I saw somewhere that Manchester United were the Red Devils. Is that not used the same way Blackhawks is used here in the U.S. Also. if you look at the sidebar, you’ll see that here Brazil’s national team has the nickname Canarinho (little canary). How/when might that and Red Devil be used?
Oh, and thanks for the helpful info and links.
Not really. Man United do technically have the nickname Red Devils but no one would ever call them that in practice. The only time you ever see it is on merchandise. If you said “I support the Red Devils” or “Wayne Rooney is a Red Devil” people probably wouldn’t even understand you. English football just doesn’t use nicknames like that in the way American teams do. I don’t know about Brazil or other cultures; they might do.
Yeah, Manchester United is a poor example for nicknames, because the club and its supporters don’t really use them, other than shortening the name of the club to “Man United.” Some teams do use them, though. Arsenal, for example, uses “the Gunners” and it’s not unusual to refer to an Arsenal player as a Gunner (fans, however, are “gooners”). Similarly, Liverpool supporters refer to themselves and the players as “Reds.”
For that matter, colors get used as nicknames a lot in England. Lots of Reds, Blues, and Whites, in particular.
These are quite common, and there are other ones as well - Newcastle call themselves “Magpies”, Sunderland call themselves “Mackems”, Tottenham call the club “Spurs”. And as you point out a lot of fans call themselves things like the Reds, even when they’re playing against teams who also play in red and also call themselves the Reds.
But this is all getting pretty informal and specialized; these are all more like pet names that serious fans occasionally call themselves. It’s nothing like how a Denver Bronco is a Bronco, and from the perspective of an American trying to get a hold of what to call English football teams I don’t think these nicknames are really worth mentioning. You can’t go wrong calling the teams by their actual names; that’s the standard way of doing it over here, even amongst hardcore fans.
Moved to the Game Room from GQ.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
The nicknames of American sports teams were less formal in the old days (particularly in the early days of baseball and football). By the 1920s or 1930s, nicknames became a formal part of the team name (and, today, are trademarks).
On that topic, there’s a tendency in the anglophone press to refer to foreign football teams not only by their club names but also by the city that they’re in; possibly because this is the standard pattern for sports teams in North America (but I’ve seen it in British coverage too, and sure enough there’s a bunch of teams that do have their city in their name in Europe too). At any rate, a lot of teams don’t have their city in their name, and it always looks really weird to see ‘Feyenoord Rotterdam’ or hear someone say AZ Alkmaar when these teams are just AZ and Feyenoord.
Sure; the problem with the nicknames in English football is that even today they’re still so informal that if you tried to identify a team by the nickname alone most people won’t have a clue what you’re talking about. If you say “I support the Toffees” you’d get blank stares unless you’re talking to Everton fans, and even they would probably find it weird that you didn’t just say “I support Everton”. Nevertheless if the OP is really keen on this ‘nicknames’ business there’s a list here, and the Premier League nicknames are:
I’ve been following football for decades and I still had to look a couple of those up to remember them…
In Spain the biggest clubs have a second team that’s in a lower division, but they’re usually so far apart that they won’t meet.
Players have a contract with the club, not with one team, so in theory a player that was hired for the first team may be sent to the second team, but that’s highly unlikely (the player’s contract may have a proviso that if they are to be sent to the second team they must be traded/loaned to another club instead; if the player being ‘demoted’ is first-team quality, other clubs will raise a ruckus that will be heard outside our borders…). The other way ‘round does happen, though: it’s a way to rest first-team players, it gives the second-team players a chance to prove they can play with the big boys… and of course, when a team filled with second-teamers does better than the first team was doing lately, hurt pride provides a great way to whip the firsters’ into action.
Right, I’ll take Scotland then. It being my specialist subject and all.
Senior football (I’ll tackle this definition later) in Scotland consists of the Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League. The SPL is the top level, and is formed of twelve clubs. The SFL is formed of three divisions, the First, Second and Third Divisions, each containing ten clubs. There is annual promotion and relegation between these four levels - the team that finishes top of the SFL First Division gets to play in the SPL the following season. Between the First, Second and Third Divisions, but not between the SPL and the First Division, automatic promotion of the top-placed team and relegation of the bottom-placed team is augmented by a playoff system.
These 42 senior teams are all “professional”, in that their players get reimbursed for playing, even if it is just a match fee. However, only the SPL clubs, and most of the SFL First Division clubs, are “full-time”, by which I mean the first-team players earn their living from playing football and nothing else. Clubs in the Second and Third Divisions will commonly have a full-time manager and a few core staff, but their players will be part-time, and will most likely have a full-time job in a different industry.
There are other “professional” football teams in Scotland - indeed, some of the Junior (the Senior / Junior thing does not refer to the age of the players or clubs. Confusing, eh?) and Highland League teams can pay fees and attract crowds greater than SFL Third Division teams. However, the 42 is a closed shop - you have to be voted in, and this only happens when one of the 42 goes out of business, or the league system is expanded.
Nicknames - these are quite fluid. Some teams possess nicknames that are used in normal conversation. For example, Aberdeen FC (my team) are nicknamed “the Dons”, and everyone in Scotland knows this - “the Dons” is used in media coverage and normal conversation. For other teams, like Hibs, Hearts and Kilmarnock, the shortened version of their full name functions as a “nickname” (although they also tend to have other nicknames, such as “Jambos” for Hearts) and these tend to be widely used. Here are the twelve SPL clubs this season with what I think their nicknames are:
Aberdeen - the Dons
Celtic - the Bhoys / the Hoops
Dundee United - the Tangerines / the Arabs
Dunfermline Athletic - the Pars
Hibernian - Hibs
Heart of Midlothian - Hearts
Inverness Caledonian Thistle - (had to look this one up - wiki says Caley Thistle / ICT / Caley Jags)
Kilmarnock - Killie
Motherwell - the Well / the Steelmen
Rangers - the Gers
St. Johnstone - the Saints
St. Mirren - the Buddies
These names are perhaps more engrained in Scottish culture than the English nicknames listed by isiahrobinson. You could expect to see any of them appear in match reports or pub conversations. The most obscure one is probably “the Bhoys” for Celtic - “the Hoops” is much more common now.
Of course, I’ve only listed the twelve teams from the top level in Scottish football. As you go down the divisions, the nicknames keep coming, and some of them are fantastic. The “Gable Endies” (Montrose) and “The Blue Brazil” (Cowdenbeath) are two particular highlights. Nicknames of Scottish football teams is a pretty complex subject, but you get the idea, I hope.
Man, this post has turned into an absolute beast. And there’s still so much I haven’t covered. In the unlikely event that you want to know more about this “fascinating” subject, I’ll try to help.
< hijack >
Jess (or others), what do you make of the whole Rangers mess? I read a weekly column about Scottish football, but it hasn’t really explained exactly what happened, other than “financial difficulties…turning into disaster.” Is Rangers too big to fail? I understood the basics of Leeds’ failings a few years ago (essentially spending on credit, with expectations of Champions League football, and when the CL run failed to continue, things went bust). Rangers surely didn’t spend thinking they’d go deep in the CL each year…did they? Does it all start with the tv rights collapse from ~10 years ago? Why hasn’t Celtic seen similar problems? Is it just a more stable owner with real cash to spend, or a better academy to keep from buying new players? Any info is appreciated.
< /hijack >
Wooft. Now yer askin’! As I understand it, the current situation (they’re in administration, and liquidation looks extremely likely), results from years of financial mismanagement, some of it illegal. A fair chunk of the money owed was due to Employee Benefits Trusts - over a decade ago, when they were buying world-class players, they paid them huge wages, and didn’t pay any income tax or national insurance. There were some shady offshore accounts involved as well. For the best detail, this guy has been detailing the case for ages and seems to be the best-respected independent voice:
My gut reaction was “fuck them, I hope they go bust”. That hasn’t really changed. They basically cheated their way to success for years, often at the expense of my team. They’re getting huge support now from the media and MSPs - Rangers are an “institution”, a “special case” and so on. In recent years, Rangers and Celtic have repeatedly flirted with the English Premier League, threatening to leave Scottish football. Now, apparently, their continued existence is vital to the future of Scottish football. Pish.
There’s a very real possibility that Rangers FC will be liquidated, owing tens of millions to HMRC and other creditors. It’s also possible (likely?) that a phoenix club will emerge, get voted straight back into the SPL, have a few years struggling, but then eventually re-establish the duel hegemony with Celtic.
The feeling among Dons fans on the message board I hang out on, and I think among other non-OF fans, is that that will be it for them. What’s the point of teams like AFC struggling to clear their debts, paying crap wages for crap players, when they could have just spent crazy, gone bust and started again? There’s huge potential to change Scottish football for good, but I fear that it will be damaged irrevocably.
Thanks for the insight, Jess. I’ll check that site out tonight, too.
Hope it’s OK to bump this old thread, but news today is that Rangers FC is indeed to be liquidated. The club will reform as a “newco”, but really that ought to mean them applying for admission to the Scottish League at the bottom tier, as a new entity. But as JessMagic says, there is a feeling that when the other SPL clubs have a vote they might decide to admit New Rangers straight into the Premier League, fearing lost revenue otherwise. Perhaps with a points penalty, as some kind of punishment. Either way, Rangers will be barred from European competition for a few seasons.
So, great job, Rangers board.