Hawaii National team

Just an idea I came up with to get a Hawaii national team.

Since team like Wallis and Futuna and Tuvulu have absolutely no people in the whole database, I decided to change one of them (WaF due to the lower reputation) to Hawaii. There is 11 people born in Hawaii already on the database, namely

Brian Ching

Kupono Low

Zach Scott

Chuck Kim

Jamel Mitchell

Duke Hashimoto

Kenji Treschuk

Angelo Ladera

Andrew Dykstra

David Vaudreuil (potential manager)

5 cities

Honolulu

Haleiwa

Haiku

Kalopei

Makawau

and a 50,000 seat stadium (Aloha Stadium).

A few other things you might want to edit:

Language: make sure English is the main language

Rival Nations: U.S.A obviously

Reputation: I upped it from 50 to 1250, somewhere around there would suit them.

On my game, without managing them, they managed to win the OCE Oceania Cup by beating New Zealand in the final!

I hope you liked my idea.

Just an idea I came up with to get a Hawaii national team.

Since team like Wallis and Futuna and Tuvulu have absolutely no people in the whole database, I decided to change one of them (WaF due to the lower reputation) to Hawaii. There is 11 people born in Hawaii already on the database, namely

Brian Ching

Kupono Low

Zach Scott

Chuck Kim

Jamel Mitchell

Duke Hashimoto

Kenji Treschuk

Angelo Ladera

Andrew Dykstra

David Vaudreuil (potential manager)

5 cities

Honolulu

Haleiwa

Haiku

Kalopei

Makawau

and a 50,000 seat stadium (Aloha Stadium).

A few other things you might want to edit:

Language: make sure English is the main language

Rival Nations: U.S.A obviously

Reputation: I upped it from 50 to 1250, somewhere around there would suit them.

On my game, without managing them, they managed to win the OCE Oceania Cup by beating New Zealand in the final!

I hope you liked my idea.

interesting project:thup:

take a look at the editors hideaway for similar ideas;)

How can Hawaii have a national team when it isn't a nation?

Puerto Rico,Martinique,Guadeloupe,Reunion,Faroe Islands etc all have national teams and they aren't nations. The idea of Hawaii getting its own team has been mooted about for years but theres almost no interest about "soccer" there for anything to come about.

How can Hawaii have a national team when it isn't a nation?

Surely that applies to England, Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales as well, none of them have seats in the United Nations...

Surely that applies to England, Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales as well, none of them have seats in the United Nations...

Can of worms

Puerto Rico,Martinique,Guadeloupe,Reunion,Faroe Islands etc all have national teams and they aren't nations. The idea of Hawaii getting its own team has been mooted about for years but theres almost no interest about "soccer" there for anything to come about.

Martinique, Guadeloupe (evidence here being Angloma, a fromer full France international playing for them) and Reunion do not have full national teams as they are only branches of the FFF (the French football federation), and cannot currently join FIFA. The Faroes are a self-governing province of Denmark, and were admitted to UEFA and FIFA before the current rules came in. Puerto Rico are a bit of a strange case as they are a part of the US proper, but the US want to keep them at arms length, and also like the Faroes were granted FIFA status before the current rules came in ( since 1960 actually). The home nations have a special place in the international setting as international football started as a GB thing back in the 19th cent.

Can of worms

Yes, better not derail the thread to discuss them.

Hong Kong and Macao are also in the same situation as the British home nations.

Martinique, Guadeloupe (evidence here being Angloma, a fromer full France international playing for them) and Reunion do not have full national teams as they are only branches of the FFF (the French football federation), and cannot currently join FIFA. The Faroes are a self-governing province of Denmark, and were admitted to UEFA and FIFA before the current rules came in. Puerto Rico are a bit of a strange case as they are a part of the US proper, but the US want to keep them at arms length, and also like the Faroes were granted FIFA status before the current rules came in ( since 1960 actually). The home nations have a special place in the international setting as international football started as a GB thing back in the 19th cent.

Zanzibar also have a national team (that only play in CAF comps) even though it's part of Tanzania.

French Guiana also is in the same situation.

I'm aware of that but they still have a national team nonetheless, even if they can only play friendlies. And how about Bermuda,Cayman Islands,British Virgin Islands,U.S. Virgin Islands,Anguilla,Montserrat are all Island dependencies that can take part in WCQs.

I'm aware of that but they still have a national team nonetheless, even if they can only play friendlies. And how about Bermuda,Cayman Islands,British Virgin Islands,U.S. Virgin Islands,Anguilla,Montserrat are all Island dependencies that can take part in WCQs.

Like the Faroes and Puerto Rico they got their applications in early enough with FIFA that they were accepted. The current rules are that you have to be a full member of the UN before FIFA will recognise you as a full member (leaving some fully recognised soverign states unable to join FIFA under current rules, though most of them came in before the rules were enacted), but some of the regional bodies are not quite as exacting, thus allowing the likes of Martinique and Guadeloupe to play in the Gold cup. Ironically it was a controversy over the application of Gibraltar (another crown dependancy) to join FIFA which forced the current rules to be brought in. Spain objected as they don't recognise British sovreignty over the rock, and they felt if Gibraltar got FIFA recognition then it would be harder for them to continue this position.

I think Hawaii already has a national team, called the "United States"... or something like that...

I think Hawaii already has a national team, called the "United States"... or something like that...

LMAO. I was hoping someone would say it. Does everybody hate Americans, or something?

LMAO. I was hoping someone would say it. Does everybody hate Americans, or something?

What does Hawaii having its own team in a game have anything to do with hating americans?

Like the Faroes and Puerto Rico they got their applications in early enough with FIFA that they were accepted. The current rules are that you have to be a full member of the UN before FIFA will recognise you as a full member (leaving some fully recognised soverign states unable to join FIFA under current rules, though most of them came in before the rules were enacted), but some of the regional bodies are not quite as exacting, thus allowing the likes of Martinique and Guadeloupe to play in the Gold cup. Ironically it was a controversy over the application of Gibraltar (another crown dependancy) to join FIFA which forced the current rules to be brought in. Spain objected as they don't recognise British sovreignty over the rock, and they felt if Gibraltar got FIFA recognition then it would be harder for them to continue this position.

So technically Hawaii could have had a national team in the sense Puerto Rico has but they just missed the boat on making anything come of it with the introduction of latest rules?, granted that if they got the approval from the USSF and all members of whatever confederation they wished to join.

Surely that applies to England, Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales as well, none of them have seats in the United Nations...

If you are saying they aren't nations... explain why the UK's full name is The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland and that all four countries have (some form of) self governance.

If you are saying they aren't nations... explain why the UK's full name is The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland and that all four countries have (some form of) self governance.

Actually the Kingdom has comprised a lot more nations over the years and hence its name which itself has also been changed. Was once upon a time known as Great Britain & Ireland (rather than Northern Ireland) and was known as the Kingdom of Great Britain when it included India, South Africa and Hong Kong as notable names. Prior to that Australia and Canada. So technically its a name that has been modified depending on the era.

As for self governance, there is none. They have a regional assembly in the case of Wales. Scotland have a Parliament as do Northern Ireland but are ultimately governed by England so there is no self governance as that would imply independance. They are allowed to pass rules on economic and social reforms but nothing that could be made a legal statute since this is governed by England and the house of Lords.

Pretty much... similar story to Greenland missing the boat..

You might like this: http://outcasts-book.blogspot.com/

Its more a political issue than simply saying Fifa put in a new rule. If certain places got accredited membership then they could force through a case for self governance. With Gibraltar you have the problem that various other places within Spain would seek similar status if Gibraltar was granted such a staus. With North Cyprus or Kosovo its due to a larger nation wanting it to be a united country rather than to have more division and with Greenland its a case of being sandwiched in between all this and not having a recognised love of football when the rules weren't changed.

Pretty much... similar story to Greenland missing the boat..

You might like this: http://outcasts-book.blogspot.com/

Great read

It seems very much so if Greenland put forward to join they would have been accepted, same with Hawaii and the Aland Islands and some other island dependencies in the Pacific. As football isn't a major sport there none of them made much of a move about applying to FIFA, its much more of a lack of love for football there than politics in those places, but granted I can see how its a political issue and not a case of FIFA changing the rules with the Gibraltar example and the likes of the breakaway and separatist states in Eastern Europe and Asia about getting a football team as them seeing it as a stepping stone to sovereignty and a case to self governance as jsollooso said. Not that I've anything against Abkhazia,Chechnya,Kosovo,Kurdistan.. and the likes getting a team but the line needs to be drawn and needing to be a UN member first now seems fair enough.

Actually the Kingdom has comprised a lot more nations over the years and hence its name which itself has also been changed. Was once upon a time known as Great Britain & Ireland (rather than Northern Ireland) and was known as the Kingdom of Great Britain when it included India, South Africa and Hong Kong as notable names. Prior to that Australia and Canada. So technically its a name that has been modified depending on the era.

i think you will find the UK started as kingdom of scotaland and kingdom of england before joining together to become the kingdom of great britain, before claiming ireland to become the united kingdom of great britain and ireland, the inclusion of the india, african nations etc. were never under the great britain flag. and was instead called the British Empire, before turning into the british commonwealth.

But this argument goes on and on as some people feel the need for the eng,sco,ire,wal to be known as great britain, and will argue till they are blue in the face over why the single nations should be abolished, and i dont understand why

It's sorts like Catalunya appeals to be able to join FIFA but is only ever able to play friendlies

i think you will find the UK started as kingdom of scotaland and kingdom of england before joining together to become the kingdom of great britain, before claiming ireland to become the united kingdom of great britain and ireland, the inclusion of the india, african nations etc. were never under the great britain flag. and was instead called the British Empire, before turning into the british commonwealth.

But this argument goes on and on as some people feel the need for the eng,sco,ire,wal to be known as great britain, and will argue till they are blue in the face over why the single nations should be abolished, and i dont understand why

I never mentioned a division with Scotland and England in my basis because it was before the creation of United Kingdom. You also forget Wales was at one time separate having its own tribal government that was quickly deposed. The argument comes in the form that there has been unification for so long that everyone forgets what it was like before plus by being united it allows for greater control over economic cycles.

It's sorts like Catalunya appeals to be able to join FIFA but is only ever able to play friendlies

Catalunya is a long standing argument which seems to forget that it was actually the Kingdom of Aragon and not Kingdom of Catalunya meaning that if anyone was to ask for a separate national team it should be Aragon and not Catalunya. Either way the Catalonia claim comes from recent affairs notably post 1933 when they had the most influential economy within Spain and were more or less dictating the terms of exports and prices for the rest of the country. Something which was forcibly changed post 1936 and has been the torchpaper ever since.

Plus if Catalunya gets full FIFA membership but not likely, Andalusia,Castille and Leon,Galacia and the Basque Country would be putting in claims aswell.

Plus if Catalunya gets full FIFA membership but not likely, Andalusia,Castille and Leon,Galacia and the Basque Country would be putting in claims aswell.

True. Though only Galicia and the Basque country would have a language to defend their stance. Spain is one of the few European states to have 4 recognised languages within its boundary.

As for self governance, there is none. They have a regional assembly in the case of Wales. Scotland have a Parliament as do Northern Ireland but are ultimately governed by England so there is no self governance as that would imply independance. They are allowed to pass rules on economic and social reforms but nothing that could be made a legal statute since this is governed by England and the house of Lords.

So they have some form of self governance, which is what I said.

What does Hawaii having its own team in a game have anything to do with hating americans?

So technically Hawaii could have had a national team in the sense Puerto Rico has but they just missed the boat on making anything come of it with the introduction of latest rules?, granted that if they got the approval from the USSF and all members of whatever confederation they wished to join.

Thanks for rolling your eyes. You miss the point. Why would anybody suggest that a state (little s not big S) should secede from their parent nation? Hawaii is a state and has been so since 1959. Before that, they were a territory. To gain statehood, they had to apply to the United States federal government. They willingly joined our union. This means they fall under national jurisdiction and cannot have separate 'national' entities. The same would be true for California and Texas, which were also independent nations before they CHOSE to join the union. Hawaii has a national team. As a previous poster mentioned, they are United States national team. I really don't see the USSF allowing any single state to break away and form their own team. This would be akin to the Midlands trying to break away from the FA to create their own Midlands national team. Ultimately, a comment that suggests that any American state should break away from the federal government is anti-American. I notice in your location that it states that you live in Ireland. I doubt very much you or any other Irishman would appreciate me or anyone else making anti-Irish comments...

Thanks for rolling your eyes. You miss the point. Why would anybody suggest that a state (little s not big S) should secede from their parent nation? Hawaii is a state and has been so since 1959. Before that, they were a territory. To gain statehood, they had to apply to the United States federal government. They willingly joined our union.

Sorry Sean but you should really get your facts right about what happened over the annexation of Hawai'i. There was very little popular support for the white man's revolt against the legitimate soverign of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

I think that you are missing the point also. Pardon me if i'm 'Anti-American' but not once have I suggested or even hinted that Hawaii succede from the federal union and gain independence, succeding from their parent FA yes, but that hardly equates to getting any kind of sovereignity . Hawaii getting its own team does not equal succeding. There are dozens of island terriorties that were granted cases to form a breakaway FA still under the thumb of the parent associatation that are fully incorporated states and provinces of the parent country. Plus it hardly compares to the Midlands of Britain getting a national team more likely the Channel Islands. Hawaii certainly has a serperate cultural identity if you recognise it or not as is the case with Puerto Rico and their national team that goes back to 1940, which the USSF allowed to remain as a seperate affiliated association even after they became a commonwealth in the union, granted if they were to abolish their team it would have been seen as undermiming their identity and caused some unrest at a sensitive time in PR thus evenutally allowing them to go for full FIFA and CONCACAF membership in 1960 not that the USSF had plans to abolish the PRFF in the first place, and I'm aware players there have the choice to play for either team USA or PR? as would be the case with Hawaiian players . Personally I couldn't give a toss about Hawaii and its 100% certain they won't ever get a national team, even if they did there would be serious amount of disinterest and it would take a back seat to college football and basketball as I could see less than 3000 showing up for a Hawaii v Solomon Islands OFC WCQ. And as with you saying if you where to make anti-Irish comments, I'm not even going to touch on that, as I see it I'm hardly anti-american if anything.

http://www.soccerhawaii.com/index.html

http://www.hawaiisoccerassociation.com/

It seems that Hawaii already has a leauge and some sort of Football Association that regulary plays u-21/u-18 friendship games with Canada and other pacific islands, also inter-island games and apparently they are recognised by FIFA somewhat.

So they have some form of self governance, which is what I said.

Using this logic, everyone pretty much has self governance.

No offense Shanahan, but Wikipedia is hardly a legitimate source for Hawaii's problems with annexation. No doubt some had problems with it. However, there were still people in Hawaii who took actions to try and become a state. Besides, what does people in Hawaii 100 years ago having a problem with annexation have to do with the current argument? If memory serves, there were (at one time) multiple autonomous ethnic groups in what is now Great Britain and these groups were bent to the power of the strongest or most influential group. The point I am making here is that what happened over 100 years ago has no impact on Hawaii as a state gaining their own FA (or SF as we call it over here). This is where I tie in your argument to Shel's argument. Hawaii is not a territory. I am not current on the federal (please forgive me because I don't know what the equivalent national institution would be in England or Ireland) laws or procedures in Great Britain. In the U.S., a state has no authority that can supersede that of the federal government. If a state refuses to follow a federal statute or law, the federal government has a handful of options from 'are you serious' to the more forceful 'we are cutting off your federal support money' to the ultimate 'we are sending in the national guard.' This continuum of force in the U.S. also applies to national sporting institutions. Hawaii is very different from Puerto Rico or Guam because those entities are NOT states. Puerto Rico is a territory (whole different set of legal responsibilities than a state, maintains their own autonomy) and Guam is a protectorate (even more autonomy). Also, comparing Hawaii to the Channel Islands is probably weak too as Hawaii is no less a state (small s) in the United States (big S) because it is a series of islands. Your argument ends with the inclusion of a couple of websites that use the words 'soccer' and 'association' and you believe this equates to an SF that has the same international footing as the USSF. If the Hawaii SA is so strong, why doesn't England or Ireland recognize them and set up a friendly? As a state, Hawaii has no more rights than my native Kansas nor my current home of Colorado. Neither Kansas nor Colorado can apply for their own soccer federation even though there were indigenous people from Kansas who were dislocated when settlers moved across the plains. Ultimately, the better comparison for Hawaii is still California and Texas (as I mentioned in a previous post), as they were once independent nations who applied for statehood to the United States and gave up their sovereignty in the process. As to the anti-American comments; it is inflammatory to suggest that any part of the United States does not belong with the rest of it, especially because of the demographics/politics of the state in question versus the rest of the country. (Most Americans pride themselves on looking at these internal differences as strengths and not reasons to divorce and create fifty separate countries.) To suggest that a place should have their own autonomous and equal institutions as the parent nation is a textbook case of being anti-parent nation. I would think it would be equally inappropriate for me to suggest that any portion of Ireland, England, or any other country should secede because of some long-ago political issues that subjugated one to the other. As it directly relates to this game, it would be a nightmare if each player from the fifty separate states in the United States could choose to play for the national team or for their own state team. This is especially true because citizenship as an American is not dependent on which state you live in, only that you were born here, born at an American institution abroad, born while in-transit to American parents or naturalized.

If you are saying they aren't nations... explain why the UK's full name is The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland and that all four countries have (some form of) self governance.

If you are saying Hawaii isn't a nation... explain why Hawaii's name is Hawaii and that it has (some form of) self governance.

Works about as well arguing that Hawaii is a nation as it does arguing that the components of the UK are nations...

If you are saying Hawaii isn't a nation... explain why Hawaii's name is Hawaii and that it has (some form of) self governance.

Works about as well arguing that Hawaii is a nation as it does arguing that the components of the UK are nations...

Completely agree

I think people are starting to get a little bit too heavy here. I have no doubt that the OP meant no offence with his idea. It is just a fun idea to roll with.

Its an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind seeing how the team has done 20 years down the line.

This is not te place for political discussions guys- keep on topic please.

Agree to disagree, not being drawn into it further as its starting to be blown out of proportion. It's a good idea and the OP should keep it up it will be interesting to see how they do.