• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The use of the word 'Football'

S

sanzar

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
I've never heard a sports analyst say that and in all honesty I doubt it ever will be...

Union is in the weakest position in Aus, so that's where soccer could possibly make it's ground, but other than that I don't think soccer will ever really move far beyond being a new European immigrant sport.
[/b]
I read alot of the website 'The Roar' where many journalist types mingle with the common people about such issues as the growth of soccer, they have spoke on the website about it and have done so in a few newspaper articles as well, plus Fox Sports News always has analysts speaking about the growth of the A League.

A League is already expanding into the same places Aussie Rules is trying to get into, but a few seasons before Aussie Rules is, into areas where Rugby League usually resides....Union has too much corporate dollars in it to weaken any more, it's at a low point already and to be honest over West it is going from strength to strenght despite the fact alot of Eastern States journalists claim we are in as much of a dire state as they are.

As for being viewed as a European immigrant sport. I don't know over East but I know in WA despite our team being the worst team in the league (and no one really caring about the team much) the interest in the foreign leagues, particularly the EPL has grown ten fold since the World Cup. I was at a little section in the casino at 11pm Sunday night where there was a screen showing the Liverpool game and there was about 100 of AUSTRALIANS glued to the set, cheering and jumping every goal, glued to every moment....this NEVER used to happen in WA, to say the game isn't becoming more popular is just ignorant...and since the A League has taken away the ethnic loyalties many Australians feel comfortable about the new teams and the A League has a clear plan to grow a much larger market in Australia.

Australia is losing much of its Australian-ness, being influenced by the world more, and people travel more, where in the past they wouldn't even leave thier state....it won't happen over night but Football is on the rise, and just because it isn't at the moment, why can it not be a dominant sport? [/b][/quote]

Well I've only been to Perth on brief stints, so I've never been their long enough to gauge it's sporting culture that well. I've spent more time in Melbourne probably.

But in any case I never said that it wasn't getting more popular, but pointed out that League and AFL haven't exactly stagnated. But you're right, Perth does sound quite different from Sydney (though in all honesty having everyone glued to the premier league is kinda depressing if you ask me... and how is it ever going to be dominant if everyone is only interested in the foreign competitions?) . In Sydney we have 9 Rugby League clubs, a major Super 14 franchise and an AFL team that have all been entrenched much longer than soccer, so soccer still feels more of a niche sport in Sydney... nothing close to dominant. Down in Melbourne, where soccer is a solid fan base thanks largely to the greeks, the majority of the population are still absolutely AFL mad... it's just totally on a different level to soccer.

That's what I mean you see. I never said "it couldn't be", just that I personally don't see it happening... Soccer is also growing in the United States, but to think it would ever over-take the NFL is more than a little hopeful.

As for the analysts, well if you're looking at articles related to soccer and the A-League and journalists who follow it, then of course they're going to talk it up, it's basically their job to do so. Those guys get very involved in the scene and essentially become pundits for the sport.

But in all honesty I don't get why anyone would be in hurry to become another soccer dominated nation anyway... what's so great about uniformity? Sounds bloody booring to me. You get this feeling from the soccer zealots in Aus that if we don't all start following soccer, then it's like we've pulled out of the UN or something because it's "the world game".
 
F

Fagballs

Guest
Football is surely the oldest word in use for a sport played in the developed world. The earliest mention of it was in a document by the mayor of london who banned it because he said it roused public sentiment. That was sometime in the 1300's
 
M

MunsterMan

Guest
Gaelic Football was first mentioned in 1308 and has been played since the 8th century.
 
A

An Tarbh

Guest
I believe it was called caide and they played it with a pigs bladder, also a pre cursor to rugby as well
 
B

Bullitt

Guest
<div class='quotemain'> Gaelic Football was first mentioned in 1308 and has been played since the 8th century. [/b]
What was it called between the 8th century and 1308?
[/b][/quote] A long time ago.
 
S

sanzar

Guest
Football is surely the oldest word in use for a sport played in the developed world. The earliest mention of it was in a document by the mayor of london who banned it because he said it roused public sentiment. That was sometime in the 1300's [/b]

Not sure what that has to do with the argument... Pretty much all the current football codes were formalised really in the 1800s and I doubt any of them bare all that much resemblence to sports played 700 years ago.
 
B

BLR

Guest
Not sure what that has to do with the argument... Pretty much all the current football codes were formalised really in the 1800s and I doubt any of them bare all that much resemblence to sports played 700 years ago.
[/b]
He is putting forward the argument that as association football was the first with the name, hence they are entitled to it....the OTHER football codes, as you said were only created in the 1800's, 1900's for League in Australia at least....association football is the only code that existed in a somewhat similar form 700 years ago....of course the other codes wouldn't bare much resemblence to sports of the time as they weren't even thought up, the development is from association football itself, with probably a few cultural sports here and there, no ancient 'Rugby' game 700 years ago....
 
S

sanzar

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
Not sure what that has to do with the argument... Pretty much all the current football codes were formalised really in the 1800s and I doubt any of them bare all that much resemblence to sports played 700 years ago.
[/b]
He is putting forward the argument that as association football was the first with the name, hence they are entitled to it....the OTHER football codes, as you said were only created in the 1800's, 1900's for League in Australia at least....association football is the only code that existed in a somewhat similar form 700 years ago....of course the other codes wouldn't bare much resemblence to sports of the time as they weren't even thought up, the development is from association football itself, with probably a few cultural sports here and there, no ancient 'Rugby' game 700 years ago.... [/b][/quote]

Well according to An Tarbh's comment Gaelic Football was an acient precursor to rugby as well. And you're wrong, whatever roots it may claim to have, the reality is Association Football too was formed in the 1863, which was 5 years AFTER Australian Rules Football formed I might add. The fact that they may have played a game termed football where they kicked it along the ground at certain points 700 years ago does not entitle soccer to the exclusive use of the term football any more than Gaelic football or Australian Rules Football.
 
B

BLR

Guest
Well according to An Tarbh's comment Gaelic Football was an acient precursor to rugby as well. And you're wrong, whatever roots it may claim to have, the reality is Association Football too was formed in the 1863, which was 5 years AFTER Australian Rules Football formed I might add. The fact that they may have played a game termed football where they kicked it along the ground at certain points 700 years ago does not entitle soccer to the exclusive use of the term football any more than Gaelic football or Australian Rules Football.
[/b]
And An Tarbh also said that the game itself had it's own Gaelic name, nothing to do with the word 'football'. As for the formation of Association football, just because the game was formalised in 1863 does not mean that it didn't exist before then, plus the myth of the formation of Aussie Rules 150 years ago is just that, a bit of spin by AFL to gain legitamacy, it was basically rugby with a few differing laws here and there.

If we were to argue that Aussie Rules is older then Association Football then why is it that Aussie Rules is so isolated, they had a world without any sports to colonise....yeah right.... the first game is claimed to have been played 150 years ago, althought, as I mentioned it was rugby with some rules changed....yet Footballs first game? Well, we could probably put that back thousands of years if we had correct sources. The game was not the same as it is today so if we are too say Football has changed to much then we must argue that we can only go back with Aussie Rules until the current rules....which I assue you will be far less then 150 years, as back then they often decided the rules there and then on the pitch....
 
S

sanzar

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
Well according to An Tarbh's comment Gaelic Football was an acient precursor to rugby as well. And you're wrong, whatever roots it may claim to have, the reality is Association Football too was formed in the 1863, which was 5 years AFTER Australian Rules Football formed I might add. The fact that they may have played a game termed football where they kicked it along the ground at certain points 700 years ago does not entitle soccer to the exclusive use of the term football any more than Gaelic football or Australian Rules Football.
[/b]
And An Tarbh also said that the game itself had it's own Gaelic name, nothing to do with the word 'football'. As for the formation of Association football, just because the game was formalised in 1863 does not mean that it didn't exist before then, plus the myth of the formation of Aussie Rules 150 years ago is just that, a bit of spin by AFL to gain legitamacy, it was basically rugby with a few differing laws here and there.

If we were to argue that Aussie Rules is older then Association Football then why is it that Aussie Rules is so isolated, they had a world without any sports to colonise....yeah right.... the first game is claimed to have been played 150 years ago, althought, as I mentioned it was rugby with some rules changed....yet Footballs first game? Well, we could probably put that back thousands of years if we had correct sources. The game was not the same as it is today so if we are too say Football has changed to much then we must argue that we can only go back with Aussie Rules until the current rules....which I assue you will be far less then 150 years, as back then they often decided the rules there and then on the pitch.... [/b][/quote]

Like it or not Australian Rules Football did exist formally in 1858 and there are records to prove it. But AFL was very much confined to Melbourne and efforts to internationalise were non-existant. There was no commercial push or incentive to send it around the globe. What differentiated soccer was that the stretch of the British empire brought it everywhere (much like rugby, but rugby's insistance on staying amature and essentially elite seriously stunted it). Also, had AFL not been around this push would most likely have succeeded in Australia too (AFL existed in Sydney too, but was pushed out with the emergance of Rugby League in the early 20th century).
Furthermore, if you actually bothered to flick back through the history of Football you'll notice that in most of the older forms of football such as "mob football" played in Britain 1000 years ago, the ball was played in hand for much of the time and physical contact was very important. A number of similar games also developed over the years and many of the different forms of football involved handling the ball for long periods of time and physical contact. These sports existed long before Association Football was formed and were called football, though they resemble rugby, gaelic football or AFL more than the almost non-contact foot exclusive soccer.

Anyway, even if you were right (and you're not) and association football existed virtually as it is known today 700 years ago, then that still doesn't alter my point that Australians have always known association football as soccer and that it is perfectly legitimate (even Teh Mite pointed out soccer is an official and British word for the sport) that we continue to label it as such in our own country.
 
S

sanzar

Guest
You're right it is pointless. Why spend so much energy trying to change what is essentially an Australian linguistic institution? Soccer fans in Aus should never have demanded we all uniformly dub it, and only it, football. I'm just putting my case forward for a bit of equality in the use of terminology... I honestly can't work out why it's such a horrendous crime that Australians dare call association football by an easier to distinguish (and legitimate) name. As I said, I didn't even start this argument, I just wanted to shut up the soccer types in Aus who demand we all call it football (despite our complicated sporting landscape) without being able to provide a solid justification ;) .

Edit: just as a point of interest on the incredible "growth of soccer", the herald today ran a story on how the ratings of the A-League final were outstripped by the round 3 Highlanders v Waratahs match last week. So perhaps that's an indicator in how far off soccer is from being our "dominat code" (considering Rugby is significantly weaker than AFL and League).
 
D

DC

Guest
plus if you guys start calling it "football"

you can no longer have the clever nickname the socceroos
 
S

sanzar

Guest
plus if you guys start calling it "football"

you can no longer have the clever nickname the socceroos

[/b]

Yeah, pretty embarrassing that one. The league team dubbed themselves the kangaroos on their first ever overseas tour and then the union side felt it necessary to follow suit and ever since then other sports have been thinking up silly names too. But whereas both Kangaroos and wallabies feel truly representative, the others just sound stupid.
 
S

sambãd5

Guest
haha, all that cleaver wit wasted.

imo - i call soccer soccer, union union or rugby and league league. that is unless you are in the aproprate envorment where there is no confustion on which code you are talking about.

it is annoying how widely used it is, especailly on the news ive found. when they try to be less professional in their manner and say "we got beaten in the footy" and you think **** the all blacks must be at the world cup, and then you find out its soccer and your like - meh.

but yes - it is pointless to try and convince anyone call it elsewise. a football fan will allways call it football.
 
Top