Surrey International Open

Please post any news or comments about alternative representative football here.

Surrey International Open

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

December 11th, 2017, 6:41 am #1

So apparently Yorkshire not the only county trying to target some that pre-WFC fixture action.

International Surrey Football (ISF) planning the Surrey International Open tournament for 26-27 May 2018. Not a fan of their plans to apparently have half the lineup be clubs though...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

December 11th, 2017, 6:50 am #2

Surrey International Open sounds like a competition for retired golfers.

Also when is the abuse of the word "international" going to stop?  Uses like this are simply not in keeping with the definition of the word.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 11th, 2017, 7:38 am #3

It seems at least one CONIFA member will play in the tournament.

People from Surrey are English, just like those from Hampshire.  This seems to now be descending into "administrative division football"...  There's already some scope for this in the FA inter-league Cup.  Pretty sure the teams there do not think of themselves as playing international matches...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 7th, 2007, 8:58 am

December 11th, 2017, 8:06 am #4

Actually wouldn't be such a bad idea to admit a few dozen of those, on the condition that they will help finance actual unrepresented countries and territories travelling and playing.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 11th, 2017, 8:34 am #5

Yes, possibly that is one way of looking at it.  But the problem is, all of these counties already have their own FAs (affiliated to the FA in England).  I am not sure these "extra" FAs will have any more finances than those professional FAs that already exist.

They've now set up a County Football Federation for these county representative teams (but one already exists - it's called the FA!)
https://twitter.com/CountyFF

It's members are currently Essex and Surrey in England, and "Strathclyde" in Scotland (this is not a county, but a region that formerly existed for a short period in the West of Scotland encompassing several counties).

Meanwhile, Surrey v Barawa on 6th May in London (at the ground of Fisher).

Apparently also an Essex v Surrey "international" (i.e. pseudo inter-county) and Yorkshire will actually play Strathclyde in their first ever match.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 11th, 2017, 9:00 am #6

BIG BOO, DOWN WITH ALL OF THIS NONSENSE!  AAARRRRRRRGGH!!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

December 11th, 2017, 12:17 pm #7

TheRoonBa wrote:BIG BOO, DOWN WITH ALL OF THIS NONSENSE!  AAARRRRRRRGGH!!!
Found the Male Online...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

December 11th, 2017, 1:42 pm #8

Given that Surrey are aiming to play non-league players only (or mostly), and other similar teams have made similar statements, their matches can anyhow be disregarded as unrepresentative.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 5th, 2013, 8:13 am

December 12th, 2017, 5:21 am #9

If these teams aren't playing in an FA, and by extension FIFA, affiliated competition, isn't that still non-FIFA?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 12th, 2017, 6:13 am #10

No.  Because their players belong to clubs who are affiliated to the FA.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 12th, 2017, 6:18 am #11

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 12th, 2017, 6:20 am #12

If you select players that are not affiliated to any clubs, you might get away with calling it non-FIFA (just as a few mates down the pub might have a kick about on the local common that is outside FIFA jurisdiction).  But picking players from FA clubs means you are automatically subject to FIFA rules (indirectly), as you must ask permission of the clubs (who are members of the FA and thus FIFA by extension) to release their players.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 5th, 2013, 8:13 am

December 12th, 2017, 6:49 am #13

Never claimed that they were...

But there are exceptions and if Surrey is able to organise a 4 team competition against other non-FIFA teams, shouldn't you just call them an exception and call it a day, rather then go out of you way to push a rigid world view no one besides yourself actually cares about?

Surrey is a county, not a nation, don't know if you want to claim I said it was? They're gonna play against non-FIFA teams, is that not what an international team does?

There are exceptions on both sides, teams that shouldn't be part of FIFA and others that should. Let's just call teams like Surrey the exception of non-FIFA and move on?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

December 12th, 2017, 6:59 am #14

TheRoonBa wrote:If you select players that are not affiliated to any clubs, you might get away with calling it non-FIFA (just as a few mates down the pub might have a kick about on the local common that is outside FIFA jurisdiction).  But picking players from FA clubs means you are automatically subject to FIFA rules (indirectly), as you must ask permission of the clubs (who are members of the FA and thus FIFA by extension) to release their players.
What about the ConIFA tournaments though? In a sense they're indirectly subject to those 'rules' as well, of course some players come from clubs outside the FIFA bubble but for someone like Ellan Vannin it's pretty much unavoidable, if they manage to call up Tierney it'll be very noticable...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 12th, 2017, 7:34 am #15

dalefamfa wrote:
Never claimed that they were...

But there are exceptions and if Surrey is able to organise a 4 team competition against other non-FIFA teams, shouldn't you just call them an exception and call it a day, rather then go out of you way to push a rigid world view no one besides yourself actually cares about?

Surrey is a county, not a nation, don't know if you want to claim I said it was? They're gonna play against non-FIFA teams, is that not what an international team does?

There are exceptions on both sides, teams that shouldn't be part of FIFA and others that should. Let's just call teams like Surrey the exception of non-FIFA and move on?
What exactly is my "rigid worldview"? Surrey is not non-FIFA and it's not "the exception of non-FIFA".  It's a selection of players from Surrey clubs (all part of FIFA) put together to play against club teams and representative teams of groups/territories affiliated to CONIFA or otherwise.  It's not non-FIFA, in any sense.  So stop saying it is.  That is my one and only point.  It's not a view - it's a fact.  Big difference. If you don't care, and you wish to insist that it is, then that is your own ignorant prerogative.

Your team is a REPRESENTATIVE team of your Organisation or whatever it is, not a national team, not a non-FIFA team.  If I go and get a bunch of Tesco workers together and call it Tesco FC - it doesn't make it a non-FIFA team - even if it plays against Barawa or Tamil Eelam or whoever else wants to play them.  It also doesn't make them an international team (in the sense you mean) - even if they play Brazil.  Many club teams have played national teams - that doesn't suddenly make the club team an international team.

In the strict sense, international means between nations.  So absolutely every team in the world is international when it plays a team from another nation.  Tesco Luton versus Walmart New Orleans could be classed as an international match by this definition.

I'm glad you agree that Surrey is a county and not a nation.  The micronation wiki and developmental history of the team suggested you believed the latter.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 12th, 2017, 7:38 am #16

mattsanger92 wrote:
TheRoonBa wrote:If you select players that are not affiliated to any clubs, you might get away with calling it non-FIFA (just as a few mates down the pub might have a kick about on the local common that is outside FIFA jurisdiction).  But picking players from FA clubs means you are automatically subject to FIFA rules (indirectly), as you must ask permission of the clubs (who are members of the FA and thus FIFA by extension) to release their players.
What about the ConIFA tournaments though? In a sense they're indirectly subject to those 'rules' as well, of course some players come from clubs outside the FIFA bubble but for someone like Ellan Vannin it's pretty much unavoidable, if they manage to call up Tierney it'll be very noticable...
Non-FIFA is entirely outside of FIFA.  So, for example, Zanzibar is not non-FIFA (affiliated to Tanzania FA).  Teams who pick players who play for clubs affiliated to FIFA member nations (such as Ellan Vannin) are also not non-FIFA.  I am pretty sure the permission of clubs should be sought before selecting players for international duty, though I am not sure how far down the 'pyramid' this applies in reality.  Would an English 10th tier club care if one of their players just went off and played for Sealand without telling them?

Vatican City would be non-FIFA, or Monaco.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 7th, 2007, 8:58 am

December 12th, 2017, 8:18 am #17

TheRoonBa wrote:Vatican City would be non-FIFA, or Monaco.
What if they select players from FIFA clubs?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 12th, 2017, 10:14 am #18

Yes, they would then be "partially non-FIFA" :-)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 7th, 2007, 8:58 am

December 12th, 2017, 10:27 am #19

TheRoonBa wrote:Non-FIFA is entirely outside of FIFA.
My point is, your definition of Non-FIFA is a new one, and practically means there is no such thing as non-FIFA.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 12th, 2017, 1:53 pm #20

I've renamed this section of the forum a while ago because it was pointed out to me by other people that non-FIFA was not a good name for "non-FIFA" - I agreed.  It's not a new definition - it's just that everybody is still using the old definition :-)
Quote
Like
Share

DJLiesel
DJLiesel

December 12th, 2017, 2:09 pm #21

An interesting discussion having a revival here. What is non-FIFA football ?

Taking it literally, only 2 definitions valid:
1. Football matches involving nothing and no-one affiliated to FIFA in any possible way. Not a single CONIFA (or NFB) match was ever "non-FIFA" then and I cannot think of a single match that was.
All CONIFA tournaments were played in stadiums of FIFA-affiliated clubs with only 2 exceptions: Abkhazia 2016 and Northern Cyprus 2017. In both tournaments, all teams had at least one player affiliated with a FIFA club.
So if this is your definition, I am looking forward to a single example of that ever happening.

2. All football matches not under the auspices of FIFA. That includes all CONIFA (and NFB) matches, but would also include Tesco Brighton vs. SevenEleven Beijing. Or any company league. Or micronations. Or the "Roonba Forum Rowdies" vs. the "Buzzfeed Bonkers". Or...whatever, you get it.

If you have some esoteric non-literal definition in mind, which is not defined or written somewhere, I have to say I double daledamfas harsh criticism in general. Making your own definition, not telling it anyone and then correcting people of what fulfills the definition (no one knows about) is indeed...odd?

(just for the records: CONIFA never uses the term non-FIFA, so it is not of any importance for us as an organization)
Quote
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 12th, 2017, 4:38 pm #22

I do not purport to have a definition - I merely point out that it's not a good name, as suggested to me by others also.  The very name of this thread has its own name (alternative representative football), which I think is better than non-FIFA football (albeit not perfect). 

I'm not sure renaming the entire non-FIFA section to "alternative representative football" constitutes "not telling anyone".  
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

December 19th, 2017, 9:40 am #23

On the debate about "what is non-FIFA", see a previous thread.  More of that in a moment.

Dalefamfa:
Surrey is a county, not a nation, don't know if you want to claim I said it was? They're gonna play against non-FIFA teams, is that not what an international team does?
"International" is perhaps a non-sequitur in this context.  An "international team" is one which represents a nation, and plays against teams representing other nations.  So to call this Surrey team an "international team" is to imply that Surrey is a nation, or that the team represents one, and plays against teams representing other nations.  
You could call it an "international team" in the context of playing individual matches vs foreign teams, if that was all you wanted to do - in this sense Middlesex Wanderers is an "international team" because it plays only/mostly tour matches vs foreign teams.  

I would argue that this Surrey team (ISF) does not even represent Surrey in the first place.  At most, it represents "some guys from Surrey" who fancy a jolly.  

As far as "non-FIFA" goes, it doesn't matter whether Surrey is a nation or a county, it is just a question of whether the relevant football association (ISF here) is affiliated to FIFA, directly or indirectly.  Assuming that it isn't, then it can be considered a non-FIFA entity, but only in the same sense that any unaffiliated club set up by a bunch of mates could be considered as such.  That doesn't make it's team an international one.

And obviously, playing against "established" non-FIFA teams is neither a necessary nor a sufficient qualification to be a non-FIFA team in itself.

Dalefamfa:
If these teams aren't playing in an FA, and by extension FIFA, affiliated competition, isn't *that* still non-FIFA?
By "that", do you mean the competition, or the teams?  A "non-FIFA competition" could mean (A) one which includes *only* non-FIFA teams; or (B) one which includes *at least one* non-FIFA team.  Regardless of your preferred definition of "non-FIFA".   It also even a competition not run directly by FIFA, for example, a UEFA competition.

The term "non-FIFA" is best used to refer to football associations (and/or their representative teams) because these are either affiliated to FIFA directly or indirectly, or not at all, with no overlap.  

If we extend the term to individual players, then there are multiplicity issues, because players can be registered with more than one association simultaneously.  One could define a "FIFA player" as (A) a player registered with one or more football associations *at least one of which* is affiliated directly or indirectly to FIFA; or (B) a player registered with one or more football associations *all of which* are affiliated directly or indirectly to FIFA.

Supposing there was a Vatican national team player who played for Juventus, under definition (A) he would be a "FIFA player"; under (B) a "non-FIFA player".  Personally I prefer (A).  But either way, that shouldn't mean the Vatican team/FA becomes a "FIFA team/FA" just because one of its players joined Juventus.

Mark is right that all "FIFA players" are, in principle, subject to FIFA rules and thus even bonafide non-FIFA teams/organizations may have to interact with FIFA on an admin level.  But again that doesn't mean that they become "FIFA teams" necessarily.  It just means that they can't pretend to be fully independent of FIFA.

Mark:
Teams who pick players who play for clubs affiliated to FIFA member nations (such as Ellan Vannin) are also not non-FIFA.
The Manx IFA is a non-FIFA association (being unaffiliated to FIFA directly nor indirectly), so I would say that Ellan Vannin is a non-FIFA team, being the representative team of a non-FIFA association.  Of course, in practice it is highly connected on a personal level to the FIFA world due to the duplicity of player/official registration.  
I suppose "non-FIFA team" is ambiguous language, depending if you mean the "non-FIFA" part to refer to the players of the team, or the association it represents.  But this is a general issue with group nouns - team, company, jury, etc - adjectives referring to the whole group might not apply to all the individual components.  

All this is once again backing up the use of an alternative label :-)


Mark:
Vatican City would be non-FIFA, or Monaco.
Kirill:
What if they select players from FIFA clubs?
Here it is a case of reducing ambiguity by clarifying whether you are referring to the country, or the association, or the representative team, and also whether you prefer a downward or upward hierarchical propagation.  For me, the Vatican FA and the Vatican national team are "non-FIFA", no matter how many of the players join Juventus.

Conversely, San Marino is "FIFA" no matter how many of its players are unregistered bus drivers.


Matt:
What about the ConIFA tournaments though? In a sense they're indirectly subject to those 'rules' as well
Well quite, hence the MIFA - IoMFA "memorandum of understanding", among other episodes.  Pointing out that events and players are "subject to FIFA rules" doesn't mean that it is impossible to run a competition, and pointing out that there are FIFA statutes in place doesn't mean that punishment will always follow.  It just means that, in principle, permission is needed for the competition and the use of the players, and possibly the stadium and referees, and that if permission is not formally secured in advance then there are potential repercussions and/or punishments (suspensions etc) down the line.  In practice these are not often enforced unless some party wishes to protest, because the "offence" of taking part in such an event is usually not a serious one. 

There are dozens of representative tournaments every year which are organised outwith the normal FIFA hierarchy, whether it be ConIFA or a Universiade or the Firemen World Cup, or the Maccabi Games, or a Military championship, or a Gay Games etc, all of these being for teams which aren't necessarily directly connected to particular FIFA-member FAs but very call up their registered players.  


Mark:
If I go and get a bunch of Tesco workers together and call it Tesco FC - it doesn't make it a non-FIFA team
It would be a non-FIFA team in the tautological sense that any informal team of casual unregistered players is.  But it wouldn't be noteworthy to actively refer to it a non-FIFA team, because the main context in which that label is relevant is about pseudo-national/representative teams of unrecognized nations/territories (or wannabes) and diasporas etc.  The fact that the label can also apply to any social team of pub players, which isn't part of any league in the FIFA hierarchy, is true but not worthwhile.


Mark:
So absolutely every team in the world is international when it plays a team from another nation.  Tesco Luton versus Walmart New Orleans could be classed as an international match by this definition.
Yes, in the context of that match.  But then Tesco Luton doesn't remain an "international team" afterwards, in the same way that Everton doesn't remain an "international team" just because it represented England in the Europa League this year.  If Everton *only* played against foreign teams (cf Middlesex Wanderers example above) then "international team" might be a literally true label, but not a useful one, due to the more common meaning of "international team" as a team which represents a nation in a more meaningful sense than simply being "from" that nation.
 

DJLiesel:
CONIFA never uses the term non-FIFA, so it is not of any importance for us as an organization
ConIFA uses the term "outside FIFA" which is hardly different in meaning and ambiguity issues.


DJLiesel:
Making your own definition, not telling it anyone and then correcting people of what fulfills the definition (no one knows about) is indeed...odd?
I don't think it's useful to criticise someone else's definition of something without giving your own definition.   We discussed precisely the same topic 3 years ago and I asked repeatedly for others (including you) to state their own definition and nobody coughed up anything tangible.  The whole point is/was to reduce ambiguity.


DJLiesel:
1. Football matches involving nothing and no-one affiliated to FIFA in any possible way. Not a single CONIFA (or NFB) match was ever "non-FIFA" then and I cannot think of a single match that was. So if this is your definition, I am looking forward to a single example of that ever happening
That's not my definition, but I don't want you to be disappointed with a lack of examples of it:

Football pre-1904.
Football in/between countries prior to joining FIFA (or affiliating to the English FA).
Football in the UK and most of the British Empire between 1928 and 1946.
Football in the USSR, PR China etc in periods when they were outwith FIFA.
Football in South Africa 1976-92.
Social/casual football matches involving unregistered pub players.


Mark:
Tesco Luton versus Walmart New Orleans
Wasn't this the final of the Abe Jones Supercup?
Quote
Like
Share

DJLiesel
DJLiesel

December 21st, 2017, 4:44 am #24

nfm24
ConIFA uses the term "outside FIFA" which is hardly different in meaning and ambiguity issues.
I strongly disagree here. Both terms "non-FIFA" and "Outside FIFA" are not having a generally agreed definition, right. But my personal understanding, and that of many journalists, partners and many (not all) others who care, is as follows:
"non-FIFA football" refers to (international) football deliberately played without any direct or indirect association or link to FIFA.
In more detail: "non-FIFA" means that you do not want to be connected to FIFA in any way and that the non-FIFA football scene could be considered as an "anti" movement (the rebel world cup, as the Guardian put it). Playing non-FIFA football refers to being sick of FIFA and doing your own thing now.

"football outside FIFA" on the other hand, refers to (international) football between (international) teams that are not (yet) directly or indirectly affiliated or linked to FIFA. 
In more detail: You play football outside FIFA, because you are left with no choice, not because you want to show the middle finger to anyone. That is a huge difference.

What both phrases don't reflect is the international aspect. That's why we often use "international football outside FIFA", "national teams outside FIFA", "representative teams outside FIFA" and similar. But, admittedly, we don't always stress that part.

nfm24
I don't think it's useful to criticise someone else's definition of something without giving your own definition.   We discussed precisely the same topic 3 years ago and I asked repeatedly for others (including you) to state their own definition and nobody coughed up anything tangible.  The whole point is/was to reduce ambiguity.
Done above. That's my definitions of both terms.
What they don't address is "who should be eligible to play?", but I don't see that as a necessity for such a definition. I have never read FIFA defining who should have a national team either (or the IOC or anyone else, really).
In fact, FIFA is defining the term Association Football in the most amazing way:
FIFA Constitution Definitions:
Association Football: the game controlled by FIFA
So we could equally justified say "International Football outside FIFA is the game controlled by CONIFA" - a completely useless self-fulfilling prophecy.
Back to topic, I gave you my definition before, but it does not answer what you were hoping for, I'm afraid. 

nfm24
That's not my definition, but I don't want you to be disappointed with a lack of examples of it:

Football pre-1904.
Football in/between countries prior to joining FIFA (or affiliating to the English FA).
Football in the UK and most of the British Empire between 1928 and 1946.
Football in the USSR, PR China etc in periods when they were outwith FIFA.
Football in South Africa 1976-92.
Social/casual football matches involving unregistered pub players.
Well, not quite what I was looking for, to be fair. But fair play for "kind of" address the topic with examples.
What I was looking for is an international tournament in the strict "non-FIFA sense" that no referee, no pitch, no player and no participating team was directly or indirectly affiliated to FIFA, since FIFA's foundation.
Thinking about it, the Homeless World Cup might actually tick most of those boxes, albeit some players seem to be affiliated to some club at times.
The CONIFA World Football Cup 2016 also came close, as the pitches were not owned by a FIFA-affiliated club, some of the referees were not registered with a national FA (anymore - like the refs from Donetsk). I am not sure if any single team did not have a single FIFA-club-playing player, though.
Quote
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

December 21st, 2017, 3:16 pm #25

  
nfm24:
ConIFA uses the term "outside FIFA" which is hardly different in meaning and ambiguity issues.
DJLiesel:
I strongly disagree here. Both terms "non-FIFA" and "Outside FIFA" are not having a generally agreed definition, right.
Yes, that's why I say they both have the same ambiguity issues.  Basically, various people use these labels in a casual way to *refer to* various things without necessarily thinking about what the labels *mean*, in the sense of a formal definition, or even a contextual one based on other usage.  That's fine, but then ambiguity follows.

I say that they mean essentially the same thing simply because a football association can either be "FIFA" or "non-FIFA", and either "inside FIFA" or "outside FIFA". 

DJLiesel:
"non-FIFA" means that you do not want to be connected to FIFA in any way and that the non-FIFA football scene could be considered as an "anti" movement (the rebel world cup, as the Guardian put it). Playing non-FIFA football refers to being sick of FIFA and doing your own thing now.
Your version goes further than a definition, and adds an assumed motivation which is not always applicable.  E.g. some associations might want very much to be connected to FIFA, but aren't (e.g. Tuvalu).  Other associations might feel ambivalent or neutral about FIFA, but be anyhow inherently unable to join (e.g. unrecognized countries and diaspora teams).   There may also be associations which were kicked out.

DJLiesel:
What both phrases don't reflect is the international aspect. That's why we often use "international football outside FIFA", "national teams outside FIFA", "representative teams outside FIFA" and similar.  ... What they don't address is "who should be eligible to play?
I agree there, hence I was discussing the use of "international" above, and the same issues apply to the use of "national team", which then dictates the eligibility issue.  
Normally "non-FIFA" or "outside FIFA" (under either definition) occurs in a (pseudo)international context, but obviously a reasonable definition is not restricted to that, and may also apply to unregistered social teams which are not connected to FIFA but don't call themselves a "national team" at all.


DJLiesel:
I have never read FIFA defining who should have a national team either
Well they define it implicitly as a representative team of a directly affiliated member FA.  I suppose they try to avoid making an explicit definition which includes anything about "what is a nation" etc which could be construed as politica, or discriminatory against existing members.

DJLiesel:
Football matches involving nothing and no-one affiliated to FIFA in any possible way.
nfm24:
... examples of it:
Football in/between countries prior to joining FIFA (or affiliating to the English FA).
Football in the UK and most of the British Empire between 1928 and 1946.
Football in the USSR, PR China etc in periods when they were outwith FIFA.
Football in South Africa 1976-92.
DJLiesel:
Well, not quite what I was looking for, to be fair. ... What I was looking for is an international tournament in the strict "non-FIFA sense" that no referee, no pitch, no player and no participating team was directly or indirectly affiliated to FIFA, since FIFA's foundation.
OK, just pick your favourite international tournament from within the examples above then (excluding the pre-1904).
E.g. the British International Championship in 1928-45, several editions of the Far Eastern Games or Spartakiades, various competitions involving British African or Caribbean territories, the Gossage Cup, Martinez Shield etc, or even the SAFIG Games.


DJLiesel:
the Homeless World Cup might actually tick most of those boxes
In your strict definition of "non-FIFA" you said that the teams "do not want to be connected to FIFA" and are "sick of FIFA and doing your own thing now",
and I don't think idea applies to the likes of the Homeless World Cup - that sort of tournament is a restrictive international tournament, similar to Police World Cup, Military World Cup, Deaflympics, etc.

But the idea does apply to the some of the examples I gave above.

Anyway, it is fun to play "hunt the counterexample" with moving goalposts, but I suppose your original point was to say that in the strictest non-FIFA sense there is "almost nothing", and I don't really disagree with that.  I just thought it was useful to illustrate some of gaps in FIFA's historical jurisdiction, and that "non-FIFA" and "outside FIFA" are not recent concepts that began with the NFB or ConIFA.

As one more example, the 1st World Festival of Youth and Students 1947 (in Prague) included a sub-tournament which was actually explicitly called the "non-FIFA tournament" (festivalový turnaj nečlenů FIFA).  It included teams from North Korea, Algeria and Trieste along with some Czechoslovakian trade union teams which were presumably not affiliated to the national FA.
Quote
Like
Share

DJLiesel
DJLiesel

December 21st, 2017, 6:06 pm #26

I'm afraid you misunderstood me on the definition part. Or I've been unclear.

My definition for non-fiction International football is:
"non-FIFA football" refers to (international) football deliberately played without any direct or indirect association or link to FIFA.

For international football outside FIFA it is:
"football outside FIFA" refers to (international) football between (international) teams that are not (yet) directly or indirectly affiliated or linked to FIFA.

Further, I'm saying that "non-FIFA International football" rarely exists,while "international football outside FIFA" is very common and indeed as old as FIFA.

You refer to Tuvalu later and I agree in complete. That's why I think "non-FIFA" is the wrong term. Tuvalu is definitely "football outside FIFA".

FIFA, indeed defines country in their constitution in the definition part. It's defined as "independent country recognized by the international community". That means England is no national team for FIFA, but as we all know they're not very strict on anything.

I did read about that Czech tournament here lately. Fascinating stuff, indeed. Still, most of the examples you gave are "outside FIFA" rather than "non-FIFA" according to my definitions
Quote
Share

DJLiesel
DJLiesel

December 21st, 2017, 6:10 pm #27

Just checked the FIFA statutes. They define country as:
Country: an independent state recognised by the international community.

They don't define nation, though.
Quote
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

December 21st, 2017, 8:05 pm #28

I'm afraid you misunderstood me on the definition part. Or I've been unclear.
You wrote "in more detail ..." under your definitions, which I took to be extensions of the definitions, rather than example motivations of them.  Thanks for clarifying.

Your "outside FIFA" is effectively the same as my "non-FIFA" from the other thread, except you add "linked".

In your "non-FIFA", why do you include the word "deliberately"?  To me, that makes it sound more like "anti-FIFA"  (the motivations you wrote under it suggest the same).

BTW assuming you are busy with your "outside FIFA" business, I would like to volunteer to run the "anti-FIFA" confederation, if anyone wants to join it :-)


Tuvalu is definitely "football outside FIFA".
Tuvalu is an associate member of OFC, which is affiliated to FIFA as a confederation.  In this sense it is not "outside FIFA" (under your definition).

FIFA, indeed defines country in their constitution in the definition part. It's defined as "independent country recognized by the international community". That means England is no national team for FIFA
Hmm, it doesn't say anything as such about "national team".  It says that in FIFA's eyes, England is not a country, and nor is Hong Kong, or Guam, or Tahiti, or Kosovo etc...  It just tells us what we knew already - FIFA is not an organization just for countries.  

Still, most of the examples you gave are "outside FIFA" rather than "non-FIFA" according to my definitions
Hmm, I chose them specifically to fit your own definition of "non-FIFA".  Perhaps you could pick one or two of them and briefly explain to me how they fail the definition?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

December 22nd, 2017, 7:36 pm #29

nfm24 wrote:I would like to volunteer to run the "anti-FIFA" confederation, if anyone wants to join it :-)
I'd just be careful with picking a name, with the above you'd be a botched Google search away from getting bricks through your window...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

December 22nd, 2017, 10:34 pm #30

I still prefer "Alternative Representative Football" - it's representative football, and it's alternative to the version espoused by FIFA (in that FAs not currently in FIFA are involved).
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

December 23rd, 2017, 6:32 pm #31

Yes and it is also possibly a more useful label in that it can clearly apply in cases where there is partial overlap with the FIFA world.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 9th, 2011, 2:58 pm

December 27th, 2017, 2:32 pm #32

nfm24 wrote:
DJLiesel:
1. Football matches involving nothing and no-one affiliated to FIFA in any possible way. Not a single CONIFA (or NFB) match was ever "non-FIFA" then and I cannot think of a single match that was. So if this is your definition, I am looking forward to a single example of that ever happening
That's not my definition, but I don't want you to be disappointed with a lack of examples of it:

Football pre-1904.
Football in/between countries prior to joining FIFA (or affiliating to the English FA).
Football in the UK and most of the British Empire between 1928 and 1946.
Football in the USSR, PR China etc in periods when they were outwith FIFA.
Football in South Africa 1976-92.
Social/casual football matches involving unregistered pub players.

But I remember when FIFA used to list a 1936 match between People's Republic of China and Great Britain...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm

December 27th, 2017, 5:51 pm #33

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 3rd, 2006, 11:49 am

June 12th, 2018, 9:48 am #34

on 29.7 Surrey-Chagos
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

June 13th, 2018, 6:36 am #35

pieter wrote: on 29.7 Surrey-Chagos
It's very difficult to get excited about this match...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 3rd, 2006, 11:49 am

June 13th, 2018, 6:57 am #36

it takes more to excite me (at my age)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm

June 13th, 2018, 8:12 am #37

pieter wrote: on 29.7 Surrey-Chagos
I'm excited if it's a representative team of Surrey and not one of those lame club compilation teams. Surrey has an awesome flag and coat of arms that I'd love to get up on my ranking site.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:46 am

June 13th, 2018, 11:26 am #38

abramjones wrote:Surrey has an awesome flag and coat of arms that I'd love to get up on my ranking site.
They're missing a trick if they don't go full Croatia on their kits...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 9th, 2011, 2:58 pm

June 13th, 2018, 2:25 pm #39

At least Chagos used to wear a nice kit some years ago...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm

June 14th, 2018, 5:44 am #40

mattsanger92 wrote:
abramjones wrote:Surrey has an awesome flag and coat of arms that I'd love to get up on my ranking site.
They're missing a trick if they don't go full Croatia on their kits...
Croatia's cities and administrative divisions have some great flags as well.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm

June 14th, 2018, 5:45 am #41

Luca wrote: At least Chagos used to wear a nice kit some years ago...


I knew the player in the background looked familiar.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm

June 16th, 2018, 12:51 pm #42

It is a Surrey representative team, but not the best players from Surrey.

The same with any county rep team in the UK - the top players won't play, so it will be a selection of non-league players mainly.
Quote
Like
Share