Dispelling a monstrous myth: The European/South American Cup WAS a friendly

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by Santista1962, May 24, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    It is getting a bit tiresome hearing people, who have no clue as to what they are talking about, claiming the European/South American Cup was a world-title when, in fact, it was deemed as a friendly from the get-go. It is also annoying hearing the usually dumb Euro claim it was South Americans who pushed for the creation of the tournament when, in fact, it was the Europeans themselves who created it.

    With many sources and links, I present to you the true history of the friendly competition:



    Full article can be accessed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Club_World_Cup
     
  2. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    As anyone can see here, the European/South American club was merely an effort created by the Europeans, more specifically by Real Madrid, in order to cover up the failure of not winning the French tournament, which was supposed to be the "world club championship".

    FIFA clearly stated, from the get-go, that a tournament that doesn't at least try to represent world football, and outright reject entries, can never be a world club title.

    The Argentines were seen more frequent in the late 60s and the 70s because Brazilian football, in general, stopped caring to participate in international football.

    [​IMG]

    FIFA had to reiterate in 2000, and last December again, that the European/South American Cup, known later as the Toyota Cup, is a freakin' friendly, not a world title like the FIFA Club World Cup, for the simple reason that it does not represent world football (common sense).

    FIFA has tried, several times, to organize it. The negativity of UEFA and CONMEBOL, especially the former, prevented it from happening; it had nothing to do with FIFA' s lack of organization.

    Unfortunately, some people are too stupid to get that.
     
  3. axxess mundi

    axxess mundi Member

    Feb 4, 2013
    So would you say the mundialitos in Venezuela,Rio and SP had more significance than the IC?

    IC IMO was a prototype that took too long to become official.
     
  4. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    I didn't put that info in since it was, ultimately, irrelevant.

    FIFA officials were involved in the tournaments held in the latter two locations but they were doing so as private citizens, not FIFA officials. FIFA has been clear about that since 2008 when Palmeiras was trying to get those competitions recognized: those tournaments were not world titles either since the selection method has never been clear. And it is true: it was more reminiscent to the Latin Cup in Europe: they were merely picking popular teams, not the best.

    IC was never a prototype. FIFA's closest "prototype" was an international club tournament held in New York in 1960; even though it did financially well, it didn't garner up any more interest and it was quickly forgotten about. The tournament was meant to bring in immigrant audiences from the NE region of the US. The tournament itself was not even meant to be a world club championship; it was meant to be a USA soccer league played by foreign clubs which was supposed to be supported by immigrants; needless to say, that kind of proposal was a colossal failure in the long run. It was created by Bill Cox, the former owner of the Phillies. Seeing the variety of teams, FIFA opted to give the tournament its stamp in hopes of making it bigger. The tournament, ultimately, failed.

    As for the IC, despite its initial popularity (thanks to Santos), it sure as hell didn't help that UEFA and CONMEBOL outright rejected entries from CONCACAF in 1962 and 1963 as well as Asian entries in 1967. That killed any possibility of making that competition official from the get-go.

    What happened in the late 60's as a result of the Argentines was merely beating a dead horse. The Argentines and Uruguayan clubs in the 1970s incinerated that horse into nothingness.

    The only reason UEFA clubs didn't withdraw from the Toyota Cup was because of the money Toyota was giving to UEFA; both of them had every European Cup participant sign documents and participation-cleases stating that they are obliged to participate in the Toyota Cup or get sued. Barcelona had to be reminded of that in 1992 after trying to pull out.
     
  5. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Jul 19, 2008
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Before the Brazilina clubs "stopped caring" (which I don't accept as truthful by the way), Uruguayan and Argentine clubs had won the Libertadores 3 times each, Penarol three times, Independiente twice and Racing once, while Santos two championships where the only ones for Brazilian clubs. From the beginning, the Rioplatense clubs were winning more than the Brazilians.
     
  6. bungadiri

    bungadiri Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 25, 2002
    Acnestia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Santista1962

    Most of this is material quoted directly from other sites (Wikepedia). This is not allowed. I'm going to give you until tomorrow, May 25 to delete the quoted material to a paragraph, at most, and to provide links to the original sites from which you got this material. If it's not done by that time, I'm sorry but I'll just have to delete the thread and make you start from scratch.
     
  7. axxess mundi

    axxess mundi Member

    Feb 4, 2013
    There was another attempt in the 60's or 70's here in the USa. Bangu relocated to Texas and I think they won the 1st cup.
     
  8. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    I was the one who wrote that material on wiki. It was simply better to do it this way.

    Besides, I can no longer edit the messages. Since it was my work, I can do whatever I want with it.

    Forgetting that is makes little sense, if I would have posted all of that here first and then on wiki, would that be unallowed as well?

    It is extremely ludicrous to cut all of this to a paragraph. A paragraph doesn't say anything and it just sounds like someone is trying to hide the truth.
     
  9. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I'm confused.

    Who exactly was saying this was a genuine world championship?

    I've never heard it regarded here as anything but a glorified friendly. Even the current tournament doesn't have a great deal of prestige.
     
  10. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    Learn how to read.

    Brazilian clubs didn't participate in 1966, 1969 and 1970. Palmeiras and Nautico participated in 1968; the former for trying to save their shitty season. The latter since they are a small club (in history) compared to RJ/SP clubs.

    Cruzeiro participated in 1967 because they couldn't find any friendlies overseas and it was the Libertadores or nothing. Santos declined to participate.

    Going into 1966 (when our clubs withdrew), it was: Uruguay 2. Brazil 2 and Argentina 2. No one was losing or winning, in which you are implying. No one in Brazil cared for the Libertadores and, by ente, the IC. Like it or not, that is the truth. The State championships were seen as the second most prestigious title in club football, here until the early 80s. The first was the Taca do Brasil/Robertao/Brasileirao.

    As a matter of fact, in order to technically not have anything to do with the CL/IC, the strongest Brazilian clubs pulled out of the Taca do Brasil and transformed the Rio-Sao Paulo tournament into the Robertao. In other words, the participants, or supposed participants, from the 1968 CL onwards, weren't even in the top 10 clubs of Brazil.

    As bad and horrendous as teams like Penarol, Independiente, Estudiantes, Nacional and all that trash were, the Europeans were merely pissed off because they came across cultures more cynical, more demented and more violent than they were.

    So no: I am not agreeing with either side. If anything, you both belong together...

    Since the Europeans acted like underhanded savages and animals in 1966, we pulled out of everything (Libertadores, Intercontinental Cup, Copa America in 1967 and the WC). Pele even stated that he would never participate in the WC again. It was after being forced by the military dictatorship, at the behest of FIFA, that Pele and others even went.

    If I have to count every Scotsman I met that tried claiming FIFA invented the tournament of every Englishman that claimed South Americans created the tournament, I would be Bill Gates...

    And as bad as that type of erroneous statement is, it is worse in certain South American clubs who count friendly competitions as "world club titles" despite FIFA putting legitimate and sensible reasons as to why that is not.

    FIFA had nothing to do with the competition and it was the Europeans, at the behest of Real Madrid, who created it in order to erase the failure of being beaten by Vasco da Gama in Paris years before the first IC.

    The current tournament does have prestigue, money and interest. So much, that there are four nations bidding to host the 2015 and 2016 tournaments; FIFA might have to start handing them out year-by-year.

    The IC, on the other hand, was exactly as Mundo Deportivo described it in 1979: a dog without an owner that nobody wanted.
     
  11. bungadiri

    bungadiri Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 25, 2002
    Acnestia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The policy exists because sites like Wiki exist as commercial enterprises, based on their content (and just as an aside, I'm willing to bet that now that you've posted it to Wikipedia, your work is now their property and not yours.). The practice of limiting material taken from other sites while providing a link has been part of BigSoccer for some time. Also, the terms of service say the following:
    "...You agree to not use the Service to post or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.
    We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content posted for any reason without explanation..."
    http://www.bigsoccer.com/community/help/terms

    I'm not telling you to cut it to a paragraph. I'm telling you to provide a link to the original source and post nothing more than a paragraph of the material. People can then easily go to the Wiki site to read the original article.

    But since you can't edit the message anymore, I'll do it for you.
     
  12. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Jul 19, 2008
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Santos had been beaten and eliminated by Independiente and Penarol at the Libertadores before they conveniently decided to pull off, there is no indication that they would have won it again either as most of their key players were getting past their prime by 1966. Up to 67-68 all participants played so my point stands as to the winners breakdown by countries and had the Libertadores began five years earlier it likely would be a clear domination by Argentina thanks to the great River Plate of those times (La Maquinita).
     
  13. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    Penarol resorted to violence and dirty tactics in 1965 in order to win (the same in 1962 when they lost). Independiente did the same in 1964. Between those two editions, it was decided to pull out of any further editions and not risk senseless injuries.

    Hell! Pele and Coutinho didn't even play either of the legs in 1964.

    We were still viewed as the best team in the world. And yes, it was convenient to pull out: why would we risk the health of our players when we had numerous tours to make around the world?

    The later events in the IC proved them right.

    If the Libertadores would have begin five years earlier...and if my grandmother was a dude, she would be my grandfather. No one outside Argentina cares for your clubs, much less "the maquinita", the base of that 1958 WC squad that got ass-raped 6-1 by Czechoslovakia.

    I doubt they would have won anything.
     
  14. Nico Limmat

    Nico Limmat Member+

    Oct 24, 1999
    Dubai, UAE
    Club:
    Grasshopper Club Zürich
    Nat'l Team:
    Switzerland
    *Yawn*

    It never bothered me that the Intercontinental Cup didn't have the official FIFA stamp of approval (an organization I hardly hold in high regards anyway) - and no wikipedia edit job is going to convince me otherwise. For all practical purposes the Intercontinental Cup (Toyota Cup) was the club world title at the time and the Club World Cup is a direct continuation of that. Most of us who have followed the competition for a bit longer than a couple of years would agree with that. The 2005 tournament even combined both names.

    [​IMG]

    You seem to be determined to push on this personal agenda of yours, digging up old memos by a questionable body who never played much of a role in the organization of club competitions. I will allow it but stick to this particular thread.
     
  15. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    The IC was never a world title, no matter how you may wish so. It wasn't a tournament representative of world football. Hell, the organizers made sure that it had no one else involved.

    Now, FIFA and corruption are a whole different subject. Regardless, FIFA is the world organization of football. The organizers amazingly tried to lobby FIFA into giving the IC the "world club title" label while, at the same time, telling the rest of the world they weren't allowed to participate.

    They were telling FIFA to take a tournament, under its auspices, and not invite anyone else...do you not see the problem with that?

    I can not tell you you are not invited to a party and expect you to pick up the tab...if you can't get that, too bad.

    That "wiki job" you dismissed, since it goes against everything you believe in (in the same way when I tell an ignorant Catholic that the Bible is 1688 years old), was done by pure and utter research. Nothing I put there is speculation or desire which is everything you are spouting.

    If you want to lie to even yourself, than that's your business. But don't discredit my work. Especially when it has heavy backing. It makes you look as foolish as the church when they tried silencing Galileo...

    BTW, the competition didn't "combine any names". Toyota was merely the presenting sponsor for both competitions. The 2000 FIFA Club World Championship was the first edition. That is where the name came from. It as changed in 2006 to the current name.
     
  16. puertorricane

    puertorricane Red Card

    Feb 4, 2012
    Carolina PR
    Club:
    Santos FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Even if it was considered a friendly teams took it seriously, the people that say their clubs didnt take it or dont take it seriously are just trying to diminish the accomplishments of other clubs because their club couldnt win it.


    []__[]
     
  17. axxess mundi

    axxess mundi Member

    Feb 4, 2013
    I agree it is a badge of honor of the past whether fifa approved or not. If you ask a any Brazilian fan of Santos, Flamengo, Gremio ...they will say with open eyes "DO MUNDO!" Brazialns held the IC as a military stripe of rank.
    Even to this day Boca is regarded as the World Champ of 2000 over Corinthians official CWC of that year.
     
    It's called FOOTBALL and Pipiolo repped this.
  18. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    Many clubs took playing Santos seriously, as if it were a WC final.

    And while I hold those results to heart, as well as counting them in an overall table, they are still officially friendlies.

    Look at it like this: Pele still scored over 1000 goals. A lot of them came in those friendlies. But I still count the goals.

    But the friendly matches stay that: friendly matches.

    Just because a million idiots will say with open eyes "THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH" doesn't make it true.

    As far as the Boca thing: if they want to believe a lie, that is them. That is how they want to build their culture around: lies.

    Corinthians is still the first club world champion, regardless if someone wants to lie to themselves.
     
  19. Sandinista

    Sandinista Member+

    Apr 11, 2010
    Buenos Aires
    Club:
    Racing Club de Avellaneda
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    How hard must it be to push one's agenda alone and through an internet forum... even to the point of editing wikipedia articles and then quoting yourself (!), to make opinion look like certified information...

    How's the "Brazil leaving Conmebol for Concacaf" thing going, by the way? Any followers yet?
     
    worms, Rickdog and guri repped this.
  20. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    My "agenda" is spreading the truth.

    Only liars find it offensive.

    Of course, I am aware certain cultures build themselves around lies and liars; liars do not fear the truth if there are enough liars. But the truth will come out, it will want to come out.
     
  21. axxess mundi

    axxess mundi Member

    Feb 4, 2013
    No doubt according to Fifa rules Timao is the 1st world champion but the conflict is they didn't win a libertadores to solidify their WC as BOCA did. Now it is the standard.
    R Carlos said it himself as he said the competition was a mundialito. So with that said that is probably the reason why Flu and Palestra Italia wanted recognition for their COPA RIO titles which was approved by Fifa and organized by CBD.
     
  22. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    Corinthians qualified to the 2000 edition by becoming national champions, which is still in play today. What is so hard to get about that??

    R Carlos is a little guy with inferiority complexes; he tried calling calling Chilavert "indio" during a match against Paraguay and got a rightful spit in the face. As much as I think Chilavert is an idiot, he did right to do that to someone who looks down on others just because of cash.

    Discerning, axxess...it is all about discerning.
     
  23. axxess mundi

    axxess mundi Member

    Feb 4, 2013
    I know why Corinthians were selected I was referring to how they aren't revered as champion of that year because of lack of an LC.

    On the Chilavert incident he would of done that anyway because he is a sore loser. He popped Asprilla in the jaw..He talked crap about Ceni and Maradona. So the reference of RC to the mundialito is different context verbatim dealing with a scuffle.
    I respect your answers and honor your research but like I said I am an indifferent party who has a different discernment. Its not a dualism of us vs them its just about evolving from the past challenges. Some of us operate at a different pace but that shouldn't create labels on those who have a different perspective. Sometimes its like Plato's cave in some discussions ..
    Fifa along with other federations were slow and disorganized something you meticulously point out. It still is but little by little.
     
  24. Nico Limmat

    Nico Limmat Member+

    Oct 24, 1999
    Dubai, UAE
    Club:
    Grasshopper Club Zürich
    Nat'l Team:
    Switzerland
    Are you employed by FIFA? I ask because I have never seen anyone go to such great lenghts to hold FIFA sanction to the sky like the holy grail.
    Not all research is valuable, especially if you set illogical boundaries for yourself such as FIFA's word is the only one that matters in all of world football and galaxies far beyond.

    Look, I too wish the format would have been expanded earlier, but at the same time club football elsewhere simply didn't reach a competitive standard until the 90's. I'm just not willing to throw away decades of history for 1 or maybe 2 finals that could have been different. Therefore I have adopted a pragmatic view and not waltzed myself into an ideological dead-end.
    You see yourself as Galileo but come off as just another false prophet with a narrow world view and a rehearsed "gospel of truth" on his lips . In this case the deity is the unwavering, unquestionable and allmighty FIFA.

    Let me ask you something, do you also hold other world governing bodies in such high regard? Do you cling to every word Rene Fasel says when he is once again telling the KHL that they shouldn't expand to western europe? Do you look on in awe when FIBA is once again trying to get the NBA to participate in more of its tournaments?
    Toyota is still the presenting partner, even today. The official name in 2005 was 'FIFA Club World Championship TOYOTA Cup ' and clearly paid homage to the Toyota a.k.a. Intercontinental Cup.
    A law of physics is equal to a sport body opinion. Right.
     
  25. Santista1962

    Santista1962 Red Card

    Sep 9, 2011
    Club:
    Santos FC
    As I have said: Chilavert is an idiot.

    But no one spits at another man's face for no reason. And RC has a history of instigating problems like that. Ironically, he found himself in the receiving end during his time in Russia...

    I don't see this as a dualism or anything of sorts. It is merely destroying a monstrous myth. At worse, it is Santos and Brazil vs everyone else.

    Again, you miss the point.

    FIFA, for better or worse, represents the world. UEFA and CONMEBOL represent themselves.

    How can you claim a tournament is a "world club championship" when you reject other entries?

    FIFA, as representative of the world, rightfully forced UEFA and CONMEBOL to deemed it a friendly. Even more so, they were extremely right in not having anything to do with it when those same confederations, especially UEFA, were trying to get FIFA involved in punishing the events that went on.

    Of course: FIFA offered to do so, and recognize the previous editions, in exchange of letting the other continental champions take part. That was declined.

    Perception is not reality. The reality is that UEFA and CONMEBOL, especially UEFA, did everything possible to prevent a CWC from taking place. The interest was certainly not lacking.

    As to the "perceived" level"...tell that to the North Koreans.

    Look: it was not the first time UEFA clubs pull that on anyone. They did the same with us and Santos had money, prestigue and weren't certainly violent.

    Did you know that Santiago Bernabeau stated numerous times that Santos was not to be allowed in Madrid for anything? We played a friendly in Paris in which the referee literally did everything possible to make sure that what happened vs Vasco in 1957 didn't happen again. Pele was kicked around like a rag doll and RM won 5-3.

    Afterwards, any offer for a match anywhere was rejected out of pure fear: the fear of failure. That is why the Spaniards decreed the Paris tournament should be viewed as a friendly and pushed for the creation of the IC.

    I guarantee you that if Real Madrid would have lost vs Penarol in 1960, they would have done the same and that tournament would have been scrapped after that edition, with a new one to be created years later.

    As a matter of fact, Real Madrid initially accepted River Plate's invitation to participate in the 1965 Buenos Aires tournament. However, the immediately withdrew once they learned Santos was also invited. The same goes for the Intercontinental Supercup in 1968; they allowed Internazionale to go straight into the final. Once Internazionale lost 0-1 to Santos at the San Siro, they withdrew from the competition even when Santos offered to play their "home leg" in Napoli.

    Football from England and clubs like Inter Milan, Real Madrid, Liverpool and a few others are prime examples of what cowardly football looks like. All of that led to the treatment of Brazilians in the 1966 WC.

    For being a "great club", Real Madrid did everything to prove they were the opposite. As a matter of fact, that same Madrid only managed a 0-0 tie in 1953, at home, vs Cruzeiro....from Porto Alegre. Combined with what happened in 1957 and how they barely beat Santos with the help of a very biased referee, the fear of losing to Brazilian clubs great to the point where we were deemed "unwelcomed".

    Again: it was merely fear to fail that became the greatest factor to prevent a CWC from playing out.

    I deal with fact, not myths.

    Again: UEFA and CONMEBOL aren't representatives of the world. FIFA, for all of their faults, is. And their issues is another subject I have discussed in another thread.

    One has to learn to separate issues and set priorities. Otherwise, everything turns into a mess.

    Basketball and Association Football are two radically different sports with a pair of ever-more contrasting histories: Basketball is based off of one nation whereas the other is mostly the opposite.

    This isn't even apples and oranges. It is apples and rocks.

    Well, of course.

    And no, it was not to pay any homage to that disgusting cup.

    Between 2001 and 2005, 17 nations bidded to host the FCWC; however, no one could give the financial guarantees the competition needed.

    Toyota had a contract with UEFA and CONMEBOL to host certain editions of the IC and the 4th contract was up in 2004. Contrary to what you believe, it was Toyota, after being given the go-ahead by UEFA and CONMEBOL, that went to FIFA in order to host the competition as long as Japan is given preference as hosts.

    Maybe it is rare for you to understand but the 2005 edition was still a bit of a mess to work out in terms of sponsorships and naming. The fact that the competition had the official name "FIFA Club World Championship Toyota 2005" is a mere coincidence. From 2006 on, the competition became known as "FIFA Club World Cup xxxx", with Toyota being names as the presenting partner (very much like Heineken's brand doesn't take part of the competition's name; it is merely stated to be the competition's presenting partner).

    It isn't hard to understand. The Libertadores is officially called "Copa Bridgestone Libertadores de [Sur] America".

    Again, the IC has nothing to do with the FCWC and FIFA clearly stated it that in this letter:

    [​IMG][/quote]
     

Share This Page