Talk:History of football (soccer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The article on History of football (soccer) is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

History of football (soccer) was supported by the football article improvement drive, a weekly collaboration to improve football (soccer)-related articles to featured article status.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)