Recently I was asked to give a lecture in a sports studies course on the history of the “round ball” game in Australia.
It’s an interesting expression “the round ball game” because we have many games played with round, or more accurately, spherical, balls – netball, cricket, hockey, basketball, baseball, and so on.
But the person making the request knew, and I knew exactly what he meant. Why didn’t he just name the game, then?
I think he was aware that for some people the name of the game is an issue of great significance, one that is capable of creating a degree of debate and sometimes rancour.
If that was his reason then he needn’t have been so thoughtful. I’m happy with the term either term, football or soccer. I actually prefer soccer. My reasons are several:
• The game’s proper title, association football is a bit of a mouthful, and soccer is an easier term to use.
• It avoids confusion with other codes of football.
• Its use and development signifies and important historical moment in the Australian game. In the 1920s the term ‘British Association Football’ was replaced by ‘Soccer Football’ in order to signify the domestication of the game.
• My personal affiliation is with ‘old soccer’ as opposed to ‘new football’.
In recent years many proponents of soccer in Australia have begun to call the game football. Technically they are correct; culturally they are in error.
The new governing body, the FFA, established earlier this decade on the back of sweeping-ish reforms to the game’s management, decided to get on the front foot and ‘take back’ the name football – a move that received a lot of support in the soccer community but one which generated a great degree of opposition and disagreement from supporters of footy and rugby league.
This is understandable.
‘Football’ is a very powerful term. When used, it asserts the cultural hegemony of the game it is describing. If you talk about football in Sydney, most people will assume you are talking about Rugby League. If you are talking about another game this usage could be seen as a threat or an insult.
Significantly, the intense branding of terms like NRL and AFL has allowed soccer some space and leverage in adopting the term football.
But we need to be careful to draw a distinction between what the marketeers and the corporate types plan and that which the public allows.
This new policy of soccer taking back the name of football is also based on a few fallacies:
• That the use of the term soccer was forced upon the game. There’s some truth to this but the story is far more complex than that. As an aside, if the VFA had been wiped out by the VFL (in line with some visions), the name would have been dormant and available for soccer and we may have ended up with association football (soccer) and league football (footy) in Victoria.
• That it’s an American abomination. Not true. The term was invented in English public schools.
• That leading figures in the game like Johnny Warren always used the word football when talking about soccer. They didn’t.
Confusion over names is part of the complex history of all football codes in this country.
Rugby, footy and soccer have undergone a significant name changes in the course of their development – usually for interesting cultural-political reasons.
As footy starts its expansion out of Melbourne into other towns and colonies (including NZ) Melbourne rules becomes Victorian rules, becomes Australian rules (with a brief diversion into Australasian rules).
The game that is initially known in Victoria as Anglo-Australian football, or British Association rules, or English Association rules, or Scottish Association rules, officially becomes Soccer football in the 1920s and just plain soccer after that – though it starts to be described as soccer in the Argus newspaper from 1908 on.
In Perth the game is described as Socker for a few brief years around the turn of the century!
This represents a methodological problem for the historian – if the names of the games are not consistent over time or across the various colonies at any given time, we need to be very careful when we read an historical newspaper article that refers to football.
For example, I discovered an article in the Maitland newspaper in the 1883 talking about association football being played by a team named Northumberland. My immediate assumption was that it was a soccer team comprised of Geordie miners. Closer reading showed that it was actually a game of Victorian Rules being played by a local team against South Melbourne FC.
This changeability of names points to a very different conception of football from the ones we might hold today – the idea that soccer and rugby and Australian rules were differing codes of the same game, of football. For much of the 20th century, newspaper soccer reports were made under the heading of football.
Typically, the Argus, would list under the heading of football: VFL, VFA, rugby and soccer. And while they gave greater weight to footy there was not the same sense of separation that the newspapers construct today.
In some papers the football results were given in such an order that we can only discern from the actual scores the games that were being played.
This too represents a methodological problem. Soccer reports are often there in newspapers but they are sometimes buried at the end of or hidden within a general football report. Historians have overlooked vital pieces of information because of this.
From 1850 onward until about 1870 we get many reports of football games where virtually all we know is that between zero and three goals were scored, mostly kicked but occasionally taken across the line by a scrimmage. The journalists thought little of posterity when they filed their reports. We know that different kinds of football were being played but we have no idea what kinds.
The FFA’s rebranding of soccer as ‘football’ threatens to introduce the same kind of lack of clarity for historians of the future.
So let’s just stay with soccer for the time being. At least until history and common sense determines otherwise.
Paul
Guest
The game with the least handling of the ball should be known as ‘foot’ball.
Gordie
Guest
Football ⚽️ Fan I personally can’t stand the word ‘Soccer’ I prefer Football. And I personally think that other codes that call their sport Football are jealous of our code. League is NOT football, you cannot carry a ball or bounce a ball and call it football, it doesn’t make sense. And all off the Irish ☘️ Fans I speak to call it Football also. Cheers Gordie Football Freak.
Emric
Guest
Learn your history All ball sports were originally called Football and each had a different set of rules, Rugby Colleges version of the sport was called Rugby Football, the Irish had their own version called Gaelic football, and of course there was Association Football. Why is it called football not because its played with the foot (Common misconception) but because its played ON foot as opposed to the sports played on horseback. Football (in all its forms) is the common mans sport. The word Soccer comes from England and was heavily used by the British newspapers to describe the sport of Association Football. Please take a look at http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results?basicsearch=soccer you will notice that word Soccer steadly dropped off as the word Football took over (Basically dropping the Association). So yes it has been called Soccer in the past, and it will continue to be referenced as Soccer in some places around the world.
Just A Bloke
Guest
Soccer don't exsist, do your research. The only word for football is football.
Just A Bloke
Guest
Football is football. Ball used by foot. Rugby is rugby. Game invented in rugby. Aussie Rules is Aussie Rules. Game invented in Australia. Football & rugby, their names are done. For some people, calling Aussie Rules, Aussie Rules, might feel abit strange, being in Australia & all. I think Ovalball might do it, cos it describes the ball & the pitch. Ofcorse, for people who like to argue, they will continue to call rugby etc, football, & will refuse to call football, football. But for people like that, it's always been about arguing, & very little about sport.
Robert
Guest
Hi It is Football( The World Game) and nothing else.It is FFA FIFA and The Football World Cup. Soccer doesnt get a mention. The Australian other sports are AFL or Footy or Aussie Rules, Rugby League or NRL and Union. Simple . Dont call it the bad word as there is no need. My favourite sport is Aussie Rules and I cant understand how people cant accept the biggest sport in the world being called Football. In the Olympics what do they call it. It is up to the MEDIA to call it by its proper name. Also teachers and coaches. I am a teacher and my international students soon get put uin their place when they use the word Soccer.
Gorge
Guest
I wince every time I hear the word “soccer.” It makes my beloved sport football sound so alien, so uncouth, almost like someone just swore at me. Socca!.Socker!.Soccer! I understand the Americans need something to differentiate their own brand of football from the more beautiful game of football that the rest of the world loves and plays, but I do not understand why I hear this word being used by non-Americans and often in articles on the Internet. Or maybe I do understand it but just don’t like it. Not one bit. A major reason could be because of the large amount of coverage that American football gets on the Internet and US media; some might tag their articles as soccer to avoid any unnecessary confusion. And this is what scares me – the power that the Americans have on global culture and language. American football is an odd name for a sport. It is, of course, American: very American. But I have a problem with them appropriating the term football, while giving the game of real football the slang “soccer.” Balls, by definition, are “objects with a spherical shape,” but I can let go of that for the moment. My biggest gripe is with the use of the word “foot.” The game of “American Football” is hardly ever played with the foot. I haven’t watched a lot of American football, but I mostly see people carrying the ball around and smashing into each other for a few minutes between the commercial breaks. The few moments of punting cannot be enough to call a game “football.” This is in complete contrast to the game of “soccer” in which they exclusively play with the foot with the occasional use of head and chest. The origin of words might give us a hint as to this unusual development of names, and I understand that often words evolve to uses which have nothing to do with their original meanings. But in 2007, Australia officially converted their associations from soccer to football. So did New Zealand and Samoa. Only the North American countries of USA and Canada remain. So there is hope, and I sincerely hope that someday they convert too. But I can’t help but fear for the sport of football, or might I say, for the name “football.” I do not wish to be in a world which calls it soccer. And knowing the influence that American cultural exports seem to have on the rest of the world, my fears are definitely justified.
mark
Guest
The highest priority should be participation and love of sport. I'm an administrator at the local soccer club and welcome all to join whatever they want to call it. I would hate to think that in some clubs new members are instantly corrected on how they should be referring to the sport. Soccer, demanding the football title due to what happens in other countries shows arrogance of the code. When there is so much competition between codes, soccer being arrogant, is not going to win new fans. BTW : Enjoy your footy on the weekend (whatever your code)
Ryan Cicero
Guest
Any game in which the original means of scoring points was to kick a ball for a goal is football. The term has nothing to do with the primary means of moving the ball up or down the field. In all football codes, a goal is scored by kicking the ball, including the conversion and penalty kicks in rugby and RL and the field goals and PATs in American/Canadian football, its only via historical evolution that other means of scoring have come to be predominant in those codes.
lee mason
Guest
Football should be called football because you kick the ball 99% of the game. American football should not be called FOOTBALL because they only kick the ball only 1% of the game its plain common sense
Ian Syson
Roar Rookie
Interesting take on the discussion from the Footy Record in the 1950s There is a certain publicity angle connected with our game that has for many years been a constant source of annoyance to officials of our national code; This is the use of the term "Rules" as applied to the Australian game of football. For some time the use of this opprobrious term was confined to the "rugby" States of N.S.W. and Queensland, but recently there has been a tendency — deplorable, in our opinion — to use the term here in some sections of the press. Why? Is it deliberately intended to belittle our game by implying that it's riddled and overloaded with rules? It would seem so. What is the true position? The rugby code has just as many rules as our Australian game. Soccer, rugby, gridiron — all these "ball" games have their particular names. Our game is FOOTBALL— and there seems no reason why all manner of peculiar names should be suggested for it. In no other "ball" sport is the ball kicked as much as in our game — nor as far, nor with such skill and control. And this statement is made advisedly, with soccer well in mind, be¬cause although the ball is not handled in soccer (except by the goalie), and must be kicked or "headed," much of that kicking is only dribbling, and there is nothing approaching the glorious 60 yard punts and drops that are an outstanding feature of our game. Let us continue to call our game "football." That's the name by which it's known to every fan from eight to eighty. We go to footy, we talk footy, we dream footy. We certainly don't know what misguided press scribes mean when they refer to "Rules." Whoever heard of a Melbourne man saying he was going to see a "Rules" match? It's ridiculous. The use of the term, as stated before originated in Sydney, where press ignorance of our game is understandable. It is not only a stupid term, it's impertinent. It implies that the game is difficult to understand, interpret or follow. The reverse is actually the case.' Newcomers to our footy soon pick up the basic idea, and certainly derive the maximum enjoyment after watching one or two games. The difficulty arises when a spectator, reared in the tradition of "offside," with which soccer, rugby and gridiron are cluttered, cannot at first grasp the bewildering speed and lightning-like exchanges that send the ball flashing from end to end of the ground. The use of the term "Rules" is clearly absurd. All sports and all forms of football are governed by rules. They are, naturally, essential to the con¬duct of the particular sport to which they refer. Some, in fact, have many more rules than our Australian game. Actually, the basic rules which govern our footy are few. It is the inter¬pretations of those rules which have created the impression of many rules. Perhaps that section of the press which has recently shown an inclination to employ the term "Rules" will this year relegate it to the rubbish heap, where it belongs.
martin copelin
Guest
I played rugby league many years ago and come from a rugby league state Qld. If someone mentions the term Australian football I would immediately think of Aussie Rules and I suspect most would. When talking about a game of footie in Qld you automatically assume it is rugby league. Obviously in Victoria, SA, WA and Tasmania it would be Aussie Rules. Quite frankly most countries can call Soccer what they like and if they prefer call it Football. However in this country call it what the majority prefer and that is Soccer. After all that name is preferable to Wogball and a dozen other derogatory names which you hear of from time to time. If it eventually wipes out the other football codes here in Australia or becomes totally dominant, than it can call itself what it likes. That will not happen unless our federal government throws open our borders even more to the great unwashed, in which case it won't matter as we will not have a country anymore.
Kasey
Guest
"Australians disagree with you." I'm Australian(Adl, SA), please tell me what to think and say...ahh Victorian arrogance knows no boundaries:) I call the world game Football, but if clarification is needed, I might choose to use the term soccer. One day Victoria will realise they have no right to try to control the thinking and language of other Australians. Today is not that day, but I can only tell you what I think and do. Again for the slow amongst you: I call the world game Football, but if clarification is needed, I might choose to use the term soccer.
Rob
Guest
Why has patriotism or nationalism been re-branded as xenophobia? That's another issue entirely I suppose.
Commo
Guest
Lets just go back to the good old days when everyone called it Wog Ball. There was no confusion back then.
Derby County FC
Guest
Who cares!! If north America, Australia, NZ, SA and a few other select countries want to call it soccer I couldn't care less. That's a tiny percentage of the world population. What matters is what something is, not what it is called. JULIET: 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for that name which is no part of thee Take all myself.
Kevin
Guest
I would have thought that soccer in Australia would have more pressing issues other than a meaningless debate over who owns the right to call their sport 'football' especially when you consider that it has only taken them over a century to come up with some semblance of a professional league in this country.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"but it is also true that ‘soccer’ is the only game where 100% of its scoring is done with the foot." Not true in the slightest. You can head goals in soccer. Not only that, but in Australian Football, the only way to get a goal is to kick it. On that basis, Australian Football has more of a claim to the name Football than soccer.
SD
Guest
Just a bit curious ‘Mitzter’.....if the term football is generic and referred to all games played ON foot as opposed to WITH foot, wondering if cricket was also referred to as football during the same period for the same reason? Secondly, by today’s token we all know that the format for each of these games differs...but it is also true that ‘soccer’ is the only game where 100% of its scoring is done with the foot. And if only for that reason soccer should be called football...simply because no one honestly cares about the historical format but rather about the rules by which the game is played today! (Just saying!) Soccer = Football!
Wingersliketowatch
Guest
But the argument is always waiting. As inevitable as Eureka.