These would tend to be sports where other countries played before the British though. As I understand it, a major driver of the structure was the British looking for someone to play against. So Scotland plays England in Soccer but in Tennis there's the opportunity for proper internationals.
AHC: UK National Soccer Team
- Thread starter kernals12
- Start date
These would tend to be sports where other countries played before the British though. As I understand it, a major driver of the structure was the British looking for someone to play against. So Scotland plays England in Soccer but in Tennis there's the opportunity for proper internationals.
It's even more complicated than that when you factor in the issue of some of the sports still being "all-Ireland", like boxing, rowing, hockey and of course Rugby. Then you get the strange bits where NI boxers compete in the Olympics under Team Ireland (if they chose) and then compete in the Commonwealth games under NI.
But interestingly, Rugby was invented by the English, and you still have the British and Irish Lions, which leads me to question if it is possible to have a UK team that exists for special occasions in a similar way, which runs parallel to the individual national teams.
I doubt it, the Lions I think has more to do with the Amateur nature of the sport until relatively modern times, unlike high end Football.
a club is a voluntary association, people coming together, joining with others, a franchise is right granted by someone else to participate. Football associations represent a continuum from the pub league to the champions league. There is no reason for the English FA to allow a new member to start anywhere but the Polo Coop Sunday league and work their way up. Might take a while but it can be done.
That makes it near impossible for a member of one association to switch to another except by agreement and why should anyone agree, its going to knock everyone below them down one place and relegate some. An NI team would essentially be joining at the bottom anyway and Wimbledon were legalistically moving their ground from ne place to another and not disrupting the league standings.
The reference to Bournemouth is it was in administration a decade ago and has a capacity of 11k , which is bad by NBA standards.
The reference to Villa is really just an opportunity to get a dig in, never let one go to waste.
As to fielding an Great Britain Team, there is one its called the Republic of Ireland.
Derry City used to be in the Irish League - they only moved to the League of Ireland in the 70s.
When the Troubles kicked off they couldn't play at Brandywell for security reasons (Brandywell is literally a stone's throw from Free Derry Corner) and they had to move to playing at Coleraine which is miles from Stroke City. After a couple of years the Army/RUC relented and said they could go back home but the Irish League wouldn't allow it (probably a mix of worries of trouble and good old fashioned Catholic baiting) so they moved to the League of Ireland.
There also used to be a Belfast Celtic who again fell victim to Secterianism - I can't remember the exact story but I vaguely recall something about repeated outbreaks of violence that ended with one of their players getting his legs broken after a game. That was quite a bit before the modern Troubles though (late 40s/early 50s?).
The main reason why I can't see the four FAs joining is simple - as four separate nations they get four seats on FIFA's various committees so they've got four times the power of any other nation.
Its not a quirk, its because those sports were invented (at the bare minimum codified) in the British Isles. The first international football match was England versus Scotland - because such a match has those ancient rivalries yes but also (much more importantly) because there's no one else to play at that level.
How about the amateur-gentlemen vs. professional divide cause serious issues in football's mass popularity. A Brit introduces the sports somewhere else (France, Germany, wherever) and it takes off. Britain plays catch up and I guarantee in this situation the first international match would be Britain vs. Johnny Foreigner.
Regarding club play I think its actually harder because its internal so no reason to give a united front, best bet would probably be a Welsh situation were the 'English' league absorbs Irish and Scottish teams.
Now this is all definately pre-1900. And is ripe for schenanigans. How do the Irish take to being minor players in a British national team as their own nationalism reaches boiling point? This could also impact on the Glaswegians, and we may actually see something similar to the Dutch (or Belgian?) experience were the league division is not national but religious.
That's what happens at the Olympics for a lot of the team sports.
The problem is most of the other team sports aren't anywhere near as commercially successful, popular or have as many internationally relevant nations competing to qualify for international tournaments as football, so there's less fear of it eroding the independent existence of the Home Nations national teams.
120 million people watched the 2015 Rugby Union World Cup final.
25 national teams have competed at a Rugby Union World Cup at least once, including the 4 Home Nations.
Over 1 billion people watched the 2014 FIFA World Cup final.
79 national teams have competed in a World Cup final, including the 4 Home Nations, and there's a much greater desire for the opportunity to qualify in many countries that rarely or have never made it to the competition.
Which is the exact reason why the 2012 Olympics UK football team didn't carry on over in to 2016, and why the Scottish FA refused to endorse or back Team GB in 2012
It might be paranoia, with assurances given on occasion, but I'm sure plenty of the smaller European FAs would happily see a UK national team forced through as it would mean 3 fewer teams to compete with to qualify.
I suppose you could have all 4 teams be so bad for so long that they combined their efforts to actually stand a chance, sort of like the Ryder Cup going from the UK to all of Europe just to become competitive again.
Last edited:
TruthfulPanda
Gone Fishin'
Are your referring to the Dutch Sunday and Saturday leagues?
This also reflected a very pilarised society, more so than in the UK, where Prots and Papists met at work only (if they had to). Otherwise they went to different schools, different pubs, etc.
At the 4th level of Dutch football the leagues - with same geographic coverage - are still run on different days ... IIRC the clubs refused to be grouped along geographic lines ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–18_Derde_Divisie
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
And do those leagues have traditions of large numbers (in thousands & occasionally tens of thousands) of travelling fans to every away game?
[Currently sitting on 113 different League venues visited & counting...]
Devvy
Donor
AFC Wimbledon is the best example of this. After the old Wimbledon left for Milton Keynes, the new AFC club started in literally the bottom tier of the Football League pyramid system (7th or 8th tier iirc). They were consistently promoted for first few seasons, and now play in League 1 (3rd tier). Congrats to them
I suppose you might be able to force it on an official level if, say, the USSR demanded it's SSRs be extended the same recognition. I imagine you'll see an awful lot of pressure on the UK to reform to avoid those teams swamping FIFA.
But the problem here is that such a team will always be dominated by English players - it would in some quarters been seen as an 'English' team with token players from elsewhere. For example currently, Bale should certainly get in the 'Team' but which Scottish or NI players stand out as being worthy of inclusion!?
While in Rugby Union there is a British Team - The British Lions, but Rugby has an advantage here - fifteen players in a team to allocate helps, and England isn't so dominant over either of the other nations as is the case with Football.
So, no it won't work. In the Olympics Britain does not compete (London was an exception), the Home countries are too wary of other countries associations insisting that Britain only have one governing body - instead of four!
That reply sums up your lack of knowledge, of how and why the League system operates in the UK.
Then they need to win enough games in the Championship, to get promoted - simple.
Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of what the USSR would want though? They generally went for trying to erase national identities rather than encourage them didn't they?
Unless I am misunderstanding you, this is untrue. In terms of average attendance, both Rangers and Celtic are amongst the highest in Europe, and are amongst the highest in Britain. Both also have high levels of support in Ireland for less than savoury reasons.
If I did misunderstand you and you mean a fan base for joining the English League, I agree. It should never happen anyway.
The Chairman of Arsenal wanted them in the EPL around the turn of the century when they were discussing joining an Atlantic League. This was turned down by something like 18-2. Even then, neither side stated openly they wanted to join the EPL, the SFA, FA and UEFA would also have opposed it.
It was never going to happen.
Post incoming with my own views.
The English League System was established in 1888. The Irish and Scottish Leagues were formed in 1890. The FA Cup was started in 1871/72(albeit with Scottish teams competing in the early years and indeed Queens Park making two finals), the Scottish Cup began in 1873, the Irish Cup in 1881. The only exception is the Welsh League which was established in 1994. The first thing is that there are huge reserves of history you would be tearing to bits by creating a unified British system.
In the early years, there were good geographic reasons for this, but rivalries gradually built up inside the league structures and the systems became entrenched. The international rivalry created through the Home Nations tournament also helped develop interest in the sport. The separate Home Nations, subsequently opening up to other nations are one of the main reasons for the development of the sport.
Again you are ripping this up for no good reason.
Scottish club football is in a similar position to many smaller leagues. The days when the historically big clubs in Europe like Rangers, Celtic, Ajax, PSV, Brugge, Rapid Vienna, CSKA Moscow, Porto, Benfica, Sporting etc. etc. can compete with the top five leagues on a fair basis is dead. This is entirely due to TV money. It has given fake plastic wankers the impression that teams like Huddersfield are a bigger club than Ajax or Celtic.
The trick is to find a way to restore parity somewhat whilst not destroying the league systems.
Whilst Celtic would be helped financially by such a move, I fail to see how it would help the likes of Aberdeen(who have won two European trophies in their history) who would be stuck for the foreseeable with trips south of the border would dominate their fixture schedule and away support likely drying up for geographic reasons. It would make no sense and assuming they would be in the Championship would hurt them financially.
Further, you have clubs at the lower end of the EPL who would be unhappy at Scottish interlopers, either through promotion or through placement. Either way, it would increase their chances of being relegated. It would not be something that would be welcomed in any way.
So it wouldn't benefit the non-Old Firm teams in Scotland, it wouldn't benefit the lower level English teams and possibly over time given the size of the OF Support could also affect the larger English teams.
Nobody would benefit.
Moving on from Scotland, whilst the Scottishness of football would be diluted, domestic football from Northern Ireland would be demolished. Their league is small, it is part-time but it is something that is
So, you would see two leagues of nearly 130 years vanish in fact, one of exactly 130 years technically go. You would likely see two national cup tournaments vanish, one(the Scottish Cup, which currently uses the oldest sporting trophy still in use in the world). You would destroy football in Northern Ireland. You would harm football in Scotland as teams would be shoehorned into the larger English system. You would harm clubs in England, relegating teams through no sporting reason.
Could a Team GB work? Yes. Should it happen? No, no, never.
In the early years, there were good geographic reasons for this, but rivalries gradually built up inside the league structures and the systems became entrenched. The international rivalry created through the Home Nations tournament also helped develop interest in the sport. The separate Home Nations, subsequently opening up to other nations are one of the main reasons for the development of the sport.
Again you are ripping this up for no good reason.
Scottish club football is in a similar position to many smaller leagues. The days when the historically big clubs in Europe like Rangers, Celtic, Ajax, PSV, Brugge, Rapid Vienna, CSKA Moscow, Porto, Benfica, Sporting etc. etc. can compete with the top five leagues on a fair basis is dead. This is entirely due to TV money. It has given fake plastic wankers the impression that teams like Huddersfield are a bigger club than Ajax or Celtic.
The trick is to find a way to restore parity somewhat whilst not destroying the league systems.
Whilst Celtic would be helped financially by such a move, I fail to see how it would help the likes of Aberdeen(who have won two European trophies in their history) who would be stuck for the foreseeable with trips south of the border would dominate their fixture schedule and away support likely drying up for geographic reasons. It would make no sense and assuming they would be in the Championship would hurt them financially.
Further, you have clubs at the lower end of the EPL who would be unhappy at Scottish interlopers, either through promotion or through placement. Either way, it would increase their chances of being relegated. It would not be something that would be welcomed in any way.
So it wouldn't benefit the non-Old Firm teams in Scotland, it wouldn't benefit the lower level English teams and possibly over time given the size of the OF Support could also affect the larger English teams.
Nobody would benefit.
Moving on from Scotland, whilst the Scottishness of football would be diluted, domestic football from Northern Ireland would be demolished. Their league is small, it is part-time but it is something that is
So, you would see two leagues of nearly 130 years vanish in fact, one of exactly 130 years technically go. You would likely see two national cup tournaments vanish, one(the Scottish Cup, which currently uses the oldest sporting trophy still in use in the world). You would destroy football in Northern Ireland. You would harm football in Scotland as teams would be shoehorned into the larger English system. You would harm clubs in England, relegating teams through no sporting reason.
Could a Team GB work? Yes. Should it happen? No, no, never.
All that being said, the only time you could have even in a small percentage chance have achieved a UK League would have been after WW2. The English, Scottish and Irish Leagues stopped for the War and had to be re-established afterwards. There is no other time where it could possibly have happened. It would also give you the bonus that teams like Linfield and Belfast Celtic were playing in front of decent crowds until then.
One funny thing, I think would be that in this scenario, Belfast Celtic, the team for Irish Nationalists would probably survive in that scenario, which did not happen within the confines of the Irish League.
One funny thing, I think would be that in this scenario, Belfast Celtic, the team for Irish Nationalists would probably survive in that scenario, which did not happen within the confines of the Irish League.
Last edited:
It's not just an odd little sporting quirk. Scotland since 1707 has had an independent legal system (there is no "Federal" UK law), education system, and Established Church.