equipment, and officials that "a match should not continue if there are fewer than seven players in either team". It's also rare for official matches to start with fewer than 22 players on the field in total. As for other varieties of football, I already shared my opinion on the matter in another section. TLSOSLT (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I've regularly played in games that have started and/or ended with few than 11 players on one or both teams. Any less than seven and the game is either abandoned or postponed in one way or another. It is accurate to say that football is a game "played between two teams of no more than 11 players" SteadyJames (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

For the purpose of introducing the game we use the proper number of the main game, and then later on go into detail of variants. Koncorde (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Where I live, it's accurate to say that football is a game played between two teams of no more than 18 players. That's why this article is call Association football. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The proper numbers are teams between 7 and 11 player with designated goal keepers.

No one is debating the name of the game is Association football (straw man). SteadyJames (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The proper number is 11 aside. That the rules provide leeway for less is not the issue of sentence #1 in the article. Koncorde (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Mixed-gender

It says in the infobox that it is gender separated. However, since this is supposed to be a general article about football, and not the FIFA which explicitly outlaws gender mixing, this is not quite true. For example, in the highest swedish professional league Allsvenskan, both men and women are allowed to compete. It should not say in this article that it is gender-separated. 78.69.118.151 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Literally everything you said is 100% wrong. The Allsvenskan is a men's league, the Damallsvenskan is a women's league. This is not like NFL v XFL, all official football leagues in the world play to the Laws of the Game, there isn't a league called "the FIFA" that plays by different laws. There are not teams in Sweden playing with six men and five women in competitive games - I mean, you'd remember if you saw that, so I don't know where you got that idea from. What would they do in European games in countries where women can't play alongside men? Forfeit? 90.240.29.158 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There aren't many men-only leagues in the world. A woman could play in the Allsvenskan if she was good enough, same with the Premier League. I doubt the same is the case in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but certainly in Europe, the leagues we tend to think of as "men's leagues" are actually open; the only restriction is on men playing in women's leagues. – PeeJay 18:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

No, everything I just said is not wrong. Allsvenskan does not forbid women from competing (although Damallsvenskan forbids men from competing). The Laws of the Game are not the only rules in football, and rules may vary between different leagues. You are correct there isn’t a league called “the FIFA”, well observed; FIFA is the international governing body of football. I will state it again very clearly for you: since this article is about the game of football, and not the rules of the world cup or premier league or whatever, it should not state that the game is gender-separated, as that varies a lot. separated. 78.69.118.151 (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Are there any sources for the assumption that the leagues in developed countries which we consider to be men's leagues are actually elite mixed leagues that have never chosen to sign a player from their all-female reserve teams? The "About" section on the Allsvenskan website says "Allsvenskan.se is run by the Swedish Elite Football Association. The Swedish Elite Football Association is an interest organization for the 32 clubs in Allsvenskan and Superettan. The mission is to drive the development of national men's elite football; sporting, financial, commercial and administrative." [1] Seems a bit odd to me that non-gendered teams are publicly stating that they are only investing in the men's game. If you go on any Premier League team's website, in the "teams" section, it will say men and women, not "first team" and "women". [2] [3] I can't believe this is even a discussion when no women have played officially in any of these mentioned leagues. 84.69.100.29 (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No While it may be true that there may be limited instances in which men are permitted to participate with women and vice versa, none of these are mainstream, and even when they do exist, they are effectively 'de-jure' (officially, but not in practice). The article should not say that football is mixed sex, because FIFA (the international governing body) prohibits it, so the article should reflect the highest governing body, and not more minor instances. In addition, the premier league in the UK (as an example) is for men's teams, and can be strongly evidenced by no women ever appearing in it over its history. Lawrence 979 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that FIFA prohibits mixed-gender football to take place. There is no such rule, and women can freely take part in so-called "men's" matches, but please, do entertain us with such a rule... – PeeJay 18:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/3950e57162ea513d/original/ihf3yx6kw3insqt6r0i6-pdf.pdf See page 9 Lawrence 979 (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

These are rules for ”FIFA competitions”, and not the game of football. The FIFA’s role is not to regulate the game of football, which this article is about. The Allsvenskan (and many other leagues) is just as much as football as the premier league, but since no rule in the laws of the game states it must be gender-separated, this article should not state that. 78.69.118.151 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

IS this article about FIFA football or the overall game of association football? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that FIFA doesn't get a mention until the third paragraph of the lead, I'd say it's clearly the latter. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The International Football Association Board maintains the Laws of the Game (LOTG), which are quite brief. FIFA co-ordinates intercontinental competitions (and oversees the continental and national federations). FIFA competitions have extra or stricter rules than LOTG: e.g. the max and min length and width of the pitch are a narrower range than Law 1; the ball must have much higher certification than Law 2; shirt designs are subject to stricter rules than Law 4; extra officials are not optional as in Law 6; etc. etc. LOTG says nothing about mixed-sex competition. A quick google football "first woman" "a men's team" gives this news story from May 2021:

For the past 25 years, women in the Netherlands have only been able to play in mixed teams up to and including the under-19s. From next season, they can compete in amateur men's teams up to the Tweede Divisie, a mere two tiers below the top flight Eredivisie.

My summary would be...

Most regulated football competitions for adults are single-sex, include all those at elite level. Gender-blind teams are more common at younger age levels and in less formal events, although some are nearly all male in practice.

...though this would still need proper sourcing. It is plausible that in some places, all teams or competitions at the very youngest age levels are gender-blind. "Less formal events" includes not just street football but also competitions organised by groups not affiliated to any FA. I would link to pub league but the linked article describes FA-linked events. Maybe beer league? jnestorius^(talk) 01:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Name

The name section should acknowledge that football is the global name for the sport, and that “soccer” is secondary. At the moment soccer—a nickname for most English speakers—is presented equally to the games actual name. SteadyJames (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Soccer isn't secondary in those countries where Soccer is the primary term (usually due to conflict with other "football" games that take precedence). We've covered this before. We explain the context fully in the article in the Name section. Koncorde (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a very long thread called Soccer near the top of this page where this user spent many weeks unsuccessfully arguing pretty much this same point. Regurgitation is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed:

  −

  The final of the men's tournament has been, in recent years

  +

  Since 2009, the final of the men's tournament has been

• Why it should be changed: To conform to MOS:SINCE. The already cited source implies the 2009 date.
• References supporting the possible change:

Dvbnadfb (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 17:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Next time, please make sure to create a separate topic to put your edit request in. Thank you! Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 17:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

References

FIFA vs IFAB

A chance to be aggressively British (and informative and truthful). I think the IFAB vs FIFA relationship has been poorly defined. In effect (My interpretation) football is not governed by FIFA, but by IFAB. FIFA is the executive and judicial branch, with the asterix that the Swiss courts and the international Court of Arbitration for Sports also has something to do with it. But the legislative branch is clearly the IFAB, although then 50% of the IFAB votes are with FIFA. IS this interesting, relevant in the context of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.212.10 (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW and contradicts WP:NCSP. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 01:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• Matt Turner (soccer) → Matt Turner (soccer player)
• Sean Johnson (soccer) → Sean Johnson (soccer player)
• Aaron Long (soccer) → Aaron Long (soccer player)
• Bryan Reynolds (soccer) → Bryan Reynolds (soccer player)
• Miles Robinson (soccer) → Miles Robinson (soccer player)

– These are soccer players, not "soccer", just like Zinchenko is called Oleksandr Zinchenko (footballer), and not Oleksandr Zinchenko (football).

I know it will take a while to update Category:American soccer players, but I've started by RMing the appropriate USMNT players. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• This isn't the right place to suggest such moves. I would also suggest that the premise of the move request is ill-founded. In my experience, most biographical articles are disambiguated (where necessary) by the field the person works/worked in, not their occupation within that field. American football players use "American football", rugby union players use "rugby union", etc. – PeeJay 16:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all. The issue should be discussed at WP:NCSP first, if at all; "(soccer)" is nice and short while getting the point across. SounderBruce 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:NCSP. Unnecessary. No reasonable person will read these titles as Matt Turner, who is a soccer, which is nonsensical, but rather as Matt Turner, who plays soccer. Station1 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:NCSP is a well-established naming convention; a better place to start would be WT:Naming conventions (sportspeople). 162 etc. (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCSP. Start a discussion at WT:FOOTY if you want to change the standard disambiguation from (soccer) to (soccer player), but this would also then need an RFC to change. Listing 4 random people at a talkpage that isn't any of their articles isn't going to get these moved. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.