Sorry but you made two mistakes here: CONCACAF is an English acronym, not a Spanish acronym. It stands for:"C0nfederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football" The majority of CONCACAF members speak English, not Spanish. Out of the 40 members, 20 have English as official language, 11 have Spanish, 6 have French and 4 have Dutch. In regards to demographics, English is spoken by 332 million people, Spanish by 172 million people, French by 16 million people and Dutch by 0.7 million people. "Soccer" has never been anything else than a knickname in Britain. It hasn't been invented to replace the name "football". Let's imagine one day the US starts saying that we should say "Rugger" instead of "Rugby", I don't believe Brits will appreciate. No matter if they invented the knickname or not. Well. Let's imagine that basketball would start being called "bounder" in England. And that they will say it's a legitimate name for the sport because some US teacher called it "bounder" in its early developpment in 1891. Do you believe Americans would appreciate? They will tell them that the name is "basketball", not "bounder", in exactly the same way. If the name "soccer" annoys so much, particularly in Europe, it's mostly because Americans want to give it the same legitimacy as the name "football". For instance, there's been an edit war about this on wikipedia, and the conflict was solved in calling the article "Association football" with only a reference to "football" and "soccer" as common names, at the same level. I can understand that this pisses off Brits. In English, the international standard name of the game is, and has always been, football. That's the name used in all official international institutions of the sport. Now of course people can still call it differently locally, but that would remain a local name. Not an international one.
Okay Roy, there's no problem. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I wasn't addressing directly at you but I was discussing more about the problem in general and what's been said about it.
The word comes from medieval football games, played in an era when nobody's balls were round, or even particularly likely to match other balls. The norm was inflated pigs' bladders covered in leather - which is also where we get the term "pigskin" for the American football. In fact, "ball" as a word for something spherical comes from the sporting equipment, rather than the other way around. Outside of the British Isles, the game mostly died out, which is why the versions we're used to today developed there. Incidentally, something not so different from medieval football is still played in parts of Britain on Shrove Tuesday (the day before Lent begins - historically, the last day of a forty-day "carnival season" during which football was often played). Like the medieval game, the teams and pitch are enormous - basically, the goal is to have your half of the town get the ball into a goal a mile or three away. When this happens, the game ends. Historically there weren't any restrictions on much of anything, short of a gentlemen's agreement not to use weapons. Broken bones were frequent. A formalized version with 27 people to a side, played on sand, was popular among the aristocracy of Florence in the 16th century. It's known as "Calcio Fiorentino," and there's been a modern revival of it played every year since 1930. Much like the historical version, elbowing and headbutting opponents is perfectly acceptable, though kicks to the head are no longer permitted. The modern pitch, smaller teams, and kicking are all 19th-century innovations. Of the versions that developed in that period, rugby probably stays closer to the roots of the game than the American, Association, or Gaelic versions of the game. Soccer, however, is the flavor I find the most appealing - and I'm not alone; it's the world's most popular sport for a reason.
It derives from something closer to rugby than to soccer, but it doesn't derive from rugby as we know it today.
I've never been convinced by that explanation. Although polo type games had been around in Asia for hundreds of years, they weren't in western europe art all. It would seem very unlikely that the commoners who played the game would have felt it necessary to differentiate from a game they never seen nor even heard of. The "on foot" part may well be correct, but the "as opposed to horseback" angle sounds huge overplayed.
[It's been put forward several times both by historians of the game itself and by academics. So don't argue w/me, mate: tell the supposedly accredited people who repeat this all the time. It seems as if you're already aware of it, so that must mean that I'm not the only bloke saying it, IMO.]
With respect to the statements that Aussie Rules is not descended from Rugby... Aussie Rules began ca.1858 with the earliest recorded matches organized by Tom Wills, who studied at Rugby School. That seems like a pretty clear genealogy. I understand that there's some debate about it, but that's more or less the official AFL stance.
That reminds me of this friendly wager: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=226500065743
There's at least a little bit of a difference between early rugby as played at Rugby in the early days, and rugby as it exists today (to say nothing of the difference between League and Union). I think it's fair to say that Aussie Rules and gridiron both come from a form of rugby, but it's also fair to say that neither is derived from either of the sorts of rugby played under that name today.