So an “Official Team” would be the teams that compete to be in, and if qualified, would participate in the World Cup?
Would Manchester United be considered to be an “Official Team” (regarding player qualification for playing on an “Official Team, not competing for World Cup”)?
Take my country, Scotland. We have a national team. It is run by the Scottish Football Association, which is the body recognised by FIFA . That is the official team. There are various age-restricted Scotland teams too (mostly for teenagers) also run by the SFA, and those are the officials teams at the appropriate level.
Costa had to get an official dispensation from FIFA because he’d already appeared in senior matches for Brazil. You can do that if you acquire citizenship or the equivalent from a second country after you’ve already played for the first. Most sporting governing bodies have the same rule; Canadians might remember Gred Rusedski “defecting” to Britain in the early 90s.
It’s not just hte senior team, it’s senior team in a FIFA competition. Friendlies don’t count. Jermaine Jones (on the US) has played for Germany in friendlies, but not an official match, so he was allowed to switch.
There is a distinction between playing club football (say, for Manchester United) and playing for national teams. The fact that a player has played for Man Utd has no bearing on which national team he is eligible to represent.
Don’t get hung-up on “official team” - it just means the team that represents an entire country in international play.
Manchester Utd is a club side, and has players from many countries.
And Brooks only became tied to the US yesterday, as it was his first national team match other than friendlies.
I must say, the camera operators are doing sterling work on the crowd shots.
Does this mean what I think it means?
AH! “Clubs” can have mercenaries. Got it. Question. Was Manchester ever Not United? (I’m serious).
A couple superb saves from Ochoa (Mexico’s goal keeper.)
Any player can play for any club provided that they can get a work permit or visa for the relevant country, if they need one.
I don’t know about Man U specifically, but most clubs called XXX United were formed from a merger between other clubs.
Most teams will have more non-local players than local.
United generally means that a long time ago two football teams joined to become one. There is also a Manchester City that is a completely different team.
Git 
Apparently Brazil has very few male supporters 
Sorta like no men ever watch the Monaco Grand Prix?
Oh, come on. I don’t get to Ninja very often 
A surprising number aren’t. Manchester United isn’t; they were Leyton Heath, and then they were saved from receivership and the new owners just decided to change the name.
There was a thread about this years ago and IIRC the only English “united” which actually came from a merger was Peterborough.
Nearly all club players are mercenaries, if you want to look at it that way; they’re all professionals. There are amateur players too, but nobody good enough to play for Man U would play for free because they don’t have to.
Sheffield United were the first team to use ‘United’ in their name. It comes from the fact that they were born out of ‘Sheffield United Cricket Club’, formed when lots of cricket clubs united.
So it is kind of the same.
Mexico looks good in the second half.