Talk:FCSB

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the article Fotbal Club FCSB describe the club as being established in 2003 and limit its infobox and historical content to the post-2003 entity, rather than including the foundation date, honours, or history of CSA Steaua București (founded 1947), in light of current reliable secondary sources, Romanian state authority records, and UEFA’s recognition following final court rulings? Cezxmer (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

AGREE - There is no proof that FC Fcsb is Steaua, that it ever was Steaua and that it has anything to do with Steaua Bucharest. FC Fcsb's own website says nothing about the things mentioned here, on Wikipedia. This is clear proof that this club is a fraud. The article needs to change. CatalinCimpian (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Background:

There is long-standing confusion between CSA Steaua București, founded in 1947, and Fotbal Club FCSB, a separate legal and sporting entity. Romanian courts, state authorities, and international football bodies have issued clarifications over the past decade that affect how these two entities are treated. Several secondary sources, including sporting outlets, now explicitly state that FCSB was founded in 2003, not 1947. Reflecting these developments, much of the sporting press has also adjusted its treatment of the historical record honours won prior to 1998, which are attributed to CSA Steaua București.

Sources that support the change:

1. Contemporary Romanian sports journalism distinguishes between Steaua, when referring to the team currently in Liga 2 and its historic honors, and FCSB as a separate entity competing in Liga I. Examples from GSP and ProSport show that the 1986 European Cup is attributed to Steaua, not FCSB, and that players and achievements are contextually assigned to the 1947 entity. This reflects sporting reality, not just legal formalism.

GSP: Having spent his entire life working for Steaua, 76-year-old Radu Troi, a former footballer in Ghencea in the 1970s, recently gave an extensive interview, discussing several topics: the situation in youth football, where he still works today, the Army Sports Club groups, the footballers he has discovered, and the battle for the Romanian first division title. Radu Troi, who works with one of Steaua's children's and junior groups, commented on the battle for the first division title. Beyond the animosity between the "military" club and FCSB, Troi admits that the red and blues in the first division have an advantage in the battle for the Super League title. 1

The four-goal difference was the largest in Champions League final history, a margin recorded four times in history, including in the final lost by Steaua Bucharest in 1989, with a score of 0-4 against AC Milan. 2

Andras Huszti, a 25-year-old center back, has signed a contract with Steaua that is valid until the end of this season. 3

PROSPORT: On May 7, 1986, under Ienei's leadership, Steaua Bucharest achieved the greatest feat in the history of Romanian football, a feat that will be difficult to ever match. 4

Miodrag Belodedici is the only Romanian footballer to have won the European Champions Cup with two different teams: Steaua Bucharest and Red Star Belgrade. 5

Steaua Bucharest has officially announced the conclusion of an image partnership with the international brand URSU, a mineral water company owned by Cristiano Ronaldo. 6

2. The National Agency for Sport and the Ministry of Sport have issued official clarifications stating that FCSB’s Sports Identity Certificate (CIS) was issued on 21 February 2003. This is the formal "birth certificate" of the sporting entity.

The Ministry of Sport provided an official response to a Steaua supporter who requested FCSB’s CIS. In the official document, the authority led by Eduard Novak specifies that FCSB’s CIS dates from 2003, when Gigi Becali took over the team. 7

The National Agency for Sport clarified that the team owned by Gigi Becali was founded on 21 February 2003. 8

3. UEFA has recently updated its official records to attribute the 1986 European Cup and associated history to the 1947 entity, with FCSB's specific history on the UEFA site now beginning with the 2017–2018 season.

UEFA provided an explanation after FCSB was removed from the European Cup trophy section on its website. Steaua București is now listed as the winner of the 1985–1986 edition. Until Friday, 17 October, the European Cup trophy won in 1986 appeared under FCSB’s name. The latest changes resulted in it being attributed to Steaua. Moreover, on the international governing body’s website, FCSB’s history in the most important European interclub competition begins with the 2017–2018 season, the season in which the club changed its name. Regarding modifications to the club's honors, UEFA stated that the updates were prompted by a "final ruling issued by a Romanian court a few months ago regarding this matter." UEFA referred to the decision from June of this year, through which CSA Steaua was awarded the official records for the period between 1947 and 1998. 9

This situation bears similarity to the conflict between C.F. Os Belenenses and B-SAD. The same approach could be applied here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cezxmer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing the attempt to resolve this without an RfC was Talk:FCSB#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2026.
@Tgeorgescu Could you clarify which reliable sources contradict the courts' findings of history and are newer than said rulings? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I see this as a bit of a strawman. There is a lot of historical information that doesn't just blink out of existence because a court snaps its fingers. Since when do we accept courts as arbiters of historical fact rather than arbiters of law? The UEFA explicitly says that they made the change because of the court. I utterly reject the idea that the task here is to find newer sources that contradict a government's judgment of what is a trademark dispute, as I do not believe that's even remotely the question, and I will not participate in this discussion if that's the direction we're going. Might as well switch Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America if we're doing that... CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. What are the WP:Reliable sources that contradict the courts' findings of history? I do need evidence to believe what you're saying. Reliable sources still call it the Gulf of Mexico after the executive order, which is why we call it that. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

There is http://uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/2614166--steaua-bucuresti/ , meaning the real Steaua Bucharest played in the UEFA competition in 2016-2017.

There is https://www.espn.nl/voetbal/artikel/_/id/15686556/het-fascinerende-en-verwarrende-verhaal-van-fcsb , which presents the dispute.

The dispute is about whether the juridical reality is the same as the historical reality.

Hint: this is an article about the soccer team, not about the commercial company which holds it. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. From the first link it appears that you are using WP:OR, since this is not backed up by a reliable source. This UEFA page appears to be covered by one of the sources in the OP. I am not a native dutch speaker, but from what I can understand, the article from ESPN doesn't contradict the OP, but maybe I am missing something. ~2026-93489-0 (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

At this talk page I have previously provided several WP:RS which say that the UEFA website is a mess, in respect to FCSB. I mean: RS recognize it lacks clarity about whether FCSB is the real Steaua Bucharest. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Can't have it both ways. If UEFA's published information attributing team championships is a source in this context, then choosing one UEFA attribution over the other is WP:OR. If it's not valid, then it shouldn't even be brought up in the first place. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yup, it's like theologians deciding that some Bible verses overrule other Bible verses, which affirm the opposite. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The second link does clear things up and strongly support that CSA is the new one and FCSB is the old one. I'm not sure what the first link is supposed to do, though. Whose logo is that?

Hint: this is an article about the soccer team, not about the commercial company which holds it.

I'm not sure what that means. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: S.C. FCSB S.A. is the commercial company which has acquired the soccer team in 2003. The soccer team existed before 2003. So, the soccer team is not the same as the commercial company. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the team is the people and the FCSB acquired the original people. Unfortunately, I can't figure out what point/conclusion that was meant to lead to nor how the UEFA link helps. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: The UEFA link helps establish that UEFA contradicts itself about FCSB, i.e. UEFA is not a reliable source about FCSB. Choosing one interpretation of the UEFA website over another interpretation falls under WP:OR. I.e., the other side cites the UEFA website in order to show that FCSB isn't the real Steaua, I cite the UEFA website in order to show that FCSB is the real Steaua. But both can't be true.

The point about company vs. people is that the history of the soccer team does not coincide with the history of the company. The WP:SCOPE of this article is the soccer team, not the commercial company. We obviously don't say that the commercial company was established during the Stalinist regime. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how the UEFA website shows a contradiction?

I agree that the founding date in the infobox should be the team's founding date, but I don't see the point of excluding a football club's commercial dealings. These are very encyclopedic history and regularly included, plus we already include it as e.g. the whole "Ownership and finances" section. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, each major subtopic can and should be detailed in an article. The essay you quoted also says Accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible.
So, altogether I'm still quite confused as to what you meant. The article currently does say the club turned private in 1998, became public in 2003, and was founded 1947, and I support that. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• EXCLUSIV FCSB. UEFA dovedește că „FCSB E STEAUA” pe site. Degringoladă totală la campioana României on YouTube
• https://www.fanatik.ro/haos-uefa-o-noua-decizie-bizara-in-razboiul-fcsb-steaua-unde-a-ajuns-cupa-campionilor-europeni-21314862
• https://iamsport.ro/fotbal/superliga/uefa-ii-baga-pe-suporterii-stelei-si-ai-lui-fcsb-in-ceata-ce-modificari-de-ultim-moment-s-au-produs-pe-site-id41067.html

Meanwhile, some of those contradictions were eliminated from the website.

But, according to UEFA, the team which played in the UEFA competition in 2016-2017 is the real Steaua Bucharest. Because that's the page for Steaua Bucharest, and it displays that it played UEFA matches in 2016-2017. And in the real world that team was FCSB.

So, on the page of FCSB you have FCSB, and on the page of Steaua Bucharest you have again FCSB.

In two days, the Constitutional Court will discuss the law on trademarks, at the request of FCSB, because the law is at odds with the Treaty of Paris. That would mean that CSA won the trademark trial because of a law which is unconstitutional. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I now see how the UEFA page is for FCSB. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu T.georgescu is extemely biased and is clearly a FC Fcsb supporter. You can check his posts and you will see contradictions on his part. When the Romanian courts decided that FC Fcsb does not have the trophies won by Steaua, t.georgescu said that this information is irelevant, as the only information that counts is what UEFA says. When UEFA changed its website, after being informed of the courts decision, t.georgescu came out and said that the information is not clear enough. It is clear enough. It you check the FC Fcsb page on the UEFA website, you can clearly see that IT HAS NO UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE TROPHY.

And he lies about the Constitutional Court stuff as well. FC Fcsb made a request there but that does not mean that they are right. And by the way, any law changes do not act retroactively. If the law changes now, it does not mean that the lawsuits won by Steaua will get overturned.

What t.georgescu is not telling you is that FC Fcsb brought no evidence to court to prove that it was Steaua. And we are talking about 3 different lawsuits, one for the Steaua trademark, one for the Steaua name and one for the Steaua records. FC Fcsb was not able to bring to court even the smallest proof that it was the owner of the Steaua brand, that it was not breaking any law when using the Steaua name and that it played those matches that it says that it won. In fact, for the last lawsuit, the one for the Steaua records, FC Fcsb only brought to court proof that it existed after 2017. I do not know if you are able to understand this, because it is amazing. This company, FC Fcsb, was unable to bring to court a simple document showing that it actually played matches before 2017.Not one document. THis is why the ROmanian judges ruled against FC Fcsb and this is why UEFA only shows their history as starting after 2017. I know for a fact that FC Fcsb was founded in 2003, because I checked Romanian websites where you can see when certain legal entities were founded, and they say that FC Fcsb was founded in february 2003, BUT THE PEOPLE REPRESENTING FC FCSB WERE UNABLE TO BRING ANY DOCUMENTS TO COURT SHOWING THAT THEY PLAYED MATCHES FROM 2003-2017. The suspicion in Romania is that FC Fcsb, during this period, actually played using false documents and was only able to enter into legality after 2017.

FC Fcsb is a sports club founded in 2003, as its documents show. It has nothing to do with Steaua BUcharest. It definitely has none of the achievements of Steaua Bucharest. CatalinCimpian (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

BUT THE PEOPLE REPRESENTING FC FCSB WERE UNABLE TO BRING ANY DOCUMENTS TO COURT SHOWING THAT THEY PLAYED MATCHES FROM 2003-2017—this has become ridiculous. Reductio ad absurdum. You're pleading for a juridical fiction, not for the historical reality. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

FCSB's own lawyer, Adrian Cavescu, the guy representing them in court, said that they did not bring documents to court. He gave an interview for Gsp, saying that:

"We went with the following theory: first and foremost, that the track record is unique, especially for a team that has been ensured continuity. Since the team had no splits, neither does its track record. Because the track record belongs to the team, not to the legal entity that owns it.

But the court ruled in exactly the opposite way — it fragmented it. So clearly, things don't add up. In sporting terms it's one thing, in civil law it's another. The court asked: 'Do you have any document by which AFC took over the track record?' No.

The court acted exactly like an accountant. 'Do you have a receipt? No? Goodbye!' A transfer cannot exist only through a written agreement — an unwritten transfer can exist too. The court didn't rule that way, it analyzed it exactly as if it were a piece of real estate," said Căvescu in a conversation with GSP.ro.

https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/fcsb-adrian-cavescu-csa-steaua-frf-903363.html

The court asked for evidence and they were unable to produce it. Cavescu went to court only saying that they should receive the ECC trophy because they exist. CatalinCimpian (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The point is that (besides the ESPN article's account) the UEFA lists Steaua as playing up until 2016-17, a season that the members of FCSB played. Even if what you're saying is true, playing illegally is still playing. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

If UEFA says that Steaua Bucharest played in the 2016-2017 season, then Steaua Bucharest played in the 2016-2017 season, not Fcsb. Steaua and Fcsb are 2 distinct entities. If UEFA says that that season belongs to Steaua Bucharest, then that season should appear on the Steaua page, not the Fcsb page. CatalinCimpian (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@t.georgescu This is a lie. SC FC Fcsb SA is not the commercial company what acquired the Steaua team, as you say. There is no proof that FC Fcsb acquired such a team. Moreover, if FC Fcsb acquired such a team, show us a contract, an ID number for the team or even some accounting evidence showing us that SC FC Fcsb SA purchased such a team.

This is a common lie told by FC Fcsb supporters. They say that FC Fcsb is one thing and that the team is another. It is not. Becali's players have contracts signed with FC Fcsb SA. They are players of FC Fcsb SA, not of another team which uses another name and has another history. CatalinCimpian (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Romanian courts have ruled that FCSB has no legal right to claim the records of Steaua București. They did not – and they could not – rule that the facts of FCSB's origin must be changed or expunged. The facts are: in 1998 the Defence Department (the owners of Steaua) transferred the players, staff, facilities and name of the club to a private company; in 2003 Gigi Becali acquired this company, including the players, staff, facilities and name; and in 2017 the club was forced to change its name to FCSB. In short, FCSB has its origins in the Steaua București of the 1990s, and therefore goes back to 1947. To annul these facts on the basis of a court ruling would be fine in the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, but on Wikipedia it would breach WP:NOTBURO and WP:NOTCENSORED. --Scolaire (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Facts are usually backed by sources. Like the other 2 editors that oppose this change, you brought your own interpretation of the events. Which is also false, as shown by the various RS provided on this page. I think it's pretty clear that no consensus is going to be achieved on this topic, despite showing that no authority or sport website from Romania is attributing these achievements to FCSB.

  Pretty weird how some internet-dwellers decide that they have the monopoly on what information is displayed.

  You should also address this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FCSB#c-~2026-80703-5-20260205122100-Reference_82_does_not_support_the_claim_made_in_the_note_that_cites_it ~2026-10109-24 (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  We don't recognize "authorities" and the people who discuss things on Wikipedia by definition have the monopoly on what is on Wikipedia. And the people here who have opposed this aren't the obsessed ones; it's a very small percentage of their Wikipedia contributions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Sources: "Steaua Bucharest stripped of name, colours and emblem after court ruling". The Guardian. 8 December 2014., Rosu, Emanuel (27 December 2014). "Where the team has no name: the fight over Steaua Bucharest's identity". The Guardian., Rosu, Emanuel (20 January 2022). "The battle for Steaua Bucharest - an Eastern European giant at war with itself". BBC.. --Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  Tomorrow, the Constitutional Court of Romania will make or break the whole trial. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  FALSE! Gigi Becali bought no company in 2003. He founded his own company, called FC Steaua Bucuresti SA at that time. That company was forced by law to change its name as it was decided that it had no legal grounds to use it. If you believe Becali purchased a company/team/club/whatever in 2003, please show some proof. CatalinCimpian (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  We're not qualified to judge empirical evidence. So, for Wikipedians, "evidence" means WP:SOURCES. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  The sources, press/uefa website/etc clearly say that FC Fcsb did not win any ECC trophy. FCSB's own website says this as well. CatalinCimpian (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have zero interest in the legal aspects of this issue as they are irrelevant to whatever Wikipedia does in this context. Romanian courts have jurisdiction over branding and ownership in their country, but they have zero authority of how an encyclopedia based in the United States describes well documented historical events. I have no interest in gaslighting English Wikipedia readers in order to placate one of the sides in a dreary local legal dispute. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  The current FCSB article is gaslighting readers. CatalinCimpian (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  You can quit the WP:BLUDGEON already. You're not the grand inquisitor here, and responding to every edit with your opinion, without adding anything substantive, is not productive. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I have seen this already. You fcsb fans, whenever someone asks for proof of what you are saying, you always play the victim. Can you please bring some reliable proof that FCSB won the ECC in 1986? If not, please correct this false article.

  I do not present my opinions here. I bring evidence that supports what I am saying. Can you please also bring some evidence for what you are saying? CatalinCimpian (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't care about association football, in Romania or everywhere, and I don't personally care about FCSB, and had never even heard of it before the Wikipedia dispute that lead to extended-confirmed protection. I only care about Wikipedia processes here. I'm done engaging with your bludgeoning; if you hear from me again, it would only be in the context of me properly notifying you, as required by Wikipedia policy, of filing a report at the administrators' noticeboard, should it be necessary to stop the disruption. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Why are you attacking and threatening me? Just because I asked for some sources that back what you are saying? This kinda proves that I am right. The FCSB article is 95% false. It is based on false information. It should be corrected. Should it not? CatalinCimpian (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  And between the bludgeoning, the tendentious edit requests, the WP:POINTy attempt to inappropriately revert a two-year-old deletion, and do an end-around of the RFC at DRN, this is rapidly becoming disruptive editing, that could lead to a trip to ANI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  The article is completely false. It is not my fault. It is not my fault that it was kept like this by people who refused to tell the truth. The truth is that FC Fcsb cannot prove that it is Steaua Bucharest and that it won any of the Steaua trophies that it claims that it won. Even on its own website there is no mention of this. Right now, in february 2026, the only place where FC Fcsb has the Steaua trophies is the mind a fcsb supporter. The press says that FCSB is not Steaua, UEFA says that FCSB is not Steaua, even FCSB says that it is not Steaua. If you have any evidence that it is, please show it to us. CatalinCimpian (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  If the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith says "The Bible has historicity", it does not mean that the Bible has historicity. It does not work that way. This is Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose It promotes the misguided idea that through media omertà you can change the past. Imposing a code of silence upon the Romanian press does not change the real history. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Is there any proof that the past you are talking about is actually linked in any way to FCSB? Because if FCSB cannot prove that it existed before 2003, then it definitely did not win the 1986 ECC. Did Fcsb exist before 2003? Can you show me any evidence for this? CatalinCimpian (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Scolaire, CoffeeCrumbs and tgeorgescu. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not court rulings. And sources indicate that in 1998 and 2003, Steaua Bucharest became a private company and was then bought by Becali. Courts can't rewrite history.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  What reliable sources show that FC Fcsb won the ECC in 1986? CatalinCimpian (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Better yet, what reliable sources show that becali purchased Steaua or that Steaua was privatized? Did you know that, according to Romanian law, Steaua Bucharest, which is a public institution, cannot be privatized? CatalinCimpian (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  What the Romanian court says about a technical corporate ownership and branding dispute, and how we describe historical events, are completely unrelated. The Romanian courts are irrelevant in this question on English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  What reliable sources do you have that becali purchased Steaua in 2003? CatalinCimpian (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the 2003 date for FCSB per above. The modern FCSB is an obvious continuation of the old Steaua, and stating 2003 as their founding date is heavily misleading. A far better solution would be to treat the old Steaua as their own entity, founded in 1947, to which both modern Steauas are claimed successors. O.N.R. ^(talk) 23:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  Do you have any proof to back what you say? CatalinCimpian (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• WP:BLUDGEONING Aaron Liu (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)