Talk:LGBTQ people in association football

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move to a new title, per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE. The preferred title to move to is LGBTQ and association football with minor but notable objection to the suggested title. (non-admin closure) CNC (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Homosexuality in association football → LGBTQ footballersLGBTQ footballers – The article includes non-binary footballers, not just gay players. As the article is focused on the individuals I think "footballers" rather than "in (association) football" is more appropriate here, but open to other suggestions. – GnocchiFan (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 08:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - for a variety of reasons. Firstly, this article is about the concept, not just footballers, so having a 'footballers' article title is misleading. Secondly, in any event, such an article title should be 'List of X'. However, I acknowledge that this article is now more than just about homosexuality, so perhaps we move to LGBTQ and association football, a la Islam and association football, or LGBTQ in association football, a la Match fixing in association football, or similar. GiantSnowman 11:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, but would support a move to LGBTQ and association football. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose While wider than homosexuality, it is also wider than a list of footballers. I still believe a proper discussion on the scope is absolutely necessary, but short of that we can only go on the content - which is a mess, so something as broad as LGBTQ and association football (or the other way around) is better. I hope we don't need another RM for that... Kingsif (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per WP:PRECISE. Svartner (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support LGBTQ footballers or LGBTQ players in association football. Either title can be about the subject of LGBTQ footballers generally, including both specific individuals and how they are viewed and treated. There is no reason either title would be inherently limited to a list. Oppose LGBTQ and association football per WP:NOUN; we have been working to fix titles that use LGBTQ as a an unattached adjective and should not be creating more.--Trystan (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  But it's more than just about players, that's the whole point. GiantSnowman 14:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps LGBTQ players and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric in association football then. The point remains that whetever the title is, it shouldn't contain standalone adjectives.--Trystan (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  Too longwinded. LGBTQ issues in association football would be much better. GiantSnowman 14:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  The primary focus is on LGBTQ players, who I don't think can be neutrally characterized as "issues".--Trystan (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  You can't possibly have read the article then. The primary focus is the homophobic abuse of players, regardless of their sexuality. GiantSnowman 15:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  I have read the article; I am sure we can agree that is is possible to reach different good faith conclusions about the emphasis. I interpreted the focus as mostly on LGBTQ players, including specific players as well as the discrimination they face, and more generalized homophobia as a secondary topic. It is a bit muddled, as reflected in the lead that essentially sets out two separate topic sentences. It would probably work substantially better as two separate articles: LGBTQ players in association football and Homophobia in assocaition football.--Trystan (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  I am not opposed, in principle, to moving this article to Homophobia in association football and then splitting out a separate List of LGBTQ footballers (which would be the 2 correct titles). GiantSnowman 16:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  I would say that while the list of men's footballers at this article is incomplete (even with the professional/international barrier), it's still not such a long list it needs to be split separately and can be covered as a section at an article (titled whatever) about the intersection of the topics. If we're not averse to college class-sounding titles, History of queer identity in professional association football or something similar is an option. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Sports, WikiProject Football, and WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: It appears that there is some support for a move to LGBTQ and association football. However, this discussion looks like it has a bit to go, so I am relisting to allow consensus to develop. TarnishedPath^talk 08:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. After three relists and the discussion veering dangerously towards a cliff, it's time to put an end to this. Pretty much everyone agrees that the current title is intolerable for various reasons, primarily grammatical. There is no consensus for/consensus against the originally-proposed destination; we then come to WP:BARTENDER. I have chosen LGBTQ people in association football as the destination, as it received the most support through discussion (Raskuly, Myceteae, Heterochromia, Dudzcar, lp0 on fire, Trystan). No other option presented achieved support from more than two editors.

As I read consensus for such a move to be driven much much much more from the incorrect grammar of the current name as opposed to the appropriate scope of the destination, I urge that a follow-up RM be opened. This dovetails nicely with guidance specified at WP:OTHEROPTIONS; any editor with objections to the destination ought instead of appealing to me open that RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 00:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

LGBTQ and association football → LGBTQ people and association football – (I'm not opposed to Association football and LGBTQ people, see WP:AND) This article is entirely about LGBTQ people (LGBTQ association footballers). It could be about LGBTQ symbols or pride flags in association football events as well. But see other topics about LGBTQ and society: Autism and LGBTQ people, Religion and LGBTQ people, Education and the LGBTQ community, LGBTQ people and military service. For WP:CONSISTENT. Dudzcar (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 05:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 06:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: Wiki Loves Pride, WikiProject Football, and WikiProject Sports have been notified of this discussion. Dudzcar (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Association football and LGBTQ people per nom and WP:AND. Raskuly 🐰 05:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 09:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - see previous RM 13 months ago, I don't like the current name, but to say that this is only about 'LGBTQ people' is patently false, it's actually primarily about homophobia in the sport (from fans/clubs, including against straight players), so the new name would be totally inappropriate. GiantSnowman 10:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  In the previous RM, I only see one person suggesting and as opposed to in. —Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is not the issue here. The issue is that the proposed title relates to 'LGBTQ people' when that is not what the article is about at all. GiantSnowman 07:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, perhaps I mistook your comment that the page was "about homophobia in the sport". Otherwise, with and, the page could be expanded to deal with LGBQT fans and LGBQT views on the sport. —Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have no real views either way on 'in' v 'and'. GiantSnowman 11:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  I believe that it is entirely about LGBTQ people in the sense that it is their relationship with the sport. This includes heterosexual and cisgender people involved in the sport who might be targeted with abuse as well based on homophobic or transphobic tropes. Raskuly 🐰 13:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  And the recent World Cup 'Pride Match'...? GiantSnowman 13:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  What about it? If the word "people" is the problem, I can see Association football and the LGBTQ community as a valid alternative. You still can't have the LGBTQ community without the people though. My main point is just that I believe the article is about the relationship between non-heterosexual and/or non-cisgender people with football. If there is a homophobic chant at a football game (and there is not a single LGBTQ person in attendance to hear it), it still concerns the relationship between the sport and the community. Raskuly 🐰 13:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Is it relevant to the topic? Absolutely. Does it deal with 'LGBTQ people'? No. Hence, the proposed name is inaccurate. GiantSnowman 13:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, so what about Association football and the LGBTQ community? Raskuly 🐰 13:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  LGBTQ issues in association football? Association football and LGBTQ issues? GiantSnowman 14:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would prefer the second because of WP:AND. Raskuly 🐰 18:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - scope, accuracy. But if there isn’t a long overdue discussion on those soon, I may just BOLDly do some clean-up that may involve renaming articles in line with established scope. Kingsif (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Any unilateral renaming would be disruptive. GiantSnowman 12:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Because leaving an old article that’s had no oversight to what’s been added, requiring the broadest title, just like that is so much better Kingsif (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, it's what talk page discussions and community consensus/collaboration is for. GiantSnowman 12:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  As my reply referred to, I’ve requested such discussion for over 2 years with exactly zero response. It’s all good you popping in once a year to say we can’t change the title while the content doesn’t change, but you don’t want to contribute to discussion for changing the content? That’s what BOLD is for. Kingsif (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Where? I see nothing on the talk page above. GiantSnowman 13:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Literally the last reply in "England section too long", a convo you were part of, and reiterated in my !vote in last year's RM. Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  So you made one comment then? And not 'requesting discussion for over 2 years' as you claimed? GiantSnowman 20:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Association football and LGBTQ issues per discussion with GiantSnowman. Raskuly 🐰 20:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is fine by me. GiantSnowman 20:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose "LGBTQ people and ..." or "LGBTQ issues and ..." The article currently focuses on homophobia, not people per se. Alternatively, is there a term similar to homosexuality that more broadly covers LGBTQ? Issues isn't neutral per WP:NDESC.—Bagumba (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yet we have Category:Association football issues, Category:Issues in ethics etc. GiantSnowman 15:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFF? At least those others don't commingle a polarizing topic in their title. —Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why not move back to the original title, Homosexuality in association football? GiantSnowman 16:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I wouldn't object. Though it's imperfect (like all current options), as homosexuality doesnt seem to cover the broader LGBTQ. —Bagumba (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  "Homosexuality in ..." is weird because players' sexuality is largely expressed in other parts of their lives. This could be addressed by instead using "Homosexuality and ...." or "Homophobia in ...". Jruderman (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Homosexuality in association football aligns with several of the other article titles in Category:Sexual orientation and sports including Homosexuality in modern sports, Homosexuality in English football, Homosexuality in Australian rules football, Homosexuality in American football, and others. Athletes' sexuality is expressed in many aspects of their lives, including having to hide it or facing discrimination on the pitch or in the locker room or deciding to come out publicly. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Homosexuality is just one aspect of being LGBTQ, though. I honestly think all those titles are poor, but that can't be addressed right now in this RM. A better title would be LGBTQ people in association football. Raskuly 🐰 02:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Agree, mostly. I think homosexuality is fine to use in the title if that is the subject of the article. That is substantially the subject of this article, but LGBTQ is more expansive and accommodates other identities which are mentioned in this article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are four non-binary players mentioned in the article currently: Percy Kelly, Jaiyah Saelua, Quinn, and Grace Wilson. I'm surprised there are only two mentions of bisexuality, that being Richarlyson and Al-Saadi Gaddafi. Raskuly 🐰 02:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is queerness and queerphobia. Usage and acceptance of these terms can be controversial among LGBTQ people and they are likely much less recognizable to general audiences. This article is mostly about homophobia and gay men in football but lesbian, trans, and non-binary players and discrimination against these groups are also discussed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Do not keep the current title. LGBTQ is an adjective and it must modify something. LGBTQ and association football is nonsensical. We would never title an article Lesbian and association football or Bisexual and religion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Agree. Heterochromia (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Notified WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. All other wikiprojects tagged on the talk page were previously notified. While this may seem duplicative of the notice to Wiki Loves Pride, LGBTQ+ is the more active project and notification there should have been prioritized. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Move to LGBTQ people in association football. This is more in alignment (CONSISTENT) with other titles in Category:Sexual orientation and sports, is grammatical, and LGBTQ people is inclusive of the trans, non-binary, and bisexual players who are mentioned in the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Again - this article/topic is NOT just about people! GiantSnowman 19:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree. It is fundamentally about people and their experiences, attitudes, etc. I would support LGBTQ people and association football as a second choice though I find in better. I think Homophobia in association football or Homosexuality in association football would be reasonable titles for most of the content, but not for the full scope of the current article. Since editors appear to be at an impasse with respect to limiting or otherwise changing the scope, we're left with determining the best title to describe the article we have. In no universe is the best title an ungrammatical title with a dangling adjective. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  The vast majority of incidents involve homophobia/abuse primarily aimed at non-LGBTQ people. GiantSnowman 20:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well, that is a good point. But that makes the current title equally bad even if we ignore the grammar problems. Perhaps Anti-LGBTQ discrimination in association football? Or sentiment instead of discrimination? Or is the scope just too broad? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would prefer to not name articles so they focus on the negative parts of our experiences, i.e. homophobia or anti-LGBTQ sentiment. It shows a bias towards the negative side of things. Even though queerphobia might be the norm in sports right now and is heavily covered by this and related articles, I think we can write these articles for a better future where these articles are truly about Attitudes towards LGBTQ people in sports and/or Participation of LGBTQ people in sports (neutral topics that cover all perspectives and experiences). Those could be two options, though I think they're both too unwieldy and too specific. (Neither capture the experiences of fans or staff who are themselves LGBTQ people...) Attitudes towards and participation of LGBTQ people in association football is even more unwieldy.

  I do agree with @GiantSnowman that at first glance, moving this article to LGBTQ people in association football makes it sound like the article is only about players or staff. The hard part is trying to make sure it also covers the (very important) "attitudes towards LGBTQ people in association football" part of the current article, including homophobia directed at non-LGBTQ people. However...what if we think about LGBTQ people in association football this way:

  • LGBTQ people who play the sport (or are otherwise involved with it, e.g. LGBTQ staff)
  • LGBTQ fans of the sport (they're "in" the sport in loose terms)
  • Attitudes of everyone (fans, players...) towards all of the above
  • Attitudes of everyone in association football towards LGBTQ people in general (which includes homophobia directed at non-LGBTQ players by fans and in the locker room)

  If we can all agree on that going forward, does that seem like a reasonable compromise? Heterochromia (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think Attitudes towards LGBTQ people in sports may be the best proposal I've seen so far. I'm hesitant to change my !vote but this has potential. Some may argue that the mere presence of specific LGBTQ players in a sport is not covered, unless we can say something about how their presence or coming out publicly is related to the attitudes, though usually this is discussed so this may not be a problem. I can understand not wanting to adopt a negative POV and framing, but homophobia is substantially the focus of the article. We should not avoid calling a spade a spade and downplaying the rampant queerphobia in sports is as much a disservice as dwelling on it, if not more. Ultimately, we have to consider WP:DUE in our framing. To be clear, I would support a more neutral title if it reflects the scope of the article equally well, and assuming the article's coverage is consistent with the framing in high quality reliable sources. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Move to LGBTQ people in association football per discussion under Bagumba's opposition and Myceteae. I would also like to see changes to other similar article's titles. Raskuly 🐰 02:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  (nom) Endorse the use of LGBTQ people in association football. Dudzcar (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Endorse the use of LGBTQ people in association football. Heterochromia (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Re: LGBTQ as an adjective Not debating whether it is or not. Regarding titles, however, there are a lot of "LGBTQ in <country>" categories under Category:LGBTQ by country. For that matter, there is also the top-level Category:LGBTQ—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ideally, those categories should be renamed. But categories are less reader-facing than articles so I'm less pressed about it. Category:LGBTQ strikes me as non-problematic as it is a reasonable shorthand encompassing LGBTQ people, topics, and LGBTQ (term). For what it's worth, Merriam-Webster just defines LGBTQ as an abbreviation (not a noun, adjective, or some other part of speech) but in the two example sentences LGBTQ is modifying a noun. As an abbreviation, the question is whether the full term makes sense grammatically as we are using it: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning and association football. Dictionary.com gives an adjective as the first definition for LGBTQ but does also define it as a noun, as does Wiktionary. If we were to follow Dictionary.com and Wiktionary, there are still at least two problems. First, LGBTQ is singular, so this would be grammatically equivalent to Lesbian and association football as opposed to Lesbians and association football. Second, LGBTQ is *usually* understood as shorthand for LGBTQ people. Several editors here object to the title LGBTQ people in association football so it's not clear why a largely equivalent title is acceptable. I find the usage of LGBTQ or LGBTQs nonstandard, certainly not appropriate for encyclopedic usage, even as I acknowledge that this usage is encountered in the wild. We would not have articles title using Blacks (as opposed to Black people) or gays nor refer to a person as a Black or a gay in article prose. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  The debate starts with articles, then they extend to categories per WP:CONSISTENT. Dudzcar (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Few titles contain LGBTQ and or LGBTQ in. Those that do are either cases where it is grammatical (List of LGBTQ and LGBTQ-friendly fraternities and sororities) or are pages where the article title is actively under discussion, or are titles that should be changed to conform with standard English conventions and titles of similar articles (WP:CONSISTENCY). Note that there are a great many redirects using LGBTQ in and LGBTQ and. Many of these are there result of page moves from a title that was deemed inappropriate. I previously made a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 80#Manual of Style proposal for "LGBTQ+" and its variants that we develop MOS guidance for the use of LGBTQ as an adjective. The general sentiment there can be summed up with the responses these are just grammatical corrections that should not be controversial to correct when they arise and The MOS does not need to give guidance on basic usage like this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support any move to a grammatical title. LGBTQ people in association football or Association football and LGBTQ people both seem reasonable, but I'm also fine with Treatment of LGBTQ people in association football which hopefully addresses the scope issues. lp0 on fire () 18:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support LGBTQ people in association football. While not perfectly capturing the scope, it is the best grammatical option presented so far.--Trystan (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

(nom comment) regardless of the "in" or "and" inside the title, perceived oppression does not make the targeted subject LGBTQ; that's the point against putting the word people after LGBTQ. just like transvestigation, which is a form of hetero-identification (heteronomy, as opposed to autonomy of self-identification). regardless of how fans or football business deal with LGBTQ people, the targeting is about the assumption or based on the presumption of them being LGBTQ people, and that includes both indirectly non-LGBTQ people (eg. queer-presenting, gay-passing, and gender non-conforming people) and LGBTQ people. That's why some include allies in the acronym (such as in GLA from GLAAD). Dudzcar (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there a grammatical title that you think accurately covers the article's scope? I'm beginning to think and is better than in but still mostly has the same problem. What do you think of some of the suggestions offered by lp0 on fire and Heterochromia? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I support all the alternatives suggested by lp0 on fire and Heterochromia, and I still stand with my nominated proposal. You're right that "and" does not mean the LGBTQ peoples are in the association football, mayhaps they are outside and people are in bad-faith insinuating someone inside association football is a LGBTQ person, then it's about LGBTQ people and association football. Not a reaction nor a treatment necessarily. Note many football clubs are nicknamed with a queer slur or slang (such as São Paulo football club), but that does not mean the fans outside the football stadium treat LGBTQ people that way (opposing the rival aggressively), thinking of them as stealth/closeted.

The letter Q already suffices this. Where I live, cishet drag performers are called queer. I guess the letter Q includes those who are LGBT by proxy/have a satellite identity.

And this AI-generated meme short video explains how neither look queer, but since Argentina lost they had to make the looser treated as the gay bottom. Dudzcar (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support any grammatical title. These include, but are not limited to: LGBTQ people and association football, LGBTQ people in association football, Treatment of LGBTQ people in association football, Attitudes towards LGBTQ people in sports, Attitudes about LGBTQ people in sports… I actually think Anti-LGBTQ discrimination in association football may be the best, but this hasn't gained any traction. I realize we're probably nearing WP:TRAINWRECK territory here. Regardless of the outcome here, there should be no prejudice against a repeat RM. Additional workshopping prior to another RM may be preferable, although there seem to be intractable problems to the article's intended and actual scope which make finding a grammatical title that satisfies the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA difficult. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)