Talk:History of the FIFA World Cup

Improvement
What exactly does the article need? The chronological sequence sounds pretty complete...is there anything specific that should be added? Aabha (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some World Cups get only a sentence or two, I'd like to see at least a reasonably sized paragraph for each. Oldelpaso 08:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 2 world cups totally omitted... the first and second cups are pre ww2 but are not in the listing... there is very little in the way of material about the mussolini cup.... in particular the Mexico vs USA qualifying (play in) game... that was the first time that happened as before it was an invitational. 158.51.81.47 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I will get to work on the 1962 World Cup but I would like to add that I gave each cup their own section and added information regarding the 1950 match between England and United States with a wiki link to the article in question. Also added information regarding the USA drought where they missed World Cups from 1954 to 1986.96.3.74.7 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Brazil
"Brazil won the 1958 World Cup, held in Sweden, and became the first and so far only team to win a World Cup outside their home continent."

What about 2002, won by Brazil (again) in Asia? ChrisTheDude 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Brazil are still the only team to win outside their home continent. But as they've done it twice it could be worded less confusingly. Oldelpaso 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, I've added a caveat. Oldelpaso 14:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're including those two, shouldn't Brazil's 1994 win in the USA be mentioned too? JohnnyPants 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germany_national_football_team"

i find it remarkable that, despite the more interesting events in previous world cups being detailed, there is no mention of the hosts Brazil losing 1-7 to Germany in the semi final of the 2014 tournament.

Fixed World Cup
I wrote this in the article "Joao Havelange (former FIFA President from 1974 to 1998) claimed that the 1966 and 1974 World Cups were fixed so that England and Germany would win respectively" but I can't add the source to the references http://www.goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=753029 Can someone do it 4 me?
 * Do you have a more reliable source then Goal.com ? --> Halmstad, Talk:Halmstad 15:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1232974&lang=EN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limesen (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.supersport.co.za/football/article.aspx?headline=%60There%60s%20manipulation%20in%201966,%2074%20Cups%60%20&id=259293 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limesen (talk • contribs) 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(in portugese)   http://portal.rpc.com.br/gazetadopovo/esportes/conteudo.phtml?tl=1&id=780601&tit=Joao-Havelange-diz-que-houve-armacao-nas-Copas-de-1966-e-74-mas-nao-em-78  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limesen (talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.impulsobaires.com.ar/nota.php?id=52280 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limesen (talk • contribs) 14:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The english sources are all the same artical, just slightly edited --> Halmstad, Talk:Halmstad 21:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just read these articles. Now really... Havelange may have been FIFA president (after those World Cups) but he has got nothing to substantiate his claim. All he's saying is that the referees in certain matches against Brazil (Havelange's country) were English or German and that "the Dutch ride bicycles". Yes, really. Even one of the sources cited above calls his reasoning "a confusing cocktail". Should Wikipedia give prominence to such rubbish? -- 84.130.255.73 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * how about after the FIFA indictment? there is plenty to show corruption in the org goes back to Havelange himself 158.51.81.47 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Points awarded & Format Discussion
I think that this article should include a reference to how teams earn points in group play. Back in 1990, 2 points were awarded for a victory, with 1 for a draw. More recently, teams have been receiving 3 points for a victory, and 1 for a draw. The end result is that a team with 1 win and 2 draws now finishes behind a team with 2 wins and 1 loss in group play. I think the change was made to encourage teams to try to win rather than play for draws, but I'm not sure.

Also, there could be some mention about the format of how teams face off in the knockout stage. For instance, it's now A1-B2, C1-D2, E1-F2, G1-H2, and vice-versa on the other side of the bracket. In other words, teams from group A couldn't play each other until the championship if they kept winning. But it hasn't always been like this....Why was it changed?

I'd also like to see some discussion about third place games. There is really no guarantee that a team deserves third place when it wins the "third place game". The only thing the knockout stage guarantees is that the champion goes undefeated through that stage.


 * Moreover the section entitled "Group Stage Advancement Format" seems questionable, especially for the period 1930-1990, as there were many different formats in use during that period, so a simple summary like this seems incorrect. Some years didn't have a group stage at all;  some years runners-up advanced and some years they didn't.  Even in years when runners-up advanced, it would seem to have required at least 2 points to possibly advance.  The bottom three teams would play three matches amongst themselves, resulting in 6 points being awarded--so at least one team in the bottom three must have 2 points--so at least 2 teams in each group with 2 or more points.  Dash77 (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Put another way--the minimum number of points to advance when runners-up advance and 2 points are awarded for a win is 2 points in the following scenario. The winner of the group wins all three matches getting 6 points and easily advancing.  Each other team wins one match for 2 points;  one of them advances based on a tiebreaker (goal difference, goal ratio, lots, etc).  Also agree that the "third place" winner might not deserve third place.  They might even deserve second place if they are better than the loser of the final game but never had the chance to meet that team head-to-head.  Dash77 (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrected Rating
This is not even close to a B rated article. For it to be a B: I've rated it as a C. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) suitably reference? NO! Most of the article is unreferenced
 * 2) covers the topic. NO. The article is far too short.
 * 3) defined structure. This isn't too bad.
 * 4) well-written. No. Writing is poor.
 * 5) supporting materials. No. Devoid of illustrations, charts, etc.
 * 6) accessible. Writing is non-technical, but article is not written such as to be interesting to a broad audience.

Drawing lots
It is now said: "As of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, lots have only been drawn once. However, they were used to separate second and third place in a group. Thus, a team has never been eliminated based upon drawn lots."

Actually I think lots have been drawn at least twice: in 1970 (to decide group winner vs runner-up (Soviet Union and Mexico)) and in 1990 (to separate second and third place (Ireland and Holland)). Anyway, today it would be vital wether a team is placed second ant third, and the word "thus" in the cited sentence then seems confusing.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615200849/http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/fifa/historyfifa1.html to http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/fifa/historyfifa1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031129221811/http://www.shrewsbury.gov.uk/Public/news/thomaslipton.htm to http://www.shrewsbury.gov.uk/Public/news/thomaslipton.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/en/history/history/0%2C1283%2C4%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140615054337/http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2014/06/11/copies-of-old-newspapers-reveal-englands-world-cup-myth/ to http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2014/06/11/copies-of-old-newspapers-reveal-englands-world-cup-myth/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2018
2018 was CROATIA vs FRANCE not RUSSIA vs FRANCE you dolts! 174.26.220.170 (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: 1) You should be civil on talk pages and not insult us. 2) Nowhere in the article does it say that then 2018 final was Russia against France. If you are talking about the table at the end of the article, it lists Russia because it hosted the game, not because it played in the final. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Continents
Neither Argentina, nor Brazil consider Mexico or the USA to be a different continent. So 1970, 1986 and 1994 tournaments were won by teams from the same continent where it was played. As a matter of fact, America is one big land mass that goes from the south of Argentina and Chile and end at the north of Canada. Political subdivisions made up by others are unimportant, especially when the people from Brazil and the people from Argentina believe the tournaments they won where played in their home continent. Campinux (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * FIFA considers them to be separate, the confederations are separate, therefore we should consider them separate continents.  Sounder Bruce  20:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)