I believe and there has been evidence that FIFA has been corrupted for a long time. Anyone else thinks so, too?
I only live in the United States. I'm from Costa Rica. I will state the dirtiest to the cleanest with rankings. World Cups I think (and some of them were obvious) were bought out: Italy 1934 = 4th France 1938 = 1st England 1966 = 2nd Argentina 1978 = 3rd South Korea & Japan 2002 = 5th Highly controversial World Cups (on a scale from 1-10 on the dirtiest): Uruguay 1930 = 2.5 Italy 1934 = 8 France 1938 = 9.5 Switzerland 1954 = 5 Chile 1962 = 4 England 1966 = 9 Mexico 1970 = 1.5 Argentina 1978 = 7.5 Spain 1982 = 6 Italy 1990 = 8.5 South Korea & Japan 2002 = 9 Germany 2006 = 7 The only clean World Cups to my knowledge (on a scale from 1-10 on the cleanest): Brazil 1950 = 9 Sweden 1958 = 10 West Germany 1974 = 9 Mexico 1986 = 8.5 United States of America 1994 = 9.5 France 1998 = 9
Ok so England 1966 get's a 9 on the cheating scale over one controversial goal which most people agree could have gone either way and infact has more evidence to support it going over the line then not. Whilst Mexico 1986 gets a 8.5 on the cleanest scale despite having a clearly visible handball which won an important quarter final for argentina who went on to win the tournament. So let me get this clear: little bit of suspicion for a debateable goal = tournament was bought but obvious handball goal which was quite clearly visible to the officials = very clean world cup right?
The goal is one but there are too many events. Brazil's elimination, Argentina's and Uruguay's controversial losses against England and West Germany, the organizing, the refereeing, the semi-final between England vs Portugal, and, of course, extra time in the final. All of those have been highly controversial. This would be an 8 like Argentina '78, but unlike Argentina '78 in which it was obvious the organizers wanted to england to win, not only was it obvious the organizers wanted England to win but England '66 pretty much guaranteed that no non-European country will get one of the top four spots. So, since England '66 cheated a lot more teams then Argentina '78, I rank that above it as the dirtiest. In contrast, the only "controversial" momment of Mexico '86 was the "Hand of God" and even that was the fault of the referees that didn't see it. Besides that, I don't remember any referee heavily favoring one team over another as in 1966 and 1978.
So do you have any evidence to support your claim that Brazil's elimination was caused by corruption and not, as happens even to Brazil, not playing as well as the other team or even getting unlucky? Or Argentina's? Or Uruguay's? Or apparently Germany's in the final, even though someone cheated to their benefit just two rounds earlier to knock off Uruguay...? I think some people like to create "controversy" when they don't like the results. I definitely count you among those people.
typically accusations of corruption tend to get screamed first from places where corruption is common. Despite how obvious the Maradona handball in 86 looked for example, I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that corruption played a part in the goal. Rather like the 66 shot on the line, it's not something officials and organisers could plan in advance. Compare that to 78 however (and I've searched for anywhere claiming this is a myth, and haven't found anything) and the results of the urine sample tests on the Argentine players which not only came back clear, but also contained the extra good news that one of the team was pregnant.
Prelogue The corruption in that cup, largely thanks to Stanley Rous, was pretty obvious to those not English. In a way, I don't blame him. Europe needed to win a World Cup and with Brazil and a few South American countries coming up, it wasn't certain that playing in Europe will guarantee it (Brazil, afterall, has been the world champion for 8 years and on the way they have played and knocked out the host in 1958 and 1962). The Brazilian international cup in 1964 gave further evidence of this. Portugal, Argentina, and England were invited to take part of the competition to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Brazilian football confederation. All four teams took almost the same players that will go to the world cup. Surprinsingly, Argentina won it after Antonio Rattin roughly, but without wildly being physical, man-marked Pele out of the game and Argentina won 0-3. After the match Pele looked for Rattin to exchange shirts. He gave him a hug and thanked him for marking him well but without bad intentions. (They have remained good friends since that day). Then they beat Portugal 2-0 and England 1-0. England, on the other hand, lost 5-1 to Brazil, 1-0 to Argentina, and 2-1 against Portugal. It was quite obvious that England's fate will be no different then Sweden's or Chile's if they were to face Brazil. Objective # 1: Eliminate Brazil 1966 came by and most people's favorites to win were West Germany, Brazil, Portugal, and Argentina. Argentina and West Germany confortably past the first round. So did Portugal. But to eliminate the Champion Brazil, the FIFA President Stanley Rous had to pull strings. In the first match, Brazil beat Bulgaria 2-0. Good to go. After the win, Stanley personally appointed 2 English referees for Brazil's other two matches. The Hungarians and Portuguese literally kicked the key Brazilian players around with Pele not even playing a full half-hour in those two matches combined. Yet the English referees decided to look the other way. By the time Brazil were playing Portugal, Brazil had almost a reserved squad with the veterans being kicked out of the game early. If that's not coincidence, then I don't know what is. Objective #2: Only Europeans will take the top four positions With Brazil gone, Stanley now focused on Argentina and Uruguay, a team England managed only a tie in Wembley and who had been playing magnificent football. Since the last two World Cups have been won by South America, they needed Europe to take the top. So for the two South American's left, Stanley appointed an English referee and a West German referee to oversee each other's games. The exoulsion of Rattin was ridiculous because 1# Rattin was trying to ask the referee what was the foul for. 2# Referees were letting Hungary and Portugal get away with injuring Brazilians to the point were they couldnt play for months. 3# The fouls weren't nothing serious enough that no english player had to permanently leave the field (and after seeing the entire game for the first time, I noticed some of the english players were just diving wheever Argentina advance. And 5# The english player's were giving just as much as they were taking so they weren't exactly clean themselves. Either way, the referee's orders was specific enough and he took out Argentina's best player. England took 78 minutes to finally score on 10-man Argentina. The other one, West Germany vs Uruguay, was equally controversial as the referee kicked out two Uruguayans for petty fouls. The game was 1-0 for 70 minutes until 9-man Uruguay couldn't hold on anymore. The game ended 4-0. Objective 3# England to be Champion Now Stanley was happy as the four highest positions would be held from European teams. But if England didn't become champions, it still would have not been worthwhile. So England played Portugal. A total of 11 offsides was called on Eusebio alone (there were 4 of them, in the 21st minute, 45+, 70, and 72 that wasn't even close to being offside). England went on to win 2-1. I don't have to say anything about the final as it was a total disgrace to football. The last two goals should have never been allowed. The goal that touched the line was not a goal. Why? you don't need video footage of that exact scene. When there is a goal, the linesman runs immediately with flag down towards the middle. It was written in "the laws of the game" by the second FIFA president (who was english). Every time there was a goal, that eact same thing happened even if players protested against a goal. It happens all the way till 2007. That third english goal was the only goal that a linesman didn't do that for which meant he didnt see no goal as he just stood around waiting for play to continue. The linesman is Russian (who the west germans just eliminated and just look at the history between germans and russians. if there is a country russians hate more then united kigdom, its germany) so it was inevitable he would give the goal to england even though it was obvious that he saw no goal. The fourth goal shouldn't have never been given as there were people streaming into the pitch. Its funny that Brazil won 1958 and 1962 and all of a sudden in england 1966, they didnt make it past the first round. but once the world cup was held somewhere else in 1970, brazil won again. funny, isnt it?
This is all conspiracy theory, but it would also be a possibility that any favoritism could have nothing to do with FIFA. A referee could be bought by an outside source as well.
it's "obvious" to those who assume corruption as an explanation of unexpected results, particularly featuring their favoured teams. People talk about how the Portuguese kicked Brazil about without getting anyone sent off, completely ignoring the fact that players almost never got sent off for fouls back then. a poster (england66) also said a few days ago that he was at the Brazil v Hungary match, and it was a cool rainy evening, and Brazil, as they weren't used to it, just couldn't cope with the high-paced game the Hungarians played. not really. There just isn't the same "doing it for the confederation" vibe that you get for other confederations. A win for France isn't thought of as a win for Europe.
France, although not favorites in 1998, won the world cup and I believe that to be the cleanest cup since West Germany 1974. So that excuse is not going to work. And there are no confederation pride obviously. It's just people coming together to agree on something. By the time Brazil played Portugal, 5 of their starters wasnt playing anymore due to the Bulgarians manhandling. Those that stayed were still injured i.e. Pele, Garrincha, etc. and even then they obviously didnt stay on the pitch for long. Now, if you dont get sent off for those kind of "wild animal" tackles on brazil but you can get sent off for "the look on his face" when playing against england, then the favoritism is clearly there. "Animals", that old fart ramsey says about the argentinians, that whole world cup was organized by animals.
what excuse? France was just an example. I could have picked any european country. My point was that people in europe don't take any delight in another european country winning the world cup. for what reason? Like I said, there's no feeling of hoping "our confederation" wins, probably because so many of the teams there are from europe. strange you don't seem to criticise the Argentinian fouling that day, of which there was plenty. He was sent off for threatening the referee, which was a sending off offence back then. Kicking lumps out of players, however absurd it may seem today, wasn't. "the behaviour of some players in this competition reminds me of animals.” was Ramsey's actual quote.
Thank God yes...A clean transparent FIFA would ruin everything and achieve nothing. Corruption is what makes the world go round, corruption is the way to make things happen that otherwise never would have happened and the world would have lost a bit of its magic...
You are still defeating your own argument because Argentina didn't fould anyone badly enough for them to miss the next tow games , didnt they? But when Brazil played, the english referees all of a sudden turn a blind eye to it. And the english were fouling argentina just as bad, if you didnt know. the german referee has already stated he sent off rattin for "the look on his face". lol i wonder how much was that world cup. If you chose to ignore it, fine, its your opinion. i just spent 2 minutes explaining all the controversies and yet you want to tell me england is a nice, clean team.
when i saw the heading for this thread i thought it was going to be about Blatter and FIFA's continued protection of one of the corruptest men in world football... Jack Warner. then i see it's just a conspiracy theory about world cup results... *sigh* i think there's a conspiracy to stop scotland getting to the 2nd round of the tournament!
Five of the side that played Brazil did not make England's World Cup squad and another played just one game. The game against Portugal was 1-1. Given that England won 5-1 in Germany prior to the 2002 World Cup, your logic would indicate that England must have done better than Germany at the tournament. Let's not also forget that in the build up to the 1986 World Cup, Argentina had a run of 6 games without a win including a defeat to a very poor Norway side. Surely they would have had no chance going into the World Cup. Why no mention of Germany's equaliser which should not have stood? It must also be funny that at the 2002 World Cup the reigning World and European Champions went out without winning a game.
I don't see Germany's qualizer being wrong. Tell me what was wrong with it? BTW Blatter and Jack Warners need to both get shot by someone. They are probably the dirtiest men ever to be assocciated with the sprt.
You are really ignorant. There are a lot of honest people in the world. That excuse you just said is an excuse to pardo selfish actions because, first and foremost, corruption benefits the corrupted first.
If you don´t realize that FIFA and the confederations being close knit "corrupt" organisations is what have made soccer the No1 sport in the world you must be something of a dreamer in my view...
It was quite obvious they all collaborated with each other in 1966. I mean, if Fascist and Nazis can come together to take over the world, what makes you think they wouldn't do it to win a few more games?
ah, yes, I forgot how the Nazis and fascists united europe under a common cause. It all makes sense now when you put it like that.
I know I'm just as guilty as the next guy of taking the bait, but if we just stop responding to his posts, he'll probably go be a pain elsewhere...
Per se he is correct though...Of course there will always be some suspect results. Just look at the Denmark-Sweden game in the last EC, the 2-2 result sent both teams thru and Italy home. 2-2 was the only result that would make it happen so you could hardly put a bet on it anywhere...as everyone "knew" it was coming.