No code should have exclusive rights to the football name
By Adrian Musolino, 2 Apr 2010 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert
144 Have your say
Related coverage

Richard Vandenberg of the Hawks meets Mark Viduka of the Australian soccer team prior to the round eight AFL match between the Hawthorn Hawks and the Melbourne Demons at the Melbourne Cricket Ground May 19, 2006 in Melbourne, Australia.
Half a decade since Football Federation Australia was born, attempting to bury the soccer moniker in this country, the controversy over who has the right to use the football name in Australia still rages on. And it doesn’t take much for the debate to fire up.
Something as minor as a Qantas billboard promoting “Australian football” (the round ball one) set off the Herald Sun’s AFL journalist Mark Stevens over the weekend, demanding, “Get your hands off our name.”
The problem with this debate, and why the argument about ownership of the term is flawed, is that no one has the right to use the football name exclusively.
It’s not a trademarked name that belongs to one code and hijacked by others. It’s not unique to one particular form of the game.
Punters will point to history and the first code to use the term as justification for why they deserve the right to use the name exclusively. But history shouldn’t matter in this debate. What matters is brand recognition, and both Aussie Rules and “soccer” are justifiably better known and recognised as football.
Therefore, neither should have to relinquish the name, nor should “soccer” have been deprived of its chance to rebrand the game through the football term, which it has every right to use.
The sticking point appears to be when we throw in the Australian clarification to the name.
As Stevens recently wrote on his Twitter page: “I believe AFL should have exclusive rights to term Australian football. I can live with football alone but soc (soccer) is not Aus (Australian) footy.”
Australian football, for Aussie Rules fans, is derivative of the game’s indigenous heritage. For football fans, it’s either used as an attempt to distinguish the local product from the world game (when talking about the A-League, Socceroos, etc) or, by some, as an attempt to hijack Aussie Rules’ moniker with their flawed belief that one day football will assume the Aussie Rules’ position as the sole bearer of the Australian football name.
But using the Australian clarification shouldn’t be an attempt by the round ball followers to stoke the code war battle with the AFL, rather it should be used with respect to the AFL’s right to the term, and in turn the AFL should respect football’s need to use the Australian clarification considering it needs that distinction as it’s part of a world game.
The confusion will only increase with the growth of football in Australia, particularly around the time of World Cups, and we have to find a way to balance commonsense and fairness when naming the codes.
Considering there are so many who still use soccer, don’t expect there to be common ground found in this debate anytime soon, or consensus on what names are appropriate and fair. For example, is it just for the game to be known as Aussie Rules to distinguish between football or is that an unfair expectation? Considering all the different names available and how they have different meanings and connotations depending on where you are in Australia, finding agreement won’t be possible.
But no one should own the right to use a name as universally diverse as football, especially in Australia with its ball sport variety.
The diversity the term football encapsulates in this country should be a source of celebration rather than a source of conflict.
Finally, we should also address the comments made by many on one side of the debate that if “soccer” wants to use the football name, it should dispense with the Socceroos name for its national team.
As the aforementioned Stevens wrote, “Memo Football Federation Australia: If you like the term football so much, call yourselves the “Footyroos” and be done with it.”
This is showing a lack of respect as great as the football fans who use the Australian football name to enrage AFL fans.
The Socceroos name has history and meaning, and that should not be replaced. It’s symbolic of where the game has come from, and typifies the struggle for acceptance the national team has had to endure to reach the point it has now reached in terms of awareness and support.
That history matters more than the need to rebrand the team.
But the fact the national team is still called the Socceroos doesn’t mean the game should be stuck with soccer and isn’t deserving of the football name.
Be it the American version of football, Aussie Rules, Gaelic or the world game, they are all forms of football that are deserving of the universal name.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
- Explore:
- AFL, Australian Football, football, Football Federation Australia, Socceroos

rovingto2011 said | April 2nd 2010 @ 5:56am | Report comment
This again?
You’re last line sums it up. Aussie rules has never had any more claim to the name than Gaelic rules or America’s NFL. The only sport that is ‘deserving’ of it in a global context is … well … Football.
I guess that’s a big part of why these provincial sports will never expand beyond their base. Can u imagine how confused those South African kiddies were when they turned up to the ‘AusAid Football kickabout’ only to find some red, egg shaped thing and a point for missing?
Wally James said | April 2nd 2010 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Unfortunately, rovingto2011, you exhibit a complete ignorance of how the name football has been historically treated. As a consequence your conclusion is as seriously flawed as your football bigotry.
Come the middle of the 19th century there were numerous football games being played around England and had been for millenia. There were as many different types of games as there were schools and all were called football. For example Winchester had its own laws as did Eaton, Rugby and Harrow. It was not unitl 1848 that a compilation of rules was adopted (the Cambridge Rules). They were an amalgam of the laws played at Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Winchester and Shrewsbury schools. Subsequently other attempts to standardise playing rules culminated in the formation of the Football Association followed shortly thereafter by the Rugby Football Union. Then, of course, other types of footbal arose, Australian Football, American Football, Gaelic Football (which had been played centuries before the Football Association was formed) Canadian Football and Rugby League.
The overweening arrogance and intellectual dishonesty attaching to those who think only one code should use the word football, is not only a reflection on them but also on their sport’s administrators.
There are many types of football codes. Each is entitled to use the name but not to the exclusion of other codes. Bravo to Adrian Musolino for exhibiting the reasoned thinking and tolerance which true sportsman normally show.
chris said | April 2nd 2010 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
There was so many different types of Football games in the 19th century yet 150 years later there are still numerous types of Football.Thats the only good thing about Soccer or real modern Football is it tried to codified all the different codes into one.
rovingto2011 said | April 3rd 2010 @ 6:06am | Report comment
The ‘there’s many codes of football’ history lesson only has traction in very few places, Australia being one. Try it on anywhere else in the world and you’d be met with bemused stares.
Football is football, far less confusing in the global world we live in. Surely its actually in these localised sports interests to have their own unique names?
Mister Football said | April 3rd 2010 @ 7:45am | Report comment
We should worry about the bemused stares of the uneducated, ignorant and impoverished masses of the world?
We would get bemused stares in North America as well (prosperous and highly educated part of the world), but the bemused stares would for an entirely different reason than you are able to imagine (it would appear).
Lindommer said | August 12th 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
WRONG! The “football” code administered by FIFA SHOULD be correctly termed “Association Football”. Then we all know which one we’re referring to.
sydboz said | December 13th 2010 @ 1:23am | Report comment
Football is and always will be the most popular sport in the world. If you call it anything other than it’s real name, then you might has well join up with the hicks in the US. The real name for Aussie rules is really Melbourne rules, no one should ever forget that. Football on the other hand had the name a long time ago because it’s actually played 99.99% with the actual foot, there are no handballs or center bounces where people come in and knock it down like the NBA.
Kurt said | April 2nd 2010 @ 6:08am | Report comment
Strangely enough even I can’t be bothered to argue about this one anymore. Have a good Easter break everyone.
BigAl said | April 2nd 2010 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Amen to that
Hazey the Bear said | April 2nd 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Amen! Preach it brother!
Same…I’m over it. The whole code wars. “Football.” Test cricket vs. T20. All of it.
Now everyone, repeat after me: “I like what I like. I’m sure it’s different than other people’s preferences. I CAN LIVE WITH THIS!!!”
Axel V said | April 3rd 2010 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Haha I love it.
Alders said | April 2nd 2010 @ 7:10am | Report comment
Thank you Adrian.
Frankly it is a bit worrying grown men care so much. They are all just games and never will be anything more than just games.
Alders said | April 2nd 2010 @ 7:12am | Report comment
Living in the UK I accidentally say soccer all the time because it is what I was brought up with and nobody and I mean nobody bats an eye lid. They have camps advertised as soccer camps and Soccer AM in the UK. If they don’t care why do we? Chip on our shoulders. Why do the rest of the codes care either? Again, they are just games.
Mr cheese said | April 2nd 2010 @ 10:45am | Report comment
It’s an interesting point, Aldo.
I suppose both “soccer camps” and “Soccer AM” are called what they’re called precisely because the word ‘soccer’ is NOT used. That’s the point.
“Soccer camp” sounds posh, safe, refined and a little bit expensive. You’d pay good money when you wouldn’t for “football camp” which just sounds ordinary and not worth the hassle.
“Soccer AM” is called what it’s called for the same reason: people don’t use the word in everyday speech.
Alders said | April 2nd 2010 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
Ill be honest with you Mr Cheese I respectively think that is a long shot. You may be right though. The point is that calling it soccer doesn’t even garner a reaction. People should focus on these games themselves rather than what they are called. I also lived in the Netherlands and it is much the same there.
Just on another note rugby is often called rugby football here and there are loads of rugby clubs, such as London Scottish FC, who have no mention of rugby in their name, just football. The only rugby example I can think of in Australia is Sydney University FC. Perhaps that is a blessing.
Does it really matter guys?
Mr cheese said | April 3rd 2010 @ 3:45am | Report comment
It just seems to me that, when we we grow up in England, we use the word “football”. Therefore, “soccer” is a bit exotic and posh. That’s all I was saying.
How often would you hear someone say in England…..
“Why not come round to my place to watch the soccer……????”
I have NEVER heard anyone say that. In my experience, people just say football.
How many people in England will call the imminent tournament “the soccer world cup” ? Not many, je pense.
sbb said | June 27th 2011 @ 12:56am | Report comment
Maybe it’s my morphine, Mr Cheese, but … “I suppose both “soccer camps” and “Soccer AM” are called what they’re called precisely because the word ‘soccer’ is NOT used…
Surely that’s not the point.
btw Adrian, could you pls start sub-heading this topic with an episode or chapter number; by the time you get to 112 next month, you might find you’re boring the crap out of yourself as well…
Sam said | April 2nd 2010 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Good point eh. I don’t think any code owns the word football and everyone needs to stop being so precious about it. Although it seems to be mainly an Association/Aussie Rules thing, all the codes need to relax about it. No one needs to be so sensitive. People are going to call it what they are going to call it, it’s the way language works – no point getting all worked up about it.
Nam Turk said | April 2nd 2010 @ 7:12am | Report comment
“Football” is a family of codes, not a single sport. Anyone touting theirs over another is just propping their general culture as superior. It’s like yelling at someone to “speak English!” so you understand them, but already within the English-speaking world. An exercise in arrogance and nothing more.
Billo Boy said | April 2nd 2010 @ 7:16am | Report comment
The answer is for the rest of Australia to adopt the way its always been in New South Wales and Queensland for as long as I can remember.
Just refer to the game as “Australian RULES football” and soccer can happily have its “Australian football” team.
Alders said | April 2nd 2010 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
Probably the best shout. But then you have people calliing rugby league football. Footy in NSW definately means league.
Marshall said | April 2nd 2010 @ 9:29am | Report comment
I think this issue needs to be debated cause the arrogance of some people to claim their sport owns the name is a joke.
agga78 said | April 2nd 2010 @ 9:35am | Report comment
I will be happy if they call AFL, Australian football in the media and Association football, Association football, thus ending any confusion, between the two sports Australian Rules football can call there game football, we don’t care, I don’t here too many Assoication football followers in general or in the media slagging of Australian football for using the word football, it is all one way traffic, numbties like Stevens, Ralph, Wilson are haters of assoication football which are demonstrated in the many various so called articles they have written for the scum papers, it is these people who are inflaming the divide between the football codes in this country, it is the main reason I have not watched a game of Australian football for 6 years, I can not watch a sport who has journalist’s writing propganda pieces against another sport to show their superiority.
bever fever said | April 2nd 2010 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Adrian, i finally agree with something that you have wrote.
They are all football codes, anyone that says anything different has rocks in their head, no-one owns the name.
Football to ME means RL in the north, Australian Rules football in the south and soccer for the whole country, but of course they are all football codes, it’s just we are blessed here with 4 reasonably strong ones, and it does become confusing.
Australian Football said | April 2nd 2010 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Mark Stevens is correct that the FFA should abandon the tag “Socceroos” forever––as it was the late Johnny Warren’s belief it should be done. The ex FFA’s CEO John O’Neill, renamed old Soccer Australia to new Football Federation Australia. Johnny Warren held a long time belief that for Football to progress in this country it had fall into line with the FIFA World Governing Body with its marketing arm to spread the name Football and code globally.
Johnny Warren had always believed that the national team should have only one name and that being “the Australian National Football Team––or just Australia. A merchandise nickname, if need be, “the ‘ROOS”, could be just as affective for those who embrace that sort of stuff––it would work just as well as Socceroos nickname (with some already abbreviating the use to ‘ROOS).
As far as the Mark Stephen’s other half of his argument is concern; he needs to grow-up. The AFL with its “Indigenous Code” positioning and marketing statement should be fostered and nurtured further and re-brand themselves as the “Australian Marngrook League” to spread the code globally as they want so desperately to do. With half of their own historians now believing the AFL has its roots from the ancient game of Marngrook it would do their cause far better then to continually try to spread their code globally by calling it Australian Football.
How could that ever be accepted or work successfully in countries that already have strong National Football Teams competing in Football World Cups. The international Rugby Board have recognised and learnt from past experiences if they want to spread their code successfully they needed to formulate a new marketing strategy and re-brand their code simply as Rugby with its own Rugby World Cup––now doing extremely well with continued expansion and growing interest globally. I also think that the Rugby League is heading down the same marketing lines as Rugby Union have. The recent rebranding of the Rugby League World Cup was very successful.
——-
AF
Dave of St Kilda said | April 2nd 2010 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
If its good enough for England to call the game soccer, then its good enough for me.
As for calling the national soccer team just ROOS this would trespass on the ARL’s Kangaroos.
Australian Football said | April 2nd 2010 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
The name Soccer in England is all but dead. As far as the name Kangaroos, does that not belong to the Nth Melb Kangaroos? If so what is so wrong with the name ‘ROOS it’s a separate issue and not entirely infringing on the National Rugby League Team Kangaroos. So Maybe the League Boys are more concerned with Nth Melbourne then the Australian National Football Team’s use of the term ROOS or Soccer-roos for that matter.
Alders said | April 2nd 2010 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
That’s not true AF. I live in London now and you see it quite regularly. Really nobody here cares what you call it. They regularly don’t bother to change advertising that has soccer written on it. Everyone knows what you are talking about it and you never get any of the abuse and long lecturues you get at home for accidentally using soccer.
I like the use of Australian Football and Association Football. A concession from both sides.
Why not just drop the silly names for sporting teams? They are a bit of an international joke anyway. I am vvery sorry AF but Roos sounds a bit bogan.
jimbo_ said | April 2nd 2010 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Its not good enough for England – they call it football and their asociation is called the Football Association of England or the English FA.
http://www.thefa.com/
Billo Boy said | April 2nd 2010 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
To Australian Football – there are many teams in Australia that use the name “kangaroos”, but when it comes to Australian teams at the professional level there is just the ARL Kangaroos. There would be in place all sorts of trademarks and copyrights protecting the ARL’s sole rights to use the kangaroo for an Australian team.
The ARL could not stop the AFL club called Kangaroos from using the name, nor could the AFL club stop the ARL. They are not competing with each other in the market place and no one would be confused or deceived.
But when it comes to two Australian national teams in competing football codes then it would come down to the intellectual propery rights lawyers.
That is why there is Socceroos and Hockeyroos. They did it to avoid a legal fight with the ARL and because the ARL Kangaroos have had the name for over a 100 years and used it continuously.
No court is going to legally let another Australian team use kangaroos anymore than a NZ court would let the NZ soccer team call itself All Blacks or a South African court let the SA soccer team call itself Springboks.
Australian Football said | April 4th 2010 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Billo Boy,
I’m not sure what you are on about. But let me assure you of one thing that the name and the most famous Australian Icon, the Kangaroo can never be patent by any private organisation. The Socceroos could have easily have been the Soccer Kangaroos make no mistake about that. The only reason why it did not happen is because the Socceroos name (which I hate immensely) was a neat package that worked well for the time in 1974 and would not cause unnecessary wrath amongst the ARL. The ARL legally could not stop anyone or organisation from using the Kangaroo as part of a corporate name in their branding or for an international mascot. Of course you have heard of the Boxing Kangaroo for the America’s cup campaign––a very good example of that.
Billo Boy said | April 4th 2010 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
“the Socceroos name (which I hate immensely)”…I couldn’t half tell!
There’s no point me saying the same again. Brand names are protected very well by our legal system, so good luck getting it through.
Of course, like the FFA world cup bid, you could look to your mates in the Rudd government to fund the FFA’s legal bill or even get them to change the law.
Australian Football said | April 4th 2010 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
The tag “Roo” (Kangaroo) is already part of the Australian National Football Team’s brand—I have no idea what you are talking about. I can only reiterate—no one person or organisation can patent the name Kangaroo because it is a “National symbolic Icon”.. The full name is not used because it would be considered bad form on behalf of the FFA to go ahead and use it in full. However, it did not stop the Nth Melbourne Kangaroos AFL going ahead with their Kangaroo moniker.
Ian said | April 3rd 2010 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
The NRL have already diluted the Kangaroos. They were , and still are to many, league players that tour England with the national team.
Billo Boy said | April 3rd 2010 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
I’d be tempted to respond if you’d made any sense.
The Wallabies tour with bigger squads than the Kangaroos so I don’t know what you’re on about.
Paul Roberton said | November 10th 2010 @ 10:44am | Report comment
The Aussieroos?