Talk:FIFA Club World Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateFIFA Club World Cup is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 1, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
March 11, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 15, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This is not a world cup![edit]

It's a confederations cup for clubs!

Criteria for participation in the Cup[edit]

I think it would be fair to post the criteria used to select the team participants in this cup.

In 2000, the criteria were very different from those used from 2005 up to now. For example, the 1999 winner of the Libertadores Cup was not invited to participate and no one knows for sure why. Instead, the brazilian 1999 champion, Corinthians, was invited to participate. FIFA said that the invitation of Corinthians was because they would represent Brazil, where the games would be played. This does not happen anymore. Therefore, Corinthians was a "World Champion" without beating any other South American teams like Boca Jrs. from Argentina. (EPleite (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)EPleite)[reply]

^^^ Vasco da Gama was the Libertadores representative in 2000. The tournament was to be held in 1999, which is why Palmeiras wasn't chosen. Corinthians were the current host champions, which have participated in other occasions (Al Wahda in 2010, for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.26.69 (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. One thing: the article says that the 4 "weaker" continents will meet in a qualifying round, and the two left standing will meet the European and South American champions in the semis. Well, I gather the 4 "weak" continents include the CONCACAF members (North and Central Americas and the Caribbean), Africa, Asia and Oceania, while the Europeans would be the champion of the UEFA Champions League and the South Americans, the champion of the Copa Libertadores, right? The problem is exactly in the last part: teams from Mexico have been playing in the Copa Libertadores for a few years, but Mexico is also a member of the CONCACAF, wouldn't that mean that Mexican teams get two chances of making it to this year end tournament, which would be unfair to all other nations? Has FIFA given any explanation regarding this? Regards, Redux 23:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Up to now, Mexican teams have done pretty poorly in the Libertadores. They are just not as good as the big Brazillian and Argentinian teams, so this has never really been an issue. I guess its a bit like South African playing in the CONCACAF Gold Cup AND the African Cup of Nations. This gives them 2 chances to qualify for the Confederations Cup. It is very unlikely that they will win both cups so the issue. in theory should never arise. --Ukdan999 18:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On 2000, 2002, and 2005 mexican teams have reached the semifinals, on 2001 Cruz Azul lost the final on penalty shootout. I don't see that as a pretty poorly performance for mexican teams, as they seldom had international oportunities of renowned category before. On the other hand, even if a mexican team wins the Copa Libertadores, Mexican teams are not taken in account for the Intercontinental Cup/FIFA Club World Championship. So the place would be granted for the runners-up (or other team if the runners-up are a mexican team, you get the idea) SpiceMan 05:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the rule says that, if a Mexican team wins the Libertadores, it will not qualify and the spot will be given to the South American runner-up? And Mexican teams would have to qualify through the CONCACAF Cup only? SpiceMan is right, in fact just now, about a month ago, the Mexican team from Guadalajara made it to the Semifinals in the Libertadores. It's not so far-fetched that a Mexican team may win the Cup within the next few years. Also, I don't think the example of South Africa playing in the CONCACAF Gold Cup would apply, since this was done per a special invitation, whereas the Mexicican Confederation has been granted a regular number of spots in the Libertadores to be distributed to its clubs. That is, Mexican participation in the Libertadores is a regular thing, not a special event. Regards, Redux 02:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the rule may have changed, I did some research and couldn't find anything about it. But the issue was hotly debated on Argentina before the 2001 Libertadores Cup final, as Mexican Cruz Azul was to play against Boca Juniors. Also Boca Juniors put posters all over Buenos Aires mocking rivals River Plate, as they had already secured their trip to japan for the Intercontinental Cup by defeating Palmeiras in penalty shoot-out on the semifinals, clearly disregarding the final outcome. SpiceMan 14:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Humm, any indication as to whether Boca did it because they had the rules on their side or because they were just overconfident in their ability to win? That could pretty much solve the "mistery". Regards, Redux 01:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)]][reply]

Man United & the FA Cup[edit]

I don't recall Man United "insisting" on missing out on defending the FA Cup in 2000 at all, nor do I recall the FA being at all "reluctant" that they should do so. If anything, the positions were reversed--the FA was desperate for United to go to Brazil because it seemed to have decided that that would be the only criterion FIFA would use to decide the location of the 2006 World Cup, whereas United would have much rather played in the FA Cup, a competition that actually meant something to its players and supporters. As it stands, the statement in the article seems pretty unjustified, and could be mistaken as just a chance to take a cheap shot at Manchester United. Binabik80 01:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. About the situation itself, I remember it clearly. It's as you said yourself: the then new competition meant nothing to Manchester United (its players, management, supporters, etc.), and they made a point of making it perfectly clear that they did not want to be there, playing that tournament. It was a pathetic display, I'm sorry to say. If (hopefully) this new Club tournament does take off and become prestiged over the years, Manchester United's attitude (and their performance) in the first edition ever of it is likely to become a stain in their history: it would be like a country that might have declined to participate in the 1930 FIFA World Cup — or, more accurately, played poorly on purpose, out of spite — simply because that was an "unimportant" competition that FIFA had put together for whatever reason. I mean, who doesn't want a FIFA-approved World Club Championship, a "version" of the World Cup for clubs?? They'd have to start at some point. I really can't phantom why Manchester United was so aggravated for having to play it. And since they were by far the best club in the world then, one might say that they handed the honor of being the first ever champ to Corinthians on a silver plater. In my humble opinion, "harsh" words about their attitude there are nothing but deserved, sorry. Regards, Redux 03:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Table added, pages separated[edit]

I have added a table for the champions from 2000 on. I've also made different pages from 2000 and 2005 competitions. Regards to all --Mrzero 06:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What about including Championships...[edit]

What about including Championships by team, country and confederation of the Intercontinental Cup?

Regards, FTota 19:24, 20 Dez 2005 (UTC)

There is an specific article for that -> Intercontinental Cup

It's not enough, Milan has 4 titles including Intercontinental Cup and Club Word Cup, which is the most in all clubs. However, as it splited into 2 items, this point cannot be seen anymore.BeijingCup (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree since intercontinental cup winners are officially recognised by FIFA as world champions!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.73.195 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Club logos removal[edit]

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)[reply]

See User_talk:Mrzero#Fair use. ed g2s • talk 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next championship?[edit]

Has anyone got any details as to when the next one will be or even if there will be one? --iamajpeg 14:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In December in Japan as usual. See Fifa Page.--tequendamia 17:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change 2006[edit]

The next tournament will be: "FIFA Club World Cup 2006" in Japan. It is not contest annually in Japan, will be different hosts starting in 2007. A club from the host country will play too.201.52.221.64 18:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we change the topic title to "FIFA Club World Cup" instead of the current "FIFA Club World Championship" ?

I moved this page to its new title. For discussion, go to Talk:FIFA#Rebranding_of_championships. --Gabbec 06:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthians Title[edit]

Didnt the FIFA cancelled the Corinthians title? I am from Brazil and I heard in the press that FIFA cancelled the title... so.. is that true? and.. if it is.. why is the Corinthians there? --Manny 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard such thing. Check fifa.com. —Lesfer (talk/@) 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My e-mail to the FIFA media: "The World Cup of 2000 Club Winer isnt Boca Juniors (Argentina)? In my humble opinion I think this a big mistake that can only confuse everybody including the FIFA website visitors." FIFA media answer: "Thank you for the e-mail enquiry you have sent to media@fifa.org."

Corinthians: not won any international competition... but was able to compete in a WC??? Another one: participants were champions of different seasons, 98 and 99, so which season we are talking about in this world cup? --Lucio Garcia 02:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia (talk • contribs)

Every FIFA Club World Cup has a team representing the Host country (I know theres exceptions, but as the first official Club World Cup, problems are expected). Corinthians in 2000 won the brazilian top league, such as Al-Ahli (2009), Al-Wahda (2010), Kashiwa Reysol (2011), Sanfrecce Hiroshima (2012), and go on... Theres worst examples than Corinthians, such Adelaide United (2009), that goes to FIFA Club World Cup being the Runners Up, winning no championship on this year (nor international, nor local). Titoncioalk to me 02:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Draw[edit]

I checked the FIFA website. They have not posted the draw. When did they do the draw?

Well, sir, from what I see, only CONCACAF has qualified anybody. Namely Club America from Mexico. I had thought I had heard Auckland City had qualified as well, but I think that's just somebody assuming that will hold true, as Australia has bolted to the Asian confederation, leaving New Zealand the strongest domestic league in Oceania. So, not sure about the draw. I just skimmed the CWC website. Hasn't happened yet though.--Coryma 02:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Ball 2000[edit]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2000/club_championship/news/2000/01/15/edilson_mvp/index.html Falarcomsaopedro 07:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Champions table's layout[edit]

Gethomas3 (talk · contribs) keeps changing the Champions table's layout to this version, without discussing it first. The current table layout looks much better and very clean to me, and there is no need to list the host country in a separate field if it is already listed in the venues area of the table. So, what do the other users think? Which Champions table's layout is better? --Carioca 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current table looks pretty good to me. I see no reason for changing it, and yet: changing it for a worse version IMHO. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Shoes?[edit]

Is that Golden Shoes still exists? According FIFA Official website, i did not see any Golden Shoes awarded since 2005 [1][2][3], so this mean it is violate Wikipedia:No original research. It should be remove away. --Aleenf1 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only juventus?[edit]

It says Juventus is the only club to have won all the cups they could win, including the intertoto, and not ajax,while ajax won them all aswell, they even won the first intertoto cup held. But it's nowhere said on the page..

What ou on about? Ajax and Juvents have not won the Club World Cup, so they have never won all the competitions they could have won have they? Druryfire (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've both won the Intercontinental Cup.  Omg †  osh  02:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fake 2011 edition[edit]

Hello. I want to make an alert about IP editions at 2011 FIFA Club World Cup. There is no evidence about the torunament return to Japan after UAE signature contract with FIFA to organize the FIFA Club World Cup. Please check it out and avoid vandalism. If I'm wrong my apologize. I think Wikipedia is not a primary source. Furthermore, the sources by the IP are used out of context.--Futbolero (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page you talk about does have sources, and the sources do say that in 2011 and 2012 the tournament will be played in Japan. Druryfire (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trophy Photo. Update.[edit]

Since 2006 the trophy is not as pictured. Please update, if possible. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.60.99.232 (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iv'e changed the location of the two cups, now its fixed to show the current in the infobox.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Info on interconti cup and copa rio[edit]

Nice additions there, but are those not a bit too long in the article about the fifa club world cup? -Koppapa (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent flood info about previous FCWC tournaments[edit]

i don't understand, why the user called God Football flooded the page with non-sense information just now? this article is about FCWC, not previous tournaments, there are specific articles for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AphexT4 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nonsense information but background information to the creation of the tournament. But it is too long in this article i guess. The section about the Copa Interamericana is twice or three times longer in this article than in its own article. I wrote the editor to join the discussion. -Koppapa (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles, like the Copa Interamericana, have had any real work done on them so anything would be longer than that. The only one that really deserved a good three sections of its own was the Intercontinental Cup. The rest were just good enough for one each. The first section of the first few intercontinental tournaments is a tad longer but it contained three different international club competitions. Since it was the genesis of the FCWC, none of them were really long-standing tournaments. That is why I just combined them. God Football (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA states that the only Cup World Cup predecessor is the Intercontinental Cup (FIFA Club World Cup Statistical Kit 2012, p. 12), therefore, information on the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asian Cup is useless.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.

"The idea of identifying the best club side in the world by staging a world championship was first raised at the end of the 1950s. In the post-war era, sport was once again helping to heal wounds and bring about reconciliation among people. Back then, the world of football was dominated by Europe and South America, whose teams thrilled fans with their contrasting styles of play. Brazil had won the FIFA World Cup™ in Europe for the first and so far only time in 1958. In Europe and South America, two continental club championships had been created: the European Champion Clubs’ Cup and the Copa Libertadores. And so it was only natural that the “World Championship” be contested by the winners of these two competitions. Santiago Bernabéu, Real Madrid’s legendary president, was the man who proposed that the premier club be decided by a match held over two legs. In the ensuing period, the competition experienced a number of ups of down. It appeared to be coming to an end in the mid-1970s until it was “rescued” by Japan, who breathed new life into the encounter in 1980 by turning it into a single game on neutral territory, originally in Tokyo and more recently in Yokohama. As the Toyota Cup, the contest regained the respect of the international football family. But football has come a long way since the intercontinental challenge was first launched. All the confederations stage a continental club championship, but for many years they were denied access to a top event at world level. For FIFA, who in 1954 had declined to take part in the organisation of a cup competition for European clubs, this was reason enough to get involved at club level by staging the inaugural FIFA Club World Championship TOYOTA Cup in Brazil in 2000"

— FIFA Activity Report 2005, Official Publication of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, p.62

DtP.

Apparently, you are coming to the conclusions you want. FIFA is clear that UEFA and CONMEBOL wanted it to appear as a world championship; I had several links clearly stating why FIFA told the confederations that is wasn't so but you conveniently removed them (which I restored). Plus, just a couple of days ago, FIFA, once again, confirmed the IC to be no more than a glorified friendly. Have a look.
The IC was NOT the only tournament contested between two confederations. The IA and the AA were also other versions of the IC. The first as a result of CONCACAF being denied entry into the IC; the second was simply to emulate the IC.God Football (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, Your only "FIFA source" is that statement in 2000 when the Club World Cup was held two months after, at the time, last Intercontinental Cup and I remember You that the tournament, since 2005, is the result of the merger of the Intercontinental Cup with the pilot edition of the Club World Cup (p. 16), everything else is taken from newspapers that contradict each other, starting with your bible Mundo Deportivo says that the Intercontinental Cup was "friendly" but the Toyota, "official" being the same competition. Your link indicates the Intercontinental Cup was not "official FIFA event" and that means, sir, FIFA competition (like neither confederation competition nor national competition it is), in no case, that not indicates that the Intercontinental Cup not "official event" because FIFA does not have any legal/sportive authority to intervene or disqualify an official tournament (p. 112) organized by UEFA / CONMEBOL, who, incidentally, have the power to organise official club tournaments for over half a century. And finally, I noted that the honorary recognition was de facto, not de jure (that is conferred by FIFA) and this was noted in the FIFA Report 2005, official document, exposed here. For the other tournaments, FIFA states literally that the only FCWC predecessor's was the Intercontinental Cup, therefore, references to the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asiatic are simply useless.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it came from one or 299 links, "in principle" FIFA clearly stated that the IC was not a world championship and gave a reason (a very valid one at that). The links of "Mundo Deportivo" are very clear and you are merely not reading them right. FIFA clearly stated in 1960 that the winners be named, "IC winners", or FIFA would regard the tournament as a mere friendly. Toyota took over in 1980 and it changed the competition (that is very obvious from any point of view). As far as the Sevilla link, anyone would know that Boca Juniors tried to relaunch the IC as a match between the continental super cup winners. That obviously didn't happen and your article makes it clear. "De facto" does not mean official.
The Toyota Cup was merged with the FCWC, not the IC. That is why Toyota is still the presenting partner, the most unique of all sponsors. The IA and AA competitions were created as alternates to the IC since there were many opponents to a CWC. God Football (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, Toyota Cup and Intercontinental Cup were the same competition being organised by the same goberning body (UEFA/CONMEBOL) and FIFA is clearly of that when indicates that its tournament predecessor was held in 1960 and not 20 years later. Y Why "for FIFA was a friendly" while by it organiser was clearly official? Sorry, but define that Intercontinental Cup as "friendly" is as ridiculous as claiming that UEFA does not recognise the Club World Cup for due statistically is zero for the Confederation (and, incidentally, is a very valid statement because FIFA not make club records but each Confederation) for not said how is considered this mega-event outside South America...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.D. 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...
The only thing that link stated is that FIFA had no say in IFFHS's club rankings and that the rankings of clubs is not FIFA's responsibility. That has nothing to do with organizing a FCWC. The Toyota Cup, although carrying the old IC trophy, was a different competition as it was: sponsored by a Japanese company and, thus, played solely in Japan, it was one match instead of a home-and-away leg, and it removed responsibility of organization from UEFA and CONMEBOL. Don't mix apples and oranges. Plus, that UEFA link has info that contradicts official reports from CONMEBOL such as the creation of the Copa Libertdadores.
Again...stop deliberately mixing apples and oranges. The FIFA World Cup has been the same since 1930. The original trophy was won outright by Brazil due to a stipulation from the very get go. The only thing that happend between 1970 and 1974 was that a new trophy was created to replace the one won by Brazil. God Football (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were the same competition held by UEFA / CONMEBOL during 44 years since 1960 to 2004, so, official UEFA / CONMEBOL competition.



--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which link states that? As I mentioned, the UEFA link has information that is either fabricated or outright wrong and I have the sources to prove it. God Football (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand for stop this nonsense, UEFA.com (UEFA Official Media) provides "misinformation" and therefore is not reliable source like FIFA official website that literally indicates that there are 28 clubs named "world champions" (not 7), while a newspaper as "Mundo Deportivo" that says the Intercontinental Cup is "worthless" and, instead, the Toyota Cup "is recognized by FIFA" (so indicates a 1980 edition available in one of the many links bring by you, estimated ex IP, "soccer historian" or whatever your name) "is 1000% accurate", everything other than the Club World Cup is "unofficial" by FIFA (i.e. the 90 goals of Messi this year are an invention of the press only disgusting because 0 is given at FCWC), the Intercontinental Cup is "unofficial" whatever that UEFA and CONMEBOL's included in the honours list and records of the clubs / coaches / footballers winners and Toyota Cup, a tournament "completely different", is nothing more "than a commercial tournament" as the Emirates Cup or the Audi Cup held during the pre-seasons, right? I read about how hilarious is your "answer"...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that FIFA is at the top of the pecking order so FIFA should be taken at value over UEFA. Never mind that the link is actually an archive that doesn't exist in UEFA's proper website.God Football (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: the FIFA statutes prohibit the body from taking powers that belong to the Confederations (and vice versa) and as the Intercontinental Cup was not organised by it but by two FIFA Confederations has nothing to do even if it is raised in the future (thing that surprised given the interest of European football by Oceanic teams et al). And whether all, the Intercontinental Cup is an official inter-confederation competition like it or not.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Explanation needed[edit]

God Football needs to explain why removal of his attempt to add vast extraneous pieces of history, which has not gained consensus and has also been criticised at WT:FOOTY, is described as vandalism. Either that, or he needs to retract that accusation and accept consensus that detailed histories of other tournaments is not relevant here. He also needs to explain why he believes that anyone would enter the word club while looking for information about the World Cup. Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GF has edited this talk page since this request for him to justify his edits has been in place, and yet has ignored this. Let the reader make of that what he will. Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And again, he has interpreted removal of material for which there is no consensus as vandalism. Kevin McE (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not only irrelevant information as cite the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asian Championship, competitions which have nothing to do with this tournament, but false information as define "unofficial" the Intercontinental Cup and "commercial tournament" the Toyota Cup, plus split when are the same competition according all official Confederation documents about that. Also, The FIFA Club World Cup has only existed for twelve years, and the length of the history section should reflect that.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving the content to Football Club World Championship (and sections to its relevant tournament articles)? To me it was well sourced content.-Koppapa (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support any such move. The content can go in the individual articles about each of the previous "world club championships", but it shouldn't be collated into a single article, and especially not this article. No one is denying that the information was well sourced and true, but it was badly placed in this article. – PeeJay 16:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have warned GF for 3RR at this article. He needs to use the talk page to gain consensus for the changes he wants to make, though there appears no support at all. GiantSnowman 16:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what all the cryout is about. I support Koppapa's view above. If the content can go into individual articles, then at least there should be a wikilink on this page to each one of these individual articles. I don't think such a link currently exists on the page, and all the correct and well researched and well sourced information is just getting thrown by the wayside, it looks to me me? Thanks, warshytalk 17:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but neither the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asian Cup were "world club championships", even nominally, nor had any relation to the FIFA Club World Championship/Club World Cup (Interamerican Cup was abolished in 1998 when some teams in the CONCACAF were invited to participate in tournaments Copa CONMEBOL and Afro-Asian Cup, due to conflict between CAF and AFC, in 2000), so claim otherwise is simply original research against Wikipedia rules. In FIFA official documents like this (cf. p. 12) Intercontinental Cup is marked as only predecessor of the tournament (and, just in case, I'm not saying "they are the same tournament", I'm referring to "predecessor" and UEFA, CONMEBOL and FIFA's respective press releases explicitly noted that the Intercontinental Cup was to be abolished because it would be replaced by the FIFA Club World Cup). Now, if the idea is to create an article to indicate the evolution of "the idea of ​​a club world competition" prior the FIFA Club World Championship/Club World Cup, these should include only Lipton Trophy, Rio Cup, Pequeña Copa del Mundo and the Intercontinental Cup, since the latter was often referred even more than the other to as "world club championship" (see photo details).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe that was very clearly the intention of all the material compiled and added here by GF. And in general, I believe it was good and truthful material, that was now simply thrown out. I don't think that just throwing out all that work the way it was done benefits WP at all. Now, we can debate all the details and edit the material as much as we want, but simply throwing it out the way it was done so far, is rather harmful to the football information contained in WP at this time, in my view. warshytalk 23:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless[edit]

... i now saved the contents of the most complet eversion from here in their respective tournament articles. 1, 2, 3 -Koppapa (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected[edit]

I have fully protected the page as it appeared when I became involved (this revision). If you wish to make uncontroversial edits you may request an administrator perform them by starting a new section on this talk page explaining the edit and an administrator will perform it. I will check this page whenever I'm online and include any edit requests or you can use the {{Edit protected}} template to attract other administrators' attention.

The page was protected because I feel that there should be more discussion rather than just the one line comments in edit summaries. If I am interpreting this correctly, God Football wishes to add information about leagues that existed prior to FIFA that provide context for the history of a "world cup" (whatever definition you go by). Others think that this information, while truthful and well sourced, is not appropriate for this page. Is this an accurate summary of the dispute? James086Talk 13:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • God Football is showing OWNERship issues and is refusing to abide by BRD or 3RR - in fact I blocked him for 3RR violations here. He has no consensus for his proposed edits, and in fact there is plenty of opposition. GiantSnowman 13:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I'll unprotect and just leave him a message on his talk page. It does seem that consensus exists not to include the information. I'll keep this page watched to see how the discussion continues. James086Talk 13:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary above is correct: "God Football wishes to add information about leagues that existed prior to FIFA that provide context for the history of a "world cup" (whatever definition you go by)." The material is all good and important, the questions now are how to add it, and where to add it. I think a history like that could go here in this page, but if the consensus is to create a different page for the history of the matter, that is also OK. One way or the other, this important and accurate material for the history of the sport and the competition should not just be thrown out and go to waste, imo. warshytalk 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be forgetting that this article is about the FIFA Club World Cup, not any of its predecessors, none of which are actual precursors to the current tournament. Like I say, by all means mention that attempts have been made to have worldwide club tournaments in the past, but we definitely do not need a summary of every single edition of every precursor competition, as God Football seemed to be adding. – PeeJay 19:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: I actually disagree with you. The other competitions were actually precursors to FIFA establishing a CWC under its sponsorhip in 2000. Without all these precursors, and especially the Toyota Cup, FIFA would not have reached the international/global format that is currently used. And, as I said, one way or the other, the information is good and important for the history of the sport (Football), and for the history of the competition (CWC as opposed to just the national World Cup). warshytalk 20:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not precursors as they do not share a common history. Would you expect to see a history of the Football League Championship in the article about the Premier League? Of course not; so why would you expect to see histories of competitions like the Intercontinental Cup included in an article about the FIFA Club World Cup? – PeeJay 20:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some are and some are not. The Toyota Cup, as I said, is definitely a precursor. And in any case, those that are not direct precursors, such as maybe the Intercontinental Cup, would still have a place in WP, granted there was link from here that linked to them. As I have been trying to say since yesterday, all the info compiled by GF should not be simply thrown out. Some of it may belong to different pages, granted there is a link from here to these pages. But now, as the info was just thrown out, all the work will have to be redone, sometime... warshytalk 20:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, they are all predecessors to the FCWC, but in this article, they do not deserve the level of detail God Football has given them. It seems you and I are coming to the same conclusion but from different angles. In the meantime, the article should remain as it is, and any relevant information can be retrieved from the edit history. Whether that information is restored to this article (some of which I would support, don't get me wrong) or to the various other articles about the precursor tournaments will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. – PeeJay 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think we agree on the overall picture. It is just a matter of going through the details of each competition, which is work that will have to be done sometime, I don't know if with GF participation or not. That will depend on him, I guess... Thanks. warshytalk 21:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only Club World Cup's predecessor was the Intercontinental Cup (also called "Toyota Cup" by FIFA due its format's change and location) according to UEFA, CONMEBOL and FIFA official press notes annuncing the elimination of competition in favor of the 2nd edition of the FIFA Club World Cup. Include tournaments that have nothing to do is an original research vetoed by Wikipedia rules.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the material compiled by GF on the history of international football competitions is based on reliable secondary sources. Anything based on reliable secondary sources is not original research. It is just a matter of going through it and verifying that all assertions are backed up by reliable sources. This is work that will have to be done in any case, and GF seems to have a good sense of the sources, if he comes back... But there is no point in arguing about general policies at this point; each specific assertion can be discussed and verified later, when the work of incorpotating his material back into WP is done. warshytalk 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the published sources presented by God Football presents Afro-Asian Cup and/or Interamerican Cup as predecessors of the Club World Cup or a projects of the idea of make a tournament which can be defined the best team in the world (that makes FIFA in its official documents with the Intercontinental Cup). About those tournaments, no reputable source supports God Football's theory and, at most, explain that those tournaments were created from the initial success of the Intercontinental Cup in the first half of the 1960s, so these competitions have cause-effect relationship with Intercontinental Cup, but not with the Club World Cup, that's what I mean by "original research". Also, its false say that the Intercontinental Cup was "unofficial" because the tournament was created with official value by UEFA and CONMEBOL and, for that, it is officialy recognised by FIFA and is also false present Intercontinental Cup and Toyota Cup as different competitions when really that are the same as the European Cup and Champions League are the same cup.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerily, I have investigated users like Kevin and PeeJay, as well as others close to them, and started by going back four years ago; and I decided against making a formal complaint. The more I came to 2012, the more disgusted I became. I realized now that the level of disruption, uncivility and just plain tag-teaming/ninja ganging can only be possible with administrators that not only endorses behavior like that from them but are part of it. The amount of years this has gone on for and the apparent lack of any ban is proof of that: rules and regulations are worthless when some are allowed to circumvent them out of associations. I imagine it is the same in other subjects here.

I invite everyone to come over to BigSoccerpedia. I have asked, and been given the blessing, to start a wikia based on big soccer. Here is the website: here. Just like the forum bigsoccer, it is going to count with the contributions of thousands of bigsoccer members and will feature every tournament, club, etc possible. It is non-profit, of course. For now, I am designing the wikia to be as close as possible to bigsoccer. I am already 3/4 done. I will then start exporting pages from here and inserting it there to act as the basis of bigsoccerpedia. We will go from there.

It has been plain disgusting seeing how a circle of editors have hijacked certain subjects in wikipedia and, worse, administrators have backed-them up on it. It is not worth a headache and I invite everyone to give this a try. I am currently importing templates and writing new programs to drastically improve it farther than what we have here. God Football (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited this some, more tips for improvement[edit]

Based on a request at my talk page, I've tried to do some copyediting of the text. I think I've fixed some of the awkward language and flow problems, but someone else is free to go over it again and see if it can't be made better. Also, one thing that should be fixed is that every single sentence does not need a seperate footnote; once per paragraph is sufficient unless a statement is particularly contentious or contains a direct quote. The current writing is VERY over-footnoted. Condense and move most of the footnotes to the end of paragraphs, especially where the same source or sources are used for the whole paragraph, there's really no need to cite that same source for each sentence. Having too many footnotes impedes reading, and for this reason they really should just go at the end of each paragraph, unless some statement is a direct quote, or is very contentious (and I don't see much that is that contentious). --Jayron32 13:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per a new request on my talk page, I've looked over the recent changes, and things are looking pretty good; I think there's little in the realm of copyediting I could improve myself, though I am hardly the best copyeditor in the world. Fresh eyes can always be found at WP:GOCE. One thing I will note: many of the references can (and probably should) be expanded with more bibliographic information. Most of the reference are little more than a URL-linked title and a retrieval date; where possible as much information should be included, such as authors of the sources (where known) and any information on the original publications (original print and/or web publication dates, page numbers, publisher information, etc. If you're going to make a run for FA, this sort of minutiae will be expected for the high standards of FA. --Jayron32 01:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail[edit]

The "History" section of this article is still too detailed. Why on earth do we have so much detail about the "precursor" tournaments in comparison to the history of this tournament? I concede that we should mention previous world club tournaments, but not in this much detail. I'd really like to cut it down, but I won't do it unless I get a decent number of responses here. – PeeJay 23:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This tournament just hasn't much history itself. I find the history section interesting, it is sourced and i don't think it makes the the article too long. -Koppapa (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may be interesting, but it is a violation of WP:UNDUE. When the pre-history of a tournament receives as much coverage as the actual history of a tournament, that is not giving due coverage to either part. If the information is truly interesting, it can find a place elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. – PeeJay 10:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's already a lot shorter than last year's version. You are talkng about the two paragraph above the 'Birth of the CWC', right? Ok, maybe the could be trimmed a bit further, maybe remove quotes and pictures. I just remember my above comments, where i moved the text to the respective tournament articles, so nothing should be lost. -Koppapa (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for statistical data[edit]

Although it hasn't been updated following the 2015 tournament, this document (particularly the section that starts on page 13) is very useful as a source for the statistical records from the Club World Cup. Please consider using this in future, instead of individually sourcing each player's number of appearances in the competition (for example). – PeeJay 11:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial edits[edit]

  • While it is widely regarded as the most distinguished club level trophy in South America and the rest of the world, it struggles to attract interest in most of Europe.

I strongly disagree. Most of the world regards the UEFA Champions League as the most distinguished club level trophy. You might want to bring some reliable sources for the claim, that Chinese or Australian football fans deem the FIFA Club World Cup to be a more important competition.

  • In most of Europe, and especially among the British media, it struggles to find broad media attention compared to the UEFA Champions League...

I can't find any reliable sources, which claim, that British media are even less interested than German or Dutch media.

  • ...and commonly lacks recognition as a high-ranking contest being regarded inferior at sporting level to its forerunner, the Intercontinental Cup.

I can't find any reliable sources, which compares the sporting level of the FIFA Club World Cup with the Intercontinental Cup. This source doesn't say anything about the "sporting level" of the two competitions. It just says, that European teams win more often now.

--Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP from Peru: I know that South Americans used to be crazy about the Intercontinental Club, as they are crazy about the Club World Cup now. But please believe me: these feelings aren't shared anywhere in Europe. I'm a huge football fan and follow German, Italian and English language media on a regular basis. The only time your're going to find a more detailed media coverage is, when clubs from the respective countries participate. But even then, that media coverage is dwarved by any Champions League quarter final... And yes, by googling around, you may find some remote websites, where they write about a "prestigious competition", for example here. But what exactly is cinquequotidiano.it? Some web findings don't suffice as sources for your claims.
You don't believe me? Let's have a look at the website of the Gazzetta dello Sport, the major Italian sports newspaper. You would expect a sports newspaper to provide detailed information about a enormously prestigious competition. What follows, is a complete account of all the articles on the website: Club World Cup starts, quarter-finals, 1st semi-final, 2nd semi-final, pre-final article, post-final article. That makes 6 articles for 8 matches. A Champions League final gets more than 10 articles for one match...
And let's check the Spiegel Online, the most widely read German-language news Website: semi-final, final. And that's all. Don't you think that this tells something? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A Champions League final gets more than 10 articles for one match..." just only when the local club that participates because the primary audience of the media is always local. Ask any Italian, English or German fan if they are interested in a Champions League final between Spanish teams and tell you absolutely not. As the Club World Cup format is shorter than seasonal cups than Champions or Europa League (for European team is in fact a "2 match cup" just played in December) obviously it can not be more mediatic eco than a "13 match cup" played in the most of the season, especially for Spiegel or Gazzetta or when not playing an Italian or German team (although in 2010 Gazzetta it looked like Inter Channel about that cup). In the last 2 years the Club World Cup they won the Spanish and all the press (not only sport) took it into account.
At sporting level CWC is inferior to IC, especially due the equality existed before between the European and South American team in the IC according to Guerin Sportivo and anyone who does not see football since yesterday.--2001:1388:3:5D39:1DAD:6501:4C39:5A9E (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
""
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The Champions League Final (and no matter, if played by two Spanish teams or two German teams or whatever) is the most watched annual sports event on earth: [4], [5], [6]. The Club World Cup Final isn't even classified... Do you know why? Beacause it isn't a competition of global importance. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previously you write about writing articles and now audiences. It is nonsense to say that the World Cup is more important than the Olympic Games (whether their Olympic tournament is less than any Super Cup for the world of soccer) just because "more people see it", ignoring the overall context (sports > association football).--2001:1388:3:5D39:11C8:6079:E0B2:57A (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.D. Reasoning like you, the NBA and the English Premier League does not appear in the ratings, ergo, are simply provincial tournaments...
Look, your article version stated: [The FIFA Club World Cup] is widely regarded as the most distinguished club level trophy in South America and the rest of the world. You know very very well, that this is not the case. If it was the most distinguished club level trophy, you would expect billions of people from all over the world to watch the final every year. And that is simply not the case. The world's interest in the Club World Cup final is literally dwarved by the global audience of the Champions League final. I don't say that this is justified or not, I'm just reporting the facts as they are.
When Bayern Munich played the final in 2013, the game was for its first time (and last time) publicly broadcasted in Germany and watched by only 1,78 million viewers (source). Bayern's Champions League final against Borussia Dortmund in the same year was followed by 21,61 million Germans (source). Inter's performance in the final of the Club World Cup's 2010 edition was watched by only 700,000 Italians (source), Inter's Champions League final against Bayern, however, by 11,500,000 viewers (source). So, c'mon, please forget about Europe. Europe's interest in that competition is very limited.
As to the rest of the world: When you write something like "widely regarded as the most distinguished club level trophy in the rest of the world", you need an extremely good source for that claim. I already told you, that the Champions League final is the most watched annual sports event on earth. How could that be possible, if Asia or Africa regarded the Club World Cup as superior? I can only repeat: you need a extremely good source for such a far-reaching claim. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to Mai-Sachme. Not even in South America the Club World Cup is regarded that much. If you use 2012 as a parameter, when Corinthians was in both finals, the same Brazilian TV broadcaster (Rede Globo) had 47 audience points in the Libertadores final, and only 35 in the Club World Cup final. The tournament being played in Japan, with a completely different solar time than Europe and South America, also helps to decrease its audience. FIFA doesn't seem to care that much as you're saying with this competition, if they were concerned about this they would have changed the tournament's format before. MYS77 ✉ 00:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding share: in Brazil coincided with working hour. In Italy, that Mediaset source claims that the number of Italians who viewed Club World Cup 2010 was "good", especially considering that:
1. The European's opposite team was the Congo's Mazembe, unknown to the Italiano medio because nobody cares African football. The story was different in 2007 when played Boca Jrs., a team that Italians know well as Maradona's former team.
2. In Italy was Friday afternoon when that match was played, coincided with working hour. In Italy the share usually drops when a game is played during work time as confirmed the Coppa Italia, which is supposedly a "major" tournament (but Italians do not see it that way). Any Italian will tell you that winning the Club World Cup is more importants that win the national cup.
3. You can not compare the final of this tournament with the Champions League (or the Europa League) final through the share because, unlike FIFA, UEFA "sells" that match from the moment they announced the venue, being played on Saturday's afternoon (coincident with the time in Italy).
Repeat, reasoning like you, as the NBA and the English Premier League (and add SuperRugby) does not appear in the ratings, are simply provincial tournaments...--190.235.25.73 (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 2010 final wasn't played on "Friday afternoon", the match took place on a Saturday and started at 6 o'clock (CET). Nevertheless, it was watched by only 700,000 Italians. The kick-off of the 2009 Supercoppa Italia in Beijing (certainly a minor trophy...) was at 2 o'clock in the afternoon (always Central European Time) and attracted more than 4 million viewers (source). Tells something, doesn't it?
Nobody tries to describe the Club World Cup as a provincial trophy. The current article just says that it struggles to attract interest in most of Europe. Do you deny that? Yes? No? If your answer is no, what are we talking about? And where are the reliable sources, which call the Club World Cup "the most distinguished club level trophy in the rest of the world"? I haven't seen them so far. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claims on the Tournoi de Paris[edit]

Hello, I read the linked sources on the Tournoi de Paris, and they do not support 2 of the claims written in the article:
1- The Tournoi de Paris was a competition initially meant to bring together the top teams from Europe and South America to determine a de facto "best club in the world;
2- Afterwards, Real Madrid secluded themselves from the competition and argued that it should be seen as a friendly tournament from then on.

El cazador (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

It is a widely know fact that the tournament has different importance across the world. The difference is well source in the "Reception" section so why not have a sentence about it in the lead, as lead is summary of the article? Qed237 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my opinion. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FIFA Club 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on FIFA Club 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titles merge with Intercontintal Cup[edit]

FIFA has ruled today that all titles won between 1960-2004 can be considered as "World Champions": here Spanish

Should these be merged?--Fernando (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two competitions were organised by two different organisations, better keep it separated. The honor is another thing. Matthew_hk tc 06:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support a merge. They are very different competitions. Number 57 09:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Approve to merge. FIFA is about to expand the current FIFA Club World Cup tournament. The champion will be recognized as "the club world champion", so it should be merged together with past club world champions, or it will cause a confusion among club world champions in the future with the club world champions in the past, who have been recognized by FIFA. Cristianferix (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does that even mean? An expansion of the Club World Cup has no bearing on the status of the Intercontinental Cup in its history. The Intercontinental Cup was an entirely separate competition that briefly ran concurrently with the Club World Cup, and even if FIFA says Intercontinental Cup winners can be considered world champions, that doesn't mean Ajax won the Club World Cup in 1995. – PeeJay 16:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a merge. They are two different competitions, with different organisers, different scope, and were even running concurrently at one point. FIFA have only given retrospective recognition to the Intercontinental Cup as a world championship, they haven't claimed it was the same competition as theirs. Jellyman (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a merge. For the same reasons presented bt Jellyman. FIFA may have now regarded them as being of equal worth or status, but still they are different competitions, with different organisers and history. El cazador (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For reasons above. Different competitions. From what I remember they are pretty well referred to one another already, but if any more needs done there, it should be in case anyone is unaware of the other tournament. But not merge. Crowsus (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

approve marge, FIFA Council decided from 1960 to 2004 World Club Championship. The only exception is 2000 experimental Brazilian cup which was held by invitation as Copa Libertadores Winner didn't play the tournament.Mei5535 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019-2020 'Most likely' will be held in China[edit]

The last two editions (2019-2020) before the possible upcoming expansion in 2021 are 'most likely' to be held in China, according to https://tribune.com.pk/story/1759215/3-2019-fifa-club-world-cup-big-chance-held-china-infantino-told-jack-ma/, I think you should create new pages for the 2019-2020 editions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.222.50.1 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 titles more successful than 5??[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if Barcelona have their 5th title, how TF are Madrid, with 4 titles, more successful? I've updated the infobox based on this error, but if you have a correction for me, you may leave me a message on my talk page, given that you provide me with a reliable source. Anyway, I'm done writing now. Have a great rest of your day. GOLDIEM J (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was vandalism. Barcelona have 3 titles. -Koppapa (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Official Fifa decision ends debate[edit]

From 1960 to 2004 all International Cup winners are World Champion (equivalent to 2005 first Fifa Organized FIfa Club World Cup).

Boca Juniors - champion 2000 Manchester United - Champion 1999 etc...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5024793/Manchester-United-two-time-world-club-champions.html https://ge.globo.com/futebol/futebol-internacional/noticia/fifa-reconhece-titulos-mundiais-de-flamengo-gremio-santos-e-sao-paulo.ghtml https://www.conmebol.com/noticias/fifa-acepta-propuesta-de-conembol-de-reconocer-titulos-de-copa-intercontinental-como-mundiales-de/

It is official by FIFA that before 1960 no Fifa Club Word Cup was ever held. And that from 1960 to 2004 all winners are considered world champion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mei5535 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are recognized as "world champions", but not the winners of this specific competition which started in 2000, the sources are clear (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), do not mix apples and pears and interpret the sources in your own way, FIFA just recognised those former competitions, hosted by Conmebol/UEFA, as official which they previously didnt recognize, but this doesnt mean that they are "FIFA Club World Cup" winners. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that this was already proposed above in 2017 and clearly opposed. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This competition didn't start in 2000. The sources are clear: 2000 Brazil Tournament was an experimental tournament which didn't include Libertadores champion and neither UEFA Champion. 1999–2000 UEFA Champions League: Real Madrid winner

2000 Libertadores Championship: Boca Juniors winner On 28 November 2000, Real Madrid played against Boca in Tokyo and Boca Juniors won 2x1. Since Fifa officially award Boca Juniors World Club Champion in 2000, there is no "new" World Championship tornament. Document[1] Fifa soccer council officially declared 1960 to 2004 World Club Champion [2] Mei5535 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of official sources, not website layout, signed documents goes: Fifa council approved all winners from 1964 to 2004 World Champion. Latest official document confirm this. First year 2000 tournament was experimental as it did not include Libertadores Champion and was decided in a match of a brazilian club vs brazilian club

From 1960 to 2021 all matches were played by Europe UEFA champion vs COPA Libertadores champion. In the year 2000, the match was played by Real Madrid vs Boca Juniors in Japan. [3] Mei5535 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats your interpretation of sources, and again - being recognised as "world champion" is NOT the same as being the winner of the competition known as the "FIFA Club World Cup", I literally provided you five highly reliable sources above which confirms that the table in the article is 100% correct (and can provide literally dozens of extra sources from media which would confirm this), if you will simply delete entire table again without establishing consensus (which was already established above in 2017 anyway - five votes against merge and none supports) you might get blocked from editing. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we have List of world champion football clubs for that. -Koppapa (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://exame.com/casual/fifa-reconhece-titulos-mundiais-de-clubes-a-partir-de-1960/
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/agdws/status/923846229922123776
  3. ^ https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/2d5d33a48d2c98ce/original/mkbo3nwk4btahl9gwtwl-pdf.pdf

Future FIFA Club World Cup (China) - Merger Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was… Merge.

The merger proposal… I propose merging Future FIFA Club World Cup (China) into this article. All of the information in the Future Club World Cup page is based on plans from several years ago which appear to be dead in the water per NYTimes https://nytimes.com/2022/05/05/sports/soccer/sounders-club-world-cup.html . There's so little actual information about this that it doesn't warrant its own article. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

add[edit]

I believe it should be added to the article. Give a reason if you disagree. The third and fourth games have been held in all periods.

Medals (2001–2022)[edit]

RankNationGoldSilverBronzeTotal
1 Spain (ESP)8109
2 Brazil (BRA)45312
3 England (ENG)3205
4 Germany (GER)2002
 Italy (ITA)2002
6 Argentina (ARG)0415
7 Mexico (MEX)0145
8 Japan (JPN)0134
9 DR Congo (COD)0101
 Ecuador (ECU)0101
 Morocco (MAR)0101
 Saudi Arabia (KSA)0101
 United Arab Emirates (UAE)0101
14 Egypt (EGY)0033
15 Colombia (COL)0011
 Costa Rica (CRC)0011
 New Zealand (NZL)0011
 Qatar (QAT)0011
 South Korea (KOR)0011
Totals (19 entries)19191957
Those are not the Olympic Games so we won't use this medals tables because they are not meant for club football competitions, the countries doesn't receive any kind of medal for the participation, only the clubs. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This table shows how many medals the clubs of each country have won. Instead of the table of medals, the title can be written as the performance of the countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHcc20 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a completely misleading table. – PeeJay 13:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fifa does recognize 1960 to 2004 as valid "Club World Cup"[edit]

The decision was made official at a FIFA Council meeting on October 27, 2017, in India, when president Gianni Infantino expressed his desire to create a more robust competition for the Club World Cup - which was made official in 2023 with the 2025 Super World Cup. There were 42 editions of the Intercontinental Cup - from 1960 to 2004 -, played between the champions of the Libertadores and the Champions League, with 25 different world champions. https://ge.globo.com/futebol/mundial-de-clubes/noticia/2023/12/23/fifa-nao-reconhece-os-titulos-de-mundiais-de-santos-flamengo-gremio-e-sao-paulo-checamos.ghtml

also https://twitter.com/FIFAcom/status/1338111177285640195

"It's official: FIFA recognized the Intercontinental Cups as world titles In this way, South America has a total of 13 champions between 1960 and 2004, six of them are Argentine teams: Boca (3), Independiente (2), River, Estudiantes, Racing and Vélez (1)" https://www.lanacion.com.ar/deportes/futbol/la-fifa-reconocio-las-copas-intercontinentales-como-titulos-del-mundo-nid2076625/ Kksssn (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT add more source "FIFA decided this Friday to officially recognize as champions of the Club World Cup the teams that won the Intercontinental Cup between 1960 and 2004, a group in which six Argentine teams enter, with the aim of establishing a unifying criterion between both tournaments." [1] Kksssn (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above, everything is explained, this competition did not exist before 2000, how hard it is to understand that "world titles" and "FIFA Club World Cup" are NOT the same things. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.espn.com.uy/futbol/nota/_/id/3656990/fifa-reconoce-intercontinentales-como-mundiales
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FIFA_Club_World_Cup&oldid=1214719381"