Talk:List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries

Flag icons

I'm adding flag icons to all country titles, I believe it makes the list better looking. Does anyone think otherwise? -Aabha (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought about the same thing so I support it. -- Elisson • Talk 12:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Page title

There is a comment on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of football clubs in Europe about the title of the page being misleading, since the list only lists clubs from the highest level. Though the introduction makes it clear, I think there is a case here. The name should be explicit. I'd earlier brought up the same point at Talk:List of football (soccer) clubs -Aabha (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind (btw, does in mean there cannot be an article titled "List of football clubs in Europe" on Wikipedia?). Conscious 15:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So should we move it to List of top-division clubs in UEFA countries? -Aabha (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just an aside, but if we rename it, we can use Image:UEFA.png on the article :) -Aabha (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

IoM issue

Well, since Isle of Man is in the list, at least Channel Islands and Gibraltar should be included for completeness. Northern Cyprus, possibly. What about Vatican and Monaco?

While I don't feel this is the Truly Encyclopedic Way, the easy solution would be to exclude Isle of Man from the article. This would allow us to include UEFA in the title. Something like List of top-division clubs in UEFA countries. Opinions? Conscious 15:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

FC issue

There is a suggestion to make use of "FC"/"NK"/"SK" consistent. What do people think is a good way to do with this? The first thing that comes to mind is to eliminate "FC" and all its translations/modifications from the list (like in English section, for example). We should probably try to do this, but not forget about possible exceptions, where "FC" has stuck closely to the club name (the German section, for example, lists Duisburg, Kaiserslautern and Nurnberg along with Hamburger SV, FC Koln and VfB Stuttgart; should they go?). Conscious 20:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see that all these abbreviations are included. We are not short of article space, are we? -- Elisson • Talk 20:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice also, but what's the abbreviation to include in Besa Kavaië (Albania)? Conscious 05:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

KS Besa Kavaië, after looking around a bit. -- Elisson • Talk 13:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, let's include full club names where possible. Conscious 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Most full club names can be found using a combination of the Woorld Football Organization and the Europäische Fußballkader sites, while they not always have the exact same names for some clubs, they are mostly correct. -- Elisson • Talk 13:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These clubs are listed without any abbreviations, and may need them added. (Sorry, but any diacritics have been lost in the process.) Feel free to remove or strike out any clubs that are checked. Conscious 06:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hamrun Spartans / Hamrun
• Msida Saint-Joseph / Msida
• Pieta Hotspurs / Pieta

• Ajax / Amsterdam
• Heracles Almelo / Almelo
• Sparta / Rotterdam
• Vitesse Arnhem / Arnhem
• Willem II Tilburg / Tilburg

• Limavady United / Limavady

• Sandefjord Fotball / Sandefjord

• Amica Wronki / Wronki
• Arka Gdynia / Gdynia
• Cracovia Krakow / Krakow
• Gornik Leczna / Leczna
• Gornik Zabrze / Zabrze
• Groclin Dyskobolia Grodzisk / Grodzisk Wielkopolski
• Korona Kielce / Kielce
• Lech Poznan / Poznan
• Legia Warszawa / Warsaw
• Odra Wodzislaw Slaski / Wodzislaw Slaski
• Pogon Szczecin / Szczecin
• Polonia Warszawa / Warsaw
• Wisla Krakow / Krakow
• Wisla Plock / Plock
• Zaglebie Lubin / Lubin

• Dinamo Bucuresti / Bucharest
• Farul Constanta / Constanta
• Gloria Bistrita / Bistrita
• Jiul Petrosani / Petrosani
• Pandurii Lignitul Targu Jiu / Targu Jiu
• Otelul Galati / Galati
• Rapid Bucuresti / Bucharest
• Sportul Studentesc / Bucharest
• Steaua Bucuresti / Bucharest

• Inter Bratislava / Bratislava

• Deportivo Alaves / Vitoria
• Real Betis / Seville
• Athletic Bilbao / Bilbao
• Celta Vigo / Vigo
• Deportivo de La Coruna / A Coruña
• Atletico Madrid / Madrid
• Real Madrid / Madrid
• Racing Santander / Santander
• Real Sociedad / San Sebastian
• Real Zaragoza / Zaragoza

• GAIS / Gothenburg
• Neuchatel Xamax / Neuchatel

More info?

Is there anything else that we can/should include in the list? Like the date of foundation? Or a link to the official club website?..but many clubs don't have one. Any ideas? -Aabha (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Scotland

I don't quite get the last revert... Celtic are 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 champions. Conscious 13:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I looked at the wrong table. Conscious 13:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

One of two things should occur. Either the top of the page gets edited to indicate that the clubs in bold are last season's champions, or Celtic become bold to reflect that they are the current champions, as the top of the page currently dictates. If you have Rangers bolded, then it is incorrect as per the current wording of the top of the page. NB: I only made an edit for accuracy's sake, not because I support one or the other...I actually despise both halves of the Old Firm equally, hehe. JoelCFC25 18:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What about "the defending champions"? Conscious 18:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Season ending

What about starting updates for countries where the season has already finished? People are already changing champions and adding promoted teams. Conscious 09:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, for countries where all promotion and relegation issues have been decided. Its only premature changes that are a problem. Oldelpaso 09:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

San Marino, Wales, and so forth

I added a comment in the Wales section to the effect that Wales's most important clubs actually compete in the English league. The same is true, apparently, for San Marino, where San Marino Calcio is a professional club competing in the third or fourth rung of the Italian league system, while the teams in the San Marino league seem to be small amateur clubs. Should this be mentioned? Was I right to mention this wrt Wales?

This also brings up the fact that not all top divisions are equal. The clubs from the second highest division in countries like England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain are at a comparable level to most of the leagues listed here, for instance, if not considerably better. Note that Merkuur Tartu, playing in the highest Estonian division, has a ground with a capacity of 2000. Oxford United, in Conference National, the fifth highest English division, has a grounds with a capacity of 12,500. Perhaps we should be clear and specific about this. john k 01:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note on San Marino Calcio and reworded your addition to Wales section, mentioning Cardiff City.

On the other hand, comparing strengths of national division is off-topic in this list. In addition, I doubt it will get you further than just speculation. Conscious 04:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I said that we should be "Comparing strengths of national divisions." But I think it would be fair to make a general statement to the effect that the second and even third and fourth divisions of many of the larger countries are generally viewed as superior to the top leagues of many of the smaller countries, and tend to have more money and better grounds. I don't think trying to make a list would work very well, but some kind of statement of this would be useful. john k 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Generally viewed" is a weasel phrase, I'm opposed to adding it unless there's some objective criterion. It'd be good to have a reference confirming better grounds and more wealth. Conscious 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on Football League Championship confirms that the Championship has more revenues than every European division with the exception of the top divisions in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. In terms of grounds, one could simply look through the list and realize that it's true. I agree that it would be good to find people who say these things specifically, but it seems like a commonplace. Obviously, for instance, Championship is better than the League of Wales, given that Cardiff City is considered the leading Welsh team, and plays in Championship. Cardiff City has a stadium with a capacity of 22,000. Rhyl, which has the largest grounds in the League of Wales, has 4,000 - that's smaller than Newport County, which plays in lowly Conference South. The League of Wales would appear, based on grounds size at least, to be comparable to Conference National, at best. The vast majority of teams in the Championship (looking at List of English football stadia by capacity), and several teams in League One and League Two, have grounds that accommodate over 18,000. Compare to, say Israel, where (per List of football stadiums by capacity) only Beitar Jerusalem has grounds that reach that level. Lithuania doesn't seem to have any. That said, it should be easy enough to find actual quotes to support this assessment. I'm just not sure where to go. john k 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why this should be mentioned? This is a list of top-division clubs in UEFA member countries, not a list of the best clubs in the leagues with most revenue and largest stadia un UEFA member countries, in which we could have had this discussion. – Elisson • Talk 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Two possible reasons:

1. For those not terribly familiar with the game, there might be an impression that these are the best teams. Some notice that the different leagues can be wildly inequivalent might be worth having.
2. The issue of Wales and San Marino, already discussed above. In the case of these two countries, I think it is generally agreed that the best teams located in that country compete in the league of another country, and are not in the highest league for that country. Cardiff City and Swansea City are obviously the dominant Welsh teams. San Marino Calcio is, so far as I can tell, the only professional San Marino club. The way the article is currently phrased does not suggest this at all. It is not just that "several" Welsh teams play in the English Football League. It's that the teams which are by far the most important Welsh teams play in the English Football League. The team which is the only halfway significant San Marino team plays in the Italian league. We shouldn't weasel around with this, and there's no reason that it shouldn't be stated clearly. The San Marino league listed here doesn't even seem to be able to compete in UEFA Champions League. Surely that's worth mentioning as well. If we don't mention these kinds of things, the article is at least implicitly misleading. john k 00:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but this looks more like material for article Football in Europe. It's not the list of best teams in Europe, but best teams of each country.

I agree with your suggestion on San Marino, but are there any objective criteria allowing to say that Cardiff and Swansea are the best/strongest/most significant club in Wales? Do they regularly beat their League of Wales counterparts? Conscious 04:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, their grounds are five times the size of the largest League of Wales grounds. They are also the main teams for the largest cities in the country. Also note [1], where the BBC assumes we would be more interested in the third league in Scotland than the first league in Wales or Northern Ireland - there are no individual team profiles for either of the latter. Note also that on the specific Wales page, Cardiff City, Swansea City, and Wrexham are listed separately first, followed by one section for the League of Wales as a whole. There are apparently no profiles of individual teams in the latter. In terms of material for the article Football in Europe, all I'm saying, I think, is that we make clear that it isn't a list of the best teams in Europe. Just a brief word to say that would be helpful, and clear that up. john k 09:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "DISCLAIMER: JUST BECAUSE TEAMS ARE IN THE TOP LEAGUES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES DOESN'T MEAN THEY PLAY WELL. TEAMS IN THE LOWER LEAGUES OF SOME COUNTRIES MAY BE BETTER"... Well, I'd be opposed to including it.

And ground size has nothing to do with the quality of the team. FC Torpedo Moscow play in the largest stadium in Russia, still they suck. FC Dynamo Moscow have one of the largest budgets, but they suck too.

Anyway, I don't quite get what you're uncomfortable with. Nobody's saying these are best teams in Europe. So, what do you propose? Just add the text to the article. Without any doubt, it'll be removed if other editors consider it unverifiable/non-NPOV/unimportant, and left otherwise. Be bold, you're an admin and know the rules. Conscious 10:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as everyone seems to dislike my basic idea, I thought I'd try to hash it out and explain myself better here before doing anything. And I clearly haven't explained myself very well. Obviously, having money and a large grounds doesn't make you a good team. But it does give some intimation of the size of your fan base and the importance of the team. My problem is not so much that teams in lower leagues in one country might be better than teams in higher leagues in another. It's that teams in lower leagues in one country might be more important than teams in lower leagues of another. The Welsh case makes this especially clear - the League of Wales (and, apparently, the Irish Premier League, as well) is clearly considered by the BBC, at least, to be less important than Football League Two - they have individual team profiles for all teams in the Football League and the Scottish Football League, but they don't have any for even the premier leagues of Wales and Northern Ireland. It would seem that it is generally agreed that the three most important clubs in Wales are the clubs in the (English) Football League - Cardiff City, Swansea City, and Wrexham. Which is not to say that Wrexham is a better side than Rhyl or TNS - I have no idea if this is the case, or how we would determine this, since they would rarely play each other. But in this case, at least, we seem to be able to fairly conclusively say "the fourth highest English division is more prestigious and important than the highest Welsh division."

So what I think we need to do is simply have a brief statement to the effect that for the smaller European countries, the top division often includes very small clubs with little money or fan base, while in larger countries, well known clubs with long and storied histories can often be found in lower divisions. This would make the Welsh situation more comprehensible when we come to it - we could then simply note that while the League of Wales is the top division in Welsh football, that several Welsh teams play in English leagues, including the three most prominent, Cardiff City, Swansea City, and Wrexham, which play in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th highest English divisions, respectively.

Beyond this, I'm going to throw out an idea which may or may not have any support. I wonder if it might be a good idea to include as an addendum to this list teams that were at one time in their country's top division (perhaps limiting it to the last ten or twenty years). This would seem not to be outside the purview of the page as described by the title, and would also mean that important clubs that have fallen on hard times will be easily found in a single central location. As an example, there are 20 teams in England that have been in the Premiership at some point since it was formed in 1992, but are no longer in it. john k 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that result in a heavily bloated list - if one country has 20 such clubs from the past 15 years, then the result of adding such clubs over all countries would be vast. Also time limiting seems arbitrary, and a systematic bias. However, I think there may be some mileage in creating a new list consisting solely of such clubs, with no time-based limit. Oldelpaso 17:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It would, presumably, about double the length of the current list, which is significant, but not outrageous, bloat. That said, a separate page would make sense, although that would be genuinely enormous. john k 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

None of the teams for Liechtenstein seem to fit the definition of this page. If we aren't going to list Swansea City or Wrexham in the Wales section, how can we list any of these teams, whose situation is exactly the same, except that Liechtenstein, unlike Wales, has no league of its own? It seems to me we should, at the very least, remove the table and change the thing to be a text paragraph, stating that Liechtenstein has no domestic league, but that these teams play in the Swiss League. john k 16:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the absence of the league makes the difference. Why not give some information on Liechtenstein? Conscious 18:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. —Nightstallion (?) 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

2007-08 update

Thanks to everyone who helps update this page. For some countries an update for 2007-08 season is needed of will be needed soon:

• Bosnia and Herzegovina: season ended, no info from RSSSF yet
• Denmark: Viasat Sport Divisionen ends on June 24
• Georgia: league season ended, no info from RSSSF about play-off yet
• Hungary: Keleti csoport and Nyugati csoport end on June 16
• Macedonia: league season ended, no info from RSSSF about play-off yet
• Montenegro: season ended, no info from RSSSF yet
• Romania: no info from RSSSF yet
• Serbia: play-off ends on June 27
• Spain: Primera División ends on June 17
• Ukraine: Premier League ends on June 17

Conscious 07:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

MORE CLUBS

We wnne to put at least the 2nd division clube i.e sirea b championship spanish segunda

City?

City is inaccurate, as many of the locations are towns. Should we change it to "town or city" or "location" perhaps? --Jameboy (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Republic

I just removed the mentioning of republic in macedonia as it was long and inconsistent with rest of list. Then I saw the edit history, and to my amazement the edit just before was the inclusion of "Republic of". But I still don't see the rationale for adding the "Republic of"? France is also a republic, Sweden is a Kingdom etc. etc. why single out Macedonia. I guess adding Republic of to Ireland is for your special relationship, but IMO just having Ireland would be fine. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 20:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. The English WP articles for France and Sweden are called France and Sweden, because, in English, France and Sweden are unambiguous. The English WP article Ireland is about the island, not the country, and Macedonia is a disambiguation page. The articles about the countries are called Republic of Ireland and Republic of Macedonia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm the editor responsible, but I agree. My intention in this list is not to use any piped links for clubs or countries. In theory this would extend to leagues, but as an example there are too many Germans, drama queens and incompetent administrators to move "Fußball-Bundesliga" to its correct title at "Bundesliga", "Football Bundesliga" or "German Football Bundesliga". --WFC-- 00:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

From the MoS:"Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". By far the main number of references on news.google for 'Macedonia country' reveals "Macedonia" as the common term, but we knew that is the common English usage. How Macedonia can be ambiguous in a list of nations is beyond me, apart from the fact that Macedonia happens to be a disamb. page. But being a disambig. page on WP does not imply disambiguity in the real world, or for that sake in this list. The reason the WP article is at "Rep. of" is only to disambiguate. Likewise Denmark can refer to loads of different stuff, so why not link to "Kingdom of Denmark". The difference? The ad hoc nature of wikipedia. So the question is whether to replicate the ad hoc basis in the list. Sandman888 (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with piped links? As for Macedonia, wouldn't "FYR Macedonia" be the UEFA recognized name? We absolutely should not change Republic of Ireland to Ireland; the IFA is older than the FAI, and has just as much claim to represent Ireland as the FAI does. john k (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The only difference between the reasons for disambiguating Macedonia and disambiguating Ireland is that the latter is an island, and that there are enough Northern Irish English-speakers to make sure we get it right. Historically, Macedonias were predominantly or entirely outside of the country, for instance this, this and this. On Denmark, the difference is that Denmark has been established as a country for around 1300 years. Present-day Macedonia came into being 19 years ago, not to mention that a few of those involved a violent attempt to break the country up.

As for piped links, my view is that when this page makes perfect sense without being piped, the work I want to do on article naming will be complete. To pipe the links here is to accept that we should continue with the pathetic mess of English/non-English/dotted/undotted/mish-mashes of names that we currently have across the topic. --WFC-- 05:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

Two questions about the images:

• The English league is the only one with more than one image. I fear that this might come across as repeating the idea that the Premier League consists of four teams, and some others who are there to make up the numbers. I know that's not the intention of the image, but that's how it could come across. Perhaps the Duncan Edwards image might be the most appropriate as a single one (he's in an England, not an M.U. shirt and the statue represents the importance of football in England)
• Why does only the Faroe Isles have a map? It might come across as a bit patronising - here's the location of the unimportant place that you've never head of - and its also a shame as the other image is so good. Could we scrap the map?

These aren't severe criticisms, but just a couple of thoughts I had when looking over an excellent article! Pretty Green (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kadra1927.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Kadra1927.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 29 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Partizan-Stadion.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Partizan-Stadion.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209043226/http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/History/HistoryDetail/0%2C%2C10794~1357277%2C00.html to http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/History/HistoryDetail/0%2C%2C10794~1357277%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118121453/http://www.premierleague.com/page/History/0%2C%2C12306%2C00.html to http://www.premierleague.com/page/History/0%2C%2C12306%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct League Links

I was reviewing Lithuanian A Lyga, and found that the link from this page is to the regular season results table. The final results Template:2018 A Lyga Regular Season table. However there is a championship round for the top 6 teams after that, but then table does not show the bottom 2 teams. How to resolve this?

Also, the 2019 season has started, should this just replace the 2018, or should show both seasons, since it would show the champion that will participate in 2019 UEFA european cups draws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfmartyn (talk • contribs) 11:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Bold 2409:4089:BE0F:9F33:B02F:7E78:F254:EE67 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)