Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Beach Footy

What's up with Australia's beach footy team? Does it still exist? --202.47.49.16 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

John Walter Fletcher & his association

What is listed here as the "South British Football Soccer Association" I originally had as the "Southern British Football Association", but I can't remember what my source was. RSSSF show the former, but I find it hard to believe that they were using the term "Soccer" in Australia in 1882. The word is generally credited to Charles Wreford Brown and he would have been 16 years old in 1882. Can someome check this out please? Mintguy (T) 09:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To add further confusion to this issue. this page about John Waiter Fletcher talks of him founding the "English Football Association" (NSW) in 1882. It also talks about the Southern British FA's Association Cup.Mintguy (T) 10:27, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right. Mosely says of Fletcher "In 1885 and 1886 he had entered his College in the Southern British FA’s Association Cup..." It seems logical that the NSW body was originally called the "English FA", and the name was soon changed to avoid confusion, both with the FA and with the main kind of "football" in NSW at the time, being rugby. These days "football" in the greater Sydney area means RL, although Sydney University FC, formed in 1863, still plays rugby union.Grant65 (Talk) 14:11, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Popularity

'Football (soccer)' is one of Australia's most popular sports but is less popular than rival football codes Australian rules football and rugby league.

Less popular? On TV maybe, but not in participation. --Executive.koala 13:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Soccer's less popular in participation than golf, but no one calls golf one of the most popular sports. Also soccer is FAR behind Aussie rules and Rugby League in attendances.

I've heard a lot of estimated participation figures, many blown out of proportion, but the latest actual figures suggest otherwise. i know they have grown, if noone can provide solid referenced facts on the current participation then the layman cannot assume anything. --Spewmaster 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Football"

This page still needs a lot of work. I've just tried to give it some structure. Feel free to chip away at it. --Executive.koala 07:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks....very generous for a newcomer to the page! I don't see how you can justify remowving the statement about the name. Only soccer supporters and a few media sources have adopted the name "football". Grant65 | Talk 22:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This says it better than I could:

Football Is Soccer...and Rugby League, Australian Rules, American Football, Rugby Union.

Sean Fagan of RL1908.com

At the risk of doing exactly what John O'Neill wants us all to do - talk about soccer to help with his publicity drive for the rebranded sport - the attempt to claim soccer as the only sport that can use the description 'football' cannot be allowed to pass.

Across the globe the dominant winter code has come to be known by the locals in each city or country as 'football'. In Sydney and Brisbane it is Rugby League, in Melbourne it is Australian Rules, in Auckland it is Rugby Union, in New York it is American Football.

Practically everywhere else, it is Soccer that is the preferred code. However, this doesn't mean that soccer can claim the sole use of the word football.

The words 'soccer' and 'rugger' were in common use in England a hundred years ago. The words emanate from where the rules of their version of football originated. In soccer's case, it was the formation of the Football Association. Rugger is a variation of Rugby School football rules, and later the Rugby Football Union.

The formation of the F.A. and the R.F.U. were each brought about by like-minded football clubs wanting to codify their playing rules. English and Australian newspaper sports pages in the late 1800s and early 1900s all listed 'Football' as the column heading, then under it they listed the various forms.

There is no argument against Soccer Australia rebranding itself as "The Football Federation of Australia" if it desires. In real terms, they have chosen a non-descript name comparable to the Australian Football League - their names tell us nothing about the form of football they are playing. Twenty years ago Rugby League in Sydney was under the NSW Rugby Football League. Similarly, the NSWRU was the NSWRFU.

The real problem is with the Football Federation of Australia's pronouncement that they alone are entitled to the use of the word 'football'. Football played to the rules originated by the F.A. has come to be the dominant football code across the world, but that does not mean it has sole right to the name football.

If 80% of the world drove Ford cars, would that mean Holden or Toyota couldn't use the word 'car' in its advertising?

Some will suggest that soccer is the only true form of football as it does not allow handling of the ball. Of course, any passing observation of a soccer match reveals there are ample times that the ball is handled. In the 1860s handling of the ball was allowed under the F.A. rules, before eventually being cut back to only the goal keeper and restarting play from the sidelines. All football codes vary the balance between kicking and handling - from soccer at one end of the spectrum, to American Football at the other.

The word 'football' is not the sole property of soccer.

Of course, the nonsense of the Football Federation of Australia's argument is apparent in their national team's name. Hey John (O'Neill) and Frank (Lowy) - when you get around to dumping the name 'Socceroos' - which you now must do if 'soccer' is such a bad word - make sure you dump the 'roos part as well. The Australian Rugby League team have been the Kangaroos since 1908 - therefore soccer has no right to use the word/emblem 'kangaroo'.

All a bit ridiculous, isn't it?

I'm off to kick around a footy for a while - and it ain't a soccer ball!

RL1908 Editorial Comment © Sean Fagan / RL190[1]

Grant65 | Talk 23:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Complete bollocks. --Executive.koala 10:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Football is football not soccer. Portillo (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Soccer is a word used only in the colonies. Like aluminum. US football is football only in the US. Elsewhere it's called Power Tossers.

protected

Oh, for Pete's sake. I've protected the article until you lot can agree on something. For mine: Grant, stop POV-pushing. Koala, stop getting huffy and precious. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How the hell is it POV to point out a fact about the name, especially when one considers the many non-Australians who must wander into this article, unaware of how the word football is used in Australian English? Grant65 | Talk 14:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me, from reviewing this articles' history, that Exec.Koala is being unreasonable. Grant was this compromise acceptable to you? It met with Cursive's acceptance.--cj | talk 08:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's acceptable, but I think it's better to spell out what the "other codes" are. Grant65 | Talk 10:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There should also be mention that many fans use the term football, that clubs use the term football and the media uses the term football.Tancred 10:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There should also be mention that many fans also still refer to it as soccer too.

Very, very few mainstream media sources refer to soccer as football. I could almost name them on one hand. Grant65 | Talk 13:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Lets see, SMH, Foxtel, SBS, SBC, Sports tonight, Even the Daily Telegraph. On radio even 2KY has a "talking football" show (One hour ever afternoon). In Sydney it's well over 50%.Tancred 21:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew you would say that. Most of those are Sydney-area-only outlets and Sydney is not typical in this respect. Even SBS news presenters say soccer, showing a bit more common sense than the sports dept IMO.

Try a Google search of Australian news stories for "football -federation -"football australia" -association location:australia". Only one of the first six stories is about soccer. One is about rugby league and four are about Aussie rules.[2] Grant65 | Talk 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I found it interesting that in the Sydney weekend papers, advertisers were now calling the game football. Yes some were international companies such as Emirates and Hyundai, but the fullpage ads about buing a new TV for the "Football world cup" were placed by Bing Lee. I did not expect this change to happen so quickly, but it is happening. I would be perfectly happy to see Grant65's comments in this article, if the Aussie Rules article has a mention (and a link) back to Football Australia.Tancred 04:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's about Football in Australia. That is all. Does the AFL article talk about how they've foolishly tried to hijack the name of another sport? What Grant65 has added is irrelevant to this article and is just pushing an agenda.

Out of interest, all of these sites use the heading, Foobtall. Not all sites that use the Sportal web feed call it football though. Eg, The Courier Mail still does not. But they will. :)

• Nine Msn
• Fox Sports
• SBS - The World Game
• ABC Sport
• Sydney Morning Herald
• Sportal Australia
• The Daily Telegraph
• The Australian
• The Sunday Times
• The Mercury
• NT News
• SportsAustralia.com

Channel Seven calls it Football(soccer), but yahoo still says soccer- for now. --Executive.koala 01:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hijack? What arrogance. Australian English is not British English. Australian rules has been called "football" since 1858, five years before soccer existed anywhere. Rugby football has been called "football" in Australia for at least as long (e.g. Sydney University Football Club, founded in 1863, plays rugby union.) I find it extremely doubtful that the majority of the population will change the way they use the language. The fact that we are arguing about it shows that its an issue that should mentioned, rather than censored, as some people seem to wish.

As for Tancred's suggestion, I would support mention of the issue in both Australian rules football and rugby league, although I have no control over what other editors of those pages think about think about that idea. Grant65 | Talk 10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone will call it Football much sooner than later. Your statements are just wishful thinking. Everyone who watches The World Cup (and millions here will), will only hear it referred to as Football. The mainstream media outlets are calling it football in great numbers and advertisers are calling it football. If there was any confusion, then companies paying large sums of money for print media and television ad campaigns would use the term soccer, but they don’t.

Going from Victorian Rules to Australia Rules and then somehow deciding the name Australian football to be clever was arrogance in the extreme. I expect a further name change to your sport in the next few years. Call it Mugby or something similarly appropriate.

Adding contemptuous statements to the Football in Australia introduction is petty, pointless and embarrassing. If you’re so worried about what international visitors think, then clarify what Australian football really means in the Australian Rules article. --Executive.koala 06:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not the sport's name is "football" or "soccer", or whether any other sport has a greater claim to the word "football". We've been through that, and ended with the undeniable truth that we cannot trust ourselves to discuss that particular issue in a mature and appropriate manner, and nothing much more.

The problem isn't that it's "football", not "soccer"; that's as settled as it's going to get, on "football (soccer)". To immediately follow this up, in the intro, with a statement that anyone who calls the sport "football" is incorrect since of course that's what AFL and Rugby League are is ... well ... extraordinarily silly. It's not appropriate for this article (nor for AFL or Rugby League), it's a breathtaking attempt to re-ignite an argument that we will not have again anytime soon, it's unsourced, and it's flat-out biased against the "football ra ra ra" point of view. All of which, of course, does not excuse Executive Koala's preciousness. It takes two to edit war, after all.

That's my view. It matters just as much, or as little, as the views of anyone else on this page. In any case, the article's protected, and will remain protected as long as people continue to edit war over it. I won't be the one unprotecting it, because I don't think that would be appropriate, but I'll ask someone else to unprotect it if you blokes indicate you can be a bit more mature about this than just reverting one another. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the main point is that many of those reading this article will not be Australian. They will not understand the need for references to "football (soccer)". The answer is not to sweep it under the carpet, but to explain it. I'm sorry that our furry-eared friend from the managerial class feels upset by this, but here at Wikipedia we are about providing facts and I don't like large chunks of this article, on which I have spent quite a bit of time, being deleted by blow-ins.

Secondly, remember that it is Wikipedia policy to use the common name in the country concerned. Therefore it is a pertinent fact that soccer is what the game is called by most ordinary, suburban and country Australians, who use the word football to mean games other than soccer. Personally I don't believe any amount of corporate sponsorship will change how the word has been used by rugby league and Aussie rules fans in Penrith, Mt Isa, Tuggeranong, Whyalla, Dandenong and Kalgoorlie for more than 100 years. I think it should be spelled out in the article for all the other naive, ignorant and recalcitrant Sydney-centrics and/or soccer sad cases. By which I do not mean soccer fans in general, because I'm one of them :-) Grant65 | Talk 11:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, we will not be going through the football vs soccer argument again. Remember? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope not; I just think that the debate, which is also occurring in the broader Australian community, is relevant to the subject of soccer in Australia. Grant65 | Talk 12:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think first and foremost these bloody turf wars need to cease.--cj | talk 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The current introduction is more than adequate. --Executive.koala 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It makes no mention of a major issue facing Australian soccer, i.e. the atempt to claim the name "football" . Grant65 | Talk 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What rot! The reasons why FFA are promoting the sport as "football" alone have been covered already in those tedious arguments of months past; you make it sound like TPTB are engaging in an evil campaign to steal a word that rightfully belongs to AFL fans, and those of us who call the sport "football" are, if not co-conspirators, then at least willing dupes.

How Australians name our football codes is an important issue, which should be dealt with on the article dealing with football codes. I, for example, have at one time or another referred to league, footy, football, and rugby as "football", if it seemed appropriate at the time — I'm hardly the only one, and this confusing issue should, certainly, be raised in the appropriate Wikipedia article. On Wikipedia itself, however, the issue is not at all confusing — football is "football (soccer)" in the intro, "football" thereafter, and we'll not have complaints of FFA arrogance in such articles when it's neither correct nor editorially appropriate. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously any suggestion of "FFA arrogance" whatsoever is subjective and utterly inappropriate. However, there clearly is a need to note what the sport is called in Australia in the actual article about the sport itself in Australia. There is no need to go into any great discussion, but it is appropriate to mention that soccer remains the preponderant term. --cj | talk 07:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fuddle and Tancred just don't get the point, or don't want to. The Sydney-based FFA and several Sydney-based sports hacks/editors can call it "football"; we can call it "football (soccer)" in article names, but most of the Australians who watch the game on TV follow a team which they call the Socceroos, playing a game which most Australians call "soccer". The terminology used by the great unwashed in the suburbs may be distasteful to the soccer insiders and elites, but it is worth mentioning, as is the fact that the people within the game nevertheless call it "football". These may not be life-threatening issues but they are important issues within Australian sporting circles. Grant65 | Talk 15:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie has convinced me we should mention the issue of the sport's name. Fine. But we shouldn't do it the way you want to — oh, no, the terrible FFA are coming to steal my favourite sport's true name! — because that's just silly beyond words. I don't think that particular bit should be written by you, or me, or Executive.koala, or Tancred, or Sliat 1981 ... at least not until we see a bit more maturity on the issue surface. Maybe Cyberjunkie or Cursive will honour us with a sentence or two of their golden prose? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

WTF. It's all in your head, tiger. It has nothing to do wth me. Cheers. Grant65 | Talk 17:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't involve me in this. I never posted on this site (until now) and don't wannto. I'll call what sport whatever I like. I think this whole topic is shite.sliat_1981

I'll watch. If I have any objections, I'll voice them here. If I'm going to make tedious contributions, it’s going to be in the form of adding footy club info boxes (as tedious as it gets) . I’m tired of saying the same thing over and over on the discussion pages. Whatever the decision, I’d like to see this article remain contempt free. :-) --Executive.koala 10:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Something along the lines of this should suffice. --cj | talk 04:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it safe to assume there are no objections to cj's suggestion from Fuddle and Koala? Grant65 | Talk 11:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 04:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Socceroos

I disagree that FFA no longer refers to the natioinal team as the socceroos. Socceroos is still used on their official supporter shirts. [3], [4], [5]. This the the FFA gear, so they have decided to put it on their products. Nobody made them, so they obviously do want to keep the name socceroos.

The latest releases no longer use Socceroos, but Australia. I picked up the hat and shirt yesterday at Sydney AirPort.Tancred 07:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting...

My shirt and beanie that I got at the MCG at the Aus v Greece match both say "Socceroos" -- Chuq 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about Tancred, he has a problem with the word soccer for some strange reason. Oh, and by the way...go the Socceroos....Cahill youfarking bewdy!!! Grant65 | Talk 09:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, I also have a problem with the word soccer. I am glad to cheer on the Socceroos when they play football :) -- Chuq 13:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This part has nothing do do with the word soccer. It's wheither they still call them the socceroos (for some reason, some people treating our beloved nickname for over 30 years like a swearword now). I personally call it soccer, but if you call it football it's up to you. I just think trying to get rid of a nickname that has stood for so long simply because it has 'soccer' in it, is going overboard. I mean really, 'footballroos' sounds really gay. Theres a differnce between not wanting to call a sport one thing and going completely bananas and trying to change everything.

Firstly your "gay" reference is rather offensive and has no place on wikipedia. The people who dislike the nickname (Including Johnny Warren) don't see the need for a nickname. I hate that the old Soccer Australia had us listed as Japan v The Soccerroos, Korea v , The Soccerroos etc. At the world cup we are known as Australia, the name of our country and the name the team should be known as.Tancred 07:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the name "Socceroos", compared to the Azzuri, The Celestes, The Elephants (Italy, Uruguay and I think it was Ghana, for those playing at home It was Cote d'Ivoire -- Chuq 13:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ). I don't like it being used in the way the teams were announced at the Aus v Greece game "Welcome to the pitch, the Qantas Socceroos, and Greece". Sponsor+nickname for one, country name for the other? I'm sure Greece has a Sponsor and nickname, what happened to them? Why not just "Australia and Greece"? -- Chuq 09:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tancred, you're only saying this from your POV. I have waited for ages for the quote saying that they will no longer refer to them as socceroos. When we get is they expect it to fade away. Well with the gear they're releasing they're not helping their own cause are they? Yet like I said, they still realease supporter gear with Socceroos all over it. 90% of the supporters we see have the famous (Socceroo) scarf. Wheither Johhny Warren or you did/do not like the name socceroos is your right. But to say we or FFA do not refer to them as that is obviously false when their own official gear (that THEY have the rights to sell and decide what is written on them) clearly states socceroos as our nickname. As for the 'gay' reference I don't mean to offend. I have no problems with homosexuals if that offends you. But I will say that footballroos does sound really stupid. And if that ever becomes our bickname, we'll be a laughing stock.

I'm not calling you names, but you do sound hypocritical when you tell people off for saying soccer instead of football, but you call Aussie Rules, AFL. AFL has not, nor has it ever been a name of the game of Australian rules football. Do you say to your friends, "Let's go to my place and play FFA?"

History

I am curious, can this statement: "The game was probably first played in Australia by English immigrants during the 1860s..." be backed up in any way, or is it simply wishful thinking. I ask this because, referring specifically to Melbourne, we have absolutely countless newspaper reports and other documented evidence of Australian Football being played between 1858 and 1870 - why would we not have any documented evidence of other forms of football being played? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's somewhat speculative for an encyclopedia. I have read a bit about the history of soccer game in Australia and I haven't seen reference to any games being played before 1880, but I'd be almost certain that some occurred in the 1860s, given the volume of immigration from the UK. Grant65 | Talk 12:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The first organised club game was 1880 IIRC, but yeh there would have to have been matches played before then for a club to be proposed. A source would be nice of course though. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a valid question, because speaking of Melbourne, there are absolutely stacks of newspaper reports in the local papers about aussie rules games during that period - there was so little to write about back then, they would even report on school boy games, or if an impromptu game was happening alongside some pub somewhere. So that being the case, how is it possible that there is not a single newspaper report about a game of Association Football anywhere prior to 1880? There was no sense of inter codes rivalry back then, so chauvinism would not be the reason. I agree that there would have been games played, but equally, surely there is a report somewhere? Also, the term Association Football would have been known by 1870. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that while it was certainly played, it was probably not played nearly widely enough nor had it penetrated the local awareness enough to warrant much, if any, mention. Apart from Aussie Rules, how widespread was reporting of other sports during the time by comparison? Gorast 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets see. Aussie rules started in 1858, soccer in 1860 and rugby league sometime 1900-1908. What the hell did they play before then? Surley little kids didn't just only play cricket when they were in the streets. I just can't believe we only had one sport for about 90 years.

Probably were too busy working. Hack 05:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There were many different kinds of football games in Europe before there was soccer. See e.g. Category:Traditional football. Grant65 | Talk 09:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Crad Evans

Hi. There was a Crad Evans who played for Torquay United, but not much is known about him after that time. I've noticed that there is a Crad Evans Trophy in Australia. Can anyone shed some light on whether it is the same Crad Evans in both cases, and if so whether more information can be added to the Crad Evans stub? Thanks, WikiGull 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Is this infobox actually used anywhere else? (I looked at Football in France and Football in Italy and couldn't find it). I don't think there is much point, unless a generic "Football in (country)" or "(sport) in (country)" template is going to be created and used on all relevant articles. -- Chuq 05:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I found, from the editors contributions list, it is used in articles on other football codes in Australia. IMO it should be "templatised" if it is to continue being used. -- Chuq 05:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this information is really important to summarise. How would I go about creating a standardised "(sport) in (country)" template ? and where would I request such a template to be created ? --Spewmaster 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you have an idea for comparison and someone goes and creates it specifically to promote their agenda ... Template:Rugby Overview is an example of this. Someone replaced my infobox with a standardised one on the same day, but I can't use it on this article or any other for that matter. --Spewmaster 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gees that didn't take long! Perhaps User:Grcampbell was reading the Rugby union in Australia page or something similar and had a similar idea to what I had (except I didn't get off my arse fast enough :) ). Anyway, somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports or its talk might be the best place to bring it up. They may even have an existing info box .. I haven't checked myself yet. -- Chuq 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

History section is bollocks

Full of speculation, POV and unreferects factoids. Someone should clean this mess up. --Spewmaster 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -- Chuq 07:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my recent change:

• Most of the paragraph can be replaced with the words "lower-order" (or "non-blockbuster", or some other better wording that implies the same). I'm not sure why the large number of AFL statistics were added - did you think the article was trying to claim that A-League consistently outranks AFL? Only one particular game was mentioned, which should imply it was a one-off. The season average stat in the prior paragraph also indicates comparitive A-League/AFL crowd averages.
• Regarding the rounding of numbers - news reports round numbers all the time, no big deal. People don't need the fact that 39,790 is not 40,000 to be explained to them.
• I expect that this Saturday's Telstra Dome game will make this paragraph redundant anyway.
• I've added an NSL crowd reference, but do not know if it includes finals or not.

-- Chuq 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, a great edit. I didn't think the article was trying to claim anything, but it was POV and unreferenced. Wikipedia is not the media, it is an encyclopedia, so it is a big deal and someone who didn't know what the actual crowd was would not have known the difference. --Spewmaster 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of A-League Logo

Use of this logo on this page appears to contradict "fair use". It should only be displayed on the A-League page. --Spewmaster 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

World Cup TV ratings

Chuq's last edit summary says about this passage: "IMO it should be deleted. it is not notable that a 5am program did not out-rate a 2pm or 8pm program". I disagree; it wasn't a normal 5am program. For one thing it was a 7am program here in Perth and many workplaces -- mine included -- actually had screenings/parties/breakfasts, presumably to reduce the incidence of sickies. Presumably lots of people in the eastern states made an effort to watch it as well. Grant65 | Talk 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Football not soccer

Why is "association football in australia" insisting on using football (soccer). It is not soccer it is football. Now every a-league player is going to have football (soccer) in it. Quite ridiculous if you ask me. Portillo (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This has already been debated. I suppose by your logic the Melbourne football team has to rename itself the Melbourne Australian rules footbal team. And the AFL has to rename itself the 'Australian Australian rules football league? Sorry but most people in Australia refer to it as soccer, not football. People are lucky it is allowed the football (soccer) term, not just soccer.

Umm no, noone is lucky. Australia has just as much freedom to call soccer football, as the rest of the world does that call it football or futbol. Portillo (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's now three years down the track from the earlier debate on the name. In that time, nothing has changed in Australian usage. In more than half of the country, both by population and area (everywhere but NSW and Queensland), "football" means Australian Football. Valid sources for this claim are trivially easy to find in the form of state based newspapers (Melbourne Age being a reputable one) and almost all other local media. I recently even heard the coach of the Melbourne A League team comfortably using the terms soccer and football in the way I've described. To use "National" media as a source is misleading, since much of that is based in Sydney, NSW. Even in NSW and Qld it's obvious that "football" still very frequently means Rugby League. "Soccer" IS the common name for the game in Australia. A declaration to the contrary by a Sydney based business organisation will not change the truth. Nor will having silly names for clubs like Sydney FC. That's just as dumb as having "United" in a name when there were no earlier non-united teams which came together to create that given entity. The soccer administrators are into marketing, just like any other business. The rest of us need to separate facts from marketing claims HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting comparing the website approaches of the "better" newspapers in Melbourne and Sydney, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Each is from the same publisher - Fairfax. Each has a line of links to different sports at the top of their Sport Section. They look like this:

Age: * Live scores * AFL * Cricket * Soccer * Horseracing * Motorsport * Tennis * Basketball * NRL * Blogs

SMH: * Live scores * NRL * Cricket * A-League * Rugby * Tennis * Football * AFL * Golf * Motorsport

That "Football" link in the SMH is for the round ball game. "Football" isn't used at all in Melbourne. But "Soccer" is. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed some vandalism

Edited out some smartass vandalism that was defiling the great sport of soccer ;) Lachy123 (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian Media Football League

Who cares about this league? Is it relevant/imporant? I think not. Maybe it could exist somewhere else but it's not an important part of Association Football in Australia. Otherwise do we have to mention every football league in Australia? particularly one that is not part of the 'proper' football league system/structure? I suggest it needs a new home not on this page!--TinTin (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Page moved.

There are good arguments, both anecdotal and statistical, backing up the argument that "soccer" is the most common name for the sport in Australia. It is also clearly understood and unambiguous. The arguments to keep the current name are mostly weak: we enforce consistency for global articles as a compromise, but there's no chance that we're ever going to refer to the sport as anything but "soccer" in articles related to the United States, so that consistency is already broken. "Bullying by non-fans" is not a reason at all, and "official title" is one of the weakest of our naming criteria, with consensus being that it is subordinate to the common / popular name in most cases. That leaves "the use of 'football' instead of 'soccer' is increasing", which could be a good argument were it backed up by further evidence, but the renaming of a national body / league is the only evidence that's been put forward for a trend and the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

In the end, association football (the root article) arrived at that title because on a global basis it's the least-worst compromise between two names which, if not equally common, are certainly near enough diametrically opposed in use. On a more local basis we've chosen not to enforce it in at least one major case (the US), and where there's a good deal of evidence showing that "soccer" is the most popular local term there's no reason the consistency argument couldn't be applied that way as well.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Association football in Australia → Soccer in Australia – Additionally rename Category:Association football in Australia → Category:Soccer in Australia (or any other name this article is moved to) per speedy moves criteria C2D (a category may be immediately renamed to follow an RMed main article if the discussion explicitly includes it).

This category discussion has brought to wider exposure the disagreements about what the game is most commonly called in Australia. The articles and especially the categories are using a wild variety of names and a RM here is sought as the best place for the wider discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sydney Morning Herald: "Football". The Australian: "Football". ABC: "Football". Fox Sports: "Football". To me, "football" will always mean rugby league or rugby union. But clearly the Australian sports media -- even ignoring the SBS bigots -- has universally moved to substituting "soccer" for "football". We have to follow the reliable sources.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Rather than "the Australian sports media", that should read "the Sydney sports media". HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No, have another look. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I already looked very carefully. All four of those organisations are based in Sydney. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Well then you're asking yourself the wrong question. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • ???? I didn't ask a question. So what ARE you talking about. I've already said elsewhere today "Soccer obsessives don't debate very well". Please explain [Wikilink added; sorry, couldn't help myself. Jenks24 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)]. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMON, "soccer" is the most commonly used name for the sport in Australia. The Age, Daily Telegraph, the Herald Sun, Adelaide Advertiser, Courier Mail, Sunday Times (Perth) and The West Australian all use soccer almost entirely in lieu of football, representing the only print media in several states. Although ABC uses "football" officially, in stories it often uses soccer - see [6], [7] and [8] from just one day's coverage (7 July), while Channel Nine [9] [10] is in the same position. Our national team is called the Socceroos. And Australians, famous for abbreviating things, only ever use "footy" to refer to Australian rules football or National Rugby League depending on which state the speaker is based in. The term "association football", so far as I can determine, is never used by anyone in Australia to describe the sport. Orderinchaos 23:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Just as a by-note to my own notes above, the National Centre for Culture and Recreation Statistics, an agency of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, refer to "outdoor soccer" and "indoor soccer". [11] [12] Orderinchaos 03:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The Age: "Soccer". Herald Sun: "Soccer". The Daily Telegraph: "Soccer". The Courier-Mail: Interesting one; the tab from the sport section says "Soccer", but when you click through the heading reads "Football". The West Australian: "Soccer". The Sunday Times: "Soccer". The Advertiser: "Soccer". The Mercury: "Soccer". The Examiner: "Football – Soccer". The Canberra Times: "Football – Soccer". Therefore I dispute the claim that the Australian "has universally moved to substituting "soccer" for "football" ". While I agree that Association football could definitely be considered the formal or official name of the sport in Australia, it is no way the common name. To quote Mattinbgn from the CfD that precipitated this RM, "The sport is actually generally called "football" by the vast majority of its fans and "soccer" by those who are fans of the other three codes – but yes the latter outnumber the former". Also, although this is anecdotal evidence, I have quite a few mates who play soccer and they all call the game soccer. I actually asked one of them the other day and he had never heard the term Association football even though he had been playing the sport for ~10 years (note: I live in country Vic). [Disclaimer: I am a massive Aussie rules fan, although I have honestly tried to be neutral]. Jenks24 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Another comment I've worked as a Physical Education teacher in city and country schools in Victoria. We obviously have the kids tackle many sports. If I said Association football to them, they would have no idea what I was talking about. If I say Football, they simply know that it's Aussie Rules. There no way that anyone in that context would ever think we were talking about the round ball game. Soccer is the obvious, unambiguous name used by teachers, players, fans, the community and local clubs as the name of the round ball game. We could no doubt source this logical and blatantly obvious fact from many local papers all over the state. Now, I am willing to accept that things may be different in NSW and/or Qld. I just don't know, and don't have the arrogance to pretend that I do. But that's not Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Australia = national publications, such as ABC, Fox Sports and The Australian. Just about everything presented here so far have been metropolitan publications, which adopt their own city's definition of "football". The preponderance of national publications call it "football", so an article on Australian soccer (yes, I call it soccer) should be called "football". That's what I mean by asking yourself the wrong question. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • (I think you've put that post in the wrong place. It's just confusing the discussion. I've already said elsewhere today "Soccer obsessives don't debate very well".) ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • No it's in the right place thank you very much. And I can't stand the sport thank you very much; I'm a rugby league man. If I need to ram it down your throat: my point is national publications should hold significantly greater sway than metropolitan publications in examining reliable sources for the purpose this debate, because the article concerned is about the sport in Australia. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • • Rugby league eh? So, if you're off to a match tonight, will you say "I'm going to the rugby league tonight", or perhaps "I'm going to the football tonight"? I suggest that the latter is most likely for most League fans. And if you were reluctantly dragged along to a round ball game by somebody, would you call it Association football? HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Wrong question again. Of course I call rugby league football. Try asking a better question. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • As already noted, the ABC are incredibly inconsistent with their use - I had no trouble finding three primary uses of "soccer" in just one day's coverage. Orderinchaos 00:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting comment - I went and looked at WA education, and found soccer is used universally. [13] A search on "football" in the same sphere pretty much unilaterally covered Aussie rules. [14] Trying "association-football" produced the interesting fact that many country and school-level AFL organisations call themselves "football associations", and only Darling Range Sports College referred to "association football". [15] The same could be run for other states' education systems quite easily, but I'm based in WA. Orderinchaos 00:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the "football" vs. "association football" debate is a little bit of a red herring. I think WP:FOOTBALL had the debate a while ago and resolved to call it "football" (so we now have Football in England, which used to be a redirect to Association football in England). By all means let's change this article to "Football in Australia" with a hatnote to the three other codes, but that's not the question being asked by the proposer. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • "Football in Australia" would require a hell of a lot more than hatnotes - it would become unwieldy as it'd need to cover all three major codes, possibly five if one throws in touch football and rugby union. Orderinchaos 01:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I'd agree -- it's not unusual to have such hatnotes and yet be able to succinctly express them: "See also: Rugby league in Australia, Rugby union in Australia and Australian rules football". We'd then move Football in Australia to Football codes of Australia. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Or: For other football codes in Australia, see Rugby League in Australia, Rugby Union in Australia and Australian rules football. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but no. There is absolutely no way that soccer is the primary topic of the word football in Australia. To be frank, it would be lucky to scrape into number 3. Jenks24 (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Entirely in agreement. Orderinchaos 03:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Wrong question. What's the primary topic when talking about the football codes on a national scale? Look at the title of the article. Look at the national publications. Australian readers know this is an international encyclopaedia. If they want rugby league, they'll type rugby league. On the other hand, international readers wanting to learn about soccer in this country will not know to type soccer. We need to get out of the local pub and realise what primary topic really means in this context. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
              • • • Comment: As shown in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 28, Association football in Australian at times refers to Touch football. There are association football clubs in the country that are not soccer. So while Australian readers may know that Wikipedia is international, it doesn't mean that Australian content should be written in the lingua franca of the UK. Wikipedia specifically allows for instances of non-compliance with naming patterns to deal with these issues. --LauraHale (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Oh, for god's sake, will you please give up on the "Wrong question" argument. I achieves nothing! HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
              • As has already been shown by Orderinchaos, the ABC are very inconsistent in their usage (and I'm sure the same could easily be said for The Australian and Fox Sports). Have a read of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: are you honestly arguing that when the reader searches for "Football in Australia" it is much more likely that the reader is searching for soccer than any other code? Also, it seems clear to me that the majority of readers searching for football in Australia will be Australian. Jenks24 (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
                • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't allow us to make those geographic assumptions. I don't think there's any basis at all for presuming that "the majority of readers searching for football in Australia will be Australian". None at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
                  • I would base it on the common sense assumption that people are generally more interested in local issues (local meaning Australia in international terms). Anyway, even if that were not the case, I doubt even soccer fans would support your proposal that soccer is the primary topic of football in Australia. I think the current Football in Australia article actually sums up the situation pretty well. Anyway, I'm off to the footy (the Aussie rules variety!), so I will leave this for others to debate. Jenks24 (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I've thought for some time that Football in Australia is an excellent article. I would recommend it to all editors here who haven't read it. It makes clear some of the issues for those seeking a simple, globally consistent answer here. There isn't one. Barassi line is another useful and relevant article, although not in such good condition. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • As a random aside, if Australian editors of sport related articles in Australia would like a get together to work on Wikipedia, I can see if we can't set up a session at the National Sport Information Centre, getting people access to videos, pictures, books, journals and other materials to help improve these articles. I've got access there to a fair amount of sources, including ones that discuss the Barassi line. --LauraHale (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Nice source. I just did the obvious thing at that site to find out what they call the sport we're discussing here. It's Football (Soccer). No sign of Association football. And that's the Australian government. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Per my rationale at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 28. --LauraHale (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Been there, done that. We've moved from Soccer to Football (soccer) (in 2006) to Association football (in 2008). Football in Australia is an appropriate article for that whole encompassing topic and shouldn't be changed. You should all head over to Talk:Association football and read the FAQ at the top. I'll copy it here for those who don't like clicking on links. I actually disagree with the last two points though - the biggest TV show about this sport in the UK is called Soccer AM, so I doubt many outside of the SBS camp would consider it derogatory, especially in Australia - but just like the whole Australian football vs Australian rules football vs AFL debate, you have the official controlling bodies pushing a marketing line and expecting/hoping that the populace will fall into line and follow their lead. But we don't. MOST people in WA/SA/Vic/Tas call the game played by the AFL football and only the league itself AFL; in Qld and NSW the same for rugby league/NRL. For the last point, in Australia, soccer IS a form of football, so maybe I'd lean towards accepting Football (soccer) in Australia again. Might have to go back to 2008 and read why we moved away from it.

*Q: I've never heard of this sport being called "Association football".

• A: The term "association football" is the original name for the sport. However, its usage has diminished in recent years, with different cultures developing their own word(s) for the sport. Even the word "soccer" derives from the -soc- in "association".
• Q: Why not just "Football"?
• A: This is because there are several sports that are known as football in different countries. For example, in the United States, American football is primarily referred to as "football", while the same is true of Gaelic football in Ireland, Canadian football in Canada, Rugby union in New Zealand, and Rugby league or Australian rules football in Australia. The title "association football" avoids any ambiguity over which code of football is being referred to, and also removes the potential for accusations of bias towards any particular code.
• Q: Why not "Soccer" then?
• A: In the United Kingdom, the usage of the term "soccer", a term which originated in South East England, is sometimes viewed as being derogatory, or an example of American culture being forced onto the rest of the world. Therefore, although the word "soccer" would be an unambiguous title for this article, there would be discontent from a large number of people who object to their word for the sport being ignored. Others point to "soccer" being the most widely used name for the sport in English speaking nations—however the statistics for this are not readily available or are confusing (e.g. India is the largest country with English as an official language and refers to the game as "football", but consists of a multitude of other languages) and others where countries change their official name for the sport (as Australia have done by now referring to the sport as "football", renaming Soccer Australia to Football Federation Australia and changing the local associations' names to reflect this, whilst the general populace refer to the game as "soccer").
• Q: What about "Football (soccer)"?
• A: On Wikipedia, the placing of a word in parentheses in the title of an article is used as a method of disambiguation, with the parenthesised word usually being a set that the article's subject is a part of. Therefore, the title "Football (soccer)" implies that football is a form of soccer, which is not the case.
  — Talk:Association football

The-Pope (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The issue here is not solved by responding to the claim - I've never heard of this sport being called "Association football" - by explaining its archaic roots, and its etymological connection with soccer. The problem is that nobody in Australia evens knows what "Association football" means (unless they have been playing here for a while). It's really ugly for Wikipedia to use a term that a typical reader won't comprehend. It means we're no longer an encyclopaedia for the people. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, the Q&A above has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this move request. Nobody here is debating whether the entire international collection of articles should move (which is what the Q&A is about), we're explicitly talking only about the Australian ones. So "Soccer in Australia" would belong to the "Association football by country" hierarchy, and so on. In response to The-Pope's point re AFL, the reason it is called football and not AFL is that AFL is a league consisting of teams at the national level; the game as played on pitches all over the country and in state leagues is clearly not AFL. Orderinchaos 04:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The way I see it, because of the need for this to be suitable for both international and domestic readers, fans and non-fans, the current page name is the best, with a redirect from Soccer in Australia. That way, those in Australia and the US and the few other places that use soccer find the page, and discover it's "official" name. Those who go to Football in Australia discover that in Australia, that term is very ambiguous, depending on where you live and what you follow. The officialdom in the FFA and SBS etc who do know what the official sport's name is can't complain about the use of the official name. Everyone, eventually, gets what they want. Yes, the "soccer only" mob have to make do with a redirect, but the "football only" have an article to click through. Saying "nobody in Australia knows what "Association football" means" is underselling us a bit. Those of us who understand that it isn't black and white get the middle ground. I think the arguements above about which media outlet does what show that there is no consistent WP:COMMONNAME to be used. It is very dependent on your interest level and background - and the inherent biases of commercial media organisations. The FAQ is relevant as it shows the thinking behind why the rest of the world has basically agreed upon that name and some of those points are relevant here. The-Pope (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • My problem with the FAQs is that they are just wrong with respect to Australia, and actually give unwarranted ammunition to the "pro-football, not soccer" crowd. The term soccer is not at all derogatory in Australia. It's the common name. It's a bit like asking Australians about how much rooting they do at the football. It's offensive here, but I'm not going to try to tell Americans to stop rooting at their football. Nobody should be trying to tell Australians to stop calling the game soccer. I've already made my point regarding trying to justify Association football because of its archaic, original usage. It DOES matter that nobody uses that name to describe the game, especially when soccer is a perfectly good, well known, unambiguous, polite alternative. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I find myself in agreement with HiLo here. To call it "football" in Australia seems to be staking one side in a POV war within this country rather than adopting a neutral position in an international sense. As for "nobody knows" - I tried "association football" out on four random friends on MSN, two of whom are soccer supporters, and nobody was quite sure what I was referring to - the soccer supporters thought I was talking about the FA Cup and the AFL ones thought I was talking about rugby union!! There isn't a "middle ground" issue as the name has no cultural connotations in Australia, and is used by official reports of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the preponderance of media outlets. Orderinchaos 08:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:COMMON -- MichiganCharms (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Definitely the common name in at least several states of Australia. Association Football is a term found on Wikipedia and hardly in use in Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Further Comment Australia has four professional sports that are called football by some of their fans. Three of these are known on Wikipedia by common names that are unambiguous and instantly recognisable. One would think soccer fans would want the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We went through this discussion several years ago. Soccer is (a) slang (b) non consistent with the rest of the world/rest of Wikipedia (c) [this might sound strange to some] to some people, offensive - there is quite a gap in professionalism and media treatment between "pre-2005 Soccer Australia" and "post-2005 Football Federation Australia". -- Chuq (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the efforts of some of us here to explain and justify our views, that's a very silly (and, in fact, insulting) post. It's saying things that many others have made clear are not the case. (Or are you just going to ignore what others say and spout unthinking dogma?) a) If it was slang it wouldn't be used in the official, registered and legally incorporated, chosen names of many clubs across the country, nor in Physical Education documentation at state government and national level, b) You're right, Australia's usage IS non-consistent with the rest of the world - why should Wikipedia pretend otherwise? c) See a)... And there's a whole lot more above. Why, oh why do editors make posts that ignore all that has been posted beforehand in a thread? It's both stupid and offensive. [PS: Do you find the name Socceroos offensive?] HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
    • "Given the efforts of some of us here ..." Given that I discussed this ad nauseum several years ago - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), the associated talk page, and the numerous previous discussions linked from the talk page, I believe I've probably put in more effort to try to resolve this than anyone else on the page. Hopefully you can understand that I don't want to do that all over again, just because someone has decided that a system that has been working for years must be changed. -- Chuq (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
      • "That's the way we've been doing it for years" is one of the worst reasons to continue to do something. I understand some of your frustration, but the arguments you presented were poor this time round, and I responded. I shouldn't have had to, because the points I made had already been made in this discussion. You will never win a debate by declaring that it was all decided years ago. Try responding to the points I made. (Oh, and I hope you realise that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) tells us to use Football (soccer), NOT Association football.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I certainly agree that "That's the way we've been doing it for years" is not a good reason by itself. I'm just pointing out that there is considerable previous discussion on the same topic which is still relevant, and to a minor degree pointing out that I had indeed given this discussion considerable effort. (And yes, "Football (soccer)" was my, and the Australian communities' preference at the time, but that has since been overridden by the global Wikipedia community's preference of "Association football"). -- Chuq (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
          • So where is that "global Wikipedia community" this time round? I'm yet to be convinced that Association football makes any sense at all for name of the game. It's not the common name anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per WP:COMMON. Nobody calls it "association football" in Australia. A minority of people call it "football", but this is ambiguous with the other three football codes in Australia. "Soccer" is a term that everyone in Australia understands and it is not ambiguous. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC).
• Oppose The article, and related material, seems to indicate a movement towards football as a name, not soccer. (ie renaming of Soccer Australia to Football Federation Australia, NLS being renamed A-league) Not to mention most references used in the article (having only given a cursory look) seems to indicate they use football.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • So should Wikipedia reflect the commercial manipulations of sports businesses, or the far more common language usage for this sport? Serious question. Round my way, the actions of those two Sydney based businesses have made zero difference to common usage. I acknowledge that we have a divide. How do we solve it without ignoring common usage? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree with regards it being of no consequences. However, I do agree that it's not the trump. Common language usage needs to be demonstrated using reliable sources and the sources in the article currently use football more than socer. If the sources employed soccer more than football I'd be happy to support (even if the association employed football).--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A return to Football (soccer), which was the previous consensus usage, seems quite logical. Hack (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per evidence of lack of use of the term "association football", and the use of "soccer" over "football" from editors above. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose A bullying attempt by non-association football fans to dictate what the name of a sport should be. While non-association football fans may be in a majority, that does not give them the right to dictate to the minority of Australians who follow association football what the name of the sport should be. The sport is simply called "football" by all branches of the game here in Australia and the term "football" is overwhelmingly preferred over "soccer" by fans of the game. The term "soccer" is now mainly used—by fans and non-fans alike—as a degoratory term similar to the racist "wogball". " ... the actions of those two Sydney based businesses [ed: How is Sydney relevant?] have made zero difference to common usage" is a false statement unsupported by the facts. Making this claim 100 times across the encyclopedia does not make this statement any more true. Claims of an Orwellian campaign to change Australian vocabulary are laughable - the only campaign being run is by Aussie Rules/Rugby league fans to keep Association football in its ghetto. No, I am not a fan of association football, but this campaign smacks of "tyranny of the majority" and should be opposed. There is absolutely no need for any special treatment for Australia regarding the name of this sport. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Ha ha ha, so it's a conspiracy now, eh? No, you're the one posting lies. I have posted the truth about the usage of soccer in all the schools and communities of which I have been and am part. Evidence has been presented. If there has been any attempt "to dictate what the name of a sport should be", it has been by Australia's soccer administrators. And it hasn't worked all that well, as demonstrated by the simple fact that there is still a Soccer Club in my town. (Obviously along with hundreds of other examples.) Do I have to take a photo of the sign at their ground and post it here to prove you wrong? HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Consistency principle of WP:TITLE. Association football is the WP:COMMONNAME worldwide. The title of all articles in the topical series about association football should be the same, as this allows navboxes like {{Oceania topic}} to work. Also, the Australian official name for all leagues is football, not soccer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I just had a look around my state, Victoria, and found that the city based leagues avoid both words, soccer and football, instead calling themselves things like "Victorian Premier League" and "Victorian State League Division 1", etc. In the regional areas I found the "Gippsland Soccer League" and the "Bendigo Amateur Soccer League". This is no surprise. There's another sport called Football which has, in practice, already claimed that name. Of course the national league is the A-League. Again, neither soccer NOR football cracks a mention. And re your comments on consistency, surely it's up to Wikipedia to cope with the fact that Australia is inconsistent with the rest of the world. It's wrong to inaccurately describe the situation in Australia simply because of Wikipedia rules and demands. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Even the ABS, as noted above, uses "outdoor soccer" and "indoor soccer" to describe variants of the sport. [16] "Consistency" is often used as a justification but rarely is it explained why a country should use words alien or foreign or confusing to it simply because the rest of the world does - we have plenty of examples where that is not so on Wikipedia, all of which are fine provided that reliable sources from the country agree. Orderinchaos 05:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "Association Football" is English, so can't be the common name across the globe, since the entire world doesn't speak English. It's Football in England, so it isn't the common name in England. It's Soccer in Australia, Canada, USA (and South Africa and New Zealand... disputedly) so it's not the common name in the Anglosphere either. The most common form seems to be "Soccer" in the Anglosphere. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:TITLE also states the variety of English appropriate to that article should be used. Also, :Oceania topic: would continue to work as :Association football in Australia: would become a redirect (see :Template:Football in Europe: for example, where the Ireland article uses association football and the rest use football). IgnorantArmies^?! 07:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• • In other languages it is Fútbol/Futebol/Fußball/etc. These are the names of their leagues and official bodies. And in reply to IgnorantArmies, {{Oceania topic}} will not work properly, as the name of the article must be consistent otherwise the Australian topical page will show a link to itself rather than a bold entry. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Per WP:COMMON and WP:ENGVAR. Soccer is the most common name of the sport in Australia, as evidenced by the current name of the national team and the former names of the national league and association, which was renamed "...to align with the general international usage of the word "football", in preference to "soccer", and to also distance itself from the failings of the old National Soccer League and Soccer Australia. It coined the phrase "old soccer, new football" to emphasise this." (as quoted from the Football Federation Australia article). Other than its use by (mainly British) immigrants, soccer is clearly the more common name of the sport in Australia, despite attempts by the authorities to change this.
  My dictionary, published in Australia, has this definition for football: (1) any of various games played with a round or oval ball and usually based on two teams competing to kick, head, carry, or otherwise propel the ball into each other's goal, territory, etc. I expect most other Australian dictionaries would say the same thing ( IgnorantArmies^?! 07:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support soccer is the most recognisable name of the game in Australia, the FFE has tried to distance itself from the use of soccer, but I just repeating what every one that supports the move has said. Lets look at numbers a search of the FFE website returns 22 hits on "association football" and 3207 hits on "soccer" unfortunately both are flawed because the FFE search engine doesnt follow bolean expression correctly, but since there was only 22 hits on AF I checked them all out none actual refer to the sprot they all refer to bodies like Fotball players association, Cerebral Palsy International Sports and Recreation Association (CPISRA) Football. Even within the sports Australian governing body the term "association football" clearly isnt used in Australia. a redirect from this current article is sufficient for people outside of Australia. When looking at article naming five basic principles are given recognise, precision,concise, natural and consistancy Soccer in Australia ticks four of the five, where as Association football only ticks the consistancy box. AT says Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice. also Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). Conversely, a name that could refer to several different articles may require disambiguation. Using Soccer in Australia as its the most natural, redirect from Association football in Australia as it may be reasonably searched for, and Football in Australia which covers all codes as the disambiguation page. Gnangarra 11:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, per Vandenberg. And because usage is clearly divided in Australia. Rennell435 (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• But how is it divided? My view is that the bulk of Australians use soccer as the natural name for the sport in this country. This includes many players and fans of the game. The other side is a group of administrators deliberately trying to change the name from soccer to football, largely for commercial reasons. (That in itself demonstrates an acceptance even by them that soccer is the natural name for the game here.) It's not Wikipedia's role to assist in their aim of changing the name. It's or role to reflect current truth and reality. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• My experience is that the majority of players and hardcore fans refer to it as "football" (partly because of the soccer-rugby rivalry), whilst "soccer" is the marginally more mainstream term. It might vary from state to state (I'm speaking from a Sydney perspective). Nightw 08:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment to Rennell435 : When you are watching "The Footy Show", which football code is being featured on the show? --LauraHale (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for consistency and because it's the least controversial and accepted internationally. Moving from this to a controversial name isn't a solution. Nightw 08:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Your consistency argument ignores the reality that Australia IS inconsistent with much of the rest of the world. We should not hide that fact. I am yet to be convinced that Association football is even used much internationally, let alone accepted. The name soccer is really not controversial within Australia, apart from with some administrators who want to change it. As I have said, it's not our job to help them. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMON. Where I come from, "association football" means the old Victorian Football Association (now VFL). Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I did a google search for football, soccer, "association football" of only Australian domains. Top results for football include: Nike Football Australia, Google directory for gridiron football, followed by two links to Rugby Leagues clubs, and a church newsletter about gridiron. Top results for soccer: A soccer club in WA, Nike Football Australia, a NSW junior soccer club, a futsal site and then the SBS (an important Australian network). Top results for "Association football": A PDF file of a paper about association football, a copy of the Wikipedia article, a footy fansite that has soccer in the title, a discussion of the history of the phrase association football, a trove search result, Walter Pless, an A-League fansite, and a Touch Football league site. 79,300 total results for: "Association football". 14,000,000 for soccer. While the term may be offensive to some brits because it is viewed as a form of American imperialism in their country (despite the English roots of the words), we're not dealing with either country and linguistically speaking, a preference is being made to favour the possibility of some British readers over the WP:COMMON and over the accessibility of the article for Australian readers. --LauraHale (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Proposal: Given that Association football in Australia is an active and current alternative name for Touch football, the article be disambiguated to link to both articles or have a link to a related Touch football article because "association football" describes two distinct sports, both being played in Australia. (Example of this: Women's basketball where there is a link at the top to netball, which shared the name of that sport for many, many years.) --LauraHale (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Question This discussion has now been under way for eight days. The earth was allegedly built quicker than that. How do we move on? HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can see by Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog, this isn't the only discussion that has been sitting around for more than seven days. Basically, just sit tight and wait for an admin to get around to closing it (but don't hold your breath, there aren't many admins that work on the RM backlog). You can always leave a request for an uninvolved admin at WP:AN if you want, but again, don't hold your breath. Jenks24 (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Not that impatient. Just curious. Happy to see the debate continue. I'm finding it fun. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as one of those RM regulars, I wouldn't try to close this until I've seen it sit still for a few days. Closing active discussions is a good way to get reverted, or otherwise generate lots of static. Better to be slow and sure; good thing there's no deadline, huh? :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Soccer" is not the only name by which this sport is known in Australia. Better to avoid issues by sticking with the sport's official name and call the article Association football in Australia. – PeeJay 22:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • On what basis can you call Association football the official name? HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, how about the fact that FIFA stands for "Federation Internationale de Football Association", which translates as "International Federation of Association Football"? Is that official enough for you? – PeeJay 07:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry. Yes, of course. I thought you were speaking about the official name within Australia. My mistake. The problem with that name, of course, is that it seems to be the common name nowhere at all. Most articles on Wikipedia are named after common names. The sport we're discussing has two common names, football in most of the world, and soccer in a few places, including the USA and Australia. I really don't see a problem with Wikipedia accepting and acknowledging that reality. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Personally, I do accept that "soccer" may be the common name for the sport among the Australian population, but what about among the reliable media sources? As people have noted above, even the national association is now called "Football Federation Australia". That would seem to indicate that the two names are approaching parity. And again, that would seem to suggest that we should avoid a name that could cause controversy and stick to the sport's official name, association football. – PeeJay 20:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
          • The name of the national association was a commercial, marketing based decision. Not a trend in language at all. That association is trying to tell the rest of the nation to call the sport football, not association football, and it's not working in at least half of the country, because it makes no sense. I hope you have read all of this thread. That will clarify what I've just said, and tell you about media usage. The only universally recognised, unambiguous, common name in Australia is soccer. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
            • If you read my comment above you'll see that the FFA doesnt/hasnt used the term "association football" at all in reference to the sport so in this case Wikipedia is making up the term, somewhere in our policies there is position that Wikipedia doesnt makeup terms it uses whats being used. Gnangarra 03:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
              • "Wikipedia is making up the term"? I'm actually dumbfounded at the ignorance of that statement. It is universally accepted that the official name for the sport is 'association football', and has been for the last 150 years. I hope you're not suggesting that Wikipedia has been around for that long. – PeeJay 10:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
                • • In context of the sport in Australia yes its a made up term, the FFA(sports governing body in Ausralia in case you dont know) dosnt use the term association football it uses the ambigious term football and commonly even on the FFA site its called soccer. This is just another case of systemic bias that ignores the local usage. Gnangarra 14:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
                • It is not universally accepted. The sport has two names, football in most of the world, and soccer in a few places, including Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
                  • Are you being intentionally obtuse? The sport has two common names, that's correct, but the only official name for the sport is "association football". – PeeJay 13:15, 20 July 2011 (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.

Where to from here?

I don't agree with this naming decision and nor do I agree with the basis on which it is made (when you strip it down to the basics, it is based on nothing but a crude counting exercise). However, now that it is made, do we now start the Orwellian task of ridding every article on the sport in Australia of the dreaded "f" word? Because that appears to be the logic here. Unless we have some sort of plan, there will be edit warring between partisans of AFL, RL and "soccer" in Australian "soccer" articles. Now that we have abandoned the compromise that has served the rest of the encyclopedia well to adopt the position of the AFL etc. we have now created more of a battlefield not less. So, where from here? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd find the idea that I closed a debate on a head count downright insulting if I didn't think it was just petulant lashing out. Secondly, the "compromise that has served the rest of the encyclopedia well" was only ever supposed to be for global articles and, as noted above in my close, is already discarded in local cases (particularly the US, but not exclusively). Thirdly, internal consistency across all of the Australian football articles is nice to have, but there's no time limit for putting it in place, nor any, ahem, "Orwellian" requirement to do so (I wonder whether you'd have applied that charming adjective to the removal of the word "soccer"). Editors should be discouraged from making mass-edits to that effect just as with any other ENGVAR issue, regardless of this particular move. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for mass edits. It's more a situation of now having a stronger guideline. It should reduce disputes. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I bet you it doesn't, although from my point of view I won't be interfering with partisan AFL/RL fans cleansing articles such as Perth Oval and Stadium Australia in the future. Of course, using exactly the same logic applied here, there is an even better case for using the term "AFL" rather than "Australian football" in all articles on that topic (and especially NSW and Qld articles) ..., -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "head count" of numbers on this talk page, I said crude number counting - i.e. rough and ready analyses of use of the terms via web searches and total dismissal of the content and context in which these terms are used. Your rationale for your decision is no better than using a google search count at an AfD. Sorry, but that is true. This is a very poor close and your lazy psychoanalysis of my reasons for thinking so is a little rude don't you think? When we decide to adopt the position of one of the partisan groups in this dispute (and this debate is wider than and move away from the global compromise, you should not be surprised if it causes more issues than it fixes. I look forward to seeing the supporters of this close deal with the inevitable disputes on articles like Lucas Neill, Kevin Muscat etc. where the term "soccer" will stand out like a sore thumb to readers from outside Aust. Don't like the term "Orwellian"? Well then perhaps Wikipedia should not be dictating to readers that the name of their sport isn't actually what they think it is. Mattinbgn (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There's already a perfectly good analogy in the use of "soccer" in the likes of Tim Howard. The rest of that reply is simply lashing out, and even as an obvious partisan in this debate you should know better than that as an administrator yourself. Unless there is something productive to be debated in this thread I think we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You may think it's done and dusted but as far as I am concerned the war has just started. So far the uneducated bigots think they have won. Far from it. Silent Billy (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the comments in the "Requested move" thread, I am struck by the fact that the greatest number of contributors to the thread are either AFL partisans by self admission (user boxes or membership of a project) or by dint of their contributions. The request was not widely publicised and seeing as it affects many pages it should have been. Silent Billy (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As a Physical Education teacher I really don't appreciate being called an "uneducated bigot". It says a lot more about you than about your arguments. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

When I was at school one phys ed teacher regarded any one who played anything other than football (ie. rugby union - league was an anathema too) in winter as a "pooftah". That was closed minded and unfair. Do you allow the kids that you teach to enjoy the sports of their choice? Silent Billy (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and we use the obvious, sensible names for them all. I'm in Victoria. Football means Aussie Rules (not a decision of mine - simple reality), and the round ball game is called Soccer. I have never heard anyone at school or in the community object. I still don't appreciate being classified as an "uneducated bigot". HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this whole argument is ridiculous. All forms (Australian Rules, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Touch Football, American Football and Association Football) all have the ability and ability to call themselves football. There is no ambiguity about what 'Association Football' means so why can't these articles use this term in prefernce to 'soccer'???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinTin (talk • contribs) 06:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Soccer is entirely unambiguous, is more common and more well-understood than association football. The argument for the name of this page has been decided. The article on the sport itself is still titled association football, despite it in no way complying with WP:COMMON. It's basically been put in as a compromise between football and soccer. IgnorantArmies^?! 08:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Terms like "Mongoloid" are entirely unambiguous too but it does not mean that we should continue to use it to describe people with Down's Syndrome. Silent Billy (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how comparing soccer with Down syndrome is relevant at all. IgnorantArmies^?! 12:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an example of a word being used in a negative manner so often that it becomes an offensive term. Read Johnny Warren's Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters and have a read of Das Libero's Soccerphobia. You might not be aware of how bad it was because it didn't get mainstream coverage at the time. As an example, any sort of fight amongst fans at any sporting event is referred to as a "soccer riot". The display of a political flag of questionable intent at the recent Australia-Serbia match in Melbourne caused the media to associate it with "soccer" supporters, whereas it is more to do with the rocky political history of the Balkans - the sport is secondary. It's hard to sum up in a short paragraph, but nothing has really changed since the last time it was discussed (details of which I linked in the discussion above), so I don't know why the outcome should be different this time. -- Chuq (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5