Why are England allowed in World Championship?

[Takhisis]

It doesn't symbolise the Nation, it's an English anthem... (this comes from a somewhat moderate Rangers fan who probably wouldn't be allowed into Ibrox)
Regarding the OP... think of the UK as the equivalent of the old Kalmar Union and that's about it. One state, several nations/countries.
Most people in the UK wouldn't describe themselves as 'British' unless it's a politician speaking for the whole nation or a freakin' loyalist trying to piss locals off.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's unbelievable how Britain never succeed to build itself as a single country, transcending regional specificities. The "British" model here is really at the opposite of France or the US (who are very similar in this regard).

I guess that's because you've kept your queen. You should have cut her head off 2 centuries ago.

 

[MCdread]

It's unbelievable how Britain never succeed to build itself as a single country. The "British" model here is really at the opposite of France or the US

You make it sound like it's a bad thing.

 

[Marla_Singer]

You make it sound like it's a bad thing.

Yes, it is a bad thing to me. France is no less diverse than the UK, however Basque people, Brittons, Corsicans or even Martinicans feel unquestionably French in their very large majority.

The reason for this is that they don't associate the citizenship to a specific, "regional", cultural background. And I believe it's a good thing to have an open definition of what "we" are.


It's interesting by the way that the countries having the biggest troubles are Britain, Spain or Belgium... which all are kingdoms. Maybe the personification of the country in a crowned ruler is part of the problem.

 

[Takhisis]

It's unbelievable how Britain never succeed to build itself as a single country, transcending regional specificities. The "British" model here is really at the opposite of France or the US (who are very similar in this regard).

I guess that's because you've kept your queen. You should have cut her head off 2 centuries ago.

We really shouldn't have joined the UK. Oh well, England did bribe the members of the Scottish and Irish Parliaments into dissolving their national institution and creating the 'British' fiction, so that's done. Now, secession!

You make it sound like it's a bad thing.

It'd have been much worse if Scotland had been completely anglicised.

Yes, it is a bad thing to me. France is no less diverse than the UK, however Basque people, Brittons, Corsicans or even Martinicans feel unquestionably French in their very large majority.

The reason for this is that they don't associate the citizenship to a specific, "regional", cultural background. And I believe it's a good thing to have an open definition of what "we" are.

France is not the UK, to put it bluntly. You can't apply the same rule to both countries.

It's interesting by the way that the countries having the biggest troubles are Britain, Spain or Belgium... which all are kingdoms. Maybe the personification of the country in a crowned ruler is part of the problem.

Norway, Denmark, Sweden are kingdoms and there's no problems there

 

[Pangur Bán]

Basque people, Brittons, Corsicans or even Martinicans ...

Which is puzzling to most non-French people ...

... France is of course an ancient monarchy too, like England (the Cornish were English just like the Bretons). While Corsicans are not French historically, Britons and many of the Basques have been theoretically French for a millennium.

Almost all national identities in Europe came about through statehood, modern, historic or imagined ... with very few exceptions.

It's interesting by the way that the countries having the biggest troubles are Britain, Spain or Belgium... which all are kingdoms. Maybe the personification of the country in a crowned ruler is part of the problem.

UK and English identity are complementary (the word Britain was a classicising/Romantic word for England just like Gaul is for France), while Scottish and British identity partially contradict in popular consciousness and being British, owing to its obvious equivalence to "Greater Englishness", means effacing Scottish identity (though politicians frequently try to urge people that it doesn't).

 

[Sofista]

Now Marla, things aren't as smooth as you say. This is, I believe, the Stade de France. (It won't embed. Ugh.)

 

[Pangur Bán]

That's so disgraceful ... booing it in Morocco is one thing, but in Paris when you live in France and it's been sung by children? In USA-Mexico games in the US most of the fans are often Mexican, but they'd never try to drown out the US anthem with boos.

 

[Takhisis]

In the 2009 Copa del Rey the Basques drowned out the Spanish anthem when the King was in the stadium. But... an away team booing the home one's anthem? Ugh.

 

[Sofista]

No gentlemen, it wasn't Moroccans. It was French of African origin.

On 15 October, the French football team welcomed Tunisia to the Stade de France. Like every time the Blues welcome a North African, former French colony (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) to Paris, the visiting fans were as numerous as those of the host country. In fact, l’Île-de-France welcomes a large community of people originally from Africa - be it economic immigrants who have come to work in France, their French-born children and grandchildren or others who have come to be reunited with their French-based families. It is understandable that these people, when they have the chance to see their country’s team, arrive en masse. What is less understandable, however, are the booing whistles which accompany the French national anthem each time that one of these teams plays in Paris. It already happened in October 2001 against Algeria, and in November 2007 during a match versus Morocco.

 

[Sofista]

Wait, I found a more explicit version:

Most of the booing came not from visiting Tunisians, but from fans born and raised in France. Such booing has come to be used by ethnic-Arab French soccer fans to protest the racial, social and economic discrimination suffered by those not fortunate enough to be among the stars of les Bleus. It's hardly coincidental that previous outbreaks of anthem booing (and resulting expressions of indignation by politicians) occurred before a France-Algeria match in 2001, a France-Morocco game in 2007, and a 2002 French Cup final orchestrated by fans of pro club Bastia, who defiantly played up Corsica's reputation as being France's non-Arab "enemy within".

 

[Takhisis]

Some of them are treated as second-class citizens from what I've read, but I've never read any French material as I don't speak French.
X-post with Sofista.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Yes, I had guessed they were Parisian Maghrebis (see my comment).

I'm sure actual Morocco-resident Moroccans, besides not having the numbers, would be too courteous to do that. I'd also venture a guess that they wouldn't have that kind of hatred either.

Takhisis, there is a great movie about this called La Haine ... though obviously it's fiction.

 

[MCdread]

If you thought things were rough for England on the pitch, you ain't seen it off the pitch yet, or to answer the OP question: England are allowed in world cups so that we can all benefit from world class entertainment.


Link to video.

 

[Matrix]

Indeed, almost only at the Oympics is Great Britain one country. Usually they play separately.
I remember Andy Parsons in Mock The Week talking about why cricket isn't an Olympic sport:
"It's only being played in about eight countries, of which we are four."

You could say they handicap themselves, because if they would play as one team, they would have a combination of their best players and perhaps perform better.

This also makes me think about Catalonia, who would love to play independently at the European and World Cup. But then they indeed would need to have their own independent football association. I.e. no more FC Barcelona vs Real Madrid in the Spanish competition.

 

[warpus]

This also makes me think about Catalonia, who would love to play independently at the European and World Cup. But then they indeed would need to have their own independent football association. I.e. no more FC Barcelona vs Real Madrid in the Spanish competition.

That's not necessarily true. Canadian teams play in the U.S. league, and yet every 200 years or so we participate in the World Cup as a sovereign nation.

 

[Stapel]

I know Brits won't appreciate this, but I still have to say it: untill the 1960's, Brits didn't want football to develop worldwide. They wanted it to remain their own property, as it's the case with rugby or cricket.

I don't know particularily mutch about Rugby, but I do know a thing or two about Cricket.

Actually, the English have been developing Cricket worldwide ever since the early Victorian Ages. For instance, the MCC, the Melbourne Cricket Club, was established in the 1830's. The first official international match was held in 1877. As years went by, Cricket was spread throughout the world. Today, there are 10 "Test" teams. Bangladesh was the last to join, in 2000.

It must be said: Cricket was spread through the (former) British Empire. So there you have a fair point. However, there is a big difference with football. In none of the Test playing countries, football means anything, apart from England itself and South Africa.

England has a test team, Scotland & Ireland have not. If Scottish or Irish players are upto Test level, they can play for England. A few years back, the ECB changed its name from England Cricket Board to England&Wales Cricket Board.

In the Caribbean, thigns are the other way around. Ten nations, three British dependencies adn 2 more non-British dependencies form the West Indian Cricket Board. Most famous members are Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad&Tobago and British Guyana.

 

[Dell19]

Most people in the UK wouldn't describe themselves as 'British' unless it's a politician speaking for the whole nation or a freakin' loyalist trying to piss locals off.

I generally say British when filling in forms.

 

[Dell19]

That's not necessarily true. Canadian teams play in the U.S. league, and yet every 200 years or so we participate in the World Cup as a sovereign nation.

Presumably though thats because of a lack of fans to support a full Canadian league whereas I would expect Catalonia to be able to organise a full league.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Dell, I think both Canada and Catalunya would have the problem which now exists in the Scottish league: a few big teams, and then mediocrity.

Also, Toronto versus New York or Vancouver versus Los Angeles are more appealing presumably than Toronto versus Churchill or Vancouver versus Iqaluit.