Cardiff has a FIFA exemption, the same as the New Zealand Knights, that allows them to play in a foreign league. The New Zealand Knights were issued one to play in the Australian league because New Zealand does not have a professional football league.
Ahh actually there is a decent amount of truth to what he said if you look at what the pre Civil War states viewed themselves. The civil war did massively rewrite the conception of the Union in ways that are rarely recognized. For example think the Northern militia's refusal to serve outside of their state. South did same, but Southern governors were able to get away with it and northerners usually didn't cause their sector of the country was more tightly knit, had the more established central government. Victors write textbooks and the very conception of national identity gets reworked in the aftermath of the War between the States. I would quible with his use of the word indepednent depending on what definition he intended by it, but the general claim is fairly valid.
The NASL (North American Soccer League) included both Canadian and American based clubs. We may well see a Canadian club or Canadian clubs in MLS.
i'd rather be known as english than british a scotchman would want to be called scottish and the same is for wales and n.ireland, that is why so fvck off
a british line up at the olympics (u23, with 3 over 23s) as it would look now ------------Green------- Johnson--Dawson--Terry--Cole SWP-----Jenas---Lampard--Downing -----------J.Cole-------- -------Defoe----Rooney
A few more side notes: French Guyana is another Department of France that has an FA which is recognized by CONCACAF. They cannot participate in World Cup competition, but could participate in CONCACAF competitions, such as the Gold Cup. Unlike Martinique and Guadeloupe, I don't believe they have participated in recent years. The Malvinas (Falklands) do not have a separate FA, although they are part of the United Kingdom. I suspect that they could never be admitted to CONMEBOL even if there was an FA (due to Argentine opposition). Greenland has an FA, but is not a member of any Confederation. Kosovo is not a member of any Confederation, although it is nearly as autonomous as the Palestinian Authority. Is someone certain that Macau and Hong Kong are allowed to participate in World Cup competitions now that they have been transferred back to China? I am not even sure that they continue to have AFC membership.
Yes. Macau lost to Taiwan 6-1 on aggregate in the preliminary round of AFC WC06 qualifying. Hong Kong finished 3rd in group 4 behind Kuwait and China.
If you go to the AFC site you can choose to visit home pages for Macao, Hong Kong, and Chinese Taipei. I'm certain that these teams competed in the the last Asian Cup -- though I don't think any of them made the finals. Hong Kong played in the first round of the World Cup qualifiers. Edit: beat to the punch; question answered above
Few facts: In ye olden days, teams from Wales used to ply their trade in the English league structure... mainly because of lack of league structure. Merthyr Tydfil, Newport, Wrexham, Swansea, Cardiff and bunch of others have played sometime or another in the professional tier of English football. The smaller Welsh teams, from the valleys and the like, played in regional Welsh divisions... However, Wales has a different football association and also different rules, regulations and even tournements. At the turn of the 70's and 80's, teams from the bigger cities in Wales had obviously produced bigger teams, that far surpassed their little neighbours. They all competed under the English professional league structure under the guide of the FAW. Wales used to have its own cup and with it the chance to qualify for the old Cup Winner's Cup. Either Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham (the biggest Welsh professional teams) would always win and would always get into Europe despite being in the what was then the 3rd and 2nd divisions in England. In 1992/93, with the creation of the new CL - UEFA put measures in place to ensure that all its members had fully fledged league structures. Wales was the main culprit, with no league for the member that was Wales. So, all the little provincial teams I mentioned at the start became part of a new league called the League of Wales, that was mainly composed of part-time clubs from small Welsh towns, such as Barry, Rhyl and Aberystwyth. (Although if iirc, the Northern teams were very reluctant to join at first) The Welsh cup banned those who were in the English league structure, thus barring most of the professional 3rd divisions teams passage into Europe every year... They still compete in their own little cup however, called the FAW Premier Cup which incoroprates all the members from England and the League of Wales... Swansea won it his year. Wrexham last year. Cardiff, Swansea and the others still remain in the English league structure via special dispensation but are free to leave whenever they wish. Now, theoretically they could pull out of the English system and join the League of Wales. Sure they would thrash everyone in it, but the money would be crap. Today if a matter involved Swansea, chances are the burden would be took upon the FAW and not the FA... Its a similar thing with Monaco playing in France. But then again Monaco are not a UEFA member... But if they were, they would have to have form some type of national competition. Liechtenstein play in Switzerland but cannot enter the CL or impeded another Swiss team's entry into Europe. They play in a special Liechtenstein cup and win every year - getting into the UEFA Cup. EDIT: This however does not apply to Welsh teams in England as they forgo their entry in the Welsh Cup, to allow themselves the chance to qualify for Europe in our system. The wierd thing is. Would you see this in a draw? - Cardiff [ENG] v CSKA Sofia [BUL]
Ah, the perils of writing in English: a language that makes up in obscurity what it lacks in grace. The commonly accepted academic definitions (not dictionary definitions, which are notoriously suspect for a number of reasons) of the subject words are: Country: a piece of land geographically identifiable by certain characteristics either physical or human (so this fluctuates depending on the characteristic you refer to) Nation: a group of people with a common bond (Sioux Nation, Nation of Islam, Aryan Nation) State: a sovereign political entity with a definite population and politically drawn boundaries The entities comprising the United Kingdom are in fact Nations, because they give up part of their sovereignty to the greater State of the United Kingdom, but are distinct in terms of other bonds (language, ethnicity, degree of bloody-mindedness, what-have-you). The "States" that comprise the United States are simply political subdivisions of a Federal State. A federal state is one that chooses to divide powers among levels of government, as opposed to a unified state, where political power is concentrated in one entity. In fact, depending on where you live, you may not live in a state at all--both Pennsylvania and Virginia (and possibly others) are "Commonwealths". Practically-speaking in today's world it makes spits'-worth of difference, but historically and legally, the difference is huge. A Nation-State is where all of these ideas tend to meet. A Nation-State is a political entity whose people are bound by a common cultural (rather than political) bond. The United States is a Nation-State, because we are a political entity whose people are culturally bound together by the notions of democratically-elected republican government, free-market capitalism and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Oh, wait ... There are distinct nations within the United States (just turn on CMT or BET, you'll see what I mean), but there are more unifying factors than dividing factors. Completely unlike the nations of the former States of either the USSR or Yugoslavia, for instance, many of whom are now Nation-States in their own right. NONE of this has anything at all to do with FIFA, which is a supra-national organization that makes up its own rules as and when it sees fit. Which is to say, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have separate National teams because they damn well feel like it, and FIFA doesn't care one way or the other.
...except the countries of the UK fit in far more with the definition of country than that rather woolly definition of nation. They all have clearly defined borders, for example, which none of those "nations" listed have, or have ever had. Nation, in your example, would be more representative of "Celts", who do not claim to have a country. I would suggest that he centre of acedemia responsible for those acedemic definitions was based in America, and gave an understandably USA centric view on things.
que? United Kingdom - A union of kingdoms. Kingdom = the domain ruled by a king or queen Scotland used to be ruled by a seperate head of state. Wales did too. Northern Ireland was once part of Ireland, which had its own head of state. All the above were invaded by us peace-loving English. In 1282, Wales was invaded and then annexed about 300 years later. It remained as a principality, although the actual Prince does not rule the country. It was a means of tieing the country to England and keeping it under control. Scotland became an union under James I (then James VI of Scotland), who later became King of England. He therefore merged the two kingdoms together... Northern Ireland is a sticky situation and is what remains of the land left over after the British invasion of Ireland. The term United Kingdom litteraly means the union of these former Kingdoms. hence the name. True it has no relevance today. But historically those so called nations were seperate countries in their own right, with their own langauges (which still exist today) and their own judicial, political and educational systems (which again, also exists today.) Wales was not a nation. It was not a state. It was a country and to most Welshmen - it still is. I think your definition of a country is well off... Wikipedia says: Why, do we have seperate teams? The same reason, we get angry when you call us Brits. I can't explain it. But its like people from Texas saying that they are Texan first and American second. Our mentality is alot different and we see Wales and Scotland as different places under one roof. Not one place under several roofs. These are still countries to this day... Nothing has changed. The UK is merely a union of those countries.
come on now if there were a team from GB who except maik yaylor, ryan giggs and craig bellamy would get on it if they wernt english?
England didn't invade Scotland (well, not to create the union at least). It was all a by-product of Scotland's bankruptcy following its failed attempt at empire building. If it had all just been an act of invasion then there wouldn't be anything called the UK, just England. Curiously, the victorian era, when these teams were originally formed, was perhaps the era when the notion of "feeling British" was probably at its strongest. The victorians in england were busy inventing Scottish tartan, linking the new designs arbitrarily to Scottish clan names. The Scots (and Welsh and Irish) played a full part in the building of the British Empire. Yet even then they felt the significance of Scotland v England in a way that no "inter-region" match would. The fact is the UK is an anomoly. Rather like the leaves of a clover, it is one leaf and four leaves at the same time. It doesn't really make sense, and if you try to pigeonhole it into any "on size fits all" classification, it just doesn't work. The UK government calls England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland countries because they are countries. They just are. The fact that someone has made their own definition of countries and nations, seemingly in the academic environment of a politically correct episode of Sesame Street, doesn't change anything. If somebody wishes to bang their head against a brick wall saying "I don't care what the government and people who live their think, I know better" then they are welcome to do so.
Any one know enough about the history of the Dual Monarchy (Austria-Hungary) to make a comparison with the United Kingdom? I think I read that Hungary was something of minor partner in the arrangement but that administrative duties were split within the Empire. I think that the Austrians ran Bohemia (Czech Republic) and that the Hungarians ran Croatia, and were quite resented by their Slavic subjects.
Do you live in the states? I know iam Texas proud and would love to see a Texas team, actually a Texas nation.
I'll make it easy for you...... Ask a Texan what nationality he is, he'll say American. Ask a New Yorker what nationality he is, he'll say American. Ask a Scotsman what nationality he is, he'll say Scottish.
Why doesn't Scandanavia compete as one country, everybody outside Scandanavia thinks you're all the same anyway.