Every time I say the word "soccer", a swarm of Europeans materializes in my comments to inform me—dutifully, solemnly—that “It’s called football.”'n'nTime for a plot twist: they’re all wrong.
-
Every time I say the word “soccer”, a swarm of Europeans materializes in my comments to inform me—dutifully, solemnly—that “It’s called football.”
Time for a plot twist: they’re all wrong. And I’ve got the semantics to back it up.
There isn’t one “football”. There are many footballs. Off the top of my head:
- Gaelic football
- Rugby football (league and union)
- Australian football
- Canadian football
- American football
- Association football
I live in Canada. When someone here says “football”, they mean the version with the 110-yard field, three downs, and a warning track where the end zone should be. That is not soccer. And it’s not American football either—Canadian football is its own thing entirely.
Now, about that “association football” bit. The original nickname wasn’t “football” at all. It was assoccer. Which got shortened again to “soccer”. Same linguistic pattern that gave rugby its old nickname, “rugger”.
Notice the rhyme? “Soccer.” “Rugger.” Same era, same universities, same guys wearing the same questionable wool sweaters.
Here’s the real kicker: soccer and rugby only got those nicknames because of the Great Split of 1863. One camp wanted a game played strictly with feet. The other wanted a game where you could run, tackle, and generally rearrange someone’s ribcage.
But both descended from the medieval parent sport: mob football.
Mob football wasn’t “football” in the modern sense. It was chaos. A pig’s bladder was kicked, thrown, carried, or violently escorted toward a “goal”, which was usually whatever landmark was furthest away. It was extremely physical, often injurious, and occasionally fatal. Think rugby… with fewer rules… and more existential risk.
And yes, it still survives today. Look up the Royal Shrovetide match in Ashbourne, UK. It’s less a sport and more a polite riot with a leather ball.
Now ask yourself: which modern sport resembles mob football more? The tidy passing patterns of soccer? Or the glorious bedlam of Gaelic, Aussie rules, rugby, Canadian, and American football—sports where you can actually throw the ball, just like the original game?
Exactly.
So no, “soccer” isn’t wrong. If anything, it’s the only term that actually acknowledges the sport’s own history.
-
Every time I say the word “soccer”, a swarm of Europeans materializes in my comments to inform me—dutifully, solemnly—that “It’s called football.”
Time for a plot twist: they’re all wrong. And I’ve got the semantics to back it up.
There isn’t one “football”. There are many footballs. Off the top of my head:
- Gaelic football
- Rugby football (league and union)
- Australian football
- Canadian football
- American football
- Association football
I live in Canada. When someone here says “football”, they mean the version with the 110-yard field, three downs, and a warning track where the end zone should be. That is not soccer. And it’s not American football either—Canadian football is its own thing entirely.
Now, about that “association football” bit. The original nickname wasn’t “football” at all. It was assoccer. Which got shortened again to “soccer”. Same linguistic pattern that gave rugby its old nickname, “rugger”.
Notice the rhyme? “Soccer.” “Rugger.” Same era, same universities, same guys wearing the same questionable wool sweaters.
Here’s the real kicker: soccer and rugby only got those nicknames because of the Great Split of 1863. One camp wanted a game played strictly with feet. The other wanted a game where you could run, tackle, and generally rearrange someone’s ribcage.
But both descended from the medieval parent sport: mob football.
Mob football wasn’t “football” in the modern sense. It was chaos. A pig’s bladder was kicked, thrown, carried, or violently escorted toward a “goal”, which was usually whatever landmark was furthest away. It was extremely physical, often injurious, and occasionally fatal. Think rugby… with fewer rules… and more existential risk.
And yes, it still survives today. Look up the Royal Shrovetide match in Ashbourne, UK. It’s less a sport and more a polite riot with a leather ball.
Now ask yourself: which modern sport resembles mob football more? The tidy passing patterns of soccer? Or the glorious bedlam of Gaelic, Aussie rules, rugby, Canadian, and American football—sports where you can actually throw the ball, just like the original game?
Exactly.
So no, “soccer” isn’t wrong. If anything, it’s the only term that actually acknowledges the sport’s own history.
@atomicpoet Calcio storico is the best football.
-
@atomicpoet Calcio storico is the best football.
Elon Muksis 🇺🇦 🇵🇸 🇪🇺 This is really cool, and the first time I’ve ever learned of this sport. Looks like some variation of mob football has been present in numerous European nations.
