![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can anyone explain why the word "Association" in the federation's name is in singular form?
Because "association football" is the name of the sport, as opposed to rugby football, american football, etc. It doesnt mean International Federation of (lots of) Football Associations. Jameswilson 01:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-- 212.116.163.254 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, can someone please tell me why the current translation is Federation of International Football Association? In French, adjectives proceed the noun, so it should be International Federation of Association Football. Besides, "International Federation of Football Association" is redundant, and senseless (as there is no Federation of International Football, thus no association to control it).
If someone can give a citable reason why it should not be changed, please list.
Note, I am only interested in an the most accurate translation, not an edit war, which I want to avoid. I'll wait a week for responses to my inquiry before making change. - Inaniaverbasunt 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There's plenty of controversy involving FIFA. I think there should be a Controversy section on this page. Otherwise, this article is clearly in violation of NPOV. - DMurphy 21:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know who OWNS FIFA or where the profits go?
In English does one say FEE-fuh or FIE-fuh or fee-FAW or eff eye eff ey, or what?-- Sonjaaa 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
How is the president selected? What's the actual structure and procedures of governance of FIFA?
When is the FIFA Executive Committee elected? I mean every how many years?
In other words: How long until this old man goes away and lets football evolve?
FIFA is rebranding the following tournaments by changing their names to "World Cups":
to
FIFA U-20 World Cup |
If there isn't any opposition, I will move the articles above to the new names, and add explanations in the intros and redirects. The FIFA U-20 Women's World Championship will surely be renamed after this year's edition (August-Sept), while any change on the FIFA Futsal World Championship is unclear (next to be held in 2008, presumably), but I will not change these yet, until FIFA does.-- Gabbec 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article have an infobox, maybe like the one in the
United Nations article? --
ChaChaFut 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you! --
ChaChaFut
14:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
From the blurb: "FIFA is the 3rd largest sporting governing body behind the International Volleyball Federation (219) and the International Athletics Association (212) and the second largest international organization in the world, after the United Nations..."
The two larger sporting groups both have "International" in their names so how can FIFA be anything more than fourth international organization overall? I don't understand. 72.88.162.27 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The genaral subject of The F.I.F.A. 2, that is, FIFA (dis)allowing players to play for a third team in a season, may be interesting here. - Nabla 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Support I think that this would be a good thing to do
¢нαzα93
14:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Against. This article is way too long for a section that is barely two paragraphs.
Udonknome (
talk)
17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's well written and cites its references. It isn't that stable but I'll pass it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bernstein2291 (
talk •
contribs) 08:16, 23 June 2007
Image:Fifa.JPG 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah thats because FIFA is the article, and the Logo is needed :)
Chaza
9
3
16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair Use, its a purely educational site, do we REALLY need to state the obvious on every image? BogusDudeGW ( talk) 10:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody think it needs anything else before i nominate it?
Chaza
9
3
20:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is opening the entire page describing its title as The International Federation of Association Football a complete joke? I have never heard this descriptor used, ever. Its name is FIFA, and the expansion of this acronym is French. Why do we have to have a never-utilised English translation of a French acronym? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations) tells us we have to. I say we should ignore these rules - which are being followed to the letter almost to the point of dogma - from time to time. Erath 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the motto of FIFA to "For the Game. For the World." ( further information) but can't find a logo with this new phrase. Anyone can help? Rungbachduong ( talk) 06:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
In the History section, there is a line:
"FIFA, however, founded during World War I, with many players sent off to war..."
I think that the author meant to use the verb "foundered" instead of "founded" and I have corrected this. But someone keeps reverting my edit and has accused me of vandalism.
But my edit is correct, I think.
194.237.142.6 ( talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC) James
I edited it S.L.P.
I wondering what shall we do with this section or article as they both have almost the exact same wording except one part is a separate article at FIFA altitude ban. I don't know if someone started the stand alone article on it from this page. Anyway it is too redundant to the subsection and probably should be deleted as this is a blatant violation of WP:Fork. (not the POV part of it but the article duplication part of it). I would list it for deletion myself, but I felt it needed to be discussed here first as I think the history of that page may need to be merged here. If that is a part of page merging please make the other article a redirect. (if there's a bunch of articles linking to it, otherwise if there's only a few or none then it should be deleted and the few articles that link to it should be relinked to the subsection.) Sawblade05 ( talk to me | my wiki life) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Need to have an graph with the various sectors and branches of FIFA as an organisation, in order to make clear its hierarchy and the various agencies, e.g. the "Disputes Resolution Chamber". - The Gnome ( talk) 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
As many of you know, today the FIFA banned Peru. I think this should be mentioned in the article. -- White Hawk ( talk) 02:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Who are the newest fifa members? And who added the 2 more to the list of national football teams?-- Mariofan90 ( talk) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we have a section on the anthems? I remember a Toni Braxton and Il Divo. My mom remembers Pavarotti. So, what years were which and who sang what when? Is there only one song per year? or are there multiples, like 1 anthem and 1 intro song and 1 winner's song and so forth? And what was before 1994? Thanks. Kristinwt ( talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The second part of the article seems to be in Italics here. How come? I don't see quote markings for Italics in the editable text. While reloading the page it didn't seem to matter aswell. 83.136.195.130 ( talk) 09:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible create an article with the list of the banned national team and/or national federation ? I suggest a table with the name of the country; reason of the disqualification/suspension/bannishment; years of the ban; year of the lift; solution of the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.227.151 ( talk) 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
To complete the former suggestion: insert a column with the national team and/or national federation temporaly desfiliated/unfiliated; reasons; years of the situation; year the reafiliation; solution of the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.229.23 ( talk) 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Other information to put in the table: national team and/or national federation not accepted by FIFA to dispute the Qualifying to the World Cup; years of the fact; reason of the non acceptance; year of the lift; solution of the problem.
The image at file FIFA.svg is no longer the current FIFA logo and slogan, and has been removed to avoid contradiction with the correct slogan text below it. The present insignia is the 5th pic here. Anyone more skilled than I in importing images wish to tackle this? Kevin McE ( talk) 09:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
@___@-- 124.78.215.168 ( talk) 09:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
E-version is terrible-- 124.78.215.168 ( talk) 09:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
From curious, does anyone know why non-soverign countries like Scotland, Wales, Puerto Rico etc etc can be a member of FIFA. In same rule, can California have a separate football team?
FIFA is not an international organisation the way the UN is. States are not members of FIFA; national football associations are, and these associations are not governmental entities, but private associations founded by private individuals. There are still a couple of associations members of FIFA representing bodies that are not (at least under mainstream view) states. These are, in addition to the once already mentioned: Taiwan/Chinese Taipei, British Virgin Islands, Faroe Islands, Netherlands Antilles, Palestine, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Macao, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Turks and Caicos. In addition, I think Montenegro had an association member of FIFA before Montenegro had split off from Serbia/Yugoslavia. In essence, all it takes is FIFA letting an association join, that's it; status as a "sovereign nation" is not required. SchnitteUK ( talk) 16:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to add to this, ...on a petty note, the FA is NOT the British board, its the English one. Secondly the rules of football played today were standardised in Britain so that England Scotland and Wales (and Ireland too I think) could play each other under the same rules. Prior to that the rules in each home nation differed, so the rules of the host were played. The IFAB was formed, with members from each home nation, to govern these rules. Fifa was formed some years later and agreed to play with the same rules as the IFAB, soon being inducted as a fifth member. Essentially, Welsh and Scottish (and English and Irish (as an Island)) national teams pre-date Fifa itself and in the UK today the idea of a "British" nationality is still refuted by many, despite the official state. Regardless of that, as stated above football associations are members of Fifa, which explains any member. However Wales and Scotland are special cases anyway, for the reasons pointed above, and because the English Welsh and Scottish people have always had separate national identities. 3rd Dec 2010 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.190.238.246 (
talk)
22:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone needs to include in the FIFA article the fact that FOOTBALL (FUTBOL in Spanish) refers to what in North America is known as SOCCER. I didn't see that clarification anywhere in the article. Joanie711 ( talk) 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Joanie711
In the 'history' section the firs para ends "Its first president was Robert Guérin." Second para in same section starts "This in combination with economic factors, led to the swift replacement of Guérin". Not sure that makes much sense.. 15.195.185.82 ( talk) 12:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC) copied down from top of page and given section heading by Kevin McE
This edit by User:Yongbyong38 added a lot of sources which only back up the entirely trivial fact that video replay is used in those other sports.
The crucial assertion in that sentence however, that proponents of video replay in association football are using it as an argument, remains unsourced. Yongbyong38, please note the difference. The sources you added only back up the trivial part of the sentence ("replay is already in use in other major sports"), not the crucial one ("Critics also point out").
Unless the crucial assertion can be reliably sourced, the sentence with all its trivial backing is meaningless and should be removed. -- 78.34.243.49 ( talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, the big number of sources attached to the sentence makes it somewhat difficult to quickly assess which source is used to back up what part of the sentence. If I may make a further suggestion, in an effort to improve overview and usability I've often found it useful to combine several primary, exemplary references (like the laws of the game sources) into a single reference. I'd format it like this:
Critics also point out that
instant replay is already in use in other major sports, including
Rugby Union,
Cricket,
American Football,
Canadian Football,
Basketball,
Baseball,
Tennis, and
Ice Hockey.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
{{
reflist}}
in this section to preview the formatting changes. --
78.34.243.49 (
talk)
21:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Done
I added Category:Sex segregation because men and women do not play together. I would add the category for NBA, NFL, MLB, etc.-- 478jjjz ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I reversed what seemed like a unilateral move. Does anyone think it would be good to move this page? -- John ( talk) 16:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
suspending nigeria is the best thing to happen to nfa the curruption in nfa nse is so much if fifa did not wnat the govt to interfer in the running of nfa let fifa brings in their money for the running of nfa thanks and bye for mr robik lagos nigeria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.155.71.88 ( talk) 09:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
(Copied from my talk page:)
I made multiple edits in which I also reworded the paragraph to make it clear that confidentiality applied to the agreement to change the law, not to the law if & when subsequently enacted. I will also change the heading again to make it clearer.
Re tax, I think you're confusing some issues here. Whether I or you think the criticisms are justified is irrelevant; the fact is that they were made, they are certainly notable, and the BBC is a reliable source (for the fact that the criticisms were made; given that it broadcast them). The BBC is also a reliable source for the fact, stated in the programme, that there was a confidential agreement to change laws and that the Dutch government refused to agree. You say 'Jennings put no evidence into the public forum about this claim' - the programme is itself evidence, and moreover it included at least one interview with a Dutch legislator about it. (Perhaps you didn't see the programme?)
Proof that a legislative decision can be made secretively is not required. The article does not need to prove that the allegations are true in order to report the (verifiable, well-sourced and notable) fact that they were made. That is to say, it documents the existence of allegations, not the truth of them (the latter being a matter for (e.g.) the courts, not Wikipedia). 93.96.236.8 ( talk) 13:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added more 'allegedly's and put back in a few more claims made by the programme, e.g. that the accused officials wouldn't respond to the allegations. 93.96.236.8 ( talk) 14:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Now logged in as Ben Finn ( talk) 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Do we need a new article? Portillo ( talk) 10:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
After reading through the criticism section, I decided to do some research of my own. I stumbled across some information about a Neilson Survey on the statistics of those who voted for the video replay in soccer and those who were opposed the idea, and then of course the ones who had no opinion. I feel like it would be beneficiary to the page to add these statistics and also some of the opinions and debates of the critics. I will simply inform people of these things rather than stating my opinion. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? (Wright amber 19:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)) ( talk)
Can anyone tell me what exactly these subsequent disciplinary sanctions are exactly? There does not seem to be much on this topic, it was the first line of the section and then nothing more about it.(Wright amber 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wright amber ( talk • contribs)
I understand Kevin McE's reservation but would like to point out that there are consistent and reasonable criteria for explaining this acronym in two languages, criteria which do not apply to the other member organizations. Namely, this is the only case where more than one language (A) is an official language of the member organization, and (B) is explanatory of the acronym. CAF (mentioned in Kevin's edit summary) has three official languages (not "every major language in Africa"!), but only the French name is explanatory of the acronym. I believe this is good justification and will answer any slippery-slope fears. (The state of affairs is unlikely to be by accident: Portuguese and Spanish have equal numbers of speakers in South America, and Brazil's importance in South American soccer is well known. It would be surprising if the organization's acronym were not in agreement with these two languages.) Wareh ( talk) 17:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This content in the section is confusing.
"The next tournament staged, the football competition for the 1908 Olympics in London was more successful, despite the presence of professional footballers, contrary to the founding principles of FIFA."
However, the linked article says that "an official football tournament was contested for the first time".
I don;t know anything about FIFA's history but I know what makes sense and will change the sentence appropriately unless someone has a better idea. Silent Billy ( talk) 07:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Section on the news reports over the last week or so getting totally out of hand: we have not one word of any historical activity between 1913 and 1994, and c 20% of the article on the events of recent weeks, which in a couple of years time will all turn out to have been a storm in a teacup. Suggest removal of the vast majority of this to the already hatted 2018-22 bids article, or to the 2011 congress article, and maximum two sentences of summary here. Way out of proportion as it stands. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
There should be a an article on the corruption in FIFA. How Qatar won the World Cup bid when their football team has never qualified before and their population is miniscule, requires the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Balls ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 June 2011
Agree with Justice Balls but CORRUPTION should be mentioned as a heading. Especially if the FBI are investigating the bribery allegations.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
FIFA → Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Per the move from ASEAN to Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It should be full name, not an abbreviation. Il223334234 ( talk) 10:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was speedy close. Immediately starting another requested move, with the same justification and after clear consensus against a move in the previous discussion, is vexatious. ~ mazca talk 19:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
FIFA → International Federation of Association Football –It should not be an abbreviation, see Talk:ASEAN. Il223334234 ( talk) 08:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
ҚҜҔҕЉҠфФ{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 183.171.168.150 ( talk) 13:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is FIFA based in Zurich, instead of England. As the game originated in the Uk, an English base would have been more logical. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 04:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can anyone explain why the word "Association" in the federation's name is in singular form?
Because "association football" is the name of the sport, as opposed to rugby football, american football, etc. It doesnt mean International Federation of (lots of) Football Associations. Jameswilson 01:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-- 212.116.163.254 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, can someone please tell me why the current translation is Federation of International Football Association? In French, adjectives proceed the noun, so it should be International Federation of Association Football. Besides, "International Federation of Football Association" is redundant, and senseless (as there is no Federation of International Football, thus no association to control it).
If someone can give a citable reason why it should not be changed, please list.
Note, I am only interested in an the most accurate translation, not an edit war, which I want to avoid. I'll wait a week for responses to my inquiry before making change. - Inaniaverbasunt 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There's plenty of controversy involving FIFA. I think there should be a Controversy section on this page. Otherwise, this article is clearly in violation of NPOV. - DMurphy 21:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know who OWNS FIFA or where the profits go?
In English does one say FEE-fuh or FIE-fuh or fee-FAW or eff eye eff ey, or what?-- Sonjaaa 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
How is the president selected? What's the actual structure and procedures of governance of FIFA?
When is the FIFA Executive Committee elected? I mean every how many years?
In other words: How long until this old man goes away and lets football evolve?
FIFA is rebranding the following tournaments by changing their names to "World Cups":
to
FIFA U-20 World Cup |
If there isn't any opposition, I will move the articles above to the new names, and add explanations in the intros and redirects. The FIFA U-20 Women's World Championship will surely be renamed after this year's edition (August-Sept), while any change on the FIFA Futsal World Championship is unclear (next to be held in 2008, presumably), but I will not change these yet, until FIFA does.-- Gabbec 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article have an infobox, maybe like the one in the
United Nations article? --
ChaChaFut 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you! --
ChaChaFut
14:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
From the blurb: "FIFA is the 3rd largest sporting governing body behind the International Volleyball Federation (219) and the International Athletics Association (212) and the second largest international organization in the world, after the United Nations..."
The two larger sporting groups both have "International" in their names so how can FIFA be anything more than fourth international organization overall? I don't understand. 72.88.162.27 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The genaral subject of The F.I.F.A. 2, that is, FIFA (dis)allowing players to play for a third team in a season, may be interesting here. - Nabla 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Support I think that this would be a good thing to do
¢нαzα93
14:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Against. This article is way too long for a section that is barely two paragraphs.
Udonknome (
talk)
17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's well written and cites its references. It isn't that stable but I'll pass it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bernstein2291 (
talk •
contribs) 08:16, 23 June 2007
Image:Fifa.JPG 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah thats because FIFA is the article, and the Logo is needed :)
Chaza
9
3
16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair Use, its a purely educational site, do we REALLY need to state the obvious on every image? BogusDudeGW ( talk) 10:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody think it needs anything else before i nominate it?
Chaza
9
3
20:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is opening the entire page describing its title as The International Federation of Association Football a complete joke? I have never heard this descriptor used, ever. Its name is FIFA, and the expansion of this acronym is French. Why do we have to have a never-utilised English translation of a French acronym? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations) tells us we have to. I say we should ignore these rules - which are being followed to the letter almost to the point of dogma - from time to time. Erath 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the motto of FIFA to "For the Game. For the World." ( further information) but can't find a logo with this new phrase. Anyone can help? Rungbachduong ( talk) 06:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
In the History section, there is a line:
"FIFA, however, founded during World War I, with many players sent off to war..."
I think that the author meant to use the verb "foundered" instead of "founded" and I have corrected this. But someone keeps reverting my edit and has accused me of vandalism.
But my edit is correct, I think.
194.237.142.6 ( talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC) James
I edited it S.L.P.
I wondering what shall we do with this section or article as they both have almost the exact same wording except one part is a separate article at FIFA altitude ban. I don't know if someone started the stand alone article on it from this page. Anyway it is too redundant to the subsection and probably should be deleted as this is a blatant violation of WP:Fork. (not the POV part of it but the article duplication part of it). I would list it for deletion myself, but I felt it needed to be discussed here first as I think the history of that page may need to be merged here. If that is a part of page merging please make the other article a redirect. (if there's a bunch of articles linking to it, otherwise if there's only a few or none then it should be deleted and the few articles that link to it should be relinked to the subsection.) Sawblade05 ( talk to me | my wiki life) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Need to have an graph with the various sectors and branches of FIFA as an organisation, in order to make clear its hierarchy and the various agencies, e.g. the "Disputes Resolution Chamber". - The Gnome ( talk) 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
As many of you know, today the FIFA banned Peru. I think this should be mentioned in the article. -- White Hawk ( talk) 02:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Who are the newest fifa members? And who added the 2 more to the list of national football teams?-- Mariofan90 ( talk) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we have a section on the anthems? I remember a Toni Braxton and Il Divo. My mom remembers Pavarotti. So, what years were which and who sang what when? Is there only one song per year? or are there multiples, like 1 anthem and 1 intro song and 1 winner's song and so forth? And what was before 1994? Thanks. Kristinwt ( talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The second part of the article seems to be in Italics here. How come? I don't see quote markings for Italics in the editable text. While reloading the page it didn't seem to matter aswell. 83.136.195.130 ( talk) 09:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible create an article with the list of the banned national team and/or national federation ? I suggest a table with the name of the country; reason of the disqualification/suspension/bannishment; years of the ban; year of the lift; solution of the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.227.151 ( talk) 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
To complete the former suggestion: insert a column with the national team and/or national federation temporaly desfiliated/unfiliated; reasons; years of the situation; year the reafiliation; solution of the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.229.23 ( talk) 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Other information to put in the table: national team and/or national federation not accepted by FIFA to dispute the Qualifying to the World Cup; years of the fact; reason of the non acceptance; year of the lift; solution of the problem.
The image at file FIFA.svg is no longer the current FIFA logo and slogan, and has been removed to avoid contradiction with the correct slogan text below it. The present insignia is the 5th pic here. Anyone more skilled than I in importing images wish to tackle this? Kevin McE ( talk) 09:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
@___@-- 124.78.215.168 ( talk) 09:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
E-version is terrible-- 124.78.215.168 ( talk) 09:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
From curious, does anyone know why non-soverign countries like Scotland, Wales, Puerto Rico etc etc can be a member of FIFA. In same rule, can California have a separate football team?
FIFA is not an international organisation the way the UN is. States are not members of FIFA; national football associations are, and these associations are not governmental entities, but private associations founded by private individuals. There are still a couple of associations members of FIFA representing bodies that are not (at least under mainstream view) states. These are, in addition to the once already mentioned: Taiwan/Chinese Taipei, British Virgin Islands, Faroe Islands, Netherlands Antilles, Palestine, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Macao, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Turks and Caicos. In addition, I think Montenegro had an association member of FIFA before Montenegro had split off from Serbia/Yugoslavia. In essence, all it takes is FIFA letting an association join, that's it; status as a "sovereign nation" is not required. SchnitteUK ( talk) 16:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to add to this, ...on a petty note, the FA is NOT the British board, its the English one. Secondly the rules of football played today were standardised in Britain so that England Scotland and Wales (and Ireland too I think) could play each other under the same rules. Prior to that the rules in each home nation differed, so the rules of the host were played. The IFAB was formed, with members from each home nation, to govern these rules. Fifa was formed some years later and agreed to play with the same rules as the IFAB, soon being inducted as a fifth member. Essentially, Welsh and Scottish (and English and Irish (as an Island)) national teams pre-date Fifa itself and in the UK today the idea of a "British" nationality is still refuted by many, despite the official state. Regardless of that, as stated above football associations are members of Fifa, which explains any member. However Wales and Scotland are special cases anyway, for the reasons pointed above, and because the English Welsh and Scottish people have always had separate national identities. 3rd Dec 2010 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.190.238.246 (
talk)
22:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone needs to include in the FIFA article the fact that FOOTBALL (FUTBOL in Spanish) refers to what in North America is known as SOCCER. I didn't see that clarification anywhere in the article. Joanie711 ( talk) 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Joanie711
In the 'history' section the firs para ends "Its first president was Robert Guérin." Second para in same section starts "This in combination with economic factors, led to the swift replacement of Guérin". Not sure that makes much sense.. 15.195.185.82 ( talk) 12:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC) copied down from top of page and given section heading by Kevin McE
This edit by User:Yongbyong38 added a lot of sources which only back up the entirely trivial fact that video replay is used in those other sports.
The crucial assertion in that sentence however, that proponents of video replay in association football are using it as an argument, remains unsourced. Yongbyong38, please note the difference. The sources you added only back up the trivial part of the sentence ("replay is already in use in other major sports"), not the crucial one ("Critics also point out").
Unless the crucial assertion can be reliably sourced, the sentence with all its trivial backing is meaningless and should be removed. -- 78.34.243.49 ( talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, the big number of sources attached to the sentence makes it somewhat difficult to quickly assess which source is used to back up what part of the sentence. If I may make a further suggestion, in an effort to improve overview and usability I've often found it useful to combine several primary, exemplary references (like the laws of the game sources) into a single reference. I'd format it like this:
Critics also point out that
instant replay is already in use in other major sports, including
Rugby Union,
Cricket,
American Football,
Canadian Football,
Basketball,
Baseball,
Tennis, and
Ice Hockey.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
{{
reflist}}
in this section to preview the formatting changes. --
78.34.243.49 (
talk)
21:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Done
I added Category:Sex segregation because men and women do not play together. I would add the category for NBA, NFL, MLB, etc.-- 478jjjz ( talk) 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I reversed what seemed like a unilateral move. Does anyone think it would be good to move this page? -- John ( talk) 16:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
suspending nigeria is the best thing to happen to nfa the curruption in nfa nse is so much if fifa did not wnat the govt to interfer in the running of nfa let fifa brings in their money for the running of nfa thanks and bye for mr robik lagos nigeria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.155.71.88 ( talk) 09:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
(Copied from my talk page:)
I made multiple edits in which I also reworded the paragraph to make it clear that confidentiality applied to the agreement to change the law, not to the law if & when subsequently enacted. I will also change the heading again to make it clearer.
Re tax, I think you're confusing some issues here. Whether I or you think the criticisms are justified is irrelevant; the fact is that they were made, they are certainly notable, and the BBC is a reliable source (for the fact that the criticisms were made; given that it broadcast them). The BBC is also a reliable source for the fact, stated in the programme, that there was a confidential agreement to change laws and that the Dutch government refused to agree. You say 'Jennings put no evidence into the public forum about this claim' - the programme is itself evidence, and moreover it included at least one interview with a Dutch legislator about it. (Perhaps you didn't see the programme?)
Proof that a legislative decision can be made secretively is not required. The article does not need to prove that the allegations are true in order to report the (verifiable, well-sourced and notable) fact that they were made. That is to say, it documents the existence of allegations, not the truth of them (the latter being a matter for (e.g.) the courts, not Wikipedia). 93.96.236.8 ( talk) 13:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added more 'allegedly's and put back in a few more claims made by the programme, e.g. that the accused officials wouldn't respond to the allegations. 93.96.236.8 ( talk) 14:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Now logged in as Ben Finn ( talk) 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Do we need a new article? Portillo ( talk) 10:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
After reading through the criticism section, I decided to do some research of my own. I stumbled across some information about a Neilson Survey on the statistics of those who voted for the video replay in soccer and those who were opposed the idea, and then of course the ones who had no opinion. I feel like it would be beneficiary to the page to add these statistics and also some of the opinions and debates of the critics. I will simply inform people of these things rather than stating my opinion. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? (Wright amber 19:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)) ( talk)
Can anyone tell me what exactly these subsequent disciplinary sanctions are exactly? There does not seem to be much on this topic, it was the first line of the section and then nothing more about it.(Wright amber 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wright amber ( talk • contribs)
I understand Kevin McE's reservation but would like to point out that there are consistent and reasonable criteria for explaining this acronym in two languages, criteria which do not apply to the other member organizations. Namely, this is the only case where more than one language (A) is an official language of the member organization, and (B) is explanatory of the acronym. CAF (mentioned in Kevin's edit summary) has three official languages (not "every major language in Africa"!), but only the French name is explanatory of the acronym. I believe this is good justification and will answer any slippery-slope fears. (The state of affairs is unlikely to be by accident: Portuguese and Spanish have equal numbers of speakers in South America, and Brazil's importance in South American soccer is well known. It would be surprising if the organization's acronym were not in agreement with these two languages.) Wareh ( talk) 17:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This content in the section is confusing.
"The next tournament staged, the football competition for the 1908 Olympics in London was more successful, despite the presence of professional footballers, contrary to the founding principles of FIFA."
However, the linked article says that "an official football tournament was contested for the first time".
I don;t know anything about FIFA's history but I know what makes sense and will change the sentence appropriately unless someone has a better idea. Silent Billy ( talk) 07:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Section on the news reports over the last week or so getting totally out of hand: we have not one word of any historical activity between 1913 and 1994, and c 20% of the article on the events of recent weeks, which in a couple of years time will all turn out to have been a storm in a teacup. Suggest removal of the vast majority of this to the already hatted 2018-22 bids article, or to the 2011 congress article, and maximum two sentences of summary here. Way out of proportion as it stands. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
There should be a an article on the corruption in FIFA. How Qatar won the World Cup bid when their football team has never qualified before and their population is miniscule, requires the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Balls ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 June 2011
Agree with Justice Balls but CORRUPTION should be mentioned as a heading. Especially if the FBI are investigating the bribery allegations.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
FIFA → Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Per the move from ASEAN to Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It should be full name, not an abbreviation. Il223334234 ( talk) 10:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was speedy close. Immediately starting another requested move, with the same justification and after clear consensus against a move in the previous discussion, is vexatious. ~ mazca talk 19:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
FIFA → International Federation of Association Football –It should not be an abbreviation, see Talk:ASEAN. Il223334234 ( talk) 08:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
ҚҜҔҕЉҠфФ{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 183.171.168.150 ( talk) 13:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is FIFA based in Zurich, instead of England. As the game originated in the Uk, an English base would have been more logical. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 04:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |