Why does the UK get four national teams. If they get four shouldn't America get fifty. Do any other countries get multiple national teams. Is there a possibility for there to be new national teams that aren't actually nations such as if Catalonia and Sicily got independent teams. Would the World Cup be better or worse if regions seceded from their national team? I think it would make it more interesting. So either make more teams or make the UK have one team.
But why has that continued to this day. I think a unified United Kingdom could've won more WC's than their combined total of one. England is the only one with a chance. Why do the others even try to remain independent.
I think it's pretty obvious that you can't compare the British situation with the American. Great Britain is consisted out of nations, English, Scottish... which have a rather big autonomy. To make it simple, there's a difference between a Scotsman and an Englishman. Of course there is no such distinction between a guy from California and a guy from Utah. Scots, Welsh, they all have national pride, symbols, so I don't see why wouldn't they have a NT of their own. It wouldn't be strange for UK to have a team of course, but after all, it all depends on their internal agreement. Your Sicily example is not a good one because the Sicilans are just as Italian as the Italians on the land. Basks on the under hand are a nation for themselves within Spain, and they could theoretically qualify as a nation to have their own national team (but Madrid will never let them, at least not without some serious bloodshed).
Btw., the title of the topic itself is kind of... wrong. UK for example is not a nation, but a country. A huge difference. And a nation should be the basis for the national teams.
The US has FIVE teams, playing in 3 confederations: US, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. Citizens of those territories/commonwealths are US Citizens, and US Law applies. Other territories, not totally independent from the "mother country" also have separate FA's. OK, it's a bit different for the 4 British associations. The reason the 4 FA's continue to exist independently is that was a stipulation to get them to join FIFA. Kind of like the legislation that enabled the Republic of Texas, at that time an independent country, to join the US. One of the provisions was that Texas could split itself into as many as 5 states in the future. (I don't know if that provision is still valid, though.)
France has Martinique, Guadalupe, and Tahaiti. I think Vanuatu is a DOM-Tom of France, but I can not be positive about that. I guess the Faore Islands are also part of Denmark, so they have two teams also.
Dude. Seriously, dude! I'll grant you that Utahns and Californians aren't as likely to go to war as Serbians and Croatians. And I'll grant you that the homogenization of the US through mongo corporations makes it a little harder to distinguish. But seriously, from Zagreb they may look the same, but I guarantee you there's a difference.
lol, yeah, he really couldnt have picked two worse states for comparison. Ohio and Michigan might be better Although I must say California could probably put together a damn good national team.
Didn't they play Bhutan for the anti-world cup championship, or something? But seriously, Spectreman, I think you should post this question on the National Team board in the England forum. You'd get a much more interesting discussion there.
The UK is four countries under one government, which is very different to them just being states or regions of the UK. Scotland, for example, has been a country for over a thousand years, most of that as an autonomous nation. It is not simply a collective name for that part of the British Isles. Historically, if there had been a combined UK team it would have been better than the individual teams, but these days, other than Ryan Giggs, who from the other countries would get into the England team?
The joke used to be that if "Great Britain" competed as one, no one would be able to beat them. But that was a loooooong time ago, that joke.
although a UK national team is not out of the question now. with London getting the olympics, there is quite a bit of talk about putting together a combined team for that competition (assuming they dont drop soccer as a sport by then)
You're missing the point. It's kind of delicate to talk about nationality when it comes to the US, but basically, what I was talking about is a distinction more basic than religion or sth like that. Of course there is a difference between them, I mean we have regional differences within our couple of tenths thousands of miles, but those are not relevant when it comes to nationality and national teams.
A "state" is pretty much the same as a nation. After all up until the American Civil War all the states were pretty much independent. Perhaps these days each individual state isn't too much different from it's neighbor. But regionally we are just as diverse as the UK. I think a Texan is far more different from a New Yorker than an englishman to a scotsman. Or how about the whole South. For a few years they were completely independent from the rest of the Union, so why shouldn't they have their own national team. As far as my Sicily example I stand by it. Sicily has been part of numerous countries over the centuries. Besides it's been hundreds of years since Scotland and Wales have been indepent. So the argument that the UK is special because of it's combined nation status is ridiculus. Spain is a combined nation of Galicia, Castillia and Catalonia, Belgium combined of Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels.What makes England Scotland and Wales different. As a side note I think it would be cool to see a unified Irish team. Another non-country national team I just thought of is Palestine.
Another point in the argument that the U.K. situation is similar to the U.S. one is that the U.S. states actually have a significant amount of "self-rule". This is not something that will be very obvious for a foreigner, but people who have lived here for a significant amount of time (such as myself) it is quite clear. The states are not just geographical and cultural regions. Personally I think it is just bizarre that Wales and Scotland are still allowed to have their own national teams at the EC and WC. Oh well, it's not like the Wales and Scotland national teams have accomplished much lately anyway... If there was a UK national team, would any Welsh or Scottish player by able to compete for a place in the squad?
How may do we have? Four? The USA, Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands? Does American Samoa count?
As far as FIFA is concerned, The St. George's Cross, St. Andrews Cross and the Red Dragon fly individually during their respective country's soccer matches, but Olympic athletes from the British Isles participate under the The Union Jack, the flag of The United Kingdom.
Yes. The bottom line is take it up with FIFA. They (as well as the IOC) recognize PR, The USVI, Guam and American Samoa as individual nation/states, hence are granted their own entries into competitions. The rules are very tricky as someone from the USVI could participate on a US team (Tim Duncan), but someone born in the States can not participate on a USVI team. A few years back, coach of the USVI team was advertising for players from the States to come play for the USVI, but FIFA has since closed that loophole. US Virgin Islanders are American, but are only represented by a non-voting delegate to Congress and do not vote for the President. The same is the case for Puerto Rico and, I would assume, Guam and American Samoa. As for New Yorkers and Texans being more different than the English and Scotts...the English and Scotts certainly have more choice names for each other than New Yorkers and Texans.
State- a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign Nation- a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government Okay, what was wrong with my statement.
There are some mistakes here. Only two French territories (except France) can compete for the World Cup : Tahiti and New Caledonia in Oceania zone. Martinique and Guadeloupe have national teams but are only recognized by Concacaf and not by Fifa : they can compete for the Gold Cup (Martinique played it a couple of times I think) butnot for the World Cup. Vanuatu is a real country, recognized by the United Nations, it's not a French territory.
Excuse me but England is no different to Scotland and Wales. The fact is England ,Wales and Scotland are all countries within a union that acts on their behalf.