From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Soccer is the term used in North America to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in England as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to rugby as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the United States and Canada.

  • most popular sport in the world
  • not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?
  • derivation of name: soc in "Association"?
Done and referenced. Airdish 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • called "football" everywhere but North America?
Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? Airdish 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Evidence of what? That it's called "football" everywhere? Because I think that's pretty conclusive. All of those mean "football", except for "calcio", which means "kicking." In Chinese, it is "foot+ball", zuqiu, 足球. Basically, football is football, and soccer is an ugly name that doesn't express what the game is. And "football" is by far the most common name - about 400,000,000 Europeans use terms that are identical in meaning or even sound, 1,300,000,000 Chinese use a term that means "football", and the inventors of the sport use the term "football". If the site as a whole prefers the use of "soccer", then fine, but it's not an accurate article in a sense. Blackjuice 10:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Fun fact: "calcio" also means calcium! DanieleGiusto 17:42, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's called soccer in Australia, though the name football is gaining popularity (they are trying to compare Australian soccer to World Football). It is still commonly refered to as soccer by the public at large. Hannibal ad portas 21:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be categorised under Sports? I saw that categorisation was just removed. NotForgotten 16:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Hello, soccer is a sub-category of sports. Generally speaking, we try to move materials to sub-categories when they exist. Learn together 16:04, 31 July 2007 (EDT)


Why is this sport being called soccer, when in pretty much all of the world it is called football? Daphnea 13:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Because this is an American website. It is noted in the article that it's called "football" outside the U.S. Jinxmchue 13:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Ah, I didn't realise that. So everything here is written from the point of view of the United States? Daphnea 16:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Do you see the Conservapedia logo on the upper left? That should sufficiently answer your question. Of course, this is little different from Wikipedia, which typically uses American spelling, terms and phrases. (When they try to be world-minded over there, it just ends up being silly or confusing. The WP article about soccer is titled "Association football." People are going to look at that rarely used phrase and think, "What the heck is that?") Jinxmchue 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)


The suggestion that the game is called "football" not because the ball is kicked with the foot but because it is played "on foot" rather than on horseback is a myth. It is a myth which has gained popularity in reason years, especially on the internet, but citing a website which puts this theory forward does not stop it being a myth. See for example this etymology website which states that the reason it was named football was because of kicking the ball.

The argument in the previously cited source is that football developed in the middle ages as "a game played by ordinary people, as distinct from the team games of the nobility which were played on horseback". This would make some sense, if there were any examples of team ball games played on horseback during this period. There were not. The only notable equine ball game is polo, which was played in the middle east since ancient times, but not in the English speaking world until the 19th century, several centuries after the first use of the word "football". Medieval and early modern equine sports in Europe were largely variants on jousting or combat, which did not involve balls. There were numerous ball games, all played on foot, such as tennis, croquet, bowls and stoolball (the origin of cricket). Since football was the only game which involved kicking the ball, this is the most probable reason for the origin of the name.

However, since there is disagreement on this issue, and this is likely to continue, it is probably better to keep any mention of the origin of the word "football" out of the article. Sideways 14:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


I rewrote a large portion of the article to remove the redundant facts. In a short article, the information about soccer and football being the same game was repeated three times. As was the rule about not using hands. I hope this helps. NateE Let Us Communicate 15:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but there are several more cases with the ball in play. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Can you please give me any example of when a player is allowed to use his hands while the ball is in play? And also, if you want to remove or rework that phrase, fine. But why do you revert the entire change to add back in the redundant passages? NateE Let Us Communicate 12:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Those "redundant passages" make more clear the problem of hands. With the clock runing any player can touch the ball with hands in several cases like: corners, penalties, side throws (saque de banda), goal kick, etc. (Sorry, I am not familiar with the correct name in English.) It has to be clair that non intentional touch is also permitted. That Does not appear in your edits. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
The clock running and the ball in play are two different things altogether. During a corner, or a throw or any of the other examples you've noted, the ball is not in play. If you and I were on opposite teams, and I got a throw in, you can't make a play on the ball until it leaves my hands. That's what I mean by in play. NateE Let Us Communicate 14:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
I see your point and agree with it. Now you have to say the same thing in the article; It was you who start talking about "ball in play"; before it was more general; please make clear both cases. OK? Also: It has to be clear that non intentional touch is also permitted. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 16:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Agreed, I'll start on that as soon as I have the time. NateE Let Us Communicate 16:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Joaquín and Nate, you seen to be working the most on this article. Can I make a suggestion? We should have a section with Rules (this would be a good place for the Soccer Pitch image) and then another section with world popularity, the World Cup, FIFA and great players. Unfortunately I don't think I know enough about the sport to make significant contributions. -Foxtrot 00:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Welcome to the soccer team. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:23, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Great Players

I've tried to make this more representative. Any other suggestions? (Alberto di Stefano? Bobby Charlton? Gordon Banks? Bobby Moore? Michel Platini?) And what about the pre-war era? I imagine most of the names there would come from English or Scottish club football. HSpalding 19:48, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Socialist sport?

It seems to me that calling soccer a socialist sport is a bit subjective. I disagree with everything socialist, but I enjoy watching soccer more than I do football. --Dfrischknecht 16:54, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

Are you the mountain bike guy? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:21, 5 July 2010 (EDT)
Anyway, as to Soccer.....The only thing more predictable than Barack Obama blaming George W. Bush and BP is that when you flip over to World Cup coverage, the score will be 0-0. I don't care who is playing or where you are in the, match. It will be 0-0. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:23, 5 July 2010 (EDT)
I'd rather see the socialism section shortened, with a longer version moved to Essay:Soccer and socialism. --Ed Poor Talk 14:45, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

This socialism thing really gotta go. It's logically incoherent, and here's why: The No Hand rule doesn't mean taxes, come on... It just puts in an extra challenge. All sports are challenges, not using your hand is the key challenge in soccer. The Off-Side rule prohibits a player from just standing around near the opposing side's goal, rather than actually working. Besides there's an offside rule in Ice Hockey as well. "The game forbids frequent stops, which can be compared to "carbon footprint" efforts to fight supposed global warming." This one is just stupid. The efforts to avoid frequent stops is just to enhance the intensity. "Soccer is very bureaucratic, and teams are very much tied to their countries." Yes, when the national associations play, they are tied to their nations, but most of the soccer games played are between clubs, not nations, and these clubs are just as commercial as any other professional sports club. There's no more bureaucracy in FIFA than in the MLB. "The US is often treated unfairly by other nations in the game, one reason being soccer's lack of popularity in the US - socialism always claimed to favor the absolute will of the majority rather than personal and economic freedom of the individual." This is false. The reason for the repeated failures of the US teams at the World Cup is caused by too little competition in the North American region, with only 2 strong teams, US and Mexico. "The World Cup trophy resembles socialist Hollywood's Emmy Award." I honestly thought the World Cup trophy looked more like the NLF trophy. "In youth leagues, everyone gets a trophy for their efforts regardless of achievement, and there is no scoring in the game." That is a socialist attitude used exclusively in the US, and it is NOT part of the rules given by FIFA. "Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals." Much like the Wild Card Race in MLB. "Union strikes, even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer." Yes, and that never happened in any American sports such as Baseball, hockey or NFL... Oh wait... "Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights." Soccer riots are rare these days, and they just use soccer as a polariser, they could have used any other sport too.

The connection between soccer and socialism is ridiculous. The section simply detracts from the article. Just because you don't happen to like something doesn't make it socialist. BenDylan 01:20, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

American sports are the most socialist of all! Hear me out, please. First of all, the worst teams get first pick at the best players in the draft. If this isn't Socialist, I don't know what is. And this is exclusively used by all four major sports in the United States. In Soccer, it's a free market, with teams able to bid as high as they want for the best players with little regulation or intervention by their respective leagues. Of course, this creates a lack of parity such that leagues tend to be dominated by a small subset of teams (see: Barca/Madrid, ManU/Chelsea/Arsenal, etc.). Of course, I think the American system is better, as it gives all teams a better chance to compete. (Note: THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A SOCIALIST.) In a way, sports exhibit possibly the ONLY proper application of "socialist" policies, and it only works because of the small scale of sporting leagues. Jeez, there are so many more examples it's ridiculous. Like this: The NBA, NHL, and NFL all have salary caps, which are designed to ensure super rich teams can't dominate year after year. The NBA has a "soft" cap, which means they can have payrolls above the salary cap, but for every dollar the Lakers spend above the salary cap, they have to pay a "luxury tax" which then gets distributed to teams with lower payrolls. For Heaven's sake, it's a "tax" that goes to less wealthy teams! It's LITERALLY designed to "spread the wealth." So, in summary, while socialism is certainly not something that can work on a national scale, it has and does work in American sports. So for the sake of not insulting the intelligence of sports fans who happen to read this site, I suggest removing this section entirely. Thanks. Ballncheney 5:16, July 06, 2011 (PDT)

Here's what you should know. Liberalism is a waste of words. Review the chart [1] and get back to me BC.--Jpatt 20:43, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
You're right about liberalism, but I don't think I understand your point. Besides not refuting or arguing any of my points, I think you're just implying I'm a lib because I know about basketball. You're wrong. Basketball fans tend to be libs because many of them are black (who vote overwhelmingly for dems). I'm neither black nor liberal, so your whole point is moot. Either way, MLB also has a luxury tax (they call it a "competitive balance tax") and a revenue sharing program that works very similarly to the NBA. Ballncheney 12:21, July 07, 2011 (PDT)
I understand your point- American sports are the most socialist. We are not going to remove the reference to soccer because of your argument. Also, when blacks only make up 14% of the population, the popularity of basketball reaches far beyond skin color. --Jpatt 15:28, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
I don't mind if you don't remove it. I'm just content with you acknowledging I'm right. But you seem to have a very limited knowledge of statistics, so I won't try to beat it into you. If you want to think that only 14% of basketball fans are black simply because 14% of the population is, I won't stop you. Do you think 14% of all sports' fans are black? Nascar? Tennis? I seriously hope you don't think that. I will say one last time that if anyone with the most basic knowledge of sports read this article, they would laugh hysterically like I did. Ballncheney 12:46, July 07, 2011 (PDT)
Yes, you lost me there sport. Sorry I don't understand your rant. What do you expect, I'm a little slow. Great job on reducing your reply to a few sentences. --Jpatt 16:11, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

Where the socialism thing came from and why it's there.

Let me explain where the socialism section came from. I had seen on the main page that day, there was a front page news entry from a blog (possibly two or three blogs) comparing soccer to socialism. I don't remember if the blogs were being serious or satirical, but it was on the front page of Conservapedia. I then happened to stumble on the Soccer article and noticed it had been changed to "a popular Socialist football sport" with no explanation given. As the front page gets replaced with new news, I took the Socialism into its own section, sourcing the original blogs, to avoid the Soccer article not making sense and sounding silly. As this has become quite a topic for debate, I just thought I should mention what the section is about, and where it came from, before we make any decisions. -danq 00:22, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

Reasons for being socialist

Alright, I'm new here, so please be understanding. I'm not sure how some of the reasons listed even begin to make sense. The number of words necessary to play soccer? What about baseball or NASCAR? Do players or drivers need an extensive vocabulary in either of these sports? I think that, and the fact that trophies going to everyone seems to happen in all youth sports in general make it a bit contrived. If no one objects I will remove them. GiveMeLiberty 13:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)


  • Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights.

Don't know what that has to do with socialism, but it should be put back (somewhere) in the article. Maybe "Latins" are more hot-blooded? --Ed Poor Talk 16:42, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Football Hooliganism here in England was largely down to far right neo-nazi groups. Thankfully it has now all but been eradicated but the philosophy remains. Many former thugs have turned up as leaders and agitators of the English Defence League. A far right protest group, a groups that invited "pastor" Terry Jones to speak at one of there rallies. Thankfully that nasty slimeball of a man was banned from entering the UK. Football hooliganism is NOT SOCIALIST.