Talk:United Kingdom national football team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United Kingdom national football team has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
July 23, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	Association football Portal The article on United Kingdom national football team is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association 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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Fielding of non-native players 2 Position of the Home Nations' FAs 3 UK/GB 4 Changes 5 Arguments 6 Links to Crown Dependencies and Overseas territories 7 Query Re:GA nom (nom on hold for the moment) 8 Nomenclature 9 Scottish antagonists 10 Requested move 10.1 Survey 10.2 Discussion 11 Introduction changes 12 Anticipation is one thing.... 13 Fair use rationale for Image:Team GB.png 14 This isn't just about the Olympics

[edit] Fielding of non-native players

However, a frequent humorous counter to this is that a significant number of players for Wales and Northern Ireland are not natives of those countries, but rather Englishmen who are not good enough to play for England but have ancestry that qualifies them for the other teams.

This statement is a bit weasel worded - are there any actual examples, preferably of current players, to back this up? Vinnie Jones comes to mind as a single example from the past, but I'd be willing to stake that most of the Welsh and Northern Irish teams are proper 'natives' and that the assertion that a 'significant number' of them are Englishmen is false. Qwghlm 12:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mike Basset:Football manager mentions it. Its a pretty widespread joke though it doesn't hold true very often these days, back in the 60s and 70s though people's grandparents had moved around the country as part of the industrial revolution so it happened quite often. --Josquius 20:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to claim that such tactics are only employed by the smaller nations of the UK: John Barnes, Graeme LeSaux and Matt LeTissier had no grounds other than residence by which to claim themselves as English. Kevin McE 09:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Position of the Home Nations' FAs

Currently, the football associations of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are in theory in favour of a British national team; however, the Scottish FA opposes it.

Nothing is given to back this up, while [1], [2] and [3] say otherwise - none of the home FAs want a UK team. Deleted this paragraph, and the above pointless jibe at Wales & Northern Ireland. Qwghlm 20:58, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is in theory, they don't actually support it its just they aren't vocally against it like the Scots are. Meh, it doesn't matter. I just wrote the base article in one sitting when bored.--Josquius 20:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Football Association of Wales, opposes a Great Britain team. BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4427504.stm Sulasgeir 13:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The meeting at which they declared their opposition to the plan was held since Qwghlm and Josquius made their statements. Changes in the build-up to, and at, the meeting in December 2005 have since been addressed in the article. Bastin 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK/GB

Lets discuss the naming - should this be United Kingdom national football team or Great Britain national football team? What are the arguments for each side? I think the latter is most appropriate, especially since that is used for the Olympics and is all over the news right now. violet/riga (t) 12:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Until two days ago, this article had been sitting at United Kingdom - it was moved by User:Dangherous and after a bit of discussion on their talk page, I moved it back. To call it "Great Britain" implies that the team would only contain players from England, Scotland and Wales, when the proposed team is not the case. Also, the team discusses not just the Olympic team but the concept of a UK-wide team for all FIFA competitions; it would be inappropriate to rename it just for the sake of the Olympics, which is a minor international football competition compared to others like the World Cup or European Championship. Qwghlm 12:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with violet/riga. Qwghlm states "it would be inappropriate to rename it just for the sake of the Olympics, which is a minor international football competition compared to others like the World Cup or European Championship". I agree that it's a minor competition compared to the World Cup or Euro Championships (hell, even FIFA doesn't recognise games played in the Olympics to count towards "capping"), but the fact is this British team hasn't been affiliated with those competitions, but it has been connected to the Olympics, under the name "Great Britain and Northern Island", (GBR). I believe this is a question of whether Olympic naming conventions overrule our (Wikipedia's) naming convention. And these should be my final two cents on the matter. --Dangherous 13:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Essentially, they are two arguments. The first is whether you want a UK side for all competitions. This argument has been aired in the past by polticians such as Jack Straw and Tony Banks. The second is whether you want a UK side (named GBR) for the Olympic Games, particularly in 2012. So the Olympic argument should be a sub-section of the wider contention that there should be (or should not be) a UK team for all competitions.

[edit] Changes

Having just made a substantial edit, I'd like to explain two points:

• I entered the 2008 Beijing bit unaware of the previous deletion, but I firmly believe that it be included. Simply, it is because there is debate around the issue, with conflicting reports from the BOA and the FA, from the BBC and the Times. As far as I'm concerned, when those organisations disagree, it's time to put both points of view as equals, even if the odds of a team by 2008 are a million to one.
• SNP never supported the idea of a unified team. They made the opposite statement, supporting a separate Scottish Olympic team (in either all events or just football), and condemed Blatter for his arrogance.

Otherwise, I think that, with a separation of the primary arguments from the introduction, I think that this article can be quite a good one, given that it's about something that doesn't exist. Bastin 23:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Woops, should have read the source more closely, sorry Robdurbar 14:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments

As I wrote above, I think that the arguments should be separated from the introduction. Presently, the introduction is too long in comparison to the article itself. Moreover, I can imagine the majority of Wikipedians, i.e. non-Britons, becoming very confused, either as to why the UK has separate national teams or as to why anyone would question having separate teams.

Being very much in favour of a United Kingdom national team, even away from the Olympics, I don't trust my impartiality (or what little there is of it). Consequently, I think it best if it undergoes review on this page before I commit an horrendous crime against the rules of Wikipedia by writing a propagandist tract.

A more pedestrian requirement is to work out how arguments would be arranged. I imagine that many of the arguments and rebuttals would be 'two-sides-of-the-same-coin' territory. Hence, keeping the arguments and corresponding counter-arguments together in a form of sorted rebuttal might make sense, e.g. under the section of arguments for:

Argument: A unified team would give Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish fans a better chance of seeing their national team compete at major tournements. Wales haven't qualified for the World Cup since 1958 and Northern Ireland since 1986, whilst Scotland have never got past the first round.

Rebuttal: A unified team would limit the number of British qualifiers to one. As it is, it is quite common for more than one team to qualify; in fact, all four Home Nations qualified for the 1958 World Cup, and three of them qualified in each of 1982 and 1986.

• I think most of the rest of the world would consider this an argument for unification of a UK team, on the grounds that other nations, which are much more federal in their governmental structure (USA, Germany, Spain among many others) only enter one side, and thus only have one, albeit larger, bite at the cherry. Kevin McE 09:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, there's the regular list of arguments for and against without cross-reference or organised rebuttal (Free Trade having one of the longer and more articulate ones). Bastin 18:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Crown Dependencies and Overseas territories

There should definitely not be a list of 'national' teams fielded by the Crown Dependencies and Overseas territories in the 'See also' section. They have no relevance to the matter at hand, since their statuses would not be changed by the creation of a United Kingdom national team, nor are their situations analogous or the study of their situations in any way useful to the understanding of a UK national team, whether in the past or in the future. Bastin 17:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. The only justification that I could possible imagine for adding 'Herm national football team' and 'Pitcairn Islands national football team' is to make some sort of point. The United Kingdom has a population of sixty million. Herm has a population of sixty, whereas the Pitcairn Islands make Herm look like Tokyo. Who is suggesting that they have, or ought to have, football teams, when the Pitcairns don't have enough men to field a full squad? Certainly not Jack Straw, Sebastian Coe, or the late Tony Banks. Perhaps WP:POINT would make interesting reading for those that require persuasion otherwise. Bastin 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, its a needless list. --Robdurbar 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query Re:GA nom (nom on hold for the moment)

I'm reviewing this article as a potential good article (it's looking very good by the way), and wondered about the image caption on the map. Am I right in thinking that the (English) FA is also the FA for certain territories outside the UK, such as Man and the Channel Islands? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article somewhere? It seems to me that the "UK national football team" would really be a "UK plus Crown Dependencies national football team"... which isn't quite the same thing, even if only hair-splitters would care!

Also, given that "Rest of UK" and "Great Britain" and "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" have all played competitive football, the latter at the Olympics, would it be impossible to include their strips? TheGrappler 02:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I beleive that the Isle of Man, Gurnesy and Jersey FA's are all affiliated to the FA, so that they are independent but, in the event of a player from these islands being good enough (e.g. Graeme Le Saux), they would play for England.

Crown dependancy players have the option to choose to play for any of the 4 British teams, not just England.Jizz 13:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that doesn't make them British naitonals... so whether they would qualify for a UK team at an Olympics is an interesting quesiton. --Robdurbar 08:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain (1947)

Great Britain (1955)

The Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, and Man) are affiliated as County FAs to the (English) Football Association (hence Le Saux and Le Tissier). Under the British Nationality Act 1981, citizens of the Crown Dependencies are to be treated as British citizens for all purposes, including sport. Thus, at the Olympics and other sports events, nationals of the Crown Dependencies take part in the Great Britain and Northern Ireland team (as Mark Cavendish will surely do at cycling in 2008).

It wouldn't be too hard to include representations of the strips (if, by your suggestion, you mean something like those given right and left). It may be possible to find photos of the shirts, too; unfortunately, I can't find any photos of the matches themselves, but I'm sure that delving through some of my large collection of football history books would provide something. Bastin 12:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the original nominator, and I did so because this article is interesting, well-written, well-referenced, and authoritatively answers a relevant question (why, in contrast to all other countries, does the UK compete as separate teams?). I haven't seen this isue dealt with better than here. It looks like the issues TheGrappler raises, if addressed, would make it even better, and I'm glad to see he agrees with me about the quality of the article.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if any of the kits are on display at a museum somewhere? That might allow a free use photograph to be taken. I also wonder whether any of the early Olympic photographs might be public domain by now? At any rate, I think it would be a good idea to put the strips in, and include a brief statement about the Crown Dependencies; after that I'm satisfied that this is as comprehensive as WP:WIAGA requires. I suspect, in fact, that there's enough information available out there to bring this up to featured status, if anybody's up for it. TheGrappler 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to the National Football Museum last year and don't recall seeing the strips anywhere. --Robdurbar 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a shame! Would it be possible to get the template-kits put into the article at an appropriate location? I'd like to give the article a thorough review for its good article nomination, but at the moment it's "on hold" so the kits can go in... TheGrappler 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the kits. Since there are now strips for both 1947 and 1955, it might be sensible to expand upon the occasions, explaining the reasons for playing (the FAs' entry into FIFA and the IFA's 75th anniversary respectively) and maybe even the composition of the teams.

I've removed reference to the 1965 game. I had previously believed that it was a 'Great Britain v Rest of Europe' game, played as Sir Stanley Matthews' testimonial. However, having looked in his autobiography to find the strip in which the game was played, I noticed that Scottish players played for both sides (Jim Baxter and Willie Henderson played for the 'international' team, whilst Denis Law played for Stanley Matthews' British XI). Bastin 21:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A good spot, that. I've promoted this to GA now - a nice article. TheGrappler 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

Never has there been a team representing Great Britain. In all cases, Northern Ireland participated, thus, the teams represented the United Kingdom. Bastin 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And the name they played under was? --Guinnog 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

'That which we call a rose' and all that. Bastin 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish antagonists

Just a thought here and I'm not trying to be anti-Scottish, I'm looking at things objectivly but really a point should be made about how the Scots are the main opponent of this idea due to the rather nasty nationalism with regards to football they developed in the 60s--Josquius 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the current balance is fine (and not just because I wrote most of it). The article makes it clear the the SFA is the roadblock to the formation of a team in 2012, being alone in their opposition in principle. One could make some conjecture about the roots of their opposition, but it's never been identified or chronicled in any way that could make such an entry encyclopaedic and adhere to a NPOV. Personally, I think that you're right (see how few Crosses of St George were waved at Wembley on 15 April 1967, yet how many Saltires there were), but that's really neither here nor there. Bastin 12:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be "nasty nationalism" for the FA to oppose a European Union football team? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Four reasons for keeping the article where it is:

1. Excepting the two friendly games, the name was never 'Great Britain'; until 1924, the Olympic name was 'Great Britain and Ireland', and since 1928, it has been 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. In any future competition, the name would be 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', as that is the name in all other sports at the Olympics.
2. The teams that played the friendlies against Wales were deliberately known by the name of 'Rest of the United Kingdom', not 'Rest of Great Britain'.
3. Of the two FAs interested in fielding a team at the Olympics, one is Northern Ireland. If there are as many non-'Great Britain' FAs as there are 'Great Britain' FAs, to describe it as a 'Great Britain' team is misleading. Furthermore, it is an offence to the IFA's position.
4. As a hypothetical team, the name of any future side should not be second-guessed; the hypothetical name ventured ought to rely on the logical and uncontroversial. In most cases, the logical and uncontroversial is the name of the country: United Kingdom. Bastin 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction changes

I just reverted an edit made by Mais_oui!. The changes to the introduction were manifold, so I'll explain each in turn:

• Addition of {{fact}}: citations are not required in the introduction if the statements are substantiated upon and supported (by proper citations) further down the page. This is the case with both of the statements.
• Addition of {{future sport}}: it's not a future sporting event. It's not even a future sporting team.
• Use of 'constituent country': in a sporting context, 'Home Nation' is always the preferred term.
• Bolded 'Great Britain': 'Great Britain' is not part of the title, nor is it a synonym for the title, so it shouldn't be in bold. See the discussion above; since it has been decided (or soon will be) that the article ought to remain here, there is no need to assert that the two are the same.
• Re-ordering the international teams: the Home Nations are ordered by alphabet. Scotland does not come before Northern Ireland. The fact that the editor did make that change suggests the motive behind the recent edits. Bastin 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong: I moved NI to before Scotland, per the alphabet (read WP:AGF); and alternative names should always be in bold. --Mais oui! 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for that point, which I have now removed. However, it's hard to assume good faith when there are still criticisms of your edit that you have failed to answer, and even harder when it's in the wake of the above attempt to change the name (not that I resent your return: only that you haven't exactly let the dust settle before moving back to naming conventions). More importantly, you still haven't removed {{fact}}, which was the most illogical of your changes. Bastin 23:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE is perhaps the most important Wikipedia policy of them all, and there is absolutely nothing there to support your assertion: "citations are not required in the introduction if the statements are substantiated upon and supported (by proper citations) further down the page". I restored Home Nations, and moved the {{future sport}} template to further down the page, hence I did not address them in my previous comment. Stop being so defensive and aggresive. I really am trying to contribute positively to this article, and I do not care one jot for our previous encounters, which were a long time ago. --Mais oui! 23:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree; you need to justify "a perennial point of discussion". Perennial seems an odd word to use here anyway. Let's take that down or at least change the wording, if we can't find a decent citation for it. --Guinnog 10:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anticipation is one thing....

Is it really necessary to have a box for most capped player, blank kit colours and FIFA code?

This is ridiculous, isn't this wasting space?

No, because the team has played games before. It's just that we're all too lazy to go through the records and work out just who is the most capped player and top goalscorer. I will do it some time, if only to prove a point. Bastin 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Team GB.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This isn't just about the Olympics

The article, which I selected as a GA a while ago, is about the UK national football team, and did a fine job why such a team has and hasn't existed and its relationship to the teams of the Home Countries. It is not solely about the Olympic Games; indeed, any national FA-sanctioned football team would theoretically be on the same footing as, say, the Argentina national football team, even if it did not play in any FIFA matches. (Indeed, in its bursts of existence, the team has played non-Olympic matches.) However, the focus seems to have shifted to something more like "United Kingdom Olympic football team" rather to the unique position of the UK in international football. While the Olympics are obviously very important in this context, and are in all likelihood the only reason such a team would be reconstituted, the Olympics are not the only story here. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the focus on the Olympics is because that is the only way that a UK football team is likely to exist in future - and even then it will just be an 'English' team for reasons discussed in the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)