Ok my subject line may sound rather retarded. But I was just wondering if it possible to pinpoint when thier was a tornament sanctioned by a governing body that many soccer nations didn't recognise to the greatest sporting event in the world.
Between 1900 and 1928, the Olympic games were the de facto world championship. But since the Olympics did not allow professional players (in the past, top players were often "gentlemen" who were not paid) to compete, and several teams dropped out of the Olympics in 1928. The first FIFA World Cup was 1930 in Uruguay, where 13 nations entered by invitation. Only four European nations accepted the invitation. Others, like England, did not think the long boat ride across the Atlantic was worthwhile.
If I'm not mistaken, all nations that were willing to sign in were able to compete in the first WC in Uruguay. In that case, only 13 nations did sign in.
I believe you're right. FYI, the 13 nations were: Group A: Argentina Chile France Mexico Group B: Yugoslavia Brazil Bolivia Group C: Uruguay Romania Peru Group D: United States Paraguay Belgium USA's semifinal finish in this tournament is still the best in its history.
Curiously, it's the only WC that didn't have a 3rd place dispute match. But I recall something about FIFA now recognizing the US as the 3rd place of that tournament (Yugoslavia as 4th).
I believe USA had a superior goal differential. Both Yugo and USA lost the semifinal 6-1. Here's information from FIFA's official site: http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/en/pf/h/pwc/1930.html
The pre-WW II World Cup Finals were not real WC Finals. Only a few teams outside of Europe particiapted. Many teams qualified for the Finals without playing in qualifiers. There were simply no team to play against them. This continued until 1958 WC Finals. Furthermore, the British teams did not participate. They invented the games ane were considered the best in the world. The absense meant the WC were incomplete. The best in thw world did not play in WC. The British teams participated for the first time in 1950. The WC finals were still incomplete because many teams withdrew after qualifying for the Finals. Some teams were invited. No WCQ were played in Latin America. The 1954 World Cup Finals were close to be a complete WC Finals, but Hungary did not play in WCQ due to the withdrawal of Poland. Othervise, every conferences participated. All other Finalists were qualfied through playing in a WCQ. The 1958 World Cup Finals perhaps are perhaps the first "real" WC. Finally, all the finalists qualified by playing somebody. Every continents had more than one team in the WCQ.
And we were content to just beat Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by scores of 12-0, safe in the knowledge that this made us the best in the world.
Arguable the first true WC was in 1954 in Switzerland, as E.G. said. There were sixteen participants, although twelve were from Europe. But there were two from South America, one from North America and one from Asia, so I suppose it could be called a W.C. I was reading a book about the 1950 WC in Brasil. It was very curious. Only 13 countries participated. Six from Europe, five from South America and two from North America. No Asian country was willing to make the long trip to America, although India had been invited. Africa was not even considered. There were other notable absents. Argentina was not invited because of political differences with Brasil. Germany (divided after losing a war) was not allowed to enter a team. France was the most curious case. They originally were planning to participate, but when Brasil anounced the schedulle they discovered that they had to play a match in Porto Alegre and another in Recife. They determined that it would be an impossible trip to make, so they requested a schedulle change. When it was denied, they decided not to attend. Italy attended, but the majority of the Italian team was killed in a tragic airplane accident shortly before the cup. The British teams decided to attend, but they were required to eliminate each other and only England made the field. The USA put together a team composed of amateurs, European Immigrants, plus a player from Haiti. (And they managed to upset England) Finally, the field of 13 was divided into four groups. Two groups of four, one group of three and one group of two. Uruguay got to the final after playing just three matches (two wins and a tie) while Brasil had to play five (four wins and a tie). For all FIFA's faults, I would say the WC has improved since then.
Well yeah... But pre-WWII, England (and at the turn of the century, Scotland) were probably the best team in the world, and even in 1950, they were bona fide contenders. But clearly, their absence from the international game hurt the game's development and I don't think it's a stretch to say that they're still suffering for it now.
You are looking at something without putting historical context. You are putting the future in analyzing the past. The British performance in 1950's meant nothing to their level of play in 1934. The pre-WW2 WC Finals without the British is liked Olympic basketball without the Americans or hockey without the Canadians. If you look at Uruguay, you would not imagine that they had won two WC Finals. Back in the 1950's, some people never thought that brazil would ever win the WC. I said that Mongolia was the biggest empire in the Middle Age.... you say.... that would explain why beating the crap up the US Army with their air force.
No, I'm saying that if the English were so damn good during their abscense from the World Cup, then they shouldn't have been so much worse later on, and it (their self-imposed exile) doesn't devalue any of the World Cup's because of it. It's like saying that WC2002 sucked because the Dutch weren't there. Sack up and realize that just because the mongrel non-Teutons won all the gold before the "real" footballing nations "took them seriously" doesn't mean they can't say "scoreboard".
I'm not sure I get you here. Can't a team be good pre-1950 and be bad post-1950? That said, England's absence from the international game probably led to the decline. They certainly wouldn't have lost to USA had they been more experienced playing away from Europe. You do realize that attempting to qualify and failing (as the Dutch did) and not accepting an invitation (England pre-1950) are two very different things. Apples and oranges. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say pre-1950 WCs were meaningless, British nations' participation would have made them more meaningful. But again I agree on the larger issue, the fact that England only have one World Cup is no fault but of their own arrogance (though part of the reason England didn't travel in 1934 was the Depression).
Sure, they can and England was. It's the fact that England had this form change that undermines the arguements of the "World Cup didn't really start until 1954" crowd, IMO. See, I told you it was a lousy argument. Of course I realize the difference, but there was lementing on this board at the fact that China and Saudi Arabia got to stink up Korea/Japan while the Oranje stay'd home. More interesting? Absoluitely! But "more meaningful"? Nah. I think that's an attitude for someone with a Euro-snobish agenda, which I know you don't have in this case. Really? I thought they still weren't members of FIFA at that time. Hell, Cuba and Brazil made it to Italy, why couldn't the Pommies?
That's the point of our agrument. Many countries including England were not members of FIFA. How could it be a "real" World Cup?
Then the problem is yours. FIFA recognizes that the World Cup began in 1930 and all countries that won it so far are all equal and legitimate champions. Deal with the fact that a long gone powerhouse like Uruguay has more titles than England.
I hate to find myself defending England. Basically, I support any team that played against England. I nearly canceled my trip to WC Finals because England was playing on the game I had tickets for. I thought it is waste of money or time to see England played. I would rather see saudi Arabia.
Other than the Home Nations and Uruguay, who wasn't involved in qualifying? Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Rumania, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, France, and even the Republic of Ireland were involved. It was a real World Cup.
Well that's pretty much what you're doing. This arguement only has ANY validity when dealing with 1930. Other than that, nuh-uh. Now you're just being silly.
yea... right!!! Only 13 teams were involved in entire WC 1930.... and only 29 teams were involved in 1934. Basically, over a hundred countries were NOT involved in the "World" Cup. Now you're just being silly. [/QUOTE] No, I wasn't.... I was serious. I saw more Saudi arabia than England in WC. I did not miss a single minute of WC 1998 and 2002, except games involving England.