Actually, Britain is the official short form for the UK, so it should work on other quizzes (not on this one, obviously). What should never work is Great Britain, unless you're asking about an island.
The formula can be abused though. Belgium did it recently, they got to #1 for winning a lot of meaningless friendlies without playing very many competitive matches - at the only tournament they played in during 2016, they were terrible.
Agree with Corrode, the FIFA ranking never values winning world cups, for example right now Germany is behind Brazil and Argentina, teams that they won in the last world cup.
FIFA ranking values winning cups at part of their highest consideration!! But as retratado stated, countries may abuse the system to kick themselves up to a higher rank.
Belgium played as many friendlies as any other European nation (teams really won't just release their players for international football on a whim). Besides, playing poor countries in friendlies can actually lower your ranking. Belgium did not hold the number 1 position after the 2016 Euros, in fact they were only number 1 between november 2015 and april 2016. FIFA rankings are heavily flawed (as are any other metrics), but not for any of the reasons mentioned. And no, Belgium was never the best footballing nation in the world. That should be clear for anyone with even a modicum of interest in the game.
It is pretty much nonsensical. Luckily, nobody really cares about the ranking. It just sometimes factors into seeding at competitions, but given the size of the competitions, there are rarely really competitive group stages anyway.
In football (that is real football) England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own representative football team. It is the same in the Commonwealth Games with the addition of teams from Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man all separate not UK.
Nope, people from England, Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron are glaring at YOU right now for not knowing that the UK does not have a representative football team!
"Except on the Olympics, maybe? Don't they do that under the UK banner?"
Yes, but not for football. Except at 2012 when they were hosts but that caused all sorts of ructions around team selection as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland didn't want their players selected.
ColOmbia. No, I'm not Colombian, but I've traveled there extensively, and nothing will annoy Colombians more than this. Maybe aside from narco jokes. And no, they don't love Pablo.
Ummm...you got a bit of a problem here. All the answers were displayed in the boxes before even beginning the quiz. Makes it pretty easy. :) Might want to fix that.
Belgium has a population smaller than the LA metro and plays right at the top of the competition, and the US with 330 million people, a robust soccer development program, and a bunch of ringers from other countries can't scrape together 20 guys to put together a competitive team. Come on, man.
It's rather disappointing how bad America's men's soccer team is given how good it could be. I'm not sure why it is that way, but personally, I've always chalked it up to a lack of interest in the sport in America, especially among men.
Our women's team, on the other hand, is pretty amazing!
It really is impressive how much the USMNT team sucks.
And contrary to disciplines like handball (I think you Mericans call that ''European'' handball), where America is also inept, football has been played in the US for a long time and there's much money in it too.
@jmellor13 already mentioned Belgium, but think that even Croatia (11th place in 2021) is way ahead of the United States with a population as little as that of L.A. - not the metropolitan area, but the city itself!
Our best athletes play basketball, football, baseball, hockey, lacrosse, track and field, and then maybe soccer after that. I played soccer, but I just like other sports more
I have heard this explanation many times, but we should still be able to find 20 guys who both have the athletic ability to compete and a preference for soccer. Also, if you look at the build of the average soccer player, he's not fit for basketball or American football. Most of them would have to be baseball players. Soccer is more popular than lacrosse and track and field, and it might be less popular than hockey as a spectator sport, but certainly not among participants. I was a hockey player, and it's a real pain. The demands for equipment, travel, and access to ice time are prohibitive for many people. Our development programs for soccer are much better than those for hockey, lacrosse, and track and field too. Soccer should really be on par with tennis, and it lags way behind. I just don't get it.
The constituent countries of the UK have their own football teams and therefore England is the only acceptable answer in this circumstance.
Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish people are all glaring at you right now.
Yes, but not for football. Except at 2012 when they were hosts but that caused all sorts of ructions around team selection as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland didn't want their players selected.
Drop that hundo!
..5/5 on the razor's edge
Our women's team, on the other hand, is pretty amazing!
And contrary to disciplines like handball (I think you Mericans call that ''European'' handball), where America is also inept, football has been played in the US for a long time and there's much money in it too.
@jmellor13 already mentioned Belgium, but think that even Croatia (11th place in 2021) is way ahead of the United States with a population as little as that of L.A. - not the metropolitan area, but the city itself!
Somehow forgot Germany lmao
like me