Talk:IFFHS

Football High‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport: WOSO C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the Women's football / soccer task force.

Removed the bias allegation. Every single ranking system can be accused of bias, that´s almost tautological. No need to start such an argument.

Specific biases should be mentioned and covered for every ranking. Methodology should always be explained and covered. If you're familiar with the IFFHS rankings, you'll see what I'm saying: they are badly flawed. I'm not pretending to be unbiased here: I feel that these rankings have little to no credibility. I'm willing to reason on how we explain the methodology and potential biases, but to leave out the information is just plain wrong. Bill Oaf 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some methodology information. Would be glad if you could verify it and add a few sources about the criticism section Lomibz 00:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentric

This ranking is a farce organised by people who want their name in the papers. Dmontin (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RANKINGS NEED TO BE UPDATED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.74.44 (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The eurocentric criticism comment in the article sounds biased. It is unreferenced (making it appear as personal opinion), and its logic is flawed. Claiming that SA players are in Europe but not vice versa proves anti-SA bias only holds true if SA players are clearly more skilled. World Cups show roughly equal ability. A bigger reason for the one-way player movement is more likely economics, i.e. top players gravitate to Europe for higher salaries. Kemperb (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put things worse, this eurocentric association considers the Argentine league to be on the same level as Paraguayan, Ecuadorian and Colombian leagues. They favour Brazilian league with 4 points/win, even when Argentine clubs lead in combined number of Copa Libertadores. Estudiantes de La Plata alone won the continental competition more times than any Brazilian club. The biased South American ranking, where all Brazilian clubs appear at the top, stems from this unfair treatment. 2800:40:28:1170:ACDC:586C:44A9:1F26 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flaw assumptions

This institution are a plain example of how numbers can be used by phony people to mislead a illiterate-math public. Pure data snooping, take the leagues rank for example: Even Today most national leagues like La Liga have just 2 main protagonists ( Madrid and Barcelona ) or some like Italian have 5 to 7 main teams; the Brazilian League already in Pele's old "quiet" times had 12, I repeat: 12 main team running for the cup Not counting the minor ones without much chances.189.62.129.250 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madcynic´s reverts

Sorry Madcynic but I do not see what you mean. You wouldn´t seriously doubt that Colin José or Karl-Heinz Jens existed, would you? I did cite the Soccer Hall of Fame´s website, what more can I do? As for the books, I´ve got them all and you can still buy them through ebay or other sources... Incidentally, we have the same discussion - only worse - in the German wikipedia. There´s this one guy who has started the "one man show" punchline very successfully and nobody seems to ask for his sources or whether he just made it up. -- Not cricket, says SpVggLieth (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recognised by FIFA

The given sources do NOT seem to say this. The first one says people sometimes confuse IFFHS rankings with theirs whilst the second says they have close relations. Recognition implies that FIFA believes their ranking to be correct and/or valid, which dos not seem to be the impression from the sources. Indeed the first one is them pointedly distancing themselves from the IFFHS.--Tiresais (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed that mention from the article. 71.210.187.182 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS is recognized by FIFA (cfr. here, here and here) because, among other things, FIFA gives logistical support for their works and IFFHS has worked with FIFA in the development of publications such as the FIFA Century Club (Source: Rafa Jiménez, IFFHS: La calculadora del fútbol. Don Balón (1656), 9/15 julio 2007, p.50).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first two comments, FIFA itself declaring that it is not affiliated with the IFFHS and its ranking system should be enough to void that section.

No one says that the agency was "affiliated" with FIFA because it is not in his chart as the FIF-Pro or the International Board. However, all these sources indicate that the FIFA recognizes the agency and its work and that it, unlike the RSSSF or Castrol Performance Index.

Similarly, the CIHEFE, who has worked with the RFEF in the publication and recognition of events related to football in Spain, is recognized by the Association but not the affiliates to be an independent body.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every time the fact that IFFHS is not affiliated with FIFA is added Dantetheperuvian reverts and removes it. The word "recognised", at best, adds nothing to the article and, at worst, is misleading as shown by what the other editors above believe. The lede sentence is clunky and can easily be smaller and just as informative without the phrase. Each edit I have made does not state that the organisation is not recognised by FIFA. It just omits that useless bit of information. An appropriate analogy is if the phrase "recognised by FIFA" was added to the lede sentence of the La Masia article. [1] It adds nothing to the article and should be removed. 174.30.222.137 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no one here has said the body was "dependent" or were "affiliated to FIFA" as FIFPro or IB, it is "recognized" (cf. point 2), that is, "FIFA recognizes the entity and its publications" (José del Olmo dixit and Rafa Jiménez, IFFHS: La calculadora del fútbol. Don Balón (1656), 9/15 julio 2007, p.50), which can not be said of the ELO, Castrol and/or RSSSF works, the latter widely read in Wikipedia. Also, FIFA provides logistical support to IFFHS members such as access to FIDOM-FIFA (Jiménez, pp.50-51), only accessible to members of the FIFA committee.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely avoided my comment and reasoning. Please address the editorial concerns. If you do not disagree that IFFHS is not "affiliated to FIFA" why have you removed that sentence three times in the last 30 hours? 174.30.222.137 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that José del Olmo is a vice-president of the IFFHS and the information contained in the article of Don Balon is also provided by someone affiliated with IFFHS. Hence, neither source can be used as evidence for the claim that the work of IFFHS is "recognized" by FIFA (whatever that means). --Jenizaro (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Rankings

There were new rankings released on Friday. I don't know how to update the graph, but for those of you in the know here is the link. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.222.118 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The "Strongest National League in the World" section rankings have been not updated, because the rankings aren't yet final, the rankings shown in the link show the rankings at the half way point of the year. The final rankings will come out in January of next year. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Club Team of the Month

I helped make the picture of the ranking of The World's Club Team of the Month, but I don't have experience, so I had some mistakes with the size and the translation from the Wikipedia in spanish. Please if you can arrel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.25.130.196 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech

Gaussians outside their narrow fields are good for nothing but to try convince a semi-literate public in math about fallacious arguments based on statistical manipulation. 187.38.245.233 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Club Team of the Month (IFFHS)

someone placed "LDU Quito and Real Madrid" in the top upper row of "The World's Club Team of the Month (IFFHS)" sections This is how it looks: Year / Month January LDU Quito February LDU Quito March LDU Quito April LDU Quito May LDU Quito June Real Madrid July Real Madrid August Real Madrid September LDU Quito October LDU QUITO November Real Madrid December Real Madrid

could comeone avoid this user to perform this again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.69.47.196 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Some idiots are continuously vandalising this page, putting unknown team at the top (and hidden in the rankings) of the ranking. Protect this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.70.160 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP 71.34.40.249 or what you call

You claim "the organization is not affiliated with FIFA" based on this source also notes that the Federation "is only affiliated with national associations". When I said that the IFFHS was "affiliated" to FIFA if that organization declares itself independent in their own statute? For a body is affiliated to another is necessary to include in any chart and it does not happen because IFFHS is independent unlike IB or the FIFPro. What I said is that IFFHS is recognised by FIFA—and that is properly supported with bibliographical material—, which is different than other works in this world or in the cyber-world. The "recognition" of any body by the other does not imply "affiliation" as evidenced by the case ECA/UEFA (ECA is recognised but not affiliated to UEFA).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century

I created an article under the name of IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century, we can see an example of this page in my draft page here. However the user GiantSnowman proposed that it be deleted and merged with the article IFFHS, we can see the deletion debate here. So after the sudden removal of the page, I was surprise but I respected the decision and I decided as agreed to merge (add) what it was removed in the IFFHS page. But I was surprise for the second time because the same user GiantSnowman removed it !!, we can see his act here.
Maybe the user GiantSnowman abuse with his authority because he is an administrator and I don't know why he act like that, however wikipedia is for all contributers. I said that IFFHS is a notable organisation and it contributions are agreed by all the international institutions so what this notable organisation published about IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century is normally agreed in Wikipedia. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

During my nomination at the AFD I suggested that it be deleted or merged; the WP:CONSENSUS was that it was deleted as non-notable and the AFD was closed as a 'delete'. I have not abused my position as an administrator in any way, shape or form and I would advise you to stop making such stupid accusations, it merely weakens your position. Giant Snowman 19:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I contribute in Wikipedia since many years, I'm a good contributer and I'm respectable, Now you will not going to invent a new law to stop what I can think. The article was deleted ok, but why you don't accept that it will be merged with the IFFHS article? Normaly we agree that the article is notable and that's what it was proposed. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed that the article be deleted, and if wasn't deleted it should be merged as a last resort. Nobody supported the merge, numerous editors supported deletion, so the article was deleted as non-notable. Giant Snowman 20:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this deletion it was a good page about the best football clubs in the world with source (iffhs is receiving official support from FIFA) but this is not the only strange deletion here.

In my opinion the merge (add)is a good idea(we are talking about the best of football and i think it is notable)

But this is only my opinion--Lglukgl (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The complete list doesn't seem notable to me. IFFHS seem obscure anyway. Not much third party sources. -05:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is encyclopedic because it was an award conferred by the sole independent football organization officially recognised by FIFA. Also, it is a further study to understand the development of football in the twentieth century -mainly outside Europe and South America-, so that there should be separate article if it puts emphasis on this and the rankings are limited to the top 10 from each continent.--190.236.163.90 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.D. It also has more criteria than this popularity list.

The current community consensus, reached at an AFD, is that the topic is non-notable. Giant Snowman 10:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not clear here.--190.234.138.13 (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was the result of the AFD? What were the vast majority of !votes? Delete! It can't be much clearer than that... Giant Snowman 16:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3:2 is not vast majority.--190.234.138.13 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the numbers, the strength of argument. WP:NOTAVOTE. Giant Snowman 08:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we reffere your reasoning, the articles FIFA Club of the Century, IFFHS World's Best Club Coach, IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper that are less important than this article. They will be removed? Or why only this article? --Fayçal.09 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if you believe other articles are also non-notable then I suggest you take to PROD/AFD. I don't have time at the moment. Giant Snowman 11:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry, for me these articles are all notable, same as IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century. There was no reason to remove it and we will try to create it by making a request in WP, because it's removing was not just and not logical --Fayçal.09 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the deletion, take it to WP:DRV. Please notify us here if you do. Giant Snowman 16:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done:

Reason mentionned. You can participate in the request debate here. Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Federation of Football History & Statistics. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100514110157/http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/es/1330005139100/noticia/Noticia/El_Real_Madrid,_Mejor_Club_de_Europa_del_siglo_XX.htm to http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/es/1330005139100/noticia/Noticia/El_Real_Madrid,_Mejor_Club_de_Europa_del_siglo_XX.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article?

I am considering listing this article for deletion. Neither the organisation nor its awards are notable.

Rainjar (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best Player In CONMEBOL

awards that already exist in 2020. As the name suggest, "best player in CONMEBOL" the best player in the CONMEBOL Confederation or the best player on the south american Continent.

WINNER LIST

2020 Lionel Messi

2021 Lionel Messi

2022 Lionel Messi MykolenkoBythic (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]