|
|
This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
| xml |
No replies possible in the archive |
|
Author: thomas
Date: 07-09-2005, 16:36
Edited by: thomas
at: 07-09-2005, 16:37 | Sorry for this curious question, but I found no answer anywhere and maybe some here knows.
Why is there a FIFA member called "Tahiti"? The territory's name is "French Polynesia", and Tahiti is only the most important island in it. So is the Tahiti national team only for the island of Tahiti (in that case other islands of the territory may get own national teams as well) or is it for hole French Polynesia and for some reason they took the island's name for the whole territory? |
|
Author: Lyonnais
Date: 07-09-2005, 16:58
Edited by: Lyonnais
at: 07-09-2005, 17:04 | although as you mentioned tahiti is just one island of French Polynesia (which is a large territory, (5 millions km2, i.e. 10 times larger than France roughly or the size of Europe), Tahiti represents around 200,000 out of the 250,000 total population of French Polynesia, as far as I can remember. That does not explain why the association is registered under Tahiti and not Polynesia or French Polynesia, but this is not totally wrong.
250,000 people in the whole Polynesia. That means that they have around the same population as the 15th "arrondissement" (district) of Paris.
That's a silly comparison I agree but I however find it interesting. |
|
Author: iwan
Date: 08-09-2005, 16:49
| You can look at the webpage:
www.fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/t/zone/index.html
Than you can see all the Islands in Oceania and CONCACAF!!! |
|
Author: eoinh
Date: 09-09-2005, 10:41
| Dont clubs from the French colonial possesions in the pacific take part in the French FA Cup? I think I have heard about teams from French Guyana in South America taking part as well. Thats doesnt I suppose rule out UEFA Cup ties in Oceania and South america! |
|
Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 09-09-2005, 11:20
Edited by: Forza-AZ
at: 09-09-2005, 11:25 | Yes, all French overseas territories (French Guyana, Martinique, Guedeloupe, Reunion, New Caledonia, Tahiti and Mayotte) have one team in the early stages of the French Cup. They start in round 7 and have to win 2 rounds to reach the last 64 (in which the 1st level teams start). But I don't think that one of these have ever made even the last 16 of the Cup, so it's very unlikely that they will ever play in the UEFA-cup, and if they do, I'm pretty sure UEFA won't allow them to play in their own territory, but let'd them play somewhere in France. |
|
Author: iwan
Date: 09-09-2005, 13:01
| Dear Forza,
Witch country are you meaning with Reunion!?!?
Iwan |
|
Author: porto-1978
Date: 09-09-2005, 13:08
| I think Forza is refering to the island(s?) in the south indic ocean, southeast of Madagascar... right? |
|
Author: ignjat63
Date: 09-09-2005, 13:13
| Reunion Island, a French territory situated in the Indian Ocean off the south-east coast of South Africa. |
|
Author: Lyonnais
Date: 09-09-2005, 13:25
| Forza, you are fully right.
Some few years ago a team from the Overseas departments (to be honnest I don't remember which team and where it came from) reached the 1/8 or 1/16 of the French Cup. Not bad.
Should one of these teams win the Cup, which is currently very unlikely, they would be allowed to play in the UEFA Cup I presume (with games to be played in France presumably too). And we theoretically could have the same team playing in the UEFA Cup and say the CONCACAF Cup.
La Reunion is certainly one of the best overseas departments for football as local clubs tend to recruit former professionals. They have like a semi-professional league which I believe is rather popular (average audiences about 1,000 per game - just a guess). That would be interesting to see what they could do vs. teams from countries ranked in the 40th around position at the UEFA.
The overseas departments bring a lot to the French national team. Thuram comes from Guadeloupe, Karembeu from Nouvelle-Caledonie, Lama the keeper comes from Guyana (same as Malouda, the Lyon left-winger that is now part of the French NT), etc. |
|
Author: iwan
Date: 09-09-2005, 15:33
| Yes, the Island Reunion is lying 56 degrase Eastly of the Greenich and 21 degrase Southly of the equator and a fiew miles Southly of Mauritis!! |
|
Author: keir
Date: 09-09-2005, 18:54
| You are all going slightly off- topic: why is the French Polynesia playing as Tahiti in the World Cup Qualifiers? Perhaps, as Tahiti is quite a recognisable name in the U.K., and I'm sure the rest of Europe, they decided the name was more exotic; although, I must admit, that is quite unlikely. |
|
Author: ywann-dreisl
Date: 09-09-2005, 20:00
| Does it mean that Tahiti is actually a representation of all Franch oversea departments (Franch Guyana, Reunion etc.)? |
|
Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 09-09-2005, 20:28
| @ywann-dreisl
No, Tahiti is just Tahiti (and maybe also the other French Polynesian islands). Not the others. New Caledonia, Martinique and Guadeloupe also have own "national teams", of which the last 2 don't play in WCQ. |
|
Author: Martijn_Lok
Date: 11-09-2005, 19:12
| @ Lyonnais:
In fact, in the complete national team of France there are a lot of "non-france" players:
Here a list of players of the current squad, with country of birth:
Jean-Alain Boumsong: Cameroun
Lilian Thouran: Guadeloupe
Claude Makelele: Zaire (Congo)
Patrick Viera: Senegal
Florent Malouda: Guyana
But of course, many national teams have "adopted" players.
And off topic: Why are there countries with own national teams with football, but are in fact a part of another country. At the olympic games they do not have their own teams.
For example:
Wales, Scotland and Nort. Ireland (Great Brittain)
Faroe Islands (Denmark) |
|
Author: porto-1978
Date: 12-09-2005, 11:23
| Isn?t Patrick Vieira from Cabo Verde (Green Cape) Islands? Maybe just some of their parents... |
|
Author: Miki
Date: 12-09-2005, 11:49
Edited by: Miki
at: 12-09-2005, 11:50 | His mother is from Cabo Verde. |
|
Author: Lyonnais
Date: 12-09-2005, 14:07
| @Martijn_Lock:
1)as far as I know, none player was given the French citizenship because they were good in football. They just are the results of the immigration and, from a football perspective, it is perfectly fair to admit that immigration is not a disavantage.
Vieira arrived in France at the age of 7. Is he more Senegalese than French ?
Desailly was born in Ghana and his mother married the French consul when he was 2. Is he more Ghanean than French ?
etc.
2) this works on both ways. Most African teams have players that have been raised, educated and sometimes born in France. Out of the Senegalese squad that beat France in WC2002, 21 players were playing in France, and I don't remember exactly but around 1/2 of the team had been raised in France (immigrating before the age of 10 roughly).
FIFA rules are so flexible now that any son of immigrants can either choose to play with their country (i.e. France) or the country of their parents (i.e. Ivory Coast, Cameroun, Senegal, etc.). And there is a strong competition between France and the African countries to keep these players (all the more that players can choose until the age of 23 now).
Most of them recently chose their African-root national team, typically Drogba who arrived in France at the age of 2 and chose the Ivory Coast. Some players like Drogba make this choice because they say that they feel more Africans, some other made the same choice but because they have the feeling that it will be easier to play for their African national team than for France. |
|
Author: keir
Date: 12-09-2005, 14:22
| Martijn_Lok,
You have brought up an interesting question, especially since England was anounced as the hosts of the 2012 Olympic Games. The four home nations, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island, play separately as a matter of tradition. The F.A. was set- up to represent all the football teams which then existed, which were all, although maybe not, as I do not know all the facts and statistics, based in England. Therefore, when football grew in the other three home nations, they set- up their own football associations. Infact, there was a home nations tournament, in existance right up until the 1980s. But, now since London will host the Olympics, a Great Britain football team will have to be entered, as it is a requirement of the I.O.C. for the host to enter a team. Now, the four nations will have to play together as Great Britain, and there has been a lot controversy, and argument from the Scots in paticular.
Scotland fear that if a Great Britain team can be entered into the Olympics, then future F.I.F.A. presidents, not the present, as Sepp Blater has agreed that this will not happen, will force Scotland to join with the three other home nations; and this will probably disadvantage Scotland the most, with allocation of U.E.F.A. Cup and Champions' League positions.
Perhaps the French Polynesia regard themselves like the United Kingdom, with separate countries who play separately in sport, but the other islands do not enter a team, whereas Tahiti do, adopting the French Polynesia flag, as their own? Or probably not... |
|
Author: spoonman
Date: 12-09-2005, 14:53
Edited by: spoonman
at: 12-09-2005, 14:53 | @ keir: But wasn't it a voluntary decision by the British Olympic Committee to form a united British team? For all I know, they would have been allowed to enter England as the host team. |
|
Author: mjwillan
Date: 12-09-2005, 15:58
| London, not England or Great Britain got the Olympics, and a team representing the country (i.e. United Kingdom) will have to enter the football. This could be a combined team, or a combination of 1 or more of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It could even be a team of Londoners, it doesn't matter where the team is from as long as they are all UK citizens |
|
Author: keir
Date: 14-09-2005, 18:40
| The team will play as the United Kingdom, as that is the country, in Olympic terms, i.e. when medals are won, they are attributed to the U.K. This doesn't necessarily mean that all the players can't come from England, as they are the superior of the home nations. Infact, many have said that it is important that whoever manages the U.K. team, should not taken home nationality into context when picking the squad: mjwillan has it right.
spoonman, the decision wasn't voluntary, it was forced upon us by the fact that we play as Great Britain and Northern Ireland, i.e. the U.K. |
|
|