Talk:FIFA/Archive 1

Archive 1

FIFA's name

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)

Yup. If it was rendered in English it would be International Federation of Association Football. Erath 10:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought... but is it the way the French call the sport? Football Association? If the acronym was FIAF that would make sense...

--212.116.163.254 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In the French language, the adjective comes after the noun, as in "Football association" - for example, un voiture bleu ("a car blue", not "a blue car"). Erath 00:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats right. Mostly the French just call it "le foot" so lucky we didnt end up with International Foot Federation. Jameswilson 02:54, 9 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 is a confusion here between the names of FIFA and UEFA; in the latter case the initials stand for: Union of European Football Associations. Note the name of the game is merely Football, *not* association Football. So which one has got the name right, and what should the other be re-naming itself to? Markb (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Note the name of the game is merely Football, *not* association Football. Incorrect; if you look up the history of the sport, it was originally called association football, as its rules were established by The Football Association. Both the names of UEFA and FIFA are correct; just because their acronyms use FA does not mean it means the same thing in both names. One is an international body that overlooks the sport of association football; the other is a association of countries that play a code of football (in this case, the association variant). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 00:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Not quite, the European one is a union of the national associations that administer the sport of football (without specifying that this is the so called association variant) within that continent. Kevin McE (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section?

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)

Can you give more information on what you think is wrong and what should go in the new section - or be bold and go add it? Erath 10:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't know that much about FIFA or I would, but for instance isn't their policy regarding China a bit controversial? Also, see this article: Fifa Controversy Q&A. Also, I seem to remember something involving their refusal to allow a FIFA member to play in a non-FIFA nation or something like that... sorry, I can't remember exactly what I read. -DMurphy 00:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know who OWNS FIFA or where the profits go?

• Since I am just watching a Panorama investigation into the alleged corruption and bribery which was occurring at the highest levels of fifa and I am surprised there is not a mention of any of it in this article. There appears to be plenty of substantiation on the whole situation (Swiss police raid on fifa headquarters being just one). SFC9394 21:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you think there should be one, add one - these articles don't write themselves you know. :) Erath 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would have, but User:Harryurz has added a few details on the subject. The reason for my lack of boldness was given the subject, allegations of corruption and bribery personally involving the head of FIFA is something which needs to be written by someone who understands the allegations! I was only picking up the trail from the Tv program, but I might seek out the book on the subject, it seems like a very interesting situation. SFC9394 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Has this section been dropped? I see the current stuff about all the back handers but what about the other stuff. Such as this regarding the Iranian Womens football team being banned over their uniform (veils). The Thierry Henry handball incident v Ireland. FIFAs strict policies intent on holding onto everything related to their events such as this non-FIFA affiliated AIDs awareness groups during the SA WC. etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogusDudeGW (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• What about their kangaroo courts in South Africa? 96.251.15.7 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Could be added provided clear references to support the association are made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

pronunciation??

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)

We say Fee-fuh. Alias Flood 17:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Governance?

How is the president selected? What's the actual structure and procedures of governance of FIFA?

The president General Secretary is typically selected on the basis of how many lucrative contracts he has offered to the president of CONCACAF. To answer seriously, there's periodic elections where each football association has one vote. --Daduzi ^talk 01:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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?

Terms are five years, and the next election is in 2011, probably sometime in early June. Blatter will likely run unopposed again, so don't get your hopes up.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Rebranding of championships

FIFA is rebranding the following tournaments by changing their names to "World Cups":

FIFA World Youth Championship FIFA U-17 World Championship FIFA U-17 Women's World Championship FIFA Club World Championship

to FIFA U-20 World Cup to FIFA U-17 World Cup to FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup to FIFA Club 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)

OK, I haven't seen any opposition for some days now, so I'll go on with the changes. --Gabbec 04:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not forget to move all redirects as well. Regards —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 04:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

rank by size

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)

I think it's all a bit of an irrelevance and a misnomer anyway - seems to depend on exactly what constitutes a nation in the eyes of the individual governing bodies. They probably cover a similar (near enough 100%) population of the planet anyways. Erath 11:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge from The F.I.F.A. 2

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)

OK we have gone a month now, I will begin the merge ... Chaza93 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Been advised against the merge Chaza93 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? - Nabla 20:02, 6 August 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)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Fifa.JPG

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 :) Chaza93 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)

FAC

Does anybody think it needs anything else before i nominate it? Chaza93 20:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Feedback PLEASE!!! El-Nin09 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just passing through, but the lead definitely needs to be expanded and the article needs inline citations for any statements that the reader may question about its verifiability. Consider getting a few outside editors who haven't edited the article to give it a copyedit and make sure you look over the FA criteria before nominating. --Nehrams2020 20:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations, yes. Punkmorten 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was and is nowhere near a FAC yet. Nowhere near. It will need a lot more references and a lot of work, even to get it back to GA. Mattythewhite 12:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

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)

Perhaps your argument should be that "FIFA" has entered English as a word.122.106.214.186 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Change motto

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)

Use of word "founded" in the History section

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

You are entirely correct and I have made the alteration. Definition. Although I would add that it is perhaps a needlessly obscure word to use when "struggled" or some other more straightforward word choice would do (and avoid any confusion, such as this) SFC9394 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I note the word has now changed to 'floundered', which means 'flailed about' or 'blundered around' - LOL. Not quite what was intended by the original author. I have changed it back to 'foundered', which means to 'almost sink'. Incidentally, there is nothing 'obscure' about the word 'foundered' Ships founder, they don't 'flail about'. The word conveys a specific image that the suggested 'struggle' does not precisely match. Blitterbug (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited it S.L.P.

While I agree with Blitterbug, the literacy levels of many editors don't seem up to the distinction. Having frequently corrected those who think they are doing wikipedia a favour by adding an l, I have given in and rephrased it: foundered is evidently obscure enough to defeat many wikipaedians. Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA Altitude Ban section/article Redundancy.

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)

What if we make FIFA altitude ban a redirect to the FIFA article's subsection? --Angelo (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to have a section on the altitude ban in the main FIFA article. I say we should remove the section from the main article and keep the separate article. – PeeJay 11:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As a rejected proposal, I suspect it has no lasting encyclopaedic value anyway, but I would lean towards putting it into whatever article contains info about standards of stadia for internationals etc. Kevin McE (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Organigram, management structure needed

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)

Peru banned by the FIFA

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)

210 teams?

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)

I think it was a prankster, so I reverted it.. This might be wrong but Montenegro could be the newest member. Though shouldn't be to hard to check perhaps on fifa.com — CHANDLER#10 — 22:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Anthems

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)

This question should probably be raised at FIFA World Cup or each World Cup article might have references to official songs or albums, like Ricky Martins song for 98, there was the three tenors for 90... I dont know about earlier than that. The songs wouldn't be on this page anyway. something similar to FIFA World Cup mascot might be doable. chandler ··· 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Italics

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)

Historical FIFA List of the Banned Teams

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.

FIFA.svg obsolete

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)

Where are my comments for every editorial signs that I put for the article....???

@___@--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)

Scotland, Wales as FIFA members.

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?

Essentially, by historical accident. It seems unlikely according to its policies that FIFA will admit any new associations representing anything that is not a sovereign nation. Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was part of the 1905 compromise worked out by Edouard de Laveleye that established the French organization FIFA in charge of worldwide soccer instead of The FA, the British governing body. The ramifications of this today always fascinate me.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 01:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Clarification sought

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

First sentence: ...is the international governing body of association football. Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about history section

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

Looks like a sentence at the beginning of that 2nd para has been removed at some stage: to clue at History of FIFA article as to what controversy triggered this coup. I've edited it such that it makes sense now, but if anyone can provide info re the reason for the change in leadership, so much the better. Kevin McE (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Critics also point out

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)

Done Yongbyong38 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for adding those sources! I hope I didn't come across as "making demands" though. If I am not mistaken the sourcing issue I brought up was an objective fact, not merely my own editorial opinion.

  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.

You may use {{reflist}} in this section to preview the formatting changes. --78.34.243.49 (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

• Two-part request. (a) Please replace the reference formatting for the sentence "Critics also point out [...], Baseball, Tennis, and Ice Hockey." as described above. (b) If you agree, please also include the sentence

As one notable proponent of video replay, Portugal coach Carlos Queiroz has been quoted as saying that the "credibility of the game" is at stake.

Thanks. --78.34.101.159 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• (a) Done, although I removed the unnecessary caps, ie rugby union, cricket, American football, Canadian football, basketball, baseball, tennis, and ice hockey.  Chzz  ►  23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• (b) Done, per WP:BRD - if people do not like it, they can change it. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  23:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Sex segregation of FIFA

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)

There are very few sports in the world in which men and women directly and ordinarily compete: equestrianism, korfball (but even then the male/female balance is dictated), and I'm already struggling. As such, it is scarcely meaningful to tag sporting bodies as if to accuse them of sexism. I don't think this adds meaningfully to either the article or the category. Kevin McE (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed such a category adds nothing to the article on sports bodies and is not needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Due to the widespread sex segregation in professional sports, it might be better to create a category for mixed-sex sports.--478jjjz (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that would make far more sense. Kevin McE (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving this?

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)

It should remain at FIFA, i dont understand why anyone would want to move it to that long title it got moved to. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. FIFA is the common name. —David Levy 18:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

nigeria suspented by fifa

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)

Panorama

(Copied from my talk page:)

With respect, changing the title of the section to an unencyclopaedic abbreviation does not really acheive a "rewording to clarify", and makes no attempt to address the issues I've referred to. Do you voluntarily pay more tax than you think you ought to? Assuming the answer is "no", do you think that that is grounds for criticism? Jennings put no evidence into the public forum about this claim, and so it can't be presented as verifiable, and I for one would want some proof that a legislative decision can be made secrtively in this or any of the other democracies that are bidding. What evidence is there that you are talking about a law rather than an accomodation with the tax authorities? I am now outside the 24 hours in which I could be accused of 3RR, so I will be changing those issues that you have not adressed, and would ask you to present the case for further additions to the article on the talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

The BBC is a many headed beast. Its investigative journalism has only the staus of an investigative journalist, not a disinterested reporter of established facts. In this case, the journalist has made a large proportion of his career out of publishing articles about FIFA. As such, we can certainly do no more than to report that Jennings made an accusation: the programme of itself is the vehicle of accusation, not of evidence. The situation has been improved by addition of the word "allegedly", previously absent from the addition of this material to the article. As to the tax situation, it is perfectly legitimate for FIFA to consider its nett revenue from the event as a factor in making the decision; as a not for profit organisation, it is not unreasonable for them to seek an accomodation with the tax authorities: it is a normal part of negotiation for large incoming industries to discuss "tax holidays". This is not a case of special secretive laws, regardless of how much it suits the programme makers' agenda to use such language: our commitment to NPOV is higher than Panorama's. I have removed an inappropriate subheading, clarified the claim that the banning is unexplained (the only official asked in the programme was a doorman: it is illogical to extrapolate from his lack of answer that the entire organisation has remained silent on the matter) and removed an observation that the election of Russia was "controversial", which without evidence might mean no more than surprising or dissappointing to some parties. It has been improved from a few days ago, but is still probably liable to the accusation of disproportionate emphasis that is the essence of WP:Recentism, and rather too willing to accept the accusations as established facts. Frankly, the programme provided little convincing evidence, and simply relied on the viewers' trust. Kevin McE (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of FIFA

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)

Video Replay

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)

CONMEBOL languages

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)

Your reasons have apparent good sense, but they don't seem to be recognosed or acknowledged by CONMEBOL. My CAF example was sightly tongue in cheek, but although the nmber of speakers of the two languages is very similar, the number of countries using each language differs enormously, and this seems to have swayed CONMEBOL's hand toward Spanish. Although the statues say 4. -Son idiomas oficiales de la Confederación el español y el portugués, they say it, at least on their own website, only in Spanish. That website has an English language version, but none in Portuguese! Those (Spanish language) statutes only give one name for the confederation. Maybe the CAF example was a fortunate one: the Portuguese Confederação Africana de Futebol would be explanatory of the initials, as would the Spanish Confederación Africana de Fútbol, but neither of these are the internationally recognised name of the Confédération Africaine de Football, no matter how much that might suit the Equatorial Guineans, Mozambiquans or Angolans. Neither are Federación Internacional de Fútbol Asociación or Federação Internacional de Futebol Associado the name of the world-wide body, although the initials and meaning fit. I would want to see something official declaring that the names are of equal status, or at least the CONMEBOL statutes in Portuguese that gives its name as being in Portuguese; until then, the only reason for a Portuguese name seems to be a logic and sense of fairness that has not penetrated CONMEBOL. Kevin McE (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and let me acknowledge at the outset that your points have merit and are well taken. I think there are some further points to be made on the other side. I should start with the simplest: this is not a set of statutes, but it is an official CONMEBOL document that confirms the widespread Portuguese-language name of CONMEBOL. We can add to that several secondary sources in print and online (in Portuguese) that specifically associate the acronym with this same Portuguese name.

Now,the problem is that CONMEBOL has currently chosen to present itself online in Spanish and English. (That this has angered Brazilians who feel that this is in violation of their rightful status in the organization is easy to document, though I understand it has no evidentiary weight for us.) It seems safe to infer that statutes and other documents (more numerous than the single one I link above) have circulated in official Portuguese through CONMEBOL's 94-year history, but we are in the common position of armchair Wikipedians denied the world's un-Googleable stores of documents. This entails some humility about drawing conclusions about what in fact may or may not have been "recognized or acknowledged by CONMEBOL."

In the end, I have to admit, on your side, that the text before I changed it reflected exactly p. 19 of the FIFA statutes (in English: unfortunately not available in Portuguese, as it would be interesting to see what such a version would print). On the other side, the strongest point is to say that adding the Portuguese name does not constitute a claim that it has official statutory status anyway--so that test is too high a hurdle. It is informative and reflects the name associated with the acronym by a very major part of those under CONMEBOL's jurisdiction (the Confederação Africana de Futebol/Confederación Africana de Fútbol point is clever, but it remains that Spanish and Portuguese are not among the three official languages of CAF). As a side note, CONMEBOL at its inception consisted of Brazil and only three Spanish-speaking nations (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay).

The bottom line is that I won't fight this, but I do ask you to reconsider whether the "logic" you concede could justify this as an informative and regionally appropriate (and well-documented) label apart from any official FIFA/CONMEBOL proclamation about the Portuguese name. In any case, I think we have seen in common how it is useful and desirable in a way that alternate-language labels for the other organizations would not be. Wareh (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. To add a little point that may be equal in value to the sum total of what I've given above, the FIFA website in its Portuguese department says "CONMEBOL (Confederação Sul-Americana de Futebol)" all the time. Wareh (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To tackle your last point first, the same page refers to Confederação Asiática de Futebol, União da Associação Européia de Futebol etc, so it is merely providing Portuguese translations of the names of all of the continental confederations, and is not probative of anything other than the translation of the title of CONMEBOL into Portuguese. I think that a non-Portuguese authoritative source giving both would validate your desire to include the Portuguese, but such evidence is lacking: the FIFA statutes in English, French and German all give the Spanish as the name, just as consistently as they give AFC, OFC and CONCACAF in English, and UEFA and CAF in French. That being the case, it would be contrary to the sources in the article on FIFA to give another language, even if the acronym fits and the language is an official one. Where the subject of the article is CONMEBOL, the Portuguese name is certainly to be featured in the lead: if the controversy in Brazil over the website language and officially declared origin of the acronym can be sourced, it would be worth a mention there, but I don't see grounds for Portuguese in this FIFA article. Kevin McE (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've presented both sides & said I wouldn't fight it. In fact I called attention to the same point about the statutes. And I do concede your point about União da Associação Européia de Futebol etc. The point is really just that CONMEBOL and FIFA are documented as agreeing on what the name of CONMEBOL is in Portuguese. So I rest my case, with really just the idea that the Port. name (A) is known to CONMEBOL and FIFA, (B) is informative if not official because of its significance to, and established usage among, 50% of the people under CONMEBOL's jurisdiction. (I really do think giving it here is not "contrary to the sources" because it only identifies this as a name of CONMEBOL without making any claim aboiut its degree of officialness. Therefore, I believe the proper Wikipedia criterion is simply good information and good information-presentation. But, again, I won't fight you if you still disagree.) I don't think I can source the controversy: what I saw was mainly discussion forum disgruntlement. Wareh (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the overwhelming evidence is that FIFA consider CONMEBOL's name to be an acronym derived from Spanish: to state anything else is almost OR (although you have been a gent to have the discussion with, so I don't want to make such an accusation), and in the research I've done in this discussion, I've seen nothing to suggest the opposite, despite the happy coincidence of the possibility of rendering the same acronym in Portuguese. Kevin McE (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we'll agree to disagree about whether in fact putting the Portuguese name there "stated anything else," and I'm fine with the reversion. You've been a gent too. Wareh (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

History

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)

FIFA's first tournament, as far as I can see, was that 1908 Olympic event. There had been football competitions at the 1900 and 1904 Olympics, but there were not proper representative teams, just clubs competing in name of the countries. I think I've made the article more coherent now. Kevin McE (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You have indeed improved the sentence however, I just noticed this, despite the presence of professional footballers, contrary to the founding principles of FIFA. Weren't the Olympics for amateurs back then? Silent Billy (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Recentism

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)

"which in a couple of years time will all turn out to have been a storm in a teacup" - that is only your opinion - and it is something that can be polled precisely in a couple of years to decide how it sits historically. Removing the content on the current controversies would look like we were trying to cover-up or ignore the events. These are things that are making the news headline around the world - and we are only to have two sentences on it? I'm afraid that would look extremely bad from my perspective. SFC9394 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Post Script: In addition, nobody is stopping content on 1913-1994 being added - indeed I would welcome it as a lot of the history explains the origins of FIFA's current problems and situation. SFC9394 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Proportionality is the key. At present, there is no long term effect on FIFA at all over the recent situation: not for the first time, a president has been returned unelected. Not for the first time, some people have been forced to leave the executive. And that's it. Everything else is just media generated heat, and a level of detail that we have never tried to post before. If it turns out that this has some long term effect, then in the long term we can expand this. In the meantime, I'm not suggesting that we remove the content from Wikipedia, nor that we do anything that can be considered to be covering it up or ignoring it: I'm just saying that it should be in the appropriate article, and that this article should direct people to the fat that more detail is available there. Unless there is reason for real confidence that this will not look disproportionate in ten years time, there is no reason why it should be here in ten hours time. Kevin McE (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"some people have been forced to leave the executive" - come on! Suspended due to serious bribery allegations, including the serving vice president and a presidential candidate for crying out loud! The allegations surround key people at the very top of FIFA, and you propose those allegations be minimised to two sentences in the FIFA article? That would be covering up in my book. SFC9394 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Corruption

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.

Wikipedia's policy at WP:CRITS strongly suggests that criticism articles shouldn't be branched out. I think, however, if we have more concrete incidents, it could make for a separate article, with headings based on dates. Personally, I think this should be integrated into the History section here with a more summarized style, with the fuller text moved to History of FIFA, rather than create a corruption/controversies/criticism article for FIFA. Still, there are several new controversies sections or subsections growing on pages like this, on 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids, or on Sepp Blatter and the individual biographies which could be collected into a single space, since there's a lot of repetition and recentism between them.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

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)

• Oppose. Did you read that move discussion? WP:ACRONYMTITLE was cited repeatedly. As noted in that guideline, "an acronym or initialism should be used in a page name if the subject is almost exclusively known by its acronym or is widely known and used in that form (e.g. NASA and radar)."
  Among English speakers, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association usually is referred to as "FIFA". (Conversely, "ASEAN" is not particularly well known.) We prefer subjects' common names, not whatever is most formal or official. —David Levy 11:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per David Levy, WP:ACRONYMTITLE is applied differently in these two cases. "ASEAN" is not an exclusively or widely known, so that is why it was moved. Here, "FIFA" IS exclusively or widely known, so it should stay as it is. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not all acronyms need to have the full name and the other discussion mentioned did not reach that conclusion but simply asserted that Association of Southeast Asian Nations was not exclusively or widely known as ASEAN. So far no one has made the case that this is true for FIFA. There are also several other articles that use Acronyms such as NATO, UNICEF, and NASA.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:Use English not FRENCH. We have a Wikipedia for French, it's fr: 70.24.249.190 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 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)

• Speedy close per consensus at last week's move discussion. No new arguments advanced by nominator. --Muchness (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coordinate error

ҚҜҔҕЉҠфФ{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—183.171.168.150 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. You haven't specified an error in the article's coordinates, and they appear to be quite correct. Deor (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Location of headquarters

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)

I would refer you to the fact that FIFA existed for 27 years without UK participation. I would also refer you to the text at the top of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FIFA article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Kevin McE (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1