Talk:History of association football

Kjøbenhavns Boldklub

How can they be the oldest club in continetal Europe if Copenhagen is on an island, thus not part of continental Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.29.118 (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

discussion

Can I just say, the resource I am using for this page is very heavily focussed on the history of english football, fortunately, for the older parts, this is the only history, however In the edits I make in relation to more recent times, this may be reflected, so just edit it to be more neutral if you feel it is too heavily foccused on one aspect. Sorry if this causes any problems. Philc _T+C 19:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be another headline detailing brief history of other nations' football programs after you're done with the English one, nothing very long, but just Italy's or Brazil's short history, then maybe general foundation dates for the professional programs in other countries. This is very good so far, amazing really. KingPenguin 12:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool cheers, I think I know where I can find some information of how football reached brazil, I think it was originally an immgrant who took the first football across or something. And then a tour by Corinthians set off a craze, including a club set up with the same name, well I'll check anyway, and put it in if I find it. I am also intending to add some stuff on the transition of football into proffesionalism, and the maximum wage etc. Is there anything else we should include? Philc _T+C 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Do I need to cite all quotes? and what else do I need to cite, roughly, I always forget, and the page on it is very confusing... Philc _T+C 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes should be cited, along with anything contentious or anything that might be disputed. For example, the phrases "In 1845, three boys at Rugby school were tasked with codifying the rules then being used at the school. These were the first set of written rules (or code) for any form of football." and "Football was introduced in the Danish club Kjøbenhavns Boldklub in 1879 which makes the club the first football club on Continental Europe" ought to be referenced. Oldelpaso 18:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I got the thing about the three boys making the first ever code of any football game off of Football#English public schools, can we cite other wikipedia articles? as its not cited there either. So what happens in this case? Philc _T+C 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing other Wikipedia articles is generally frowned upon, so its something to avoid. If a verifiable source is not available, then in theory a statement should not be included. In practice, it happens a lot, and it is only once articles become mature enough to be peer reviewed that this sort of thing gets ironed out. Oldelpaso 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Should we be linking articles like History of football in Poland in this article? Mark272 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've put it in under See Also. Didn't see any other candidiates in Category:History of football (soccer) though. European Cup and Champions League history maybe? Oldelpaso 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This articles reached over 4000 words in less than two days from start (impressive?, i thought so), whats the record on that sort of thing? Philc _T+C 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot about old history of footbal in the article, but not more recent football history. In the "From amateur to professional football part" it should be included something about when players started living from football and when they started making millions and becoming superstars. The fact that players were payed a little in the working class areas don't make them professionals... Arnemann 15:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A section about the commercialisation of football would be useful in showing how the game has changed. I think the first sponsorship was Adidas supplying the "official ball" for the 1970 World Cup, but I don't have a source for that. Oldelpaso 19:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed?

From looking at the article I do feel like to be properly done it needs a lot of citations. I suggest going through it and adding the citationneeded tag (with the curly brackets round it) to points where citations should be put in. Any comments? - Master Of Ninja 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, all the qoutes and debatable statements have been cited that I've noticed, we don't need to cite things that are fact. Philc _T+C 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's still plenty of things which could do with a citation. Just taking the first section as an example, "Association Football as we know it today is most likely to have originated from the Roman game Harpustum" and the bit about Calcio Fiorentino would both benefit from citations. Oldelpaso 16:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I just noticed that one too, but that one aside, Isn't the article generally in pretty good shape from this perspective. p.s. I have a source for that one, I'll find it later Philc _T+C 17:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by 'fact'. Although a lot of the statements in the article are taken as fact, the problem is that wikipedia articles tend to spread widely through the internet, so any information in it tends to become fact. For example I was looking at the section of the first international between scotland and england. I would have thought this was in Glasgow in 1872. The article states (without dates mind) that internationals of some kind were played a few years before that. A reference (from a newspaper of that time?) would be nice. I'm sure there are other examples in the article - Master Of Ninja 07:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I was using a book, which was called the history of football, it seems a pretty definative history of the game, mostly focusing on england though. If it only says that there have been previous internationals, but does not name any, can I still cite the source as that book? Also, I can't see where it says the were internationals prior to the England Scotland match. Philc _T+C 11:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

About that book, could you list some more details about it, like the author? I've tried to search for it, but I can only find a DVD by the name of "History of Football" from Green Umbrella[1]. Poulsen 12:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The internationals that I was going on about was the Scotland v England before the one in Glasgow. The one in Glasgow tends to be recognised by all the national authoroties as the first international. Could it be the ones that you reference may be organised but not sanctioned by the national authorities of the country, so that the official one is the one in Glasgow? Also for the book could you post an ISBN number so that we can easily search for it in the catologues? - Master Of Ninja 19:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The book doesnt have an ISBN strangely... all it says next to the bar code is M 4083 313 S, it doesnt say much about the book or where it came from inside. It says written by Michael Heatley, with values assistance from Graham Betts, Chris Mason and Dennis Turner. hope this helps. it is for sale here [2] under two different publishers [3] [4]. I can't find it on any very good sites. But ISBNs are given on the links I gave. Same book name and same author, I suppose it safe to assume its the same book, though you may correct me.Philc _T+C 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, the links had an ISBN that COPAC found instantly. Poulsen 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh, this continues to confuse me, the link you gave has two books, one with foreword by alan green, and one published by green umbrella, but mine is both of those. Philc _T+C 17:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I cited a source regarding the England Scotland international thing, though I'm not sure if it covers the part that your concerned about. So just say if your still worried about it. Philc _T+C 20:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove the from the sentence stating that the game is called soccer in some parts of the world. If not common knowledge, the statement is eminently verifiable. I cite Template:Fact#When_not_to_use_this_template. 67.188.40.34 (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The first half

The first half of this article is a duplication of the information in football and should be properly included there rather than here. This page should concentrate on developments following the formation of the rules in 1863. Jooler 02:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For example, the harpastum article points out the similarities of that game to rugby. While it may be a distant relative of soccer, I don't see the relevance here. Even the name means "hand ball"! I bet that the ancient Britons and the Anglo-Saxons had their own ball games before the Romans arrived on the scene. Grant65 | Talk 03:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You idiot, rugby evolved from soccer, you just slapped yourself in the face there. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree This article focusses soley on this history of association football right back from its ancestors, for example it pays little attention to the other codes as they broke off. So although it share alot of history, this is still relevant. Philc _T+C 09:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This article does not exist in isolation. The early history is relevant to the history of all forms of football which is why the information is contained there in the football article and not replicated in History of rugby league, History of rugby union History_of_American_football and the history sections of the Australian_rules_football and Gaelic football articles. There is no reason for an exception here. Jooler 10:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Alrite, im just pretty gutted, having written pretty much all of it, but dont just blank it, copy across the informstion that isnt in the article football. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote btw. I favour a concise summary style section about events prior to the formation of the FA. Oldelpaso 11:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'm going to pair down a lot of the first half of this article. Most of it is simply irrelevant or a duplication of what rightly belongs on football, or some of the old myths rehashed. This article should have a single paragraph summarising what went before, and then describe the situation of the development of the Thring's "Simplest Game" the Cambridge Rules and then the foundation of the FA. There is more than enough material about events after 1863 that would be better served here in this article than events before that year. Jooler 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I would apreciate it if you moved across relevant information to football, as I wrote it from scratch quite alot may not be in that article. Basically don't just delete it. So yeah...

I could not agree more, Jooler. And, Philc, in in response to your message on my talk page, I can't see any real justification for stating that harpastum was an "ancestor" of either Florentine calcio or association football, no matter how many dodgy/biased sources state that these games are directly related. The fact is that there used to be hundreds, probably thousands, of games which involved kicking or carrying balls. They aren't all ancestors of soccer and harpastum clearly had little resemblance to soccer. Grant65 | Talk 09:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It was the first ball sport in britain, how could it not contribute to the evolution of soccer, you think they just all went and burned there ball after the romans, and conveniantly reinvented them at around 1850? Also in respone to you saying Harpustum is more similar to rugby, well rugby is a derirative of soccer, so Harpustum is just as relevant to them both. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

rugby is a derirative of soccer - what was I saying about old myths? Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. Jooler 23:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, how can that possibly be true, as rugby was codified at Rugby School, 20 years before the FA rules were written? Rugby is an older game. Not only that -- when the FA rules reached Australia, there were grumbles that the FA had plagiarised the Melbourne Football Club rules of 1859, the nascent code of Australian rules. It is no use citing the preceding "kicking" games as ancestors of soccer, as the other codes had precedents as well. Soccer starts in 1863. Grant65 | Talk 02:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore up until the final draft of the LOTG, the FA draft rules included the following law

IX A player shall be entitled to run with the ball towards his adversaries' goal if he makes a fair catch, or catches the ball on the first bound; but in case of a fair catch, if he makes his mark he shall not run.

After the Cambridge Rules were put on the table and found worthy, this was then changed to:

9. No player shall carry the ball.

Thring's rules and the Cambridge rules disallowed carrying the ball, but the FA were intent on briging all forms of football under one set of rules and thus were originally in a position of allowing carrying until the non-carrying rules won the upper hand. Jooler 08:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys are talking about. You repeatedly use different points to define the first codification of football, Cambridge rules or FA rules choose! and also they amazingly played football before it was codified, so I don't know what you gys are trying to say, that rugby is different to football? I am fully aware of that, and let me rephrase a previous point, Rugby and Association Football both derived from the same sport, which derived (over a long time) from Harpustum. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "repeatedly use different points to define the first codification of football"? The game association football begins in 1863 with the founding of the FA, but playing "football" in one form or another is as basic as playing "catch". Before 1863 the game of "football" was played with all sorts of different rules some involving carrying and some not. As often not there were no rules to speak of other than what had been known to be done by tradition. In various places there were efforts to sort out the chaos. The most significant place was Cambridge University where the various students found that it was impossible for them to play a game without some agurment about the rules because each public school used their own rules (some carrying some not). So in 1848 some students got together and codified a set of rules for "football" to be played at the university, these rules were not intended to be used anywhere else, it was essentially just another variation. The game they codified disallowed running whilst carrying the ball and a later 1863 draft of the Cambridge rules had a significant influence on the decicion of the fledgling FA to drop the idea of running while carrying the ball. But the foundation of the FA is completely different, they wanted to bring ALL football in England under one universally acceptable set of rules. I was not saying that this article should begin in 1863 merely that it should concentrate on developments after 1863 because it is the most significant year in the history of the sport. Jooler 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, you are following in a long line of dodgy soccer historians who have attempted to appropriate the whole history of ball-kicking games prior to 1863. Put it this way: even in the UK, until the 1860s (at least) "football" did not mean the game that you mean. It meant many different codes/games. It still does in English speaking countries other than the UK.

Harpastum died out hundreds of years before rugby or soccer existed. It didn't have much to do with either of them. To say otherwise would be like me or you claiming someone who lived 1,500 years ago as a close personal relative. Grant65 | Talk 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeh but you weren't born in 1863. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

AHhhhhHHHHhh GOD! I'm just atempting to put up straw man arguments. Argh. I'm just so annoyed that I used reputable sources and went through all the trouble of citing them and did it all right, and now two guys ive never heard of comtradict everything I've worked from. I don't know whos right and whos wrong, and now i don't care. Just rethink everything I said on the basis of this post, and maybe you'll see why I was being so irratable, that combined with I worked hard on this article and I care about these things, I know that is meaningless on wikipedia, but Its just an explanation to why Ive been so antagonistic.... Just ignore pretty much everything Ive said under this header. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not much is known about harpastum (the rules etc.), only casual references, and there is no record of it being played in Britain, though certainly the Romans must have passed the time somehow in a cold climate and it makes sense to imagine they kicked something about, apart from the locals. But the Romans left in the 400 AD and the first reference to anything remotely like football is in the Middle Ages, a gap of a thousand years. This article is titled “The History of Association Football”. Unless someone comes up with verifiable facts it’s not history but fantasy.Campolongo (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The second half

Hello my friends. The first half of the article is quite good, shaping up nicely. But the second half still needs a lot of work. I think FIFA and its creation needs its own paragraph. The "FIFA Men's World Cup" section is quite bad. It erroneously states that "By 1950 however, European teams took interest..." when the world cups of 1934 and 1938 were held in Europe and were both won by Italy with many other European nations participating. Another mistake is where it says "From this, other championships emerged...South America's Copa América" when the Copa America was actually first held in 1916, long before the first World Cup.

I also think we need to mention the history of the tactics and dynamics of the game itself, e.g. how football formations have evolved (the WM formation, 4-4-2 etc), catenaccio, use of attacking full backs, Dutch 'total football', etc. This is rather technical and some of these topics already have articles of their own but I feel we must at least have a brief summary of them here and provide links to the main articles. That is all for now, good work my friends! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoman (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cull

I've culled much of the first part of this article, so we get to th meat quicker. Jooler 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You just deleted it? Philc _T^E_C^I 12:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Grant - I thought we had agreed that all the medieval stuff doesn't belong in here. Jooler 13:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jooler, I didn't see this or your message on my talk page before now. Someone, I think it was user:86.142.131.220, added a whole lot of stuff about British public school games, which gave a very distorted and misleading impression of those games. I decided it was better to (1) have some details of older antecedent "kicking games", by way of balance, while (2) emphasising that the code started in 1863 and (3) prefacing the "Older games" section with links to Football, Mediæval football and British public school football games. Otherwise, it seems to me, new editors will continue to introduce totally irrelevant material which duplicates Football and tends to appropriate the whole, pre-1863 history for soccer. What do you think? Happy new year. Grant65 | Talk 06:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As I recall this topic once had a useful discussion of how various forms of football of the mid to late 19th century emerged - and that Association Football was influenced to some extent by the influence and contrast with those other games. Those other games have their forms today in Australian Rules Football (codified before the FA), Gaelic Football, Rugby (originally Union), and American Football. The deletion at some point of the paragraph to do with this and the assumption that "History of Football" applies only to Association Football shows a high level of bias which should be discouraged in Wikipedia! - Peter 24 June 2007

I have replaced the previous lengthy paragraph with a very short but important paragraph to at least mention the continuation of the historical origins of multiple rules of football in the other main codes in existence today. I would hope that Association Football hegemons could at least accept that small acknowledgement of reality. - Peter 24 June 2007.

Football?

I suggest a picture of a pattern of a football. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.97.16.187 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Phil

I like your soccer page but what if someone made bad changes on it. I have recently discovered that someone has been putting in corrupt information.Oops4040 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Oops4040

Removal of US section

There was a disproportionate emphasis in the content on this page regarding football in the US. The US section was larger than that that of Europe and the same size as that of South America. Its akin to the history of Basketball page having half its content about the sport in Belgium. Jooler 15:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed info

• I took this out of the article, perhaps someone can check its accuracy and find a suitable place for it if it is verifiable.

"Neil Edward Johnson was the first american ever to be in a world cup match. He represented the nation of Sweeden and later went on to play for the Czech Republic. He proudly wore number 33 in honor of the 33 teamates that he saved their lives in one way or another. He is a true american hero and soon will be inducted into the world cup hall of fame having scored the most goals, that were head shots, in world cup history(6). Neil Edward Johnson won the hearts of many europeans and a great part of the world of the mid 1900's." King of the North East (T/C) 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Working class foundation myth

I think this article should contain more debunking the working class origin myth of soccer. The game was developed by the upper and middle class, private school and elite English universities. The idea that it's always been played by horny handed sons of toil is a Romantic myth and wishful thinking. --79.68.71.162 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, as long as you come up with references to back up your claim. There is plenty of evidence that games of football were played in lower-class rural communities for centuries before the codified rules were introduced by the upper class players. --VinceBowdren (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FIFAstatutes.jpg

Image:FIFAstatutes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

USA

Why is there so much info about the states in this article. It is not exactly the most important football country in the world, is it? It should be better balanced. Migdejong (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oldest team in Continental Europe?

The article says that the oldest team is St.Gallen, but that is NOT TRUE. TSV 1860 München was founded in 1860, at the same time than the other swiss team that is now defunct. Doesn't this make TSV München the oldest team in continental Europe? 71.198.35.250 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

China?

Sepp Blatter just said Association Football began in China????? How so? Comes.amanuensis (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is only a history of Association Football. A proper history of Football (Soccer) on Wikipedia, should show that it originated in China 2,000 years before it appeared in the West. --96.227.159.200 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of 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/20081019231021/http://www.stokecityfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/History/0%2C%2C10310~401090%2C00.html to http://www.stokecityfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/History/0%2C%2C10310~401090%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefa.com/Womens/Reference-FAQ/Postings/2003/11/Background%20and%20Brief%20History.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160625095029/http://eoswetenschap.eu/artikel/belgische-voetbalgeschiedenis-begon-gent to http://eoswetenschap.eu/artikel/belgische-voetbalgeschiedenis-begon-gent

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of 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/20100912000300/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/articles/rem_article_facup.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/articles/rem_article_facup.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexist?

the FA cup is very sexist because it is only for men to participate. Each tournament should be represented with both male and female for example the FIFA world cup. But even the world cup is sexist because mens teams win 576$ compared to what women win is only 15$. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.251.86 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That is your opinion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Cuju as the roots of Association Football

The Article, as it is currently written, misrepresents the history of Association football as a sport. By stating that "The modern game of association football originates from cuju, an ancient Chinese football game, as recognized by FIFA." it is strongly implied (I'd even argue outright stated) that Association Football is directly descended from Cuju. This is not evidenced. Cuju is recognized as the oldest historically recorded game which would be recognizably football in the modern sense. However, Cuju and Association Football are examples of convergent evolution. A better statement would be that games similar to Association Football can be found as far back as Cuju from China circa 200 BCE. This makes it clear that the history of games such as association football is both global and chronologically long, but does not inaccurately imply that Association Football was invented in China, when it was clearly invented in Britain and refined through the globalization of the sport. PiraticalGhost (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I've clarified the lede to reflect this. Fitnr 02:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)