Talk:Intercontinental Cup records and statistics

Shouldn't we merge the Intercontinental Cup & the CWC?
It provides the same function (decides the best team team in the world). The only difference is that FIFA took it over and added the other confederations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSonicx1986 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think it should be the way it was, put both competition in one article. The CWC is a replacement of the IC, and in fact, FIFA had to negotiate with Toyota to make it work. So it is fair to say that both competition should be listed together. I find it very inconvenient to read stats of BOTH competitions in TWO different wikipages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.199.179 (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is like saying that we should merge the articles on the Premier League and the Football League First Division. I mean, the Premier League performs the same function as the First Division did until 1992... Of course, I'm being sarcastic :) – PeeJay 09:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

BOCA JUNIORS or CORINTHIANS in 2000??
good cuestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.24.19 (talk)
 * Both, Boca won the Intercontinental Cup, Corinthians won the Club World Cup. Later CWC's replaced IC's altogether, but that was the one year when both were played. The table should be clearer about which is which, though. --Gabbec 12:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Humm, the table is incomplete right now, since it is displaying only the IC's result in 2000, leaving the CWC out altogether. Particularly bad, since the article's title explicitly states that it is a combined statistic.  I'll include the result, format can always be reviewed if needed.  Redux (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The two results should be switched round. Boca won theirs in December, nearly a year after Corinthians that January. So in chronological order, it should read Man United, Corinthians, Boca Jrs, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.115.84 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Club logos removal
Someone is removing all the soccer club logos from each championship page. The person who is doing this claims that "Fair Use" is not for ilustrating. I totally disagree with him beacuse the reason why people put images and logos and everything on a encyclopedia is to ilustrate and make the information clear. Another point is that if the image is already hosted in wikipedia and used on the soccer clubs pages, why can't we use it also on the competitions page like this? The one who removes the logos is cleary misinterpretating the "Fair Use" rules. What do you people think about this subject?

This the copyright message for club logos. Ilustrations are ok by the rules below: --Mrzero 21:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. You can see logos on all pages about soccer championships. And the rules are pretty clear about this issue.FTota 13:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All see WP:FUC. Use on the original page is fine, use as decoration, or in templates is not. ed g2s &bull; talk 15:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Article move
Does anyone oppose moving this to Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics, considering the tournament has been renamed? --Gabbec 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. Actually it's the right thing to do. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done ;) —Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Corinthians Title 2000 should be removed imho, FIFA will remove it because it's just ridiculous ad confused.


 * No. FIFA won't "remove" it, anon. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the 2000 title of Corinthias is ridiculous!!!! Romeve it!193.43.176.101 (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This was official FIFA tournament and just stop spamming here!--Oleg Abarnikov (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree in combining both articles (same tournament, different name). I will start doing so in a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSonicx1986 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

New move
Now that 1951 Copa Rio is regognized as a World Club Championship and some of its statistics are being added in here, shouldn't we move article's name again? Maybe "World Club Championships statistics" os something like that? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why a change would be needed. According to this |FIFA document, the Copa Rio is recognized as the first official "Club World Cup", which still fits one of the two denominations given in the article's current name. I would like to see an official FIFA press release making this clear, though, since I haven't seen anything about this on their website. --Gabbec 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested split
I suggest that this article be split into two new articles entitled Intercontinental Cup statistics and FIFA Club World Cup statistics. My reasoning for this is that the Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup are two separate and distinct competitions. While both competitions determine the de facto world champions for that year, the Club World Cup was designed as a replacement for the Intercontinental Cup, not as its successor. In fact, in the 1999–2000 season, both competitions were run. Finally, even FIFA does not recognise the Intercontinental Cup as the predecessor to the Club World Cup, as proven by their list of previous editions of the Club World Cup (here), which only includes the 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2007 editions of the competition. – PeeJay 12:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole point of this article is to show combined statistics for both the de facto highest-level club championships. The split statistics are already in the individual tournament articles. MTC (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the two competitions are completely separate. Their statistics should not be merged, as that implies that the two competitions are contiguous. – PeeJay 17:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

He wants it split because England is nowhere near the top of the list. Besides, the whole point to this is to show statistics as one (Both are essentially the same tournament) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSonicx1986 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You really should assume good faith. The reason I want to split this article is because the two competitions are NOT the same. – PeeJay 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hide behing any lame pretext you want but as a sign of good faith, the European Cup and the UEFA Champions League should be split (it has much more reason to be split then this). The only one that wants this article split is you (not hard to know why) even though the purpose of this article is to show statistics for both competitions (the defacto world championship deciders who even FIFA recognize. Why should it not be the same because you say so is beyond me). I will go ahead and start my project on the European touurnaments.

I already stated the obvious on the EC/CL. I expect you to support that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gethomas3 (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The European Cup and the Champions League are the same competition with a different name. At least, UEFA treats them as one and the same. The same can be said for the UEFA Cup and the UEFA Europa League (when it is founded), but not the Inter-cities Fairs Cup. However, FIFA does not treat the Intercontinental Cup and the Club World Cup as the same competition, hence the requested split. Feel free to suggest that the statistics for the European Cup and the Champions League should be split, but I warn you that your actions could be viewed as more than a little POINTy. – PeeJay 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No. The European Cup and the Champions League are much more different from each other then the IC/CWC. I have proven it. By the way, FIFA does treat the Intercontinental Cup and AS THE DE-FACTO world title match. The only difference is that one was controlled by FIFA. The other was not. If you don't believe me, check out their website.

This is Milan's page in FIFA: http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=1907169/index.html Club Profile Associazione Calcio Milan City: Milan Founded: 16 December 1899 Official website:www.acmilan.com

Honours:
 * 1 FIFA Club World Cup
 * 3 Intercontinental Cups: 1969, 1989, 1990
 * 6 European Cups/UEFA Champions Leagues: 1963, 1969, 1989, 1990, 1994, 2003
 * 2 European Cup Winners' Cups: 1968, 1973
 * 4 European Super Cups: 1989, 1990, 1994, 2003
 * 17 Italian Championships: 1901, 1906, 1907, 1951, 1955, 1957, 1959, 1962, 1968, 1979, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2004
 * 5 Italian Cups: 1967, 1972, 1973, 1977, 2003

Legendary players: Gunnar Nordahl (1949-56), Nils Liedholm (1949-61), Juan Schiaffino (1954-60), Jose Altafini (1959-66), Giovanni Trapattoni (1960-71), Gianni Rivera (1960-79), Franco Baresi (1977-97), Paolo Maldini (since 1985), Roberto Donadoni (1986-96), Ruud Gullit (1987-93, 1994), Marco van Basten (1987-95), Frank Rijkaard (1988-93), Demetrio Albertini (1988-2002), Dejan Savicevic (1992-98), Marcel Desailly (1993-98), George Weah (1995-2000), Andriy Shevchenko (1999-2006)

Records: Paolo Maldini - appearances (ongoing) Gunnar Nordahl - 221 goals

You will find in each team, the Intercontinental Cup is listed above everything but the CWC for sponsorship reasons.

Now, go support my call on separating the tournaments I mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gethomas3 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that FIFA doesn't treat the Intercontinental Cup as the de-facto match to decide the world champions. What I said was that the Intercontinental Cup and the Club World Cup are completely separate competitions. What is your basis for saying that the European Cup and the Champions League are any more different than the Intercontinental Cup and the Club World Cup? If anything, your listing of Milan's honours merely supports my claim, as European Cup and Champions League wins are listed together, while Intercontinental Cup and Club World Cup titles are listed separately! – PeeJay 18:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with splitting the records, because of FIFA's treatment. The ones calling for the European Cup and the Champions League I disagree for the same reason, how FIFA and UEFA treats it... Even though recently UEFA has started with a little double standard, see listing honours separately but the record together on club pages. History lists them all as the same &mdash; chandler &mdash; 00:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with MTC. "The whole point of this article is to show combined statistics for both the de facto highest-level club championships". Anyone who wants to check split statistics can do it in the individual tournament articles. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and performed the split, but I'll leave this one here until I can find out what should be done with articles that have been split. – PeeJay 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that's it. The split has been completely done now. – PeeJay 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you fix all related redirects and references to the now defunct link as well. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really a defunct link, as it still redirects to this article. Nevertheless, I have fixed the double redirects and fixed the templates that use the link, so that should be the majority of the links fixed. – PeeJay 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, the majority has agreed that the split is pointless. I am reporting you for vandalism after a mod has agreed to keep it together (the whole point to the article, really).
 * The "majority" never provided a valid reason to keep the article together. Feel free to report me, but it won't get anywhere. – PeeJay 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I mentioned this split at WP:FOOTY and of the four or five people who contributed to the discussion, no one there objected. That seems to indicate that it's only you, Lesfer and SuperSonicx1986 who are actually objecting, which gives (approximately) a 7–3 consensus in favour of the split. – PeeJay 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually consensus was against splitting.
 * MTC, SuperSonicx1986, Gethomas3, Lesfer - against
 * PeeJay2K3, Chandler - for
 * People in WP Talk:FOOTY - ***Neutral***
 * —Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But the fact remains, FIFA does NOT consider the competitions as the same, or a successor. Just as FIFA does not consider the Olympics pre-1930 as a successor of the World Cup, even if they were the highest-level of national championship. &mdash; CHAN  DLER #10 &mdash; 15:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fantastic analogy, and it demonstrates the point here perfectly. IIRC, the Intercontinental Cup wasn't even organised by FIFA, which is the same as the situation between the Olympics and the World Cup! – PeeJay 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all: That's a really poor analogy. You can find all Intercontinental Cup champions in FIFA.com. Tha same cannot be said about Olympics. Second: I don't think you understand... The fact that really remains is that the consensus was against splitting. Despites, you're missing the point of the article. It does not matter what FIFA says about A, B or C. As said before the whole point of this article is to show combined statistics for both the de facto highest-level club championships. Period. This is not an article about FIFA. So, what's so hard to understand about it? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 01:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not true Uruguay, Sweden, Argentina, Hungary to name a few, as you can see it lists the Olympics. And there is no other article (that I know of) that compiles the records of two separate football competitions, non-successors and all that  &mdash;  CHAN  DLER #10 &mdash; 01:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They actually have MORE information about every Olympics than the Intercontinental Cup... They have squads, statistics and matches and much deeper coverage &mdash;  CHAN  DLER #10 &mdash; 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as it turns out, per this checkuser, User:SuperSonicx1986 and User:Gethomas3 are the same person. Therefore, I have stricken their opinions from this discussion. – PeeJay 14:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Too bad for him. But, please, read it again: "you're missing the point of the article. It does not matter what FIFA says about A, B or C. As said before the whole point of this article is to show combined statistics for both the de facto highest-level club championships. Period. This is not an article about FIFA." —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But that implies that the two competitions are contiguous! Like Chandler said, we don't have an article for the de facto world champion national teams that combines the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, so why do we have one that combines the Intercontinental Cup and the Club World Cup/Championship? The two competitions are COMPLETELY unrelated. – PeeJay 14:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh c'mon, are they?! Last ICC's were hosted in Japan, and the first re-formatted CWC competitions were played there, too. The final match is and was between European Cup and Copa Libertadores holders. CWC-2000 was rather experimental tournament, and its format w/ a group stage is much less related to current playoffs. And, as it's stated in FIFA Club World Cup article, "FIFA eventually agreed terms with the Toyota Cup to merge the two competitions." Looks as a trace of relation for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.82.194 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote on keeping the IC and CWC stats combined as that is the purpose of the article. It seems wiki has its on favorites, heh pj? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.112.110 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I also vote to revert the splitting of this article. The whole point of the article was to show the combined statistics of the competition (which is basically just a renaming). This is identical to the issue of the CONCACAF Championship being renamed to the CONCACAF Gold Cup. In that example, CONCACAF considers the tournaments separate but the wikipedia user consensus was to combine together as the lineage was obvious and the two served the same purpose. So my question here is just what is wrong with having both pages separated..ie Intercontinental Cup stats in it's article, Club World Cup stats on it's and the leave the combined stats here? Just what exactly was wrong with the articles as they have been the last couple years? I just see no reason this HAD to be done and it seems to be the minority that keep insisting on this split! Wikipedia users decide these type issues...not FIFA or any other body. --otduff t/c 12:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deciding these types of issues without RS wouldn't work, therefore FIFA as the highest available source (themself splitting both records and competition) it seems pretty obvious to go by that source. &mdash; CHANDLER#10 &mdash; 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

By continent
Why do the media (GMX and Kicker) stress the claim that, by Manchester winning 2008, Europe equalized 23:23? --Rheinländer (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because bullshit sells money. There are many idiots in Europe and the US who will believe anything someone making a little bit of money says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gethomas3 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup winners are official World Champions for FIFA
http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/news/newsid=2248557/index.html

Exactly 37 years to the day since collecting their first honours on the global stage, Bayern are aiming to climb to the top of the world for the third time in three attempts. Muller and Munich fans everywhere are crossing their fingers and hoping it comes off. "I’m wishing the team plenty of success at the Club World Cup 2013," Der Bomber said, "and I hope they bring the trophy back to Munich for the third time after 1976 and 2001."

Any other reason to put together all the world campions from 1960 to 2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebersecker (talk • contribs) 10:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the competitions are not the same and their records will not be merged. – PeeJay 14:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)