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

When there is so much stupid lurking around, one has to do something about it.

Kind of like Galileo v the Cburch.

Everyone from the dumbest and stupidest of peasant to the Pope wanted him dead...but they couldn't kill him, even when he snucked his work out to the Netherlands where it eventually spread...

 

Which is why I said "regardless of the reasons behind it..."

I am well aware of the motivations behind the participation in the first edition.

It still doesn't change the fact that Manchester United turned its back on the FA Cup, a useless competition that can't justify its existence or even state a purpose, to dispute a tournament that has a purpose and justification for its existence.

Besides, I never bought that whole "it would go down badly if an English club snubbed FIFA's new tournament" excuse; it simply doesn't fit.

If anything, it seemed it was more the other way around. By that, I mean the English FA arrogantly thought that by having its club participate in it, FIFA will bend over backwards and give England the 2006 WC.

Kind of how certain English players (like Beckham and co.) went to the Caribbean Islands as "advisors", on behalf of the English FA, thinking that Jack Warner and his CONCACAF buddies were just going to vote for the English 2018 bid because of the mere presence of some English lads on their lands...

The English should know, more than almost everyone, that 'supposed' honors aren't commodities.

Seeing that, and the aftermath, I can say with full confidence that was most likely the case in 2000.

I can point out people who believe the earth is merely 10 thousand years old and, even more incredible, that the sun revolves around the earth. Stupidity is all around. Discerning the stupidity, instead of listening to a million idiots claiming a lie is true, is the logical thing to do.

Because if we want to get down to it, the Interamerican Cup could be regarded as the "de facto world championship" since the CONCACAF champion has beaten the European/South American Cup winner AFTER the South American side beaten their European counterpart.

Where does that leave the European Cup now that you know that? (which was going to shit anyway in the late 70s and early 80s)

And yes: the CONMEBOL winner did took the editions they lost seriously. As a matter of fact, Estudiantes declined to participate anymore after 1969 after seeing how close they came to lose to Mexican side Toluca.

They stated the official reasons for declining were "finances".

And yes: my comments are being treated as heresy despite the obviousness of the truth, as well as the evidence.

That makes me more insightful than people who believe lies and myths.

 

That is BS. Were they convinced? Yes. Coerced? Stop exaggerating.

They can get other clubs to join up and create an organization meant to usurp a world federation but they couldn't do anything to get out of playing a two-week tournament?!

For crying out loud, the excuses are getting ridiculous...

It still doesn't change the fact that the competition serves no purpose and can't justify its own existence.

It is given importance because it is a English tournament. Even more bizarre is that League Cup which is even more useless.

I am aware that anything foreign, that isn't properly touched by the British, is left and cast aside as "trash". The British have a long history to do those tendencies. Even the World Cup went through it.

Hell! Most likely, if England wouldn't have been handed the WC in 1966 the same attitude given to the IC, as flawed as it is, would be given to the WC as well.

Needless to say, that WC damaged the sport forever and even some of your own players wished they would have never won it. It almost destroyed the sport itself.

Funny how you ignored the rest but whatever. I believe the truth as I see it. It isn't the first time something like that has been pulled, after all.

I am also aware that there was legitimate reasons as to why competitions like the IC were given low importance.

After all, we were the first ones to do so with Europeans and the rest of South America.

But in less than a decade after the happenings, that became an excuse for a culture, afraid of failure and afraid of finding out (once again) that their pragmatic ways aren't the best, to be found out for what it is.

Do you even know what a "Football Slave" is?

What tournament isn't around to make money?

What kind of business model allows itself to replicate other editions if no money is being made?

Look at the pot calling the kettle black...either that or you are far more naive than I thought.

Sorry, sir, but the narrow minded approach is being used by you.

Hell, the most perplexing part about this post is that I don't even think you know your own history.

I only tell it how it happened.

Funny how you ignored the rest but whatever. I believe the truth as I see it. It isn't the first time something like that has been pulled, after all.

And how could it have been, even theoretically, when it regularly involved the team that lost the intercontinental final?[/quote]

Depends. In Mexico, America defeated Boca Juniors, the same one who dismantled the European Cup runner-up by a very wide scoreline.

They actually bidded to dispute the IC but the organizers said no.

And the IA wasn't a tournament disputed by the losers of the IC. It was a tournament that was no different than the IC: a competition between two confederations, except it was CONCACAF v CONMEBOL. The same Nacional that beat Nottingham Forest in 1980 was comprehensively beaten by UNAM Pumas less than a month later.

Again: where does that put the European Cup champion in that case?

By watching videos and reading reports.

As I have said: I have gone back, in football, all the way until the 1920s reading numerous sources and watching as much as I can on YouTube, Google, etc.

The 1979 European Cup final is, by far, the worst match I have ever seen. The quality seen is worthy of a third-division match in Bolivia. Ohers, like in 1977, 1978 and 1981, made it very clear that the quality of the European Cup dropped substantially after that great Bayern Munchen from the 70s largely retired.

It made it very clear as to why a few European leagues started heavily importing foreigners that decade, something not seen often before. The Italian success of 1982 simply made them the first major league to do so.

As I have said: you don't even know your own history. Much less the history of your premier continental club competition.

The truth is often found boring. It can't be twisted since it relies mostly on memory.

Memory, like fire, is radiant and immutable.

Lies are fun. They can be shaped by anyone which is what history is. History serves only those who seek to control it, those who douse the flame of memory in order to put out the dangerous fire of truth.

 

Again...they can get other clubs to join up and create an organization meant to usurp a world federation but they couldn't do anything to get out of playing a two-week tournament?!

Cry me a river. If they really didn't want to go, they wouldn't have.

But please keep going...you are merely confirming what I know about British culture.

It is given importance because it is British, that's it.

Again: if England, for some reason, would have never been given the WC in 1966, the WC itself would have been treated the same way.

If you can't see that, then you are worse than I though....

Wow...you really know nothing, do you?

There is nothing worse anyone can do than talk about things they don't know. If I were you, I would stop digging. You clearly lack even the most basic information on the matter.

Lol even babies aren't this naive.

Go offer the Africans in the Premier League the average salary they would get in their home nations and watch all of them leave immediately lol

You're fresh lmfao you're really fresh!

I have no opinions. I merely state what I see and there are certain people I will never listen to, period.

I would never marry a french woman; if a culture and nation bans and prohibits paternity tests, that is all I need to know about the type of women you will come across a certain land. If a man does not have the common sense to realize something that obvious, he deserves everything and anything he goes through.

I would never take anything a British say about their kingdom or any other nation seriously; when I see their own newspapers literally become bashing pages of anything foreign, it really brings into question their existence. The DailyMail should just be renamed "American Bashing Site"...

Anyway, go watch any of the banal encounters of the European Cup during that time, then.

Really: the quality if worthy of that of Bolivia's third division.

I watch entire matches by the way. There are numerous ways to do so.

BTW, I made the wikipedia pages (as well as others around in Google and whatnot).

Supported by heavy evidence, of course.

Actually, yes. As a matter of fact, that is the reason I started the thread (as well as others around the world in different languages).

Yes. I suspect many times more than you.

There are none so blind as those who will not see

Yes, I have. Apparently, you do not.

The low quality displayed in it was the catalyst that started the heavey importation of foreigners in the 1980s, with the Italians becoming the first to do so.

Whatever...