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

Maybe you should take your own advice

And how many were claiming they it was an official world championship?

That is true.

What's not clear is who exactly was supposed to be insisting they did?

What's even less clear is why you appear to be outraged about this non-issue.

I mean, it was a glorified friendly, treated as an unofficial "world championship" between the two biggest confederations. Even without official status, it's only natural winners would be pleased about winning it, even if there does seem to be more importance attached to it in South America.

It's has no more prestige than in the past. A friendlier time slot may attract more viewers in Europe, but that's about it.

It's an annual tournament, so you'd expect so.

 

Penarol beat them fair and square, with Spencer giving one of the great performances in Libertadores history. There are still comments to this day that Pele pulled out of that one match because he knew Spencer was in better form and would outplay him. Of course, that would become a pattern for him later on with the NT as well.

River Plate of the 50s are rightfully considered one of the best sides of all time, and held in higher status than any Brazilian club outside of possibly the Santos of Pele.

 

Your unhealthy adoration of all things FIFA and their (apparently) all-powerful grip on the game hardly qualifies as a "fact". It just doesn't pass the smell test. You know why? If FIFA ceases to exist tomorrow the game will continue.

And just for the record, I am not defending historical European arrogance. I am simply putting in a good word for a tournament that lasted several decades and no dusty documents signed by corrupt, self-serving old men are going to change my opinion. I try to view the world in practical terms.

There is no doubt that FIFA has an axe to grind with the Intercontinental Cup, they probably feel humiliated that despite their supposed stranglehold they couldn't wrestle this particular tournament away until 2005, as it survived even that much hyped joke that was Brazil 2000. There was no problem with the King Fahd Cup which they accepted as Confederations Cup history without blinking.

But since you are hell-bent on riding technicalities like seabiscuit, let me ask you this. If the Intercontinental Cup was such a non-event, why does even FIFA feel the need to mention it as a major accomplishment on its website?

Try to stay away from further absurd Galileo analogies and answer the question.

Oh I understand it was messy, and FIFA had to bend quite a bit. Awkward for such a powerful body don't you think? No other FIFA tournament has a presenting partner as of today.

Let's look at 2005 name very closely. We merged:

A. FIFA Club World Championship (one edition)

with...

B. Toyota Cup (40+ years in existence)

to result in the following name...

FIFA Club World Championship Toyota Cup

Yep, it's all one big coincidence.

You may now continue this internet equivalent of a guy standing on the street corner screaming ...errr... enlightening bypassers on the absolute truth that he discovered last night and that he simply has to share with everybody.

 

That's a fantastic reply to the two previous posters questions

 

Well, are you sure you are even brazilian ?

Two sucesive times, it was asked to you to translate some brazilian posters, and you still haven`t translated one.
It gives rightful doubts, that you aren`t really brazilian, as it seems you can`t translate their official language .


Btw, FIFA is not a world "interest" institution, as it only represents those who are associated to it and whose main point of view, is their own "private" concern (they care peanuts on "public" concern, and only start taking care about any issue, if they "see" in it an opportunity to get something for themselves).

 

checkmate

 

You're right that they're not, the IC is more prestigious.

European clubs actually cared about winning it back then. Nowadays, with the wealth that success in the CL gives them, the Club World Cup is nothing more than an annoying distraction to clubs and a venue for FIFA to safely experiment, such as goal-line technology and offside rules.

Here is a comprehensive article on the irrelevancy of this tournament, sadly brought forth by FIFA's intervention (which you somehow applaud).

http://www.soccerreportextra.com/in...e-a-brief-history-of-the-fifa-club-world-cup/

http://www.soccerreportextra.com/in...a-brief-history-of-the-fifa-club-world-cup-2/

 

By the time Estudiantes ruled the Libertadores with their physical play and smart counterattacking, Santos had long been beaten by an Uruguayan and then an Argentine club in years previous, so quit your pathetic whining.

Ultimately, it is not a FIFA decree but the fans and players who make a tournament relevant. Less than 1,000 Chelsea supporters traveled to last year's CWC, this from a traditional English club and says it all as far as the lack of prestige this tournament has. Compare that to the packed stadium full of English and South American supporters between Penarol and Aston Villa during the Toyota Cup final of 82, puts the meager interest in the CWC to shame.

 

The thing is, regardless of the presence or lack of any FIFA stamp, it doesn't make sense to consider a tournament a world title when 4 of the 6 continents were excluded from the competition. AFC, CAF and CONCACAF have had continental club championships since the 60s, so it's not as if it couldn't have been done.

If you call a spade a spade, it was a contest between two continents/confederations, just like the Afro-Asian Cup or any other two-confederation competition.

 

I think what most most find difficult to comprehend is your rabid fixation on the issue.