God Football (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
God Football (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Keep''' - I strongly disagree with the proposed deletion. The article emphasizes that the symbolic title of "world champion" which were referred all the twenty-five Intercontinental Cup winners from 1960 to 2004 was granted ''[http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/de%2Bfacto?q=de+facto de facto]'' and, precisely, FIFA is the first governing body [http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/clubworldcup/japan2005/news/newsid=101662/ that points that] in its institutional mass media and, especially, in its official documents like [http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/68/21/16//activityreport2005en.pdf this] (cf. p. 62). Here nobody is inventing anything or exposes theories like [[List of combined European football club champions|as some published in Wikipedia]]. In the article its mentioned the [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/title?q=title title] (name someone ''champion'' it's just that), not the competition (s) itself (s) and before it was created the FIFA Club World Cup, the only competition in association football history in which that recognition was related was the Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup.--[[User:Dantetheperuvian|Dantetheperuvian]] ([[User talk:Dantetheperuvian|talk]]) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - I strongly disagree with the proposed deletion. The article emphasizes that the symbolic title of "world champion" which were referred all the twenty-five Intercontinental Cup winners from 1960 to 2004 was granted ''[http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/de%2Bfacto?q=de+facto de facto]'' and, precisely, FIFA is the first governing body [http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/clubworldcup/japan2005/news/newsid=101662/ that points that] in its institutional mass media and, especially, in its official documents like [http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/68/21/16//activityreport2005en.pdf this] (cf. p. 62). Here nobody is inventing anything or exposes theories like [[List of combined European football club champions|as some published in Wikipedia]]. In the article its mentioned the [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/title?q=title title] (name someone ''champion'' it's just that), not the competition (s) itself (s) and before it was created the FIFA Club World Cup, the only competition in association football history in which that recognition was related was the Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup.--[[User:Dantetheperuvian|Dantetheperuvian]] ([[User talk:Dantetheperuvian|talk]]) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - For short, I will call the Intercontinental Toyota Cups 1960-2004 as "IC" and the FIFA Club World Cup as "FCWC". |
|||
The fact is that the FCWC followed the IC as its successor. FIFA does acknowledge the IC as the competition forerunner to the FCWC, as a CONMEBOL/UEFA official competition and as merged to the FCWC in 2005. However, FIFA has '''never''' ''officially'' declared the IC as a world title, and FIFA has never officially declared the IC as having the same worth of the FCWC. |
|||
The fact that the IC was official under CONMEBOL/UEFA auspices means nothing to the point, for CONMEBOL/UEFA do not have jurisdiction over football all over the world, and provedly since 1962 FIFA had been trying to organise the FCWC (''check Spanish newspaper El Mundo Deportivo links, on Portuguese wikipedia article''), so it is a lie to say that "FIFA has never wanted to mingle with club football before 2000", as many people lyingly say. |
|||
There are also problems of sheer logic for someone to consider the IC as a world club cup: after all, why should we consider Nacional (from Uruguay) as "world champion 1980" for winning the Toyota Cup that year, rather than give this status to Pumas UNAM (from Mexico), who beat the very same Nacional (from Uruguay) for the Interamerican Cup weeks later??? We must also remember that 1978 Interamerican Cup Champion Club America (from Mexico) tried to play the Intercontinental Cup in 1978 basedly on its Interamerican Cup title, and Club America was denied that chance, giving proof that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world". Actually, CONCACAF and AFC (Asia) requested the enlargement of the IC under FIFA auspices as soon as 1967 (''check Spanish newspaper El Mundo Deportivo links, on Portuguese wikipedia article''), and they were denied by CONMEBOL and UEFA, once more showing that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world". And as a third proof that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world" , we have that in year 2001 when a Mexican club (Cruz Azul) made it to the final of the Libertadores and, before the finals, CONMEBOL announced that the Mexican club would not be allowed into the IC even if it won the Libertadores Cup. Clearly enough, no fewer than 3 times CONMEBOL and UEFA proved that they chose to make the IC a two-continental event rather than a world (all inclusive) event. |
|||
Last but not least, it is also a fake argumentation to say that the IC was a world title "''because it was the world's top club competition when it was created, as UEFA and CONMEBOL were the sole confederations with continental club competitions''". This kind of thinking is fake thinking because, under this very same line of thinking, the UEFA Champions Cup and the English FA Cup should also be considered "world titles" - after all, both of them were also inquestionably "the world's top club competition" at the moment they were created. |
|||
Actually, if we think that the IC was a world title because "''UEFA and CONMEBOL were the sole confederations with continental club competitions when the IC was created''", therefore, under the very same logic, we should stop considering the IC as a world title in 1967, for in 1967 Concacaf and Asia created their continental club competitions and therefore UEFA and CONMEBOL stopped being the "''the sole confederations with continental club competitions''". |
|||
That "concept" of "de facto world champion" does not mean anything at all- this "concept" is a stupid concept fabricated by someone and it is not supported by any important source. Thousands of extremely relevant sources throughout the World (BBC, UEFA, Conmebol, FIFA, Japanese Football Association, Toyota, several if not most clubs that won tha IC, etc) do NOT regard the IC as being a World Title , and do not regard the IC as being the same worth of the FCWC. |
|||
I want to make clear that I do not intend to reduce the importance of the IC. I understand perfectly that it was a very important soccer trophy and perfectly official under UEFA/CONMEBOL auspices. |
|||
However, I can say that '''under no aspect whatsoever (official organisation, name, targeted covered geographical area, impact)''' we can say that the IC was a "world title" the same worth of the FCWC. Definitely, the IC has '''never''' been an equivalent to the FCWC under any aspect at all. |
|||
Dantetheperuvian is a supporter of Juventus. He insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. |
|||
It is very clear under all aspects (logic, geographical area targeted, organising institutions): to say that the IC was equivalent to the current FCWC, that is as stupid as to say that the old Rio de Janeiro/São Paulo tournament was equivalent to the current Brazilian League, or as stupid as to say that the old Aldao Cup was an equivalent to the Libertadores Cup. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/177.192.10.223|177.192.10.223]] ([[User talk:177.192.10.223|talk]]) 04:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
PS: In the ''Intercontinental Cup'' Talk Page, Dantetheperuvian has been already informed (''the links are in the Portuguese Wikipedia FCWC article'') that ''ever since 1962'' FIFA has provedly been trying to organise itself the FCWC. However, Dantetheperuvian keeps mentioning the ''1955'' FIFA's refusal to organise the UCL in order to keep saying the lie that "FIFA has never wanted to mingle with club football before 2000". You see: even knowing that his point is false, Dantetheperuvian keeps supporting that point. |
|||
Someone correctly wrote that Dantetheperuvian "mixes oranges with apples". That's the true. He tries to use the succession of the IC to the FCWC as an argumentation to try to "equalise" the two competitions in terms of importance and significance. However, the mere fact that the two competitions were predecessor and successor does NOT mean at all that they were "worth equivalent" or anything like that. |
|||
That is why I gave up discussing with this Dantetheperuvian. I like discussing with well-intentioned intelectually-honest people, not with ill-intentioned intelectually-dishonest people like this Dantetheperuvian. He is just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. |
|||
Last but not least, someone also wrote "''The first World Cup envolving all continents was in 1974, so, "the first trully world champion" was Germany and not Uruguay (just Intercontinental). That is so funny...''". Well, I guess this stupid lie must have been written by none other than Dantetheperuvian, who else if not him to say such a brazen and stupid lie? Actually, a "world cup" does not need to necessarily "include" teams from all continents- but it has to "be open, give some chance of participation, even if small, to all in the world". The 1930 World Cup and the World Cup Preliminary Competition (from 1934 on) were ''always'' open to ''all'' FIFA-affiliated countries that put up a national team and enrolled for participation, ''irrespective of which continent each country was from''. Well, as you can see, here we have more one stupid lie put forth by someone (probably by Dantetheperuvian) with the intention of turning the IC into what it '''never''' was: a club world cup. |
|||
You can see, this Dantetheperuvian is just a liar. Just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. It is pointless to discuss with a person like him. |
Revision as of 09:52, 21 December 2012
List of world club champions in association football
See here for reference.
The Intercontinental Cup was clearly not a world championship. This has come from numerous times by FIFA and they gave their reasons (very valid ones at that). For example, the Afro-Asian Championship could also claimed to be a world championship just for having two confederations coming together.
Seeing the above information, and the little relevance in having this, I propose this list be deleted. God Football (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I strongly disagree with the proposed deletion. The article emphasizes that the symbolic title of "world champion" which were referred all the twenty-five Intercontinental Cup winners from 1960 to 2004 was granted de facto and, precisely, FIFA is the first governing body that points that in its institutional mass media and, especially, in its official documents like this (cf. p. 62). Here nobody is inventing anything or exposes theories like as some published in Wikipedia. In the article its mentioned the title (name someone champion it's just that), not the competition (s) itself (s) and before it was created the FIFA Club World Cup, the only competition in association football history in which that recognition was related was the Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - For short, I will call the Intercontinental Toyota Cups 1960-2004 as "IC" and the FIFA Club World Cup as "FCWC".
The fact is that the FCWC followed the IC as its successor. FIFA does acknowledge the IC as the competition forerunner to the FCWC, as a CONMEBOL/UEFA official competition and as merged to the FCWC in 2005. However, FIFA has never officially declared the IC as a world title, and FIFA has never officially declared the IC as having the same worth of the FCWC.
The fact that the IC was official under CONMEBOL/UEFA auspices means nothing to the point, for CONMEBOL/UEFA do not have jurisdiction over football all over the world, and provedly since 1962 FIFA had been trying to organise the FCWC (check Spanish newspaper El Mundo Deportivo links, on Portuguese wikipedia article), so it is a lie to say that "FIFA has never wanted to mingle with club football before 2000", as many people lyingly say.
There are also problems of sheer logic for someone to consider the IC as a world club cup: after all, why should we consider Nacional (from Uruguay) as "world champion 1980" for winning the Toyota Cup that year, rather than give this status to Pumas UNAM (from Mexico), who beat the very same Nacional (from Uruguay) for the Interamerican Cup weeks later??? We must also remember that 1978 Interamerican Cup Champion Club America (from Mexico) tried to play the Intercontinental Cup in 1978 basedly on its Interamerican Cup title, and Club America was denied that chance, giving proof that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world". Actually, CONCACAF and AFC (Asia) requested the enlargement of the IC under FIFA auspices as soon as 1967 (check Spanish newspaper El Mundo Deportivo links, on Portuguese wikipedia article), and they were denied by CONMEBOL and UEFA, once more showing that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world". And as a third proof that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world" , we have that in year 2001 when a Mexican club (Cruz Azul) made it to the final of the Libertadores and, before the finals, CONMEBOL announced that the Mexican club would not be allowed into the IC even if it won the Libertadores Cup. Clearly enough, no fewer than 3 times CONMEBOL and UEFA proved that they chose to make the IC a two-continental event rather than a world (all inclusive) event.
Last but not least, it is also a fake argumentation to say that the IC was a world title "because it was the world's top club competition when it was created, as UEFA and CONMEBOL were the sole confederations with continental club competitions". This kind of thinking is fake thinking because, under this very same line of thinking, the UEFA Champions Cup and the English FA Cup should also be considered "world titles" - after all, both of them were also inquestionably "the world's top club competition" at the moment they were created.
Actually, if we think that the IC was a world title because "UEFA and CONMEBOL were the sole confederations with continental club competitions when the IC was created", therefore, under the very same logic, we should stop considering the IC as a world title in 1967, for in 1967 Concacaf and Asia created their continental club competitions and therefore UEFA and CONMEBOL stopped being the "the sole confederations with continental club competitions".
That "concept" of "de facto world champion" does not mean anything at all- this "concept" is a stupid concept fabricated by someone and it is not supported by any important source. Thousands of extremely relevant sources throughout the World (BBC, UEFA, Conmebol, FIFA, Japanese Football Association, Toyota, several if not most clubs that won tha IC, etc) do NOT regard the IC as being a World Title , and do not regard the IC as being the same worth of the FCWC.
I want to make clear that I do not intend to reduce the importance of the IC. I understand perfectly that it was a very important soccer trophy and perfectly official under UEFA/CONMEBOL auspices.
However, I can say that under no aspect whatsoever (official organisation, name, targeted covered geographical area, impact) we can say that the IC was a "world title" the same worth of the FCWC. Definitely, the IC has never been an equivalent to the FCWC under any aspect at all.
Dantetheperuvian is a supporter of Juventus. He insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC.
It is very clear under all aspects (logic, geographical area targeted, organising institutions): to say that the IC was equivalent to the current FCWC, that is as stupid as to say that the old Rio de Janeiro/São Paulo tournament was equivalent to the current Brazilian League, or as stupid as to say that the old Aldao Cup was an equivalent to the Libertadores Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.10.223 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
PS: In the Intercontinental Cup Talk Page, Dantetheperuvian has been already informed (the links are in the Portuguese Wikipedia FCWC article) that ever since 1962 FIFA has provedly been trying to organise itself the FCWC. However, Dantetheperuvian keeps mentioning the 1955 FIFA's refusal to organise the UCL in order to keep saying the lie that "FIFA has never wanted to mingle with club football before 2000". You see: even knowing that his point is false, Dantetheperuvian keeps supporting that point.
Someone correctly wrote that Dantetheperuvian "mixes oranges with apples". That's the true. He tries to use the succession of the IC to the FCWC as an argumentation to try to "equalise" the two competitions in terms of importance and significance. However, the mere fact that the two competitions were predecessor and successor does NOT mean at all that they were "worth equivalent" or anything like that.
That is why I gave up discussing with this Dantetheperuvian. I like discussing with well-intentioned intelectually-honest people, not with ill-intentioned intelectually-dishonest people like this Dantetheperuvian. He is just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC.
Last but not least, someone also wrote "The first World Cup envolving all continents was in 1974, so, "the first trully world champion" was Germany and not Uruguay (just Intercontinental). That is so funny...". Well, I guess this stupid lie must have been written by none other than Dantetheperuvian, who else if not him to say such a brazen and stupid lie? Actually, a "world cup" does not need to necessarily "include" teams from all continents- but it has to "be open, give some chance of participation, even if small, to all in the world". The 1930 World Cup and the World Cup Preliminary Competition (from 1934 on) were always open to all FIFA-affiliated countries that put up a national team and enrolled for participation, irrespective of which continent each country was from. Well, as you can see, here we have more one stupid lie put forth by someone (probably by Dantetheperuvian) with the intention of turning the IC into what it never was: a club world cup.
You can see, this Dantetheperuvian is just a liar. Just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. It is pointless to discuss with a person like him.