Talk:United Kingdom national football team

message: 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)
thread_title: Fielding of non-native players

message: 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 ,  and  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Position of the Home Nations' FAs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  UK/GB 

message: 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)
thread_title: Changes

message: 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)
thread_title: Arguments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, its a needless list. --Robdurbar 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to Crown Dependencies and Overseas territories

message: 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)
replies: text: And the name they played under was? --Guinnog 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'That which we call a rose' and all that. Bastin 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish antagonists 

message: :Add any additional comments
Four reasons for keeping the article where it is:
# 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.
# 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'.
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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 : 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 : 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 , which was the most illogical of your changes. Bastin 23:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Introduction changes

message: 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)
thread_title: Anticipation is one thing....

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Team GB.png

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This isn't just about the Olympics

message: Well, since Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales aren't supporting. In think the Squad is going to be full of English players. For example, lets say that the coach wants to take a Northern Irish player. Like David Healy. But since Northern Ireland is against it, then the Coach will have to take a squad of English players. Like Michael Owen. I now the players I said are overaged, but the teams are allowed to take 3 Over aged players. Plus, there only examples. But lets face it, even if there was going to be a UK team in the olympics, then they would have to be English.--Villa88 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  England players 

message: OK, I've not really been able to come up with a reasonable approach to this problem. Beyond creating a separate article entitled British Olympic football team (I recognise there are naming issues there, but put that aside for a moment), the only other approach that seems reasonable is to attribute both the 1908 and 1912 victories to this team but to leave a note explaining that it's a lot more complicated than that. In the body of the text, there is then room for a full discussion of the issues. Where sources differ from each other, its better to explain that and the reasoning for difference, rather than to go with just one. Whilst the FA, as the current organising body of English football and the body which organised the team on the behalf of the BOC back in the day, should be given priority as a source, I don't see a reason to grant their description as complete authority on the matter, particularly when it seems somewhat contradictory (why is the 1908 team 'Great Britain' and the 1912 team 'England'?). If the 1912 team is 'England', then what about the various other Olympic teams which didn't win medals? Would we then have to change the 'record defeat' for the team? I'd welcome other suggestions but I think that simply removing mention of all but the 1908 medal one based upon one FA document, without considering the implications for the text and for other aspects of the article, is confusing and misleading. Pretty Green (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Logic Behind Current Description 

message: Please see items today, 30 January 2009:
*Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put Team GB opposition in writing; Daily Telegraph
*Gordon Brown's British Olympic football team dream is killed off; Daily Telegraph
*Football chiefs against GB team, BBC Sport
*Ferguson dismisses Olympic role, BBC Sport
--Mais oui! (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: Put simply, I think this article is trying to do too much. Essentially, it's talking about two teams
* The United Kingdom national football team, which almost uniquely exists as a largely hypothetical entity, though it has competed (under the name of 'Great Britain') on two occasions in unofficial friendly matches. It is closely analogous to the Nauru national soccer team. 
* The Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team. This is the team which represents the UK in the Olympics. It first appeared at the 1908 games, was last seen at the 1972 games, and will be seen at the 2012 games. It has, for most of its existence, been made up largely of English players and controlled by the (English) FA. Nevertheless, it is a distinct team. Other national Olympic teams have their own separate article away from the main team (though admittedly only three others ). I think the benefit for this article would be that the concept and make up of a British team at the Olympics is distinct from the UK national team.
I've no problem with the current naming, I just think that these two entities might be better served by separate articles. In the long term too that will prevent United Kingdom national football team from drowning in recentism when the 2012 Olympics come about.
I've got the two versions of the article, as I would propose them, User talk:Pretty Green/sandbox/Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team and User talk:Pretty Green/sandbox/United Kingdom national football team. Please a. take an open mind towards these (in that this isn't anything to do with petty naming squabbles over bits of the islands that make up the UK and Ireland) and b. give me feedback. If you see the proposals and don't like it; well I guess that's Wikipedia (though I'll continue to belive that you're wrong ;) ) --Pretty Green (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bumping this to see if there are any further comments from people with page on their watchlist!--Pretty Green (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea behind a [[Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic football team]] split

message: Many arguments have gone on, but I don't think this has thus far been suggested:
How about we merge this article into Great Britain Olympic football team, and, actually, rename THAT article to "GB NATIONAL football team". We can reduce much of the info in THIS article to a couple of paragraphs in the History section of THAT article, merge the only 5 or so friendly matches that THIS "UK team" has ever had (under the name "GB"!?) into the results section of that one (we can add a separate "friendlies" section, to distinguish them from the official Olympics results), and be done with it...
Because, even for people familiar with football history, the existence of TWO separate articles on this issue is way confusing. And, most importantly, the two are essentially the same representative team - the only difference is that THAT article discusses official Olympic games and THIS one lists only exhibition friendlies. Any thoughts...?  BigSteve (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You're talking about different teams and different concepts. A (theroetical) UK national team would pick the best players available (irrespective of age / professionalism) and compete in World Cups and Euros. A GB Olympic team is restricted to whatever criteria the Olympics are imposing at any given time. To give another example, there are separate articles for the (primary) Brazil national football team and the (Olympics) Brazil national under-23 football team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest looking up through the talk page. There were regular debates about the purpose of the article, its name, and its content. Since the GB Olympic and UK national football team articles were split over two years ago, this debate has died off as the combined article has been split into two clearer and more succinct articles. I'd suggest keeping it that way. Pretty Green (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's fine - but what about the fact that we also have articles for England national amateur football team (in which it says that "There is a difference of opinion as to whether the England amateur team was effectively the Great Britain Olympic football team at the 1908 and 1912 Olympic football tournaments") as well as for England C national football team. All this is way confusing... BigSteve (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United Kingdom national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120331142403/http://www.andwaddlestepsup.com/questions/read.asp?ID=130&curPage=6&search= to http://www.andwaddlestepsup.com/questions/read.asp?ID=130&curPage=6&search=
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029190633/http://www.footballzone.co.uk/Football-Testimonial-Benefit-Match-Game/Alan-Mullery-Testimonial-Fullham-1976-10557.html to http://www.footballzone.co.uk/Football-Testimonial-Benefit-Match-Game/Alan-Mullery-Testimonial-Fullham-1976-10557.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100218101729/http://www.olympics.org.uk:80/contentpage.aspx?page=127 to http://www.olympics.org.uk/contentpage.aspx?page=127
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060623225216/http://www.rsssf.com:80/tableso/ol1908f.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tableso/ol1908f.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghanistan national football team which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress