back in 1962 and before the wc final between brazil and czechoslovakia teams, a unique decision from fifa was taken to help brazil attain the trophy when they annuled the ban of garrincha and allowed him to play the final after an interference of havelange (the man who made pele and stole the wc titles for brazil) !! its funny how pele brags his three wc titles everytime and conceals this awful and shameful fact in order for him to deceive people and get them to think and consider him as the greatest footballer ever !!! moreover, in wc 2010 a quite similar incident took place for spain team when fifa refused to open an investigation to punish david villa for he slapped a chillean player in the face!! ,hence, spain went on to win the title just like brazil did in 1962 http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/23062010/58/world-cup-2010-villa-escapes-ban-slap.html why do scandals like these keep happening in fifa wc???
Pele's claim of greatness has nothing to do with the outcome of the 1962 World Cup final, since he was injured and didn't play in that game anyway.
Pele did play 1.5games and scored 1goal in first game. He was injured at the 2nd game and could not play the rest of tournament. That was a big lost in world football since we could not watch a very PEAK FORM of Pele (at time)
Didn't something similar happen in WC02 with Ronaldinho's suspension against England? I believe it was supposed to be a two-match ban but was reduced to one, allowing him to play the final. Pele is shameless in claiming glory for WC62, he only played one match, the first one, could not deal with the physical punishment (compare that to Maradona in WC90), it was Garrincha's heyday, his moment in the sun, yet Pele still wants to hog it for himself.
i beg to differ pele brags his three wc titles and utilizes them all the time to claim his superiority against maradona and the rest of footballers not all soccer fans are aware of the fact that pele had a very little to do with 1962 trophy
according to david yallop, pele is a product of havelange as stated by havelange himself. pele history is the fruit of havelanges plans and scheme to become the president of fifa as havelange fixed 3 wc for brazil and used pele to get the africans to vote for brazil because he is dark skinned pele has never been a top scorer of any wc nor has he been the top goal assist player
yeah thats correct, ronaldinho wasnt eligible to play the final but fifa removed the ban to accommodate brazil team to win the taurnament pele is a big lier it is very shameful what he is doing
This is indeed the problem I have with most glorified stories. The complete 1962WC was very controversial, but also the preceding 1958WC (with clear Brazil favouritism) and 1954WC (the 'robbery of bern', with scandalous refereeing) are doubtful stories. Same with 1966WC, where Brazil tried to bribe the referee, something that is even acknowledged by Havelange himself. The 1970 World Cup was one without controversies... Or not? Because Uruguay had to travel in the last moment to another stadium for their semi-final match. The list can go on and on. Luckily, some things leak out years afterwards (for example the conditions surrounding the 1978WC, that picture is becoming clearer and clearer). And it is not just the World Cup, also the European Cup has had dark moments (for example the 1974EC final and the decisions surrounding the replay). It's all understandable, because sport is business. Havelange wanted to banish the last remnants of amateurism and he succeeded. No one is interested in a Bulgaria-Sweden World Cup final. No stakeholders wants an early exit of Brazil (in their own home country), including the fans watching. The alternative is unknown or does not exist but we should not close our eyes for that...
The book of Yallop is very interesting but tends to glorify the English and Europeans, as if they are without any tricks (he dismisses in a very arrogant tone any controversies around the 1966WC). I was appalled by the hidden racism in the book.
You are clearly making things up. Ronaldinho was eligible to play in the Final according to FIFA rules. You are the liar buddy. A red card implies an automatic one match ban, that can be increased to more if it is proved that, according to FIFA’s “Laws Of The Game”: 1. The player is guilty of ‘serious foul play’ (for instance, a very dangerous tackle). 2. There is violence. 3. A player spits at an opponent or other person. 4. A player denies the other side an opportunity to score by handling the ball. 5. A player denies the other side an opportunity to score by fouling a player. 6. A player uses offensive or abusive language or gestures. Ronaldinho's foul doesn't fall into any of those categories.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/worldc...t/england_v_brazil/newsid_2058000/2058110.stm The FIFA made later on also an apologise when they banned Ballack. They immediately changed the regulations so they do not have to make excuses any more. It is now nigh impossible to miss a final.
1 - What controversy in 62 ? 2 - Brazil favoritism ? Why ? We had never won a WC. We were not a marquee team. FIFA wasn't ruled by a Brazilian until 74. 3 - Havelange admitted Brazil tried to bribe refs ? Where ? He said that in 66 and 74 the refs favored the host teams (England and Germany) to get them to win. In all of Brazil's games in 66 for example there were English and German refs. 4 - What's the story on 1970 and Uruguay ? You really think Uruguay was a match for Brazil ? 5 - What else has come out from 78 ?
The rule is as I stated before. It's up to FIFA to judge if it's 1 or 2 match suspension. The foul may fall in the 1st category but I don't see how anyone could think that. It wasn't an extremely violent foul. De Jong's foul in the 2010 Final is something that might merit a 2 match suspension...and he only got a yellow.
It falls in the category 'serious foul play'. The precedents point to that direction. Why are you referring to this? Actually, Holland was already pointed as the villain by the press before the final began. Spain was the so called best team in history (laughter). Yes, it was a red card but you see so often that these kind of interventions, with the intention to play the ball, are only punished with yellow. Plus, the typical fan press forget the red-worthy tackle of Capdevilla (no intention to play the ball), the retaliation of Iniesta that went unpunished, the easy red card of Heitinga (he did not touch him) and this: What also went unpunished. Personally, I was not proud of the team. They did not play as I want to see them, but how Spain is portrayed as holy saints, that is a near-conspiracy (with mr. Villar as ace of the card deck).
I only pointed out as a means for comparison in recent times. I can't really bring up older examples in World Cups because the game was called differently as early as the 80s. But whatever ... I wouldn't call Ronaldinho's play as extremely violent even though the result could have been bad for the English player. It was a case of him getting late to the ball while going in with his studs (which were not that high at all). So calling conspiracy on this is just reaching. Also what Van Bommel got away with without getting cards in that WC is more than I've seen from any player. I could easily call that a conspiracy.
With the studs means 'dangerous foul play', hence in normal conditions a two match ban. What you say about Van Bommel proves my point. As if players like Jeremies or Cesar Sampaio were saints... No, but the media attacked Van Bommel already before the final began. A big country conspiracy.
Really depends how high the studs are. In his case you can make an easy goal he went for the ball and got there late. For me violent play is to not play the ball and doing something particularly violent. Now if his foot was up higher I'd see the point. To single this out as a case of conspiracy it's absurd. Leonardo in 94 was justly suspended for 3 games for the elbow on Tab Ramos. Where was the "Brazil" bias there ? Not to mention that we had Joao Havelange as the FIFA president at the time. Cesar Sampaio ? Now you are just throwing names out there. I've followed his career from his early days at Santos and Palmeiras and he was not a particularly dirty player. But that's besides the point. I am not discussing if a player is a saint or not. I am talking about Van Bommel getting away with many of those fouls without being carded. Now if the media decides to concentrate on that as their story it's their business. But it's undeniable that he not only once but repeatedly got away with many fouls during that WC.
i respectfully disagree leonardo was suspended for four matches so that he could play the next taurnaments even though his elbow sent the american player to the emergency room and had him stay in the hospital for 6 to 8 weeks as he broke his jaw. nevertheless, the italian tassotti got 8 matches suspention for having elbowed the spanish luiz enrique who could complete the match afterword !!! can u explain the difference in these two cases without forgetting the dispute beteen havelange and paolo cassarin the chief of referee committee as havelange wanted to interfere in the italian mans job and appoint the referee who wd help brazil just like he managed to do when he chenged the referee who was going to supervise brazil and sweeden match in the semifinal to a south american one who would help brazil which he did and brazil went to the final and attain the trophy in the comnebol qualification of that taurnament teixeira bribed the ecuadorian officials 100 thousand dollar to move the match to guayaquil city to escape the high altituted stadium in the capital that the match was decided at first to be played in
Not sure where you get all this info from. But did you actually see the 94 SF ? Was refereeing even an issue ? That game was as one-sided as a WC game can be.
Not familiar with Tassotti's case. Either way he didn't play again in the WC. He could have served more games in the WCQ games. But I don't see how that's an issue.
You can say it is not violent play, the precedents say otherwise. In the same tournament, this Croatian footballer was sent off (for preventing a goal-scoring opportunity) and received a two match ban. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hhEMIC29zr0#t=357s How can you explain that? A normal, late tackle receives a two match ban and dangerous play of Ronaldinho (who shouldn't approach a duel in that way) only one??? I know the answer: Brazil is a big powerful country and Croatia not. I watched Sampaio during the 1998WC and he had exactly the job of Mark Van Bommel. And the Spanish had Puyol, Capdevilla, Ramos, Busquets and Alonso to make nasty fouls (especially in the games against Paraguay and Chile), which went unpunished. Let I be clear for another time: I'm not proud of the way Van Bommel played, I don't like that style. I have only, I think justified, the impression that double standards are at play.
As far as I can see he received a one match suspension. He may have been benched or left out of the last group match. Feel free to correct me with additional information but I think this would prove my point. Each of the three players sent off in Monday's World Cup group matches got a one-match suspension by the FIFA's disciplinary committee. Croatia's Boris Zivkovic was shown the first red card of the tournament in the group G match against Mexico in Niigata, Japan, after a crude challenge in the box on Cuauhtemoc Blanco. Zivkovic will miss the match against Italy on June 8 http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=500016&tx_dfbnews_pi1[showUid]=389&tx_dfbnews_pi4[cat]=62 I honestly would have to watch the Brazil games again. I don't doubt the media picked on Holland but I think it was mostly because of the unexpected style of play and not because of the size of the country or favoritism. Spain got away with some, although I would disagree they got away with more than Holland and any specific player vs. Van Bommel. Spain, for better or worse, also does give the media a separate narrative with the style they play. And I do believe that the start playing rough in response to other teams tackling them hard. That's just my view.
i read them in david yallops book however i was only able to find these http://articles.riderdownload.com/havelange-favored-brazil-in-the-mundial94/ http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Casarin