Soccer

[Nobody]

This was probably asked before, but I bet it was a long time ago, I did a quick check and didn’t see this question, so here goes.

I’m assuming that Soccer, known as football to the rest of the world, came before American football, so…
Why did we (here in America) create a different sport, give it the same name as an existing one, thus, causing the need to create a new name for it here in the states?

[Captain_Lance_Murdoch]

It’s not as simple as you make it sound. Football is something of an outgrowth of what we now call rugby, but what used to be called football. Obviously it’s evolved into something else, but the name stuck.

Additionally it’s not like Americans were keenly aware of this other sport gaining steam abroad in the 19th century. Hell, my dad never heard of soccer until he was an adult.

America wasn’t the only place to have created “football” either. Australia also has it’s own version of football. They call the American game “gridiron” and don’t seem to have any hang-ups about not being the first people to call a game “football.”

Soccer is not known as football in the entire “rest of the world” either. Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders also call it soccer.

[Nobody]

@Captain Lance Murdoch

It’s not as simple as you make it sound. Football is something of an outgrowth of what we now call rugby, but what used to be called football. Obviously it’s evolved into something else, but the name stuck.

That is complicated. So, let me get this straight. There was football, which evolved into rugby, or, at the very least, the name changed. Then, there was an outgrowth of rugby which was also called football. Right?

Additionally it’s not like Americans were keenly aware of this other sport gaining steam abroad in the 19th century. Hell, my dad never heard of soccer until he was an adult.

So when football was created in America, the people who named it were probably unaware that another sport with the same name already existed?

America wasn’t the only place to have created “football” either. Australia also has it’s own version of football. They call the American game “gridiron” and don’t seem to have any hang-ups about not being the first people to call a game “football.”

Interesting.

Soccer is not known as football in the entire “rest of the world” either. Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders also call it soccer.

I didn’t know that. Guess you learn something new every day.

Thanks for all of the info.

[bordelond]

@Captain Lance Murdoch

Soccer is not known as football in the entire “rest of the world” either. Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders also call it soccer.

And Italians call it “calcio”, correct?

As a slight highjack – how many other languages call this sport a name which is neither a pronunciation of the English “football” nor a translation of “foot”+“ball”?

[Nobody]

@bordelond

And Italians call it “calcio”, correct?

As a slight highjack – how many other languages call this sport a name which is neither a pronunciation of the English “football” nor a translation of “foot”+“ball”?

Are you talking about the American style football, or the soccer style football?

[BobT]

Italians use both “calcio” and “futbol”. The former is more popular in Italy, but people wouldn’t be confused.

[eponymous]

Master Control,

Check out the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer#History_and_development

Gives a brief rundown on the history and development of soccer/football.

As an aside - it is interesting to note that rugby (and later American football) became popular/associated with universities. However, soccer/football became popular with the working class/poor of England. Thus, there is somewhat of a class distinction associated with how “football” (soccer, rugby, American football) evolved and became popular where they did.

[Rayne_Man]

@eponymous

Master Control,

Check out the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer#History_and_development

Gives a brief rundown on the history and development of soccer/football.

As an aside - it is interesting to note that rugby (and later American football) became popular/associated with universities. However, soccer/football became popular with the working class/poor of England. Thus, there is somewhat of a class distinction associated with how “football” (soccer, rugby, American football) evolved and became popular where they did.

Hence the saying " football ( soccer) is a game for gentlemen played by louts and rugby is a game for louts played by gentlemen "

[brad_d]

My source for all of this is The Simplest Game, by Paul Gardner. It’s a book about (what’s known in the US as) soccer, but there’s some interesting info in there about the origin of the sport and the “football” name. Page numbers for my citations are from the 3rd edition.

Specifically, this tidbit from the first paragraph of Chapter 1 (p.1):

The word football came into use in England in the mid-fourteenth century to describe a game played not with the feet but on foot, in order to distinguish it from the pastimes that were played on horseback.

The 1300’s version of “football” bore scant resemblance to either modern game. The ball was carried, kicked, thrown, or whatever in what sounds like the ultimate in “barbarian ball”. Gardner writes (p.1), “The most notable feature of the contests was an absence of rules.”

Apparently, the game developed over the next 500 or so years as a very popular but hideously dangerous and often outlawed activity. Football was played by students at various schools in England, normally against the wishes of the administration, and while every school had its own particular version, two distinct “codes” of play evolved. One allowed players to run while holding the ball, while the other permitted use of the hands to stop a ball, but required that it be advanced only with the feet. Both were known as “football.”

A guy by the name of Thomas Arnold was the headmaster at the Rugby School from 1828-1842. Rather than following the examples of his predecessors by trying to squash this game, he laid down some rules at Rugby and encouraged play of “football.” The version of football being played at Rugby was the “handling” one, and a number of other local schools adopted this style as they gained control over the sport on their own campuses.

Still, every school pretty much had its own set of rules. In 1848 Cambridge University tried to publish a unified set of rules. According to Gardner, these rules have not survived. There is, though, a somewhat abbreviated version published in 1862 by J.C. Thring. Of his ten(!) rules, one was that hands could only be used to stop the ball. Clearly Cambridge favored the “dribbling” version of football.

You’d think that this “handling” vs. “dribbling” distinction would be what ultimately sent the two divisions of football off down their own evolutionary paths, but Gardner claims that this is not the case. Instead, it was another of Thring’s rules - one stating that players’ kicks could only be directed at the ball, and not at other players.

Kicking opponents’ legs, or “hacking”, was at that time considered an integral part of the “handling” version of football. Proponents of this game did not take kindly to its being outlawed. In 1863 Cambridge put together another set of “universal” rules for football, which again proscribed both hacking and carrying the ball. The grumbling grew louder in some circles.

Later that year a climax was reached: leading football clubs (non-school groups, which had been growing in popularity) from the London area got together to organize the Football Association, the goal being country-wide regulation. In trying to lay down the official rules, though, they were forced to acknowledge that there were, in fact, two games laboring under the common name “football.” Gardner writes (p. 7):

The final break came over the question of hacking. The majority of the club delegates considered it a barbarous practice and wanted no part of it. Yet a minority considered it vital to the sport - “Hacking is the true football game,” said their leader - and, when they were outvoted, withdrew from the association.

If there is a date marking the birthday of soccer, then it is December 8, 1863. The day that the F.A. published its first set of rules - the day that the F.A. banned running with the ball and hacking.

The “dribbling game” became known as “association football”, being played according to the F.A. rules. The “handling game” became known as “rugby football” (evidently after Rugby, where its first rules were codified some time before), and organized itself under the Rugby Union in 1871.

Popular student slang of the day often dropped the end of a word and replaced it with “er” or “ers”; the name “soccer” apparently came about in this manner based on the abbreviation of association - “assoc.”

Gardner doesn’t go into much detail on the evolution of rugby football into what we now call American football. (It is, after all, a soccer book.) I believe it was somewhat straightforward, though(?) Possibly not…

Anyway, the conclusion I draw is that “football” isn’t just a term that some dudes here in the states decided (for no reason) to slap onto a game that evolved from rugby. Rather, it’s a reasonable thing to call a spinoff from rugby football, which is the full name of its parent sport.

[ruadh]

@Captain Lance Murdoch

America wasn’t the only place to have created “football” either. Australia also has it’s own version of football. They call the American game “gridiron” and don’t seem to have any hang-ups about not being the first people to call a game “football.”

And Ireland also has Gaelic football (very similar to the Australian game). American football is called, well, “American football”, and soccer may be referred to either as football or soccer (usually the latter when necessary to distinguish from the Irish game).

[Nobody]

@eponymous

Master Control,

Check out the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer#History_and_development

Gives a brief rundown on the history and development of soccer/football.

As an aside - it is interesting to note that rugby (and later American football) became popular/associated with universities. However, soccer/football became popular with the working class/poor of England. Thus, there is somewhat of a class distinction associated with how “football” (soccer, rugby, American football) evolved and became popular where they did.

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

[Sublight]

@bordelond

And Italians call it “calcio”, correct?

As a slight highjack – how many other languages call this sport a name which is neither a pronunciation of the English “football” nor a translation of “foot”+“ball”?

Well, the Japanese generally call it sakkaa (soccer).

The US game is called amefuto, a contraction of American Football.

[ShibbOleth]

Not sure the source here, but it matches (and expands on) info found at Wikipedia…

…
At the same time, a group of students at Princeton began playing what was then known as ballown. First using their fists to advance the ball, and then their feet, this game consisted mainly of one goal: to advance the ball past the opposing team. There were no hard and fast rules applied to this earliest attempt at the game we now call football.

At Harvard, the freshman and sophomore classes competed in a football-type game, played on the first Monday of each school year; this event came to be known as Bloody Monday because of the roughness of the game. Pick up games, similar in style to that played on Bloody Monday, soon became popular on the Boston Common, catching on in popularity around eighteen sixty.

Soon after the end of the American Civil War, around eighteen sixty five, colleges began organizing football games. In eighteen sixty seven, Princeton led the way in establishing some rudimentary rules of the game. Also in that year, the football itself was patented for the very first time.

Rutgers College also established a set of rules in eighteen sixty seven, and with the relatively short distance between it and Princeton, a game was decided upon by both universities. A date was chosen, November sixth, eighteen sixty nine; Rutgers won by a score of six goals to four, and thus was played what has become known as the very first intercollegiate football game.

In eighteen seventy three, representatives from Columbia, Rutgers, Princeton, and Yale met in New York City to formulate the first intercollegiate football rules for the increasingly popular game, still being played with many of the rules of soccer. These four teams established the Intercollegiate Football Association, and set as fifteen the number of players allowed on each team.

Walter Camp, the coach at Yale and a dissenter from the IFA over his desire for an eleven man team, helped begin the final step in the evolution from rugby-style play to the modern game of American football. The IFAs rules committee, led by Camp, soon cut the number of players from fifteen to eleven, and also instituted the size of the playing field, at one hundred ten yards. In eighteen eighty-two Camp also introduced the system of downs. After first allowing three attempts to advance the ball five yards, in nineteen six it was changed to ten yards. The fourth down was added in nineteen twelve. Tackling below the waist had been legalized in eighteen eighty-eight.

[eponymous]

Hmmm…

Would be interesting to see whether there was any link between the Rugby version of football being played (pre-Rugby rules) and the one that eventually evolved in the US. That is, was there some kind of direct linkage between people who played the rugby version and the students who played the game at Harvard?

Might help explain the preference for a “handling vs. dribbling” version that evolved in US.