The "Conference"

Yes, "Non League" is a totally misleading term, isn't it? Strangely nobody seems to mind. The FA played around with the expression "The National Game" - especially to describe what's now the England C team - but it never really stuck. And isn't it true that, when we say "The League", we're really talking about the Football League and, by implication since 1992, the Premier League?

You could argue all football was non-league before the founding of the Football League, the world's oldest association football league in 1888. The Football Association was formed in 1863 at a time when all games were what we would call "friendlies". This continued to be the case until the FA Cup started in 1871/72.

Even from that point there were no leagues. However, as professionalism crept into the game, it was apparent there was a commercial opportunity to organise a competition based upon what was happening in American baseball and cricket's embryonic County Championship. Cue the Football League with its twelve founding members.

But, as we know, the term Non League is used in this country to describe all football played outside of the Premier League and Football League. In that sense you could argue the expression could have been used from 1889 when the first leagues, other than the Football League, were formed.

I don't for one minute think the term was used so early but it was certainly in widespread use when I first became interested in football in the mid 1960s. My guess is it became common in the 1920s and 1930s when the Football League really took on its current shape. By 1923 there were eighty-eight clubs in membership, so a term would have been needed to describe those outside. "Amateur football" would have been used by many but this wasn't technically correct because some clubs - especially in the Southern League - would have been semi-professional. I'd love to know the definitive answer. My hunch is it was devised by a newspaper reporter.

Barton I have it in my head that the term Amateur football, was one that I heard used when I was a small child. I'm sure it was used to describe the teams that were not on my stepdads football pools coupon. I would expect that at that time, all clubs who were not league clubs as we know then as now, would have all been amateurs anyway. I do not remember then hearing the term non- league, so would be interested to know when it did really start.

Dave, you're right in saying "Amateur Football" would have been the expression used by many people up to fairly recent times. It was never entirely correct because there was a degree of professionalism in some leagues outside of the Football League from 1889 onwards. Torquay United, for instance, turned professional in 1921 but didn't enter the Football League for another six years.

I've just looked at the 1958/59 league tables I posted and I reckon there were at least 100 semi-pro clubs at that time which didn't enter the FA Amateur Cup.

The amateur/professional distinction has been officially obsolete since the mid 1970s. The technical distinction is no longer paid or unpaid but is between "contract" and "non contract" players. What is amateur football, in the truest sense of the word, is often described as "recreational" or "grassroots" football.

Good research, Jon.

I think it's becoming clearer that all football below the FL, where people pay to watch, has been termed "Non League" since the ending of the amateur distinction in 1974.

Prior to 1974, the big amateur leagues in London (mainly the Isthmian and Athenian) and a few other parts of the country - which had paying spectators - carried on under the banner of "Amateur Football" (upper case). This was consolidated by the FA Amateur Cup, the England Amateur team, the prevailing social hierarchy (the "toffs") and the generous publicity this branch of the game enjoyed.

Meanwhile - probably from the 1930s based on Jon's findings - the semi-professional game (Southern, Lancashire Comb, Cheshire County, Midland, most Western League clubs, etc) started to be known as "Non League".

People didn't pay to watch - nor were players paid to play - football at district league level (eg South Devon League). This would have been described as "amateur football" (lower case) which, in everyday language, remains a good description.

Originally named the Alliance Premier League when it was inaugurated (an alliance of the three premier leagues below the Football League- The Northern Premier, Southern Premier and Isthmian Premier Leagues...................hence the "pyramid" trophy) was named "The GM Vauxhall Conference" in deference to the sponsors, the American firm General Motors and the term "Conference" is in common use over there when referring to "leagues".

Found this in the Everton v Telford (FA Cup R5, 1985) programme:



Interesting words from a familar source - Telford had knocked out Darlington in an earlier round.

It shows how the Conference has changed from a part-time league where the majority of players had a "day job". I didn't see enough Conference football to be sure but - from what I heard and read - there were plenty of players in those days who could have played at a higher level had it been financially worthwhile. Their earnings from football - and Telford's part-timers were probably on roughly the same as some of Webby's full-timers - meant that Divsion 3 and 4 clubs just couldn't offer them enough money.

Consequently these players remained in the Conference. Although I suspect the general standard of players is higher now - due to the displacement of decent players from higher up together with the switch to being full-time - the very best players from 25 years ago were apparently as good, if not better, than the BSP's better players today. Brian Healy, who we got from Morecambe, was an example of a good player with a decent job who could have played in the FL at an earlier stage of his career.

It makes me wonder what has happened to this kind of individual. Maybe some jobs and professions - teaching? - have become more demanding making it harder to play football on the side. Perhaps some career-minded "quality players" are now playing lower down because there's not so much room for them in the increasingly full-time Conference National.

Or is it because there are more jobs as full-time pros and - if you're good at it - decent earning opportunities at this level? A generation ago Tim Sills - who I think has a sports science degree - may well have been a Home Counties PE teacher playing part-time for Woking. Now he's full-time and possibly earning rather more than he might do as a teacher (which wouldn't have been the case if he'd been playing for us in Webby's day). And he's probably fulfilling his potential more so - and performing more consistently - than his predecessors.

I wonder what would happen if an excellent Conference player - someone with a well-paid job (which required lengthy training and affords good prospects) who had, say, played part-time with a BSP club in the London area - moved to Torbay to take up a new job? Torquay United offer him terms but the player wants a part-time contract only. What would the club do? 10 or 15 years ago, in this league, the answer would have been obvious. Now I'm not so sure.