A Football Team is? Or a Football Team Are?

By: Daryl | September 24th, 2009

We love a linguistics debate here on The Offside, so I wanted to bring up a question that constantly confuses me: A football team is, or a football team are?

Chelsea is top of the Premier League, or Chelsea are top of the Premier League?

As I understand it (or at least as Yahoo! Answers explains it) this is a debate about singular and plural. Basically “is” implies a single entity (like a football club) and “are” implies a collection of entities (like a team of football players).

By that logic, we could refer to Chelsea Football Club (the entity) using “is”. For example: “Chelsea is no longer Peter Kenyon’s employer”.

And we could refer to Chelsea the collection of football players using “are”. For example: “Chelsea are on the attack.”

But apparently it’s not that straightforward. Here are two recent examples, from reputable media sources, that don’t work with the above logic. Emphasis mine:

“Liverpool are set to announce a new shirt sponsorship deal worth £80m over four years…” – The Guardian

“It looks like Carlo Ancelotti made the break from AC Milan at the right time. A few weeks into his first season in English football, his Chelsea team is top of the Premier League…” Fox Sports (but Associated Press story)

In The Guardian example, the reference to Liverpool is clearly to Liverpool FC the club, the entity. So by the singular/plural rule, it should be “Liverpool is set to announce…”

Likewise in the Fox Sports example, the sentence refers to the Chelsea team, a collection of players, and so should read “his Chelsea team are top of the Premier League…”

So what’s going on?

One possibility is that this is an English vs American language thing. English media seems to almost always refer to teams and clubs (whether singular or plural) using “are”, while American media tends to go with “is”. Maybe this is rooted in the way sport has worked on different sides of the Atlantic, with English football clubs originally being a collection of players rather than a corporate entity (although that has obviously changed in recent years) and American sports teams identifying themselves early on as franchises, which is to say singular entities.

But all the above is speculation, and I can’t claim any authoritative knowledge or insight. All I can do is ask for your opinion and your help. Which form do you use – is or are? – and, most importantly, why?

Some Related Stories:

Category: World Football

« There’s No Cheating In Football! | Home | Daily Dose: September 24th, 2009 »

The Offside RSS Feeds

Tim

really interesting question and one we have discussed too - we decided on "is" for most instances, as we believe it to be more grammatically correct, however "are" seems to be used far more often in the UK. force of habit maybe?
sscouser

There "are" or "is" a few grammatical errors in my comments above?
sscouser

Sandrahn, I don't think "it's just a difference between American and British English".

I think it all comes down to the speaker's "intent"

If the speaker is talking about England (National Team only) then "is" is acceptable. If the speaker is talking about England (The Team and its fans) then "are" is acceptable.

In the same vein if one is talking about Man U (The Team only)then yes "Man U sucks". However, if the speaker is talking about Man U (The Team, The Club, The Fans and that they represent) then yes "Man U suck".

In the final analysis, just because a famous analysts say it this way or that way doesn't mean that they are grammatically right. Some of them dropped English 101.
That's why sometimes I don't just get it when some people believe everything the so called "pundits" say.
sandrahn

sscouser, "Man U suck," definitely. :-D

Anyway, this is just a difference between American English and British English.

In Britain, sports teams are plural in almost all contexts. This includes national teams, not just clubs.

So when the British press talk about England as in the national football team, they say "England are winning," "England are improving under Fabio Capello," and so on.

It's not a question or "right" and "wrong," it's simply a matter of differences in usage. Having lived and worked in England and being so accustomed to the British press for so much of my football coverage, I've taken on the British use of the plural when referring to sports teams now. Now it sounds strange for me to hear the American use of the singular.
sscouser

While on the same topic, is it "Man U suck" or "Man U sucks"? :D
The Gaffer

Yep, I agree with the above poster. It's a yank/brit thing. The yanks use the singular (i.e. "Liverpool is...") while the Brits use the plural (i.e. "Liverpool are...").

Cheers,
The Gaffer
Chowd Gooner

This is mostly a Brit/Yank distinction. Straight from wiki:

In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members; compare a committee was appointed... with the committee were unable to agree....[8][9] The term the Government always takes a plural verb in British civil service convention, perhaps to emphasise the principle of collective responsibility[10]. Compare also the following lines of Elvis Costello's song "Oliver's Army": Oliver's Army are on their way / Oliver's Army is here to stay. Some of these nouns, for example staff,[11] actually combine with plural verbs most of the time.

In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree... AmE however may use plural pronouns in agreement with collective nouns: the team take their seats, rather than the team takes its seats. The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of "individuals acting separately" is considered plural.[12] However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats. Despite exceptions such as usage in the New York Times, the names of sports teams are usually treated as plurals even if the form of the name is singular.[13]

The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance,

BrE: The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well-known band.
BrE: Pittsburgh are the champions; AmE: Pittsburgh is the champion.

Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Steelers are the champions.
vespo

I think a lot of this confusion comes from the majority of American sports teams havine plural names, while soccer team names are generally gramatically singular.

New York Yankees, Boston Bruins, Cleveland Cavaliers, Detroit Lions, Denver Broncos, etc etc.

But then you have soccer/football teams in Europe that have grammatically singular names like Arsenal, Chelsea, Bolton, Barcelona, which MLS then tries to replicate: Houston Dynamo, Columbus Crew (Seattle is a weird one with the Sounders).

I think most of the confusing is an English/American thing rather than correct/incorrect grammar, coming largely from different naming conventions.
timmyg

Al is correct. The AP style refers to teams as "is" because its a singular thing. It does sound weird, but using "are" is incorrect.

Another BIG incorrect usage of grammar is referring to a club as "they" instead of "it". (Ex. Chelsea need to win its game in hand.]

More info: collective nouns -- In the United States, nouns such as team, Congress, committee and group take singular verbs, such as "is." These collective nouns also take the pronoun "it" instead of "they." So, if you're confused about whether a word such as "team" is an "it" or a "they," try making up a sentence using the word followed by "is" or "are." You wouldn't say "The team are playing well." Try this, instead: "The team is playing well. It may win this game." That's correct.
Johonna

Team is a singular noun (like family). Team always takes the singular form is and was, right?

As for club names... Well, English is a living language. I say, go with what sounds right and, if you write it enough, it becomes the rule. The trick is consistency.
andersen

I'm gonna go with "are" on this one.

so Al, your journalism teacher would approve of "the Yankees is going to the playoffs."

I think its more of a problem when translating from other languages into English.

Another possibility is that when you say "the Chelsea team is the top", "Chelsea" is more of a modifier to "team". It's still a stretch; however and it wedges itself in there grammatically.
Laurie

I dare anybody to try to say "Seattle Sounders is..."
Mike Nolan, Jr.

I was taught this by my English teacher a while ago.
It depends entirely on the context, whether you are talking about the team as an entity, or the team as a group of individuals. Examples:

Chelsea is at the top of the ladder after their win (you mean Chelsea as an organization, a whole team).
Chelsea were the better team on the pitch in their last game (say "were" instead of "was," because you are talking about the PLAYERS on the Chelsea team, not the team as a unit).
sscouser

Scott? Anyway, noted with thanks. I am not in the arguing mood today. :D
Scott

sscouser, I think the examples would be more clear if you used "England aren't going to win the World Cup," and "England's National Team isn't going to win the World Cup."
Just sayin'...
john

Straight grammar says that if you refer to the name of a club, or a collective, it's a singular noun and thus deserves to be treated accordingly. It's never 'The family are driving to North Dakota,' Or 'The U.S. Government are working on the problem.' It's always 'is.' If you want to remain within snooty grammatical bounds then you can add 'players' or 'managers' and make it plural.

Still... I frequently refer to a club in the plural sense, because to me it is a collective and my brain automatically wants to represent it as such. And since a lot of us do that, you could make the case for social constructionism...
sscouser

Using “Yahoo! Answers” as reference? Daryl, “is” you serious?

Anyway, it depends on the context.

Examples:
Liverpool are a great team. (US Microsoft Word will suggests that you replace “are” with “is” because it thinks Liverpool “is” a name of a person. Just ignore it)
The Liverpool Team is great
England are going to win the World Cup (US Microsoft Word suggests that you replace “are” with “is” because it thinks England “is” a name of a person. Just ignore it)
England National Team is going to win the World Cup.

Club = “is”. (Always)

“If you can’t beat them, join them.” If you are still confused then just avoid using either one of them.

Also do you say “the team who” or “the team that”?

According to www.grammarbook.com “who” refers to people. “That” and “which” refer to groups or things.

Examples:
Anya is the one who rescued the bird.
Lokua is on the team that won first place.
She belongs to an organization that specializes in saving endangered species.

However, most US sports commentators/analysts say: “the team who…”

Daryl, how can I format the texts of my comments?
Rob

Chelsea is not longer employing, just sounds horrible to my ears. But maybe that is just being used thinking of it as are, because I can see the argument for is, I just don't find it aesthetically pleasing.
Ian

I use both, depending on the context. If I'm talking about the club in general, I do say "Caley Thistle was relegated" rather than "were". But I do refer to the team as "we" quite often, so I guess I use third-person singular and first-person plural.
Brian Phillips

Collective nouns is a notoriously ambiguous region of grammar. British English handles it one way, American English handles it another. Wikipedia has the explanation.
Red Ranter

It is not a direct comparison though. The first quote is " are" the second on is " team is"

It's a comparison between "Liverpool are" and "[this] Liverpool team is..." there is an addition of the word team over there.

Maybe if there is a direct comparison ie, "Liverpool are..." and "Liverpool is...".
Andrew

I always use the plural when talking football, as I'm used to reading articles on BBC, Telegraph, and the like, and I've picked up the habit that way. I still use the singular when referring to American sports teams, however, as I think people would look at me strangely if I started saying things like, "Boston are going to sign so-and-so."
Oli Davies

YES. I do my writing in Word at the moment, and I always type are, without fail.

Microsofts American grammar check the annoys me by telling me its is.
Al

My journalism teacher told me that teams are singular, so that's what I have been led to believe.