I hereby demand proof of this. Every time I hear: "Oh Pele's best over Maradona because FIFA thinks he's more of a role model than Maradona". Or FIFA helped Brazil at WC02. I've really heard some trash directed at Brazil because of FIFA but I've mostly heard peoples' opinions (and hate). I'd really like some circumstantial evidence of this (what I believe to be absurd) argument.
Well, I've never really heard any argument (but to be argument it has to be rational) to this effect. FIFA are just pro-FIFA. Not like CONCACAF, which could be said to favour countries like Trinidad, the US or Mexico for financial or other reasons.
WC2002... - The first match against Turkey: the ref awarded Brazil a penalty despite the fact that the foul was outside the area. - Cowardly Rivaldo got "fined" by FIFA when in fact he should've been suspended after his shameless simulation during that same match. - During the match against Belgium, the latter scored a perfectly valid goal which would have put them ahead, but the ref decided to invalidate it. Up to this day, no one knows why. That goal could've changed the history of the match completely. - As for suspicions and suspicions only, Brazil being in the easiest group and having as a group opposite another very easy group is a quite remarkable fact. Maybe this is overlooked because the cases of Germany and Korea were even worse, but it's still a dirty chain of events during a dirty WC tournament.
Oh look, an Argentine complaining about cheating and accusing others of being 'dirty'. As you can see, the only people who will argue about any possible Brazil-bias by FIFA are the obviously anti-Brazil biased ones: Argentines, Uruguayans and possibly Italians too. I guess that not even the Turks or Belgiums are bitching about that till this day.
Oh look, a moderator incapable of writing an unbiased post. I was just stating FACTS. Don't put your panties in a bunch over nothing. By the way, I didn't call anyone "dirty", you genius. I said that it was a dirty WC, and you don't have to be very smart to know that.
U wanna talk dirty? How about Maradona's "hand of god"? If Brasil did that you guys would have been all over us saying we didnt deserve to become Champs.
Turks dont got nothing no complain, Ronaldo made up for Rivaldo's actions by completly owning the Turkish defence in the semis.
NEWSFLASH: this thread is about BRASIL. The person who started this topic asked everyone to give their opinion regarding the Brasil/FIFA/refs controversy, and that's exactly what I did. Deal with that. If you want to discuss controversies involving Argentina, then open a new thread and we'll gladly discuss, but doing that in here is totally out of place. I haven't insulted anyone nor have I written any lies, so please, save your paranoia for someone else.
Ok i apologize, but to get on topic no i dont think FIFA favors Brasil, just because we have good runs in the World Cup it dont mean we get favored.. if anything Korea gets favored, in the World Cup and currently..being put in easy groups for the qualifers ( why couldnt they be put with teams like Japan?) and also by playing all their friendlies at home.
1) Aquante to me that goal was borderline penalty/free kick, much like Argentina's 1st goal at the Copa finals. 2) Questionable but potentially valid, players do fake things in almost every match without penalty. I'd have had no problem with Rivaldo missing a game or two for that, but c'mon we were already up 2-1 already. And this wasn't exactly a match where we were in serious trouble of loosing. Diego Simeone for example admitted in the press conference after England WC98 match that he'd simulated his fall to have Beckham sent off. That was far more of a important match than this. 3) I agree here but lets be fair, is this the first time in footballing history that a refs has missed a call, are you complaining that the ref allowed the "Hand of God"? Oh no, you're praising Diego for his genius for trying something that sneaky against the hated English. Battistion was nearly decapitated vs. W.Germany in 1982 and Schumacher wasn't even carded!!!!! 4) FIFA WC backets are based on how your team has performed over the past 3 WC's which explains the teams that Brazil was drawn with. No team has a WC better record from 1990-98 than Brazil.
it comes down to luck, a team needs a lot of luck to win a big tournament. i could say that the ref in '98 was bias to argentina cuz becks shouldn't have been sent off in that game, but i don't. if Brazil's wc run involved them getting lucky vs argentina i could understand your bitching but just stop being jealous of Brazil, i only have admiration for a team as good as that.
1) Ha, sorry, man. No way. Watch the two plays again, then you'll see. 2) As much as both actions are by all means reprehensible, there's no comparison between a guy who got hit by a ball in his thigh and pretended to be severely injured and a guy who actually received a kick from another player and then exaggerated the blow. I repeat, both actions are reprehensible, but Rivaldo's simulation was the epitome of the ridicule. There's little comparison between the two. 3) No. You said "I hereby demand proof of this ... FIFA helped Brazil at WC02". I gladly complied to your demand. Period. Please don't put words in my mouth. 4) I don't think there's much to add here. If that's how FIFA works, then so be it.
I can understand your admiration towards Brazil, especially if there's little to admire in your own NT, but stop being a troll and making assumptions about me. I mean, does it bother you so much that I wrote a short list of facts?
I agree. Korea's and Germany's respective participations in WC2002 were a disgrace to fair play. Both cases deserve a separate analysis, but that's a different topic.
Wait, Germany? They werent really favored.. but then again i didnt watch most of their games but as far as i know i dont think Germany where favored.
Oh, you should watch their game against the US. (P.S.: oh, and before some smartass comes to tell me about Crespo's somewhat controversial goal against Sweden - yes, I'm aware of that, bad Crespo, bad ref. Still, we got what we deserved and went home early. Happy now? )
kicking another player deliberately with your boots deserves explusion... simple as that, even if Simeone was exagerrating "the pain". What did you expect the ref to do, ignore what he saw right in front of him? please.. having a ball kicked at your legs, and pretending that it hit your face is really lame... and wrong, just as Maradona's hand of god. and at least Simeone clutched his leg where the he was kicked... not his face.
Oh yes Rivaldo faking changed the whole course of the World Cup eventho we didnt get a goal or nuttin out of it.... The hand of god was alot worse cause it could have gone either way in that game.
I think FIFA would naturally be proud of Brazil, due to their WC record, etc and would hold them up as an example, but I don't think they would purposely favour them during games, etc (e.g. by instruction to the referees). However, referees are human after all, and they tend to favour the bigger and more successful nations (albeit subconsciously) in my opinion. This is not something unique to Brazil though. The same things happen in club football, e.g. they say on the TV here that Juventus never gets a penalty awarded against them, and the same thing happens with Manchester United. I think in the back of their minds, the refs almost belive that the bigger teams can do no wrong, and weigh their decisions in their favour accordingly. The one thing that FIFA did do was when they had the internet voting for the Player of the Century and it was clear that Maradona was going to win, they suddenly introduced another award so that the could still make Pele the winner. This was not pro-Brazil, but anti-Maradona. I think their argument was that only younger people voted on the internet and they would not have seen Pele play.
In fact, I don’t have to, Aguante. We are talking about different issues. Truth and facts are not the same. And beyond that, they are usually replaced with opinions and beliefs. After all, we can’t prove anything without establishing a common criteria. Opinions, for instance, are derived from a lot of possible sources: events, life experience (culture included), observation and evaluation, through communication with others etc. But, as we know, opinions are not facts. And opinions about facts are not facts. Again, mouth voices what is in the heart, not necessarily the truth. What does it mean? Well, it means that mouth voices what one feels, one's personal interpretation of what one perceives. If you misunderstood me, that is what I was talking about.
Truth is conformity to fact, so I should say they are the same. Objectiveness is the key. I hope that you're referring to my first message on this thread, so at least we're talking about the same thing. Now, the only traces of subjectiveness I can see are in the item about Rivaldo. I have expressed my opinion there, yes, but I do believe that's the opinion of a big majority among football fans. The common criteria we're using are the rules of this sport, no less. I honestly can't see how the rest of the listed events don't represent the objective truth.