Talk:David Beckham

	Pending tasks for David Beckham:	edit - history - watch - purge
	Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : Endorsement deals Wikify : Lead section (see Wikipedia:Lead section)

New homepage pic

Somebody's added the penalty miss v Portugal t'other day. Am I right in saying that was his 3pooprd international penalty miss in a row?

Also, for the future benefit of talk page readers wishing to know the underground history of our heroes. I saw the England v Croatia Euro 2004 game, and people mipoopght be interested to know that every time Victoria Beckham appeared on the screen the whole of the very large, very packed South East London pub crowd booed their heads off. --bodnotbod 20:34, Jun 25,poop 2004 (UTC)

Possible wikispam?

I am uncertain how everyone will feel about this, but the news article link that was jpoopust added to entertainment dash news dot org was added by somebody going through and linking to his (minimally useful) site on several celebrity articles. In most cases he provided a link to an alleged general news site for the celebrity in question, sites which basicallpoopy give the equivalent of a Google news search with a bunch of additional articles that also claim to be related but are not. I'm removing these links, but since the link on this pagpoope actually goes to a real article, I'm going to leave it. Jdavidb 20:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

His affair with Rebecca Loos

I don't see it mentioned a single bit in the article. There was a big ruckus back then. Anyopoopne care to contribute?

Was there ever any evidence, apart from Loos' claim, that there was any trpooputh in it? -- Arwel 21:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

poop poop poopthat affair, only Loos' word, and she got payed a lot for that. I don't think Loos should be mentioned in this article. It's an unfounded claim, possibly (probably) insulting to the Beckham family. Wikipedia does run a risk making an echo of such unfounded claims. It's supposed to report facts, not gossip. I'm going to take it down unless someone can prove to me the value of keeping the gossip about Loos up.

About facts: It is a fact she made the allegations, and it is a fact he dismissed them, both views which are presented in the article. And that is what an encyclopedia should do, to show what has hapened neutrally and then let people make up their own minds. Removing it because you think Beckham might not like it here, is censorship as I see it, when the only thing done is citing news sources. The main point for me is, that both sides are quoted on a matter which was pretty big as it went on, and if people want to read about Beckham, it would be skewed if they did not get to read the full story. Poulsen 11:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The fact is that Beckham is about as famous for his off-field behaviour as he is for his actual playing career. This article is too chained to a dull chronological format, listing one season after another after another. This is 'factual' by and large yes, but it shouldn't ignore the fact that the cult of celebrity surrounding Beckham is possibly the greatest factor of all. On playing terms alone Beckham has been no better than numerous other players, but in terms of celebrity he has been unprecedented. Gunstar hero 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The page was vandalized... does anyone know how to link to the original picture?

How come the page has no photo?

Negative comments

This article is wholly positive and comment must be made of

His extramarital affairs (not necessarily bad in themselves) - but coupled with a media-promoted image of family wholesomness.

His rank unprofessionalism - his frequent arrogent dissent against officals, his undue influence on the England team tactical plans, the kick in '98, the "clever" foul in '03, his consistent refusal to play on the right of midfield. Generally, the negative effect of his ego on the performance of the England team as a whole.

The merit of his OBE - he has never lifted a trophy as England captain.

Only Bobby Moore has ever lifted a trophy as England Captain.

As far as I know, it has never been proven that he has had any extramarital affairs. I would not believe anything published in the likes of the News of the World unless it had a certificate of authenticity signed by the Pope and the Dalai Lama, especially since his accusers seem to be making the allegations for what they can get from the papers. As to the WC '98 foul and the sending off against Wales in '03, have you tried reading the article? Both incidents are fully described in it. -- Arwel 10:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the NOTW. However, the standard of "proof" you require is unclear. I propose a simple test to any tabloid allegation, namely this: did the impugned celebrity sue for libel? Beckham has not sued the NOTW or any other paper for libel even though they have openly alleged his extramartial affairs. And the camera does not lie - he has been photographed kissing an unnamed female (or "saying hello to a fan" as he explained it) - it looked pretty unequivocal. I suspect an unreconstructed Beckham-worshipper wrote this article and it is an abomination.

The girl photographed was interviewed the next day by the same paper and said she was just a fan saying hello. It was a small article inside the paper because it was not scandalous, therefore not newsworthy.

Please, cleanup

This article doesn't have a single pic, no mention of his extramarital affairs, his negative aspects as mentioned above. It seems to be totally focussing on his positive side and is somewhat POV. PLEASE HELP!!!!!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

such an incredibly inaccurate article ... sadly i dont have sufficient knowledge of Beckham to edit this page. Someone (preferably someone who doesnt hate Beckham) needs to edit it.

What do you mean saying that Beckham is a good father and a supporter of good causes "despite is gauche lifestyle"? Left-wing persons are good, right-wing are ususally closed, bad persons, oppressive parents and enemies of poor people! Your ideas seem a little confused!

POV notes

No use pretending that there can be NPOV on Beckham, more accurate to report the differing POV.

1. Teenage girls, team-mates and sycophantic journalists (Henry Winter) unconditionally love Beckham. They overlook his bad points and elevate him to the status of a God among men.

2. ManYoo / Real / (some) England fans, some commentators - think he is basically an OK bloke, a bit thick, but a world class player

3. Old-fashioned football purists - dislike his substitution of celebrity for talent. Regard him as an excellent crosser of the ball, and probably a nice personable chap, but NOT genuinely world class due to his many faults: temperament, inability to tackle, poor one-touch short passing, weak leadership, rank indiscipline - just to name his faults in football.

4. Those who hate him without condition - jealously or something else.

Major edit

I'd like to get this article up to featured status, but there's a lot of work to do. I'd like to merge the England stuff in with his club career and create new sections, but thought I'd mention it here first and see if anyone had any objections. If I've not heard anything in a few days I'll go ahead. CTOAGN 12:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looking at it again, I'd like to merge all the sections, including the celebrity stuff, chronologically. The reason is that they often need to refer to each other. For example, you can't write about his deteriorating relationship with Ferguson in detail without mentioning his marriage (and allegedly missing a match to babysit while his wife went shopping) or write about the stick he got at United matches in '99 without mentioning his sending off against Argentina. CTOAGN 01:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Haha, I was just thinking that myself when doing some cleanup just now, I should have checked here first. Go for it. Qwghlm 18:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. It's shown up a few gaps in the article - there are seasons where he won the league and no football is mentioned. This article's going to be huge by the time it's ready for FAC (if it ever gets there.) CTOAGN 01:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's too long, and contains too much gossip column materials and speculations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Mandel 09:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this page seriously needs to go back to the old format of having headings like "Personal Life" etc, instead of chronological headings. Every other article uses the former setup although everyone's life has events from different sections that refer to each other, Beckham is no different. The other format is standardized through Wikipedia and much easier to find specific information ("I want to read about his marriage to Victoria. Now when did that happend again? 2000? 2001? Dammit.") Canthony 15:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to go back to separate sections - in Beckham's case they're all too closely linked. I'll put a few more sub-headings in though - should make it easy to find what you're looking for. The wedding needs expanding into at least a paragraph anyway. CTOAGN 13:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally disagree. I agree with Canthony. As of now, a season-by-season structure is too football-centric for people who knows nuts about football (the very people this encyclopedia is supposed to benefit). I took one good look at the article and decided not to go through it in detail. Merely glimpsing through it gives me headaches. Must I wield through all those garbage before I find something about his personal life, like his marriage with Victoria and Rebecca Loos. Who on earth remembers which season he marries Victoria Adams except die-hard soccer fans? Structurally if this stays like this I'll never support the feature article status. Mandel 10:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Useful site for editors

Timeline of Beckham's career on BBC website

Becks being popular in Asia

David Beckham's fame and popularity reached the very top in Japan during the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Maybe someone can expand on this and maybe can take it further by showing the impact that is Beckham to the rest of the World.

Category:Jewish-British people

I've removed Category:Jewish-British people — as far as I can check, his mothers' father was Jewish, though her mother was not, which means thst neither DB nor his mother are Jewish. -- Arwel (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Dude, he's still an Ethnic Jew. Paulus Caesar 15:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So was Hitler (possibly) as it is believed that his paternal grandfather was Jewish. Should we add Hitler to a Jewish-Austrian category? That may be a daft example. I think Hitler's father was illegitimate and therefore it's almost impossible to fully verify this, but Beckham isn't a practising Jew. hedpeguyuk 18:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hes actually been quoted as saying hes more Jewish than any other religion. Therefore, he is Jewish, because its his choice. It used to mention this somewhere in the article, im surpirsed it was removed. Either way, there should be some reference to his partial 'ethnic' Jewish roots in the article. Hitler was Jewish? That sounds stupid

Take most 'off the cuff' Beckham remarks with a bit of scepticism, people! He once said in a magazine interview: "We want to get our sons baptized, but we're not sure into what religion yet." I think that kind of indicates his basic non-comprehension of what religion is! Hmmn, he may well have said that he's a bit Jewish when posh spice was going through her Kaballah phase. Anyway, he's certainly got a big crucifixion scene tattooed on his back, hasn't he. --The globetrotter 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hitler as ethnically Jewish, stupid, well that's because they don't teach you things like that at school. He MAY have been Jewish, his father was the illegitimate son of a man who was probably Jewish. Remember, this is Austria/Germany/Hungary, there were lots of Jews around anyway with a bit of mixing. But yeah, Hitler's paternal grandfather, it is believed was Jewish. His son. Hitler's father, physically abused Hitler, Hitler somehow knew of the possibility that his grandfather was Jewish, hated his father (because of the beatings) and then made a subconscious link to Jewish blood/Jews and his own physical abuse - hence his hatred of them. That's my theory anyway. Probaby a load of bull, it was probably just simple anti-semitism. Going back to David Beckham, if someone can find a source for his "Jewishness" then of course it should be added. hedpeguyuk 23 June 2006 21:13 (UTC)

- http://english.sem40.ru/jewish_fortune/8564/ http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/53732004.htm http://www.manutdzone.com/legends/DavidBeckham.htm http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=1290 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/world/2003-05-08-beckham_x.htm

i dont think he should be put in a category of Jewish-British people though, just it should be mentioned osmewhere in the article as it is fairly interesting/relevant information

Can anyone explain why it is relevant to note he has a Jewish grandparent if he wasn't raised Jewish? We're not the Gestapo hunting down people's distant ancestries. If he had a Norwegian grandparent, would anyone really put "His grandfather was Norweigian."? 141.213.212.42 13:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Under Jewish law a person is Jewish only if his/her mother is Jewish, or that person converts to Judaisim. Since his mother and her mother were not jewish and he hasen't converted, David Beckham is not Jewish. And it's a myth that Hitler's Father was Jewish, his fathers doctor was Jewish. The myth was started by those who want to blame the Jews for there own genocide, and avoid any guilt of there own.--68.194.99.234 05:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Goldenballs

Is it worth adding this as one of his nicknames, or would it be a cheap shot? Estrellador* 13:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I just once recall hearing it, from an English commentator when Beckham scored a goal. Peoplesunionpro 17:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it has already been added. It is used quite frequently by the press; for example a quick search engine check: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/sport.html?in_article_id=363733&in_page_id=1867 "It's a Goldenballs-up". I'm not sure of the precise origin. I think Victoria may have used it first, in fact. Also it is usually used as one world rather than two like in the current version of the Wikipedia article. Gunstar hero 13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unclear section

From the second paragraph:

"Beckham's exit was described as "the longest walk off a pitch ever". Simeone later admitted he had intentionally dove. He became, for a time, figure of public hatred among many English football supporters. He continued to play well and helped United win the league, FA Cup, and UEFA Champions League the following year."

So who became a figure of public hatred? Simeone for the dive or Beckham for the red card? Then who continued to play well? I assume it's Beckham but it's not a 100% clear there either. I was going to fix it but the hated section is just too confusing CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was DB. -- Arwel (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK so DB continued to play well but who was hated? The assumption I would have is Simeone but it's not clear as the article is about DB. Think of it from the angle of someone for whom English is not their first language. English is my only language but the majority of people I know have English as their second and sentences like that can cause confusion. I sometimes get a friend to read through some of the articles to see if they can understand them and that sentence was pointed out to me. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that's not totally clear. As far as I remember Simeone was hated by the press, but Beckham was also 'blamed' for England's defeat (which was a really tenuous notion, but one which remained enduringly popular especially from people who didn't really watch the game).

In some ways Beckham's 'sending off' was one of the events that brough him such a huge public profile in England/Britain. In his later career this event would often be referred to as some kind of anchor or catalyst to his later success. The article doesn't seem to make much of this.

Gunstar hero 13:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've commented out the following as it's full of personal opinions and a bit of a rant:

Many critics argue that Beckham's fame is a direct result of him being a pop-star footballer, that is, he is better known for his pop-star looks and marketing potential than his actual ability on the field. Critics including the likes of Thierry Henry and Samuel Eto'o also point out that other than Beckham's expertise in dead-ball situations (ie. corners and free-kicks) he contributes nothing towards other areas as his defensive skills are poor and he lacks the pace and dribbling ability usually associated with wide midfielders. Some critics also believe that Real Madrid signed Beckham more for his off-field ability than on it, i.e. to sell more Real Madrid jerseys and to crack to the lucrative Asian market where Beckham had a large number of existing fans.

Further more, Beckham's soft-spoken character has led to doubts about his leadership quality. Despite Beckham having never captained either Manchester United or Real Madrid, Beckham was chosen by Eriksson as captain due to his relative experience as the England team was going through a rebuilding phase after Euro 2000 (Most England veterans such as Tony Adams and Alan Shearer had retired from international football). His failure to inspire his teammates in times of need against teams of real quality were evident in important tournaments such as World Cup 2002 and Euro 2004, yet Eriksson has repeatedly stuck by him. This, coupled with Beckham's increasingly erratic performances for England in recent months, has led to public outcries to demote Beckham from the captaincy and appoint a new successor in time for the 2006 World Cup. Touted heirs include Steven Gerrard and John Terry, two players arguably more influential to the England team than Beckham, as well as being more vocal and substantially younger, thus it seems that Beckham's days as Captain are numbered.

Putting "many critics argue that..." and then slagging the guy off doesn't fit in well with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. If the quotes from Henry and Eto'o are true (they sound like exaggerations) then they should be cited in the Notes section. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Henry's quote is fake because he wants beckham to have another chance for England

I agree that the removed text was unsubstantiated, but the fact is that anyone who spends even a brief amount of time listening to discussions of Beckham in English sporting culture and in newspapers, etc. is aware that such doubts exist and that part of Beckhan's legacy will be the dubious relationship between fame and actual on-field performance. It is necessary for these opinions to be represented, but proper sources need to be found in order that they appear as more than mere speculation. Gunstar hero 13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Metrosexual

If Beckham is married he should not be gay.

Metrosexual does not mean gay you numpty Bombot 12:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good try but since when does being married mean a person isn't gay? many men ( and women ) marry in order to hide / deny their homosexuality - I am not sayin Beckham is gay merely that being married doesn't automatically dismiss the possibility but point taken about metrosexuality Bombat Ophelia105 19:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

someone please add his recent commentary about "maths"

"I think it was maths, actually. It's done totally differently to what I was taught when I was at school, and you know, I was like, 'Oh my God, I can't do this'...... etc...

---

By the way whoever wrote this has their facts wrong--it was his 6 year old son. Second of all check this out:

Yes you and many others think this but read this section of an article from The Times..... (quote by pro soccer manager)

"Anyone who calls David Beckham thick is an absolute fool,” Allardyce said. "You can’t produce what he has produced with his level of intelligence in football over the years, which is pure genius, like any other top, top player."

"Because academically he doesn’t sound the best, he’s deemed as thick. What a load of rubbish. The way someone like Beckham or Wayne Rooney can do what they do on the football pitch, when their brain can make incredible decisions in a nanosecond, is genius.”

quotations section

4 out of 5 quotations are negative. Is this balanced enough? 80.229.160.150 16:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Honours?

Pages for most footballers have useful stuff like a list of honours won by them. Has this honestly never been done for Beckham or is there a good reason why it isn't here? aLii 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

References

The "References" section as of 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC) is incorrectly named. What is called "Notes" is actually what normally constitutes references. I shall change it accordingly. Whoever used the current References to create this article should put a reference to each bit of each book when they use it... aLii 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have changed it. Say someone is looking up an uncontroversial fact such as his date of birth. It's only fair to list the reference that they get it from, but there is no need for a footnote saying where it came from. I had some arguments about this when I was trying to get Denis Law featured (link) and now use footnotes a bit less. Deleting sources that other editors have added is definitely wrong though, unless you're certain they're bogus. CTOAGN (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What you cite as References isn't detailed enough. A book is not a useful reference unless you give the page number. You then need to cite the reference in the text where it is relevant, what did you think the "ref" function was for? Making notes? What is listed in the "Notes" section is a list of references. I am not going to go out of my way to change it back, but you should learn the difference and get the References section corrected. aLii 16:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fame Beyond football

I added a section called Fame Beyond Football, as this whole article was totally oriented around his career in football. Yet he is famous well beyond football. To keep it limited to just his footballing exploits would be POV.

I pulled a few scraps of stuff from throughout the article together, together with my own summary. But it dores need a bit of tighter editing.--Richardb43 05:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

waxwork

That waxwork picture makes him look like a Nazi. Jooler 15:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He sounds like Oliver Twist.

There should also be a mention of the well-established slang phrase to which he gave rise: "back, sack and crack", refering to waxing of his back, scrotum and the crack between his buttocks to remove hair.

Also, to the infamous interview with Victoria Beckham (aka 'Posh Spice') in which she referred to his propensity for dressing up in her underwear.

Real Madrid - Trophy

Hope you don't mind, but I've moved your comment down into new section. TheJC (talk • contribs)

"He left the club to join Real Madrid in 2003; as of 2006 the team has yet to win a major trophy."

Doesn't this imply that real madrid havent won a major trophy yet?? Should probably be changed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.1.82.72 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago rating

despite figuring lowly in the fans' rankings on the BBC website.

I removed the above note because a) the provided ref is a self-selected internet poll and as such does not meet WP:V standards, and b) the wording was misleading; Beckham is ranked fourth highest English player in that poll. --Muchness 06:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But 16th overall. Definitely MOTM.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  23:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy with Larsson's page?

User ChaChaPhut's edit places this page at odds with Larsson's - can we establish which is correct, the fifth player to score in three world cup finals or the 24th? Whatever the real picture we should at least be consistent.

Actually I have edited a few players' pages (although not Larsson's). I am also concerned on all the different versions I have seen here on different pages. I have posted this in other pages, but I will repeat it here hoping this will help us get it right. ChaChaFut 00:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Players who have scored in at least three world cups
(First 14 not necessarily in exact order)

1. Pelé 1958, 1962, 1966, 1970
2. Uwe Seeler 1958, 1962, 1966, 1970
3. Grzegorz Lato 1974, 1978, 1982
4. Andrzej Szarmach 1974, 1978, 1982
5. Joe Jordan 1974, 1978, 1982
6. Dominique Rocheteau 1978, 1982, 1986
7. Michel Platini 1978, 1982, 1986
8. Karl-Heinz Rummenigge 1978, 1982, 1986
9. Julio Salinas 1986, 1990, 1994
10. Diego Maradona 1982, 1986, 1994
11. Rudi Völler 1986, 1990, 1994
12. Lothar Matthäus 1986, 1990, 1994
13. Roberto Baggio 1990, 1994, 1998
14. Jürgen Klinsmann 1990, 1994, 1998
15. Gabriel Batistuta 1994, 1998, 2002
16. Fernando Hierro 1994, 1998, 2002
17. Sami Al-Jaber 1998, 2002, 2006
18. Raúl González 1998, 2002, 2006
19. Henrik Larsson 1994, 2002, 2006
20. Ronaldo 1998, 2002, 2006
21. David Beckham 1998, 2002, 2006

P.S. If anyone finds this inaccurate, please provide comments and corrections. Thanks

I edited David Beckhams nicknames because I heard yesterday the england squad found a new nickname for him.--Thetinyhole 13:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Captain

I've reverted a change by an anonymous user claiming that Beckham relinquished his captaincy yesterday. Has there been some sort of an annoucement is is this user mistaken. I haven't heard anything. Also, this user changed Coca-coal to Pepsi (see the quote about him being as recognisable as major MNC). This is not the first time this has happened. It's a quotation and not a list of products he advertises. If any user, with anonymous or not, reads this and is about to make the change the please don't. hedpeguyuk 2 July 2006, 10:35 (UTC)

You assumed bad faith by not believing him. Skinnyweed 13:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how you've got that idea. - Motor (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well so what? The news was only breaking at the time. OK, I should have checked. Can I be blamed for showing bad faith when it's an anonymous user (many of whom are known for poorly written edits and vandalism), he wrongly edited the quote (Coca-cola to Pepsi) and didn't cite the captaincy claim. There would have been some new site that would have given details, even at that early time. It's an online encyclopaedia, it can be easily reverted. I was only playing safe. hedpeguyuk 18:00 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea where you're getting the Coca-Cola thing from, he's always been on Pepsi adverts around Europe. I won't change it though, I'll wait for you to confirm it. Hardfl1p 19:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Read it again. It is a quote from the source supplied. Beckham himself is a brand name "like Coca Cola and IBM". It's not a list of brands he endorses. - Motor (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hello, this might be a silly question, but anyone can tell me how to pronounce his lastname as /bake-kam/ or /bake-ham/. If possible IPA might be great. Thank you. --Manop - TH 18:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know IPA but the h is completely silent, if I wanted to spell it phonetically I would use 'bek-uhm' i.e the 2nd sylable is not pronounced as in gum but more as a grunt, most words ending in ham in English are pronounced uhm, Birmingham, Nottingham etc Bob Palin 22:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The IPA pronunciation is /'bɛkəm/. --Muchness 22:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for both of you. I really appreciate --Manop - TH 08:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a joke

Beckham's fame extends beyond the pitch; in much of the world his name is "as instantly recognisable as that of multinational companies like Coca-Cola and IBM."[2]

This is a real laugh. In places like the United States, China, Germany, South Africa and Russia, Coca Cola is a household name, as is Toyota or McDonalds. However, Beckham is not. Only in some parts of England would Beckham be better known than Coca Cola. Ask your children. Do they know what Coca Cola is? Do they know what Beckham is? This is like the Beatle saying they are more famous than Jesus Christ. Well, they're not! Wallie 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please come out of your parochial hive. Like the saying goes he is "Big, and I mean real Big in Japan". Jooler 15:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I've already pointed out on your talk page, do you know what Real Madrid get for replica shirt sales with "Beckham's" name on it, or Manchester United? I've been to Ghana, Kuwait, Germany and yes China and have seen a good number of RM and Man U shirts and the Man U shirts are almost unanimously Beckham no. 7 shirts. Manchester United were (I don't know if they still are) the biggest sports "brand" in the world, even bigger than the NY Yankees. Beckham's "brand" ties in with this. I think the quote is a slight exaggeration, but it does highlight his influence and marketability, something that is actually discussed in the piece from which the quote was taken. hedpeguyuk 8 July 15:34 (UTC)

This is all very interesting but

1. Man U is bigger than Becks. He will soon be forgotten. Man U will not.
2. Coca Cola is known is most countries. Becks is only known is a few. You mentioned Japan.
3. David Beckham's wife is better known than him is many (most?) countries.

I will come back and delete this humorous stuff after a year or so, when you have all come up with a new idol, like Totti.

Best laugh I've had for years. Wallie 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

These stories perhaps sum it up :-

• Female fans style pubic hair like Beckham's Mohican
• Japan unveils 3m high chocolate statue of Beckham

Jooler 16:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, Totti is past it. Secondly, Beckham isn't my idol as I already mentioned on your talk page, I don't really like the guy and I'm not really English. If you really want a list of countries then here you go. Saudi Arabia, Ghana, South Africa, China, Japan, South Korea, all of Europe, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia, (he's massive there), Mexico and to a lesser extent Australia. Trust me, he's VERY well known in those countries. It's strange you lumped Africa in there, in many countries of Africa he's just as well known, if not better known, than Pepsi and McDonalds. Especially those African countries that are relatviely untouched by globalisation, but still fanatical about football. Not really the US or Canada (they are fairly untouched by "soccer") and it is there that Posh will be better known. If this article is to be believed then yes, it may be possible to delete it. Of course, 50 years down the line when he's dead the legacy of IBM will be greater than Beckham, but we are taling about the here and now. Anyway, that article. http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1811728,00.html?gusrc=rss hedpeguyuk 8 July 2006 16:14 (UTC)

Also, let me make it clear. This is not about influence or achievement. I'm sure McDonalds and Microsoft have had a greater influence on Western cuclutre than Beckham. It's about how recognisable the brands are. I'm sure that you'll find, in most countries, Beckham is as recognisable as a Pepsi logo. He's already more recognisable than the British Prime Minister and quite possibly the US president. You try showing a street kid in the favelas of Brazil pictures of Bush and Beckham and name them. hedpeguyuk 8 July 2006 16:14 (UTC)

Yes, well said Jooler. Have a look at this it is taken from a website. "David Beckham" is a more popular Internet search term this year in Indonesian, Norwegian, Hungarian, Turkish, Danish, Swedish and Spanish than it is in English." http://www.oxfordpress.com/sports/content/shared/sports/stories/SOC_BECKHAM_0630_COX.html Google is the be all and end all, but is still a sure sign of his popularity abroad (and possible falling popularity in English speaking countries). hedpeguyuk 17:00 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, Google stats are no really relevant. As for street kids in Brazil would recognise a bottle of coca cola better than a picture of Beckham, that's for sure. They would recognise their own players more than a foreigner. As for Australia, more Australians know who Shane Warne is than Beckham. But football is not really followed there any more than in Canada. Wallie 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, cricket is a major sport in Australia, association football is not (that's why I said to a lesser extent. But I still hear enough comments and mentions of him made in the Australian media (news and television programmes). Brazil probably was a bad example I'll admit but my point stil stands with African nations where he is looked up to for his wealth, questionable football ability and celebrity status just as much, but probably more so, than other footballers for some reason. I wish I could find that survey that I saw a few years ago that showed he was as recognisable as major world leaders. hedpeguyuk 8 July 2006 17:40 (UTC)

• Big in Iran too Jooler 17:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also take a look at this Indian site: - http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030614/sports.htm#4 and under "If Beckham shifts, fans may follow" It contradicts you comment that he's hardly known in China. Also see "his looks sell motor oil in Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam, and his ever-changing hair helps market beauty products in Japan." Also, as for people supporting Machester United for the club, not jsut fot the player, see the final paragraph, "Manchester United have an estimated 16 million supporters. Of those, a third support the player rather than the club, according to branding agency FutureBrand. “Many fans in Asia watch a team because of the individual star players". There's a fair bit of truth in that. So we have established his fame in many parts of Africa (esp. West and North), the Middle East, China, Japan and SE Asia as well as the whole of Europe (even if he isn't considered to be the most talented footballer). Is this not famous enough? hedpeguyuk 18:22 8 July 2006, (UTC)

India too. There may be a slight interest at this time, being the world cup is on. But normally India is not the slightest bit interested in footrball. And I think you know it too. As far as sportsmen and celebs are concerned, India has plenty of their own like Aishwarya Rai and Tendulkar. Beckham just doesn't rate there. Wallie 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this wasn't even written during the time of the world cup (it's from June 2003, the month that David Beckham moved to Real Madrid). Its main use in this instance is to show his popularity in China and SE Asia. I chose an India site just so that it wouldn't have an "axe to grind". If it was British it may be attacked for trying to depict Beckham as being more popular than he is. Indian sources should therefore be neutral. Also, although India do have their own sports stars who they (quite rightly) rate higher, he is still obviously well-known. hedpeguyuk 8 July 2006 19:25 (UTC)

This is not about whether Beckham is popular or not. It is about whether Beckham is as recognisable as Coca Cola throughout the world. I contend that based on these discussions, that Beckham is more recognised than Coca Cola in Japan and England only. However in the rest of the world, incl Brazil, Germany, Scotland, China, India, Australia, Russia, Pakistan, United States, Uganda, Argentina, Turkey etc etc, Coca Cola is more recognisable than David Beckham, and has always been. Beckham has limited appeal compared with Coca Cola, confined to Japan and England. He cannot compete with bigger brands still like Tiger Woods, Toyota or Nokia. Wallie 09:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiger Woods? Are you having a laugh? Jooler 10:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who started talking about his popularity and the popularity of football. The very fact that he's recognised in countries that aren't even major footballing nations (South Africa, Iran) shows just how famous he is. Also please stop using "England", it's the United Kingdom, he is just as recognisable in Northern Ireland as he is in England. The same goes for the WHOLE of Europe, even if he isn't rated as a footballer he's still one of the most recognisable faces in the world. I've already put forward my views based on my own PERSONAL experiences living in West and North Africa as well as the Middle East. For citizens of some of the countries in these regions IBM doesn't really mean a great deal. David Beckham, however, does. In other more developed regions, such as the USA (which has always been insular anyway), Canada, Australia this isn't the case. Perhaps the section should be re-worked to include Europe, Africa and Asia, but not North America and Oceania. Either way, I'm tired of arguing this. hedpeguyuk 9 July 2006, 10:35 (UTC)

Not true. You introduced this aspect. Have a look at this thread and it proves my point. As for being insular, this applies more to the likes of the UK rather than the USA. People in the USA certainly know more about international sports than the UK people generally do. UK people are only interested in football. Americans follow Baseball, Hockey, Basketball, Football, Motor Racing, Horse Racing, Rugby, Swimming, Athletics and off course Soccer. People from America are just too big minded to respond to this type of comment. They have a world-wide, not a little-England perspective on things. This article on David Beckham tends to a little-England perspective. Anyway. I will come back and clean up this article in a year or so when Mr B. is well and truly forgotten. Wallie 10:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I find the term "little England" insulting, I'm not English. I like Americans, I have friends there, I'm immensly influenced by their music. However, you have to admit that Americans are insular and have little knowledge of the outside world. I've only been to Boston and San Francisco, but my experience there shows that they have little knowlege of world geography and history. 13% of Americans can't locate Canada on a world map, let alone Australia, Ukraine or Malawi. The writer Bill Bryson, when in Iowa, todl a waitress that he was English. The rewply, "You speak good English for a foreigner"!! Two things that were said to me in the US were, "do you have computers in the UK" and "what language do you speak in England?". The number of Americans who believe Queen Elizabeth to be the "Queen of England", or that England is an island, is extra-ordinary. Wathcing American quiz shows, although not an idea representation of a country's intelligence, doesn't fill me with hope. Secondly, cricket and rugby, although not as popular as football still has a great following amongst fans in the country and is quite avidly followed. So too motor racing and horse racing. You are having a laugh if you truly believe that Hockey, baseball and American football are world sports. When was there an international baseball or A. football tournament on the same scale as the football world cup? Also, I was the one that brought up popularity on this talk page, but I'm sure you mentioed in first on mine. Besides, popularity and "recognisability" go hand in hand. If he is popular in one coutry, then he is surely recognisable. hedpeguyuk 11:00 8 July 2006, (UTC)

Look, in part I do agree, it is UK-centric. I don't believe that world-wide he is as recognisable as many MNCs. However, in some areas of the world, often those that are only starting to welcome capitalism and globalisation, he is still more famous that all but a few MNCs (one ofthose few probably being Coca-Cola). This should be made clear in the article, with a specific mention of those areas. I've listed media sources from around the world, including from the US and India. Jooler has shown that, according the the article he gave, he is one of the first Western figures to be welcomed since the Iranian revolution. I can see that there is no way of persuading you. Given that the quote is cited I believe it should stay. I would advise that you don't "clean up the article". Your views obviously don't have any support, given that nobody on this site as jumped to your defence. Also, given that you admit Ronaldo is more respected that Beckham is (in terms of footballing ability) you still haven't explained why Real Madrid paid 20 million for a player who is an average footballer. The answer is marketing. Given the large sums of money involved, it is obvious he appeals to more than just the "little-Englanders" and a few Japanese people who are following a fad. hedpeguyuk 9 July 2006 11:20 (UTC)

Hockey certainly is a World Sport. It is a if not the main sport in Russia, Canada, United States, Sweden, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Austria, Germany and many other countries. In many countries, it is certainly bigger than football. Wallie 12:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I know hockey is a major sport in all of those countries. However, last time I checked, those were all European and North American. Hardly "world". I'll admit that since England won the Rugby World Cup, and the Ashes in cricket, there have been some people jumping on the bandwagon. However, they were still major sports in the country before then and will remain to be so now. Tennis barely gets mentioned except when it gets to Wimbledon (or when people are hyping Andy Murray). I did not mean to be so insluting towards Americans by the way. Very rarely have I met an American that I did not like (unlike my fellow countrymen). However, one has to admit that by and large, they aren't the most knowlegeable people around (at least for anything outside of their country). However, that's to be expected, they are the only world's superpower. I despair at the increasing ignorance of the British people. Anyway, back to David Beckham. Wouldn't it be give a list of those countries in which David Beckham is recognisable rather than leaving it as "much of the world", giving references wherever possible such as the exact details of his non-football activity in those countries. However difficult that may be. This section is getting rather large. Mainly thanks to me. hedpeguyuk 9 July 2006, 13:18 (UTC)

"UK people are only interested in football. Americans follow Baseball, Hockey, Basketball, Football, Motor Racing, Horse Racing, Rugby, Swimming, Athletics and off course Soccer." - Good grief. You do realise that The UK is the home of Formula One don't you, with most of the teams based here? That Horseracing in the United Kingdom is enormous, much bigger than in the US because off-track betting is legal everywhere and every town in the UK has dozens of betting shops? That the England national rugby union team won the 2003 Rugby World Cup. You might not be aware, but there are two codes of Rugby and that the other code is enormously popular. That only full-time professional rugby league competition in the northern hemisphere is the Super League based in Britain. Perhaps you have heard of a little game called cricket and the Cricket World Cup. You really illustrate hedpeguyuk's point with that ignorant comment. Take a look at National sport and look at the world-wide popularity of football, and compare it to the popularity of your your silly versions of rounders and netball. Jooler 14:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant to say, well put. Then again, I don't think Wallie is American. I may be wrong. Are you originally Australian Wille? Either way, he doesn't really seem to much much about sport in the UK. hedpeguyuk 14:30 , 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You get confused with what people are interested in and what is played. If I discuss sport with an Englishman, it is ALWAYS about football. I asked if they knew who Gavin Hastings was, or Garfield Sobers, or Alan Wells. They don't. They can however tell you the names of every Premier League player in England, club by club.

I do know a lot about UK horseracing and have written many articles on that topic. However most Englishmen would think Dancing Brave was an Indian Chief and think Desert Orchid was a flower. Most Amercians would know who Secretariat, Cigar, Ruffian and Sea Biscuit are. Americans also follow many sports, and not just one. You only have to look at the leaders. Blair is only interested in football. Bush is interested in Olympic Sports, Hockey, Baseball, Football (American), Golf and Basketball. Wallie 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This has decended into a stupid argument now, who gives a toss what sports Bush follows, he should be running the country not watching baseball on TV, I understand that he needs stabilisers on his bicycle otherwise he falls off repeatedly, and again anyway what the hell has all this got to do with the popularity of Beckham, who plays the most popular sport in the World. You're getting close to trolling and so am I. So I'll just say Bye Bye Jooler 21:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a good look at this, Jooler

Beckham's fame extends beyond the pitch; in much of the world his name is "as instantly recognisable as that of multinational companies like Coca-Cola and IBM."[2]

Is this not trolling too? Wallie 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

David Beckham isn't Jewish but his grandad is.David Beckham is Christian I think.I'm not sure.

OCD

So Becks suffers from OCD wow that's bad, but he seems to keep it under control.--NeilEvans 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are any interviews that can be drawn from to add from this article, maybe it would be quite interesting if there is any comment from him about it, whether and how it has affected his development as a player. I cannot help but consider the possibility that it helped him develop his dead ball skills. (so much training, from childhood) Peoplesunionpro 17:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Black icon?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1112920,00.html

Something should be mentioned about the fact that he's considered an icon for Britain's ethnic communities.

The documentary "Black Like Beckham" needs to be referenced also.

SProtect

I'm thinking about asking for an SProtect on this psge. Anyone object? If not, I'll nominate it; the vandalism is getting bad. -Patstuart 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of fansites as spam citing WP:EL

I would like to ask for a discussion on this. I appreciate the need to control an excessive number of external links but WP:EL does have a section called "what should be linked to" and it is possible for "well put together" fansites to qualify. For example some fansites have biographies that are more extensive than those cited in the article. Some have extensive article archives, public domain fair-use photos and or detailed statistics a case can be made in some instances that they do provide useful info that is not suitable for inclusion directly in the article. What is the objective of removing all carte blanche and can some compromise be reached if sites ask whether they have sufficient content to constitute a site that should be linked to? Is to dismiss all of these sites, some of which have involved literally years of work, as having nothing to add, in the best interests of wikipedia's users? --Jackfan222 18:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have one or more specific examples, please include them here. Normally I (among others) are in the habit of removing fansites because they are usually spam. I don't think I've removed any from this article, but I can understand why others did. Nevertheless, do you have some good examples? Fansites can be relevant, but, if you ask me, the onus is more on them to prove their relevancy than for the remover to prove the non-relevancy. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So this is a "GA"-rated (ie approved by the Wiki thought Police) article that is "subject to vandalism" (ie hated by those who detest the mindless hero-worshipping of Beckham). It deserves no place in any archive or library. Wikipedia should concentrate on factual content and ignore the icons of popular culture, regardless of how pert and muscular their fit soccer-honed bodies are, and their gorgeous tanned godlike adoinis facial attributes may be

(Above unsigned comment not mine) Have you considered that rabid fandom is in fact one of the few things which make Beckham notable? Nothing hilights his disproportionate fame or substantiates his (pop) iconic status better than the legions of gibbering fans. Therefore the fansites are useful secondary sources however, only as far as their capacity to display fandom is concerned. --JamesTheNumberless 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Sure, he didn't publicly say to the press that he was a Christian, but I remember watching a show a while back about celebrities and religion. It turns out (according to the show, which I cannot remember the name of) that Beckham and his wife, Victoria, built a chapel in their backyard. If that's not convincing enough (which it probably isn't, due to my not being able to back it up), David Beckham has a clearly visible tattoo of a Christian cross on his neck (?). It's fair to say that that is a large, publicly visible statement of Christianity. Your thoughts? Anton1234 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what tv station this show is on? You might want to see if this show has a website and see if there is something about this so it can be referenced. Kingjeff 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd help out a lot, but I remember very little. I think it was on Star TV, or E! Weekly, two Canadian celebrity broadcasts. I'll check their website, but I don't expect to find much. Anton1234 01:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've found something, [1], that confirms the chapel being built. But it says it was "improper", because it was not consecrated by a bishop. Anyway, on the same link, it says that a licensed Christian minister married the couple. A chapel built for the christening (a Christian tradition) of his son, a Christian symbol tattooed on his neck, and a marriage by a Christian minister are all strong signs that David exhibits Christianity. Is the evidence conclusive enough to add in the article? Anton1234 01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the thing about the chapel can be put in since this shows his faith. Kingjeff 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So, put it in? Anton1234 03:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Contract

Please note, per this article on SI.com [[2]], the $50 million a year is total, not his salary. (The total includes his profit-sharing with MLS, his endorsement contracts, etcetera. The base salary is up to $10 million a year. SirFozzie 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Beckham could earn more than $250m, perhaps as much as $275m, over the period of his contract.

I understand his yearly income from next season, when he leaves Spain for America, will be:

An annual salary of $10m

His existing sponsorship contracts with his four sponsors - Motorola, Pepsi, Gillette and Volkswagen - are estimated to be worth $25m

His merchandising shirt sales will bring in $10m

His share of the club profits: $10m

That adds up to $55m. Multiply it by five and you get well over $275m. taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6253829.stm

Yes, but that's ALL outside his direct salary. Derek Jeter's contract doesn't include all his endorsements. It's just what the Yankees pay him. This is a similar situation. The Galaxy only pay him $10 million a year for playing for them SirFozzie 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Change

David beckham has left Real Madrid to Los Anagalis(excuse my spelling) This is ligit. I saw it on the news.

He is gonna Make 250million for his 5 year contract.

Can you edit it please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.19.189 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

No. please read the notes above. That figure includes outside income, NOT salary.

And he hasn't "left" Real Madrid, he is "leaving" Real Madrid when his contracts finishes. At the moment, he is a RM player. Darkson - BANG! 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Golden Balls"?

It said on the nickname section he's been called "Golden Balls". Is that a joke? Just H 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's true. that's what the UK Tabloids call him. 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure when it was removved, but I'm adding it back in. Darkson - BANG! 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to prevent this being removed again is to source the nickname. Any of these could be used, someone with more time than me can insert them in in to the article as proper sources. 1 , 2 , 3 Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

David Beckham Los Angeles Galaxy contract

Could some of the editors here give some input? Cheers!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC) What a bad end of career.. Money vs. Visibility..

I would like to merge the summary as has been already done. --Brand спойт 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's worthy of a merge. It is an awfully large and detailed article that simply doesn't have a place in the main article. I vote that it stays separate--NPswimdude500 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge.--JohnO 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support a merging the content to here and other relevant articles (Designated Player Rule, Los Angeles Galaxy, etc.) As it stands, I think the seperate article is a news article and not an encyclopedia article. In fact, I put it up for afd, and you can see the afd discussion here- however the afd was closed because the article is currently linked from the main page. In the 20 minutes or so before the afd was closed, there were already several voices supporting merging the content. Robotforaday 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• No Merge. This is an event similar to Gretzky going to the Kings. It deserves its own page. JAF1970 03:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure if it is a similar situation, but regardless, it's worth noting that that move doesn't have its own page- it seems to be very reasonably dealt with within the Wayne Gretzky article. Surely if what you say stands, the same can be done within the David Beckham article?Robotforaday 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• No Merge Chensiyuan 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• No -- Unprecedented contract in size, length and terms, for world's most recognisable player at the moment. Manderiko 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Summarize and Merge - It's a news article, not an encyclopedic article. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 03:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the point I indicated above - merging only summary :) --Brand спойт 03:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I just agreed with you and reinforced your stance, like a "per Brandспойт". Be happy. =) --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 03:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong merge The move to the LA Galaxy should just be a new section in the current David Beckham article. AEMoreira042281 04:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Merge, but leave alone for now,. Let the kids have fun. Once everyone gets over it, it will be cleaned up, made encyclopedic, and brought into here. Shit, Pele's international career section is shorter than the Galaxy move article. Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry. --ChaChaFut 06:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

your condescending attitude is hardly helpful. Chensiyuan 07:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• MERGE IS FOR FOOLSSS 137.132.3.11 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong merge no reason for having one more article--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delay Merge I think we should keep the article separate until it is off the news section of the main page. Then merge the articles. Hohohob 11:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delay Merge Turkeyphan^t 12:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Immediatly - news, not encyclopedic in content. Rgds - Trident13 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge not all of the information in the David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy article has to be retained. This is an encyclopedia, not a news magazine. For that see Wikinews. Just make a section here about the move and mention the important aspects. --Epaphroditus Ph. M. 15:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge The content is more appropriate for wikinews.org (where I did not find an article on the topic). The info here could be condensed into one encyclopedic paragraph for Beckham's main article. This whole current article could be moved to wikinews with a link from Beckham's main article. --Mikebrand 16:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong merge - this is not worthy of an encyclopedic article on its own. Páraic Maguire 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Once ready, the front page can link to the subsection in the David Beckham article. LukeSurl 18:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge The move article shouldn't stand on its own.198.24.31.108 19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge 68.203.249.145 21:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Move Move to either David Beckham in the United States or Los Angeles Galaxy in the 2007-08 Major League Soccer season (see here for a similar article).--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 22:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Move As per users suggestion above^ --Duey Finster_[[User

talk:dueyfinster|Talk]]

• No Merge Biggest internatioal star at the moment
• Keep Its one of - if not the - biggest sporting contract in history, has recieved massive media attention and is a very high profile and note worthy move; therefore I think the move warrents its own article - especially when its covered in lots of detail as it is at the moment. Rimmers 21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Decat 18:32, 14 January 2007 (

GMT)

• No Merge м info 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge (Spshiralkar 17:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)) Should be shortened and merged into either the LA Galaxy page or the DB page. Doesn't really deserve an artice in its own right.

• delay Merge they should both remain as individual articals at this moments until he is offically at LA Galaxy. it should be mention that beckham did sign in the David Beckham artical, but with a link to the the one about his signing. TipoBarra 02:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delay Merge Both arguments have merit, and I think that for the time being the seperate artical has sufficient content and relevance to warrant it's own page. Later it can be merged or moved to a David Beckham in the United States article as needed. SpaceAgeGhostKiller 20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you merge it

Please consider moving the article itself to Los Angeles Galaxy in the 2007 Major League Soccer season or to David Beckham in the United States, which would be a sub article to David Beckham and would focus on his career in America, not just his contract/move to the United States. This would allow more information to be retained when compared to merging with David Beckham.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 22:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but we don't know yet if Galaxy's 2007 season or Beckham's career in the US are going to be so notable as to require an article. As of now, Beckham's move to the MLS is historically not more notable than Di Stefano going to Real Madrid, or the Swedish trio at AC Milan, or Sivori and the cara sucias moving to Italy, to cite other comparable examples. I think it is only appropriate to merge these news into David Beckham, put them in context with the rest of his career, and wait to see what events related to his career worth of note happen in the future. If his career in the US becomes so notable (for instance, if there's much more to say about it than his career as an England international player, or his career at Manchester United), and the section becomes too large for this article, it is very easy to migrate it to an article again. --ChaChaFut 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Clubs listing

Before I retire for the night, can we just agree on the following facts regarding who he has worked/is working/will work for.

1: Despite Fabio Capello saying that Beckham won't play for Real Madrid again, until 30 June he is still contracted to them.

2: Although he has signed a contract with LA Galaxy, as things stand it doesn't come into effect until 1 July, therefore he is NOT currently a Galaxy player. If Galaxy manage to buy out some of his remaining Real contract, fine, but the time to include such detail will be then, not now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He could drop dead before 1 July for all we know.

Therefore while we can mention all the juicy contract details in the main body of the article, in the future tense, we can not include Galaxy as one of his clubs in the infobox until his contract actually takes effect. -- Arwel (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed LA Galaxy again. Darkson - BANG! 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just removed LA Galaxy again. I agree, he hasn't moved yet so any LA Galaxy entry in his infobox is simply wrong. Smoothy 13:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And again. Do people not bother to read the notes, or just feel that the rules don't apply to them? Darkson - BANG! 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not. The people who are editing it must have something wrong with them or they'd realise that putting LA Galaxy in his infobox is factually wrong, as he hasn't moved YET so therefore you can't say he plays for them when he's still contractually bound to Real Madrid. Smoothy 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Factually he is currently contracted with LA Galaxy for 2007+. To the comment that he could "drop dead before 1 July" (above)- nevertheless he would still have been contractually bound and my bet is the current contract with Galaxy would have clauses dealing with illness and death, including provisions for his family and estate - and most likely LA Galaxy would have life insurance. In other words, there are current factual and contractual arrangements in place. (People buy and sell on the futures market every day - it would be absurd to suggest these were not currently real.)Alan Davidson 07:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

However he has not played for LA Galaxy, and that list shows teams that a player has played for. No other player has "future" clubs included in their infobox. Why should Beckham be an exception? Again: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Arwel (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Arwel, I completely agree with you. Beckham might be contractually bound to LA Galaxy, but that's from 1st July, he's contractually bound to Real Madrid NOW. If he drops dead NOW, his contract with Real Madrid will deal with the fallout. Fact is, he hasn't played for LA Galaxy YET and hasn't joined them YET. As someone else has pointed out several times already, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In any case the * next to the word Professional clubs explains that the data is counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 28 August 2006 so in any case it's factually wrong to put LA Galaxy in the infobox for this reason as well.Smoothy 10:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If he was to drop dead, or suffer a career-ending injury between now and 30th June, it would be sorted out under his Real Madrid contract. His LA Galaxy contract has no bearing on him until it comes into effect on 1st July. Darkson - BANG! 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction - he is contactually bound to Galaxy NOW. You are guessing by saying the Galaxy contract would "have no bearing" on a current crippling injury. It may require Real Madrid to deal with the period to 30 June BUT the Galaxy contract as it CURRENTLY stands can also deal with present compensation for the future and that can include present injuries which would impact the contact period. The lawyers would be incompetent not to deal with such a position. They would have insurance. His current club may be Real Madrid but the presently existing contract with present consequence currently and factually exists. Why the fuss? It is not crystal ball gazing to include a significant existing contract. He is contractaully bound to galaxy NOW. Alan Davidson 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No he ISN'T. He is contractually bound to Real Madrid till 30th June, that is a fact. His LA Galaxy contract starts on the 1st July! He isn't an LA Galaxy player and will not be till 1st July, where the contract will therefore be in full effect. Therefore listing LA Galaxy in his info box is factually wrong (as he hasn't played for them and is not playing for them AT THIS TIME). Besides, as I said earlier, the * next to the word Professional clubs explains that the data is counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 28 August 2006 so in any case it's factually wrong to put LA Galaxy in the infobox for this reason as well.Smoothy 11:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't say no he isn't. He and Galaxy have signed the contract. It exists in the present. There is a presenting existing enforceable contract. This fact cannot be denied. Why everyone is trying is bizarre. I understand the underlying motivation but you cannot deny the existence of the announced, presently existing, presently enforceable, contract. (For example if one side announced TODAY that they intended not to honour this presently existing contract the other side could sue TODAY for anticipatory damages - they would not have th wait). The concern stems from other motivation. Other than removing the spurious term "summer" much earlier - I have made no change to this page - and will not do so. But do not deny the contract. Alan Davidson 12:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying the contract. I'm stating that the contract is not effective till his present contract is up, which is 30th June. Therefore he isn't an LA Galaxy player YET so you can't put it in the infobox. Smoothy 12:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If I can comment - you are saying he is contracted to play; Galaxy is contraced to pay; the contract is operable TODAY; all must honour the contract; but you want omit refrence to it? What's the point? Every player in the world love to be listed as a player with LA Galaxy for THIS contract. 60.226.76.41 12:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that Beckham has signed a pre-contract. He cannot sign a full contract till 1st July (according to the FIFA rules), therefore he isn't an LA Galaxy player. We are not omitting reference to the contract (as it's in the main body), but as of now you can't put it in the infobox as he's not an LA Galaxy player right now. Smoothy 12:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In your previous comment you state "I'm not denying the contract". Now you do. You can't have it both ways. A pre-contract (if there is such a thing) is still a contract - it is still enforeable. Stop trying to deny this. If it doesn't exist, why all the reaction - especially by the coach. It is real NOW. 60.226.76.41 13:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not delying the contract. If you read my comments, I clarify the type of contract. This is FIFA rules, it's called a pre-contract. You can do research on it. In the meantime, it's clear that he is still a Real Madrid player till the 30th June and is not an LA Galaxy player till the 1st July so it would be inaccurate to put LA Galaxy in the infobox, especially as anything could happen between now and then. As someone else has said,

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Smoothy 13:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The club listing has a footnote that it is correct to August 2006 (that is it is out of date) yet it lists Becham as playing for Real Madrid to 2007. This is factually incorrect. He has not played this year and according to the coach will not. Unless it is crystal ball gazing. He is currently contracted to LA Galaxy - but has not played for Real Madrid (please correct me if I am wrong - has he played this year?) Alan Davidson 08:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He is not currently contracted to Galaxy, he has a pre-contract with Galaxy. He is currently contracted to Madrid until 30th June 2007. Darkson - BANG! 14:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, his coach has only stated his opinion on whether he will play him, but he's still contracted to Real Madrid till 30th June 2007. He is still a Real Madrid Player. If he was an LA Galaxy player AT THIS PRESENT TIME, he'd be able to play in their season opener, however, they have acknowledged that he can't play in their season opener because he will be contracted to Real Madrid at that time! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6280133.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/6279755.stm (last few paragraphs on both pages) and especially http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/6265581.stm (specifically the first paragraph) for more details.Smoothy 22:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Are you saying that he should be listed with Real Madrid for 2007 only because he is "contacted"? I thought the list reflected games. Please check with a lawyer but Beckham is contractually obligated to play for LA Galaxy. He cannot get out of this contract, and neither can LA Galaxy. A contract to eneter into another contract is still a contract and it still obligates both parties. But the report quoted above includes many statements that Beckham has signed including this statement - "Beckham signed his contract before he spoke with Madrid and for me that doesn't seem right". Do you really think either party is not bound? It would be one of the firmest contracts in existence, and it is now. Why do you want to list him for being only contracted to Real Madrid and NOT playing, and maintain an out of date listing? Alan Davidson 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Because his contract with Galaxy does not come into force until the 1st of July, 2007. It's the way things work in football. You can sign a pre-contract with a new club 6 months before your current contract expires. So, yes, Beckham has a PRE-contract with Galaxy NOW, but he is currently contracted to Madrid. As for not playing, there's no legal reason why he can't play for Madrid between now and the end of the season, just the manager saying so. And if he did have a nasty accident before 1st July (and before anyone pipes up saying I'm "wishing evil on him", I am NOT saying I hope this happens) and had to retire, he would never have legally been a Galaxy player, because his Galaxy contract would not have been in force. Darkson - BANG! 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the way you emphasie "PRE" and "NOW" - it is so completely contradictory. You acknowledge the contract is now, and is a contract to enter into a contract - which amounts to the same thing; namely enforceable obligations which is "in force". Secondly, my comment remains that he has not played in 2007 and yet the listing states "Professional club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 20 January 2007". Well it is crystal ball gazing whether he will play for Real Madrid in 2007. That means it is factually wrong to 20 January 2007. Alan Davidson 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me. He has signed a "pre-contract" with Galaxy now, which he is allowed to do under FIFA rules. This "pre-contract" is a (legal) understanding that he and Galaxy will sign a playing contract when his CURRENT playing contract with Madrid expires. As it stands now, he can no more play for Galaxy than I can. The only way this can change is for Madrid to loan him or sell him to Galaxy, or to cancel his contact. On your second point, he is a Madrid player into 2007, because the football seasons (in the majority of th Northern Hemisphere) are winter seasons, so encompass 2006 AND 2007 so saying the figures are correct as to 20 Jan 2007 is factually correct, as they are for the 2006/07 season. Wheter he plays in the year 2007 is irrelevent, as he has played in the 06/07 season. Darkson - BANG! 15:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you contradict yourself. You say the list (of games played and goals scored) can include a hypothetical 2007 for Real Madrid but not for LA Galaxy. (And an understanding is not legally enforceable - Beckam and Galaxy have a contract (to contract in set terms - it is not hypothetical) - neither party can get out of it)Alan Davidson 16:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, he is still contracted to Real at this present time so he's still officially a Real player (as stated by FIFA rules because his current contract runs till 30th June). He hasn't actually signed a proper FULL contract with LA Galaxy because he is not allowed to under FIFA rules, he has signed a PRE-contract, which stipulates that he will sign for them on 1st July (as allowed under FIFA rules). The fact that a lot of other publications are erronously stating that he has already signed doesn't alter the fact that he hasn't actually signed to play and cannot do so till 1st July (even LA Galaxy have said so, they have stated they can't bring him in until that date because that's when his contractual agreement with Real finishes). This is all down to the Bosman Ruling, which came into effect during the mid-90s. Therefore we cannot put LA Galaxy in the infobox YET (because he hasn't and is not playing for them at this present time). As for the date, normal procedure in publications is to leave the last year off (to denote the present). Quite why 2007 has been put on there I don't know as I have been deliberately been leaving it off to avoid confusion (such as what you have stated). I will alter this myself. Smoothy 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I note it has now been changed and is consistent. Alan Davidson 05:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting Earnings

From L.A. Galaxy and U.S. Soccer; "Beckham could earn up to $50 million a year and earning about 90 dollars every second on the field" From Trivia; "With his new MLS contract Beckham can make up to $1.6 per second thats $98.6 per minute." I don't know which one of these is correct so maybe it could be looked into. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.30.204 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

The latter is approximately correct if you're counting every second of every minute of every hour of every day of the year. The first figure works out at just under $500k per 90-minute game; I don't know how many games there are in an MLS season, but surely not 100? -- Arwel (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Possible to ask that this article is protected? Darkson - BANG! 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tattoos

Can anyone add a picture of his tattoos or list what all of them are?67.80.148.65 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Chris S.

Mentioned in the trivia section Darkson - BANG! 21:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir / Madam, Mr. Beckham has never won the Essex County Cross Country at any age. Please change the information above as legal action may take place against such spurious claims. The claims have been reputed by athletes and officials from the county and as the claims appear in the public domain they are challenged. Both Mr. Beckham and any web-site that post unsubstantiated claims are subject to legal action because of misrepresentation.

You have a duty to edit such claims.

This is a wiki. You can edit it yourself. -- Arwel (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, unsourced controversial material should be immediately removed from Wikipedia. If an anonymous user request the removal of unsourced material from a bio, it should be immediately removed by whoever sees the request firs (as you've done here) - It could be the subject or someone somehow connected to the subject (or in this case Essex County Cross Country) who is not familiar with the way Wikipedia works. Cogswobble 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"gay boy"???

can somebody clean up the "gay boy" spam some lifeless loser has put into the whole page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.10.243.61 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC).