Should you call football boots, shoes or boots?

Question

They don`t look like boots to me, more like trainers with studs, My husband says boots, so can you settle this

Answer 1

if he says boots then all women together will definately disagree, your right, he's wrong. there shoes or trainers and i'm with you on this one. any other women out there agree with lady?

Answer 2

Boots

Answer 3

When I was a lad (and bicycle wheels were different sizes) footballs were made of leather. When they got wet, they weighed a ton. If you didn't have boots that came up over your ankles, you'd break your foot kicking the ball.

Now footballs are lightweight plastic thingies, footballers can get away with wearing what are really studded running shoes. If you want to know whether they are boots, try kicking a wet leather ball with them.

Answer 4

Boots!

Answer 5

Definitely boots. I think it's because back in the day they were actually boots that went up over the ankle to provide protection and were better suited to our muddy winter pitches. The lighter, trainer-style boots without the ankle coverage we're used to now were first used in southern Europe and South America where obviously muddy pitches aren't so much of a problem.

Answer 6

Boots. They're football boots, not football trainers.

Answer 7

boots. I think its because the first designs for football boots covered the ankles- a bit like wellington boots but with laces. Whereas shoe designs don't cover the ankle

Answer 8

I think you just answered your own question within the question.
"Should you call football BOOTS, shoes or boots?"

Answer 9

They been called football since victorian times,due to the fact they were boots,thats all they had to wear,unlike today

Answer 10

boots