Talk:Intercontinental Cup (football)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

First comment[edit]

Enjoy. (Some small English corrections still due.) elpincha 07:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was regarded as the world club championship[edit]

Please can this unfair revisionism stop. It was not unfair to regard this as the world club championship as club football in the rest of the world outside of South America and Europe was a abysmal for most of this period. You might as well claim it is unfair to have a world cup now that does not involve Antarctica or the Moon. It is deeply unfair to Europe and South America to ignore our long history of club football before the Asians, Africans, Oceania and North American took it seriously and pretend football only started when they took an interest in it. This was world club championship. STOP IGNORING THAT HISTORY. If you do we might as well claim the first world cups were not real as they were just invitational and did not involve British sides. GET OVER IT THIS was the world club cup. Stop rewriting history. The modern one is the unfair system as it gives the Oceania and asian champions the same status as a far larger trophy in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickyoore (talkcontribs) 23:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're just saying rubish! You must live in a different world, with 2 continents only... In that case why did the world cup started with other countries than european and south american? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.83.179 (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It was the world club championship whether you like it or not. You are the one who lives on a different world. Europe and South America were THE Football powers. FIFA righly called it the world club championship stop revisionism you might as well claim the first 3 world cups were not real world cuos as they did not include british sides you are a total liar.

Redirect at Intercontinental Cup[edit]

There are close to 100 wikis that point at Intercontinental Cup, all regarding the football (soccer) competition. Intercontinental Cup should point here until most -- if not all -- of those wikis are fixed. --DR31 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

European/South American Cup or Intercontinental Cup?[edit]

What's the most common name of this tournament?

European/South American Cup or Intercontinental Cup?

I think Intercontinental Cup is pretty much common than the European/South American Cup.

Should we change the article's name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FTota (talkcontribs) 22:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To what? The name "Intercontinental Cup" isn't the exclusive preserve of football. For instance, cricket has an "Intercontinental Cup" that is still a continuing competition. This page could be moved to "Intercontinental Cup (football)" or "Intercontinental Cup (soccer)" fairly easily though, jguk 06:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
This really ought to be moved to Intercontinental Cup (football) or something similar. It was never known as the European/South American Cup during its lifetime - this seems to be revisionism on the part of UEFA. Does anybody know definitively what its name was, before it became the Toyota Cup? sjorford (?!) 08:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Before Toyota Cup, it was called Intercontinental Club Championship, or simply Intercontinental Cup. It was never referred as European/South American Cup, despite only these two continents took part on it. FTota
I know this as the world cup for teams. That's what we call it. It is the hifgest price any team can win, isn't it? Migdejong 17:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

2005[edit]

It seams that the Intercontinental Cup is not dead. For the 2005 Cup, the winner of the South American Recopa Boca Juniors would play the winner of the European Super Cup Liverpool F.C.. [1], [2]. We'll see Mariano(t/c) 09:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That information is really dated now, and there is no mention whatsoever to it at fifa.com, conmebol.com or uefa.com. girco 02:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The text say something about "World Club Championship". It's wrong. It can not be called "World Club Championship". It's not fair with clubs from Concacaf, OFC, CFA and AFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.158.213.204 (talkcontribs) 06:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you all think that São Paulo should be considered 2005's Intercontinental Champion? From 2005 on the tournament is supposed to be really replaced by World Club Championship. Otherwise, we should consider Corinthians champions in 200 also. FTota 18:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not, its a completely different cup, different format and different wikipage. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
But, look, the FIFA WCW replaced Intercontinental Cup. So, Sao Paulo FC is now know as three times world champion. Where would be the best place to have all the statistics regarding Intercontinental Cup, Toyota Cup and FIFA WCW? Remember, the format has already changed once, when they started the single match decision in Japan. It's not so simple as you wrote. FTota 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the WCW is a different competition. It is not only the format, is the name, the sponsor and the organizer. While the European/SA Cup was organized by Conmebol and UEFA, this one is by FIFA. There are even talks of redoing the European/SA Cup between the winners of the Recopa Sudamericana and the European Supercup. Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but the sponsor is the same. And the most important point is that the meaning is the same. Even FIFA considers the European/SA as World Champions, even if it wasn't organized by them. I think it should exists a page with the statistics regarding both European/SA and FIFA WCW. And if the European/SA continues existing, with the winners of Recopa Sudamericana and European Supercup, it shouldn't be considered the same competition. What do you think? FTota 13:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
So what the sponsor is the same?!?!? If two soccer teams have the same sponsor then they are the same? Is the Copa Toyota Libertadores then a subsidiary of this one? FIFA did NOT recognize the champion of the E/SA cup as World Champion. As a matter of fact, they were saying quite the opposite. This new cup has been created to eliminate this problem. Furthermore, please tell me why were both cups played in 2000 if they were one and the same? Why was the cup slated to be played (although later scrapped) in 2002? Why was the original idea to play it every 2 years?. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the European/South American Cup will (probably) continue to be played, but with a different meaning. Therefore, any statistics regarding the best club team in the world should not be here. perhaps it would be wiser to have that in the FIFA WCW article; having it here would lead not only to confusion but to equivocated information. Mariano(t/c) 13:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
See my comment above. FIFA regard 2005 Club World Championship as the direct continuation to the Intercontinental/Toyota Cup
http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/Clubworld/tournament/0,4133,CWC-2005-10,00.html
http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/Clubworld/tournament/0,4133,CWC-2005-41,00.html
The 2000 tournament edition is pretty much ruled out as it was discontinued
São Paulo FC should be credited here as 2005 Intercontinental/Toyota Cup champions
Don't you guys ever check fifa.com? girco 02:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for the rest but actually I do, and very often. If you read carefully it doesn't state that is the same thing, just says that "The second FIFA Club World Championship would build on the foundations laid by the Toyota Cup with the six continental champions participating in a knockout tournament.". Built on foundations is like saying that the Superbowl list should the AFC and NFC winners or the NBA should count ABA winners (Sorry non-US readers, couldn't think of any other suitable analogy). Is a different trophy, different competitors, different format. Just keeps the name and the venue, since even the organizers are different (FIFA vs CONMEBOL/UEFA). That "I'm better than you" attitude is not exactly conducent to Wikipedia. Just to finish, this is a quote from an old (2004) article in CONMEBOL.COM (in Spanish)

"COPA INTERCONTINENTAL Se trató la posibilidad de continuar con la disputa de la Copa Intercontinental (Europea/Sudamericana) entre un representante de Europa y uno de Sudamérica, con la siguientes modificación: la jugarían el campeón de la Supercopa Europea y el vencedor de la Copa Nissan Sudamericana de cada año. El campeón de la Libertadores, ya está estipulado, clasificará al Mundial de Clubes."

If you need Spanish translation I'd gladly help, but it makes very clear that CONMEBOL doesn't quite agree with you. Sebastian Kessel Talk 03:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes but it also states that FIFA recognize the former competition organized by CONMEBOL/UEFA, as it lists the 2005 edition winner along with the former ones. I disagree on the different trophy, different competitors, different format argument. Based on that the first editions of the World Cup should be regarded as a different tournament since they featured no African nor Asian teams, let alone the format, which has changed wildly through the years (1950 notably). By the same token, why are the UEFA Champions League winners listed along with the former European Cup winners on the respective page? Different competitors, different format and quite possibly different trophy. Also the article you quoted states the continuation of the Intercontinental Cup as such as only a "possibility", which for being a year old article and due to the overcrowded calendar in Europe, it is pretty fair to expect will not happen. Also let me quote a much newer CONMEBOL.COM article:
"Basándose una vez más en la colosal figura de Rogério Ceni, el equipo tricolor alcanzó su tercera consagración intercontinental. [...] São Paulo mantiene una efectividad total en títulos intercontinentales. Con la victoria en la final por 1-0 ante Liverpool, son cuatro los partidos disputados y ganados, teniendo en cuenta las finales de la Copa Europea/Sudamericana de 1992 y 1993 ante Barcelona de España y Milan de Italia, respectivamente, y los dos partidos de esta edición del Mundial de Clubes de FIFA, ante Al Ittihad, de Arabia Saudita por semifinal y el mencionado encuentro ante Liverpool. De esta manera, igualó el record de Peñarol y Nacional, ambos de Uruguay, y Boca Juniors de Argentina en lograr tres títulos mundiales por el lado de Sudamérica."
I think that makes obvious that CONMEBOL also see the former Intercontinental/Toyota Cup and the current FIFA Club World Championship as the same tournament. girco 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that is quite clear for all of us that, correct if I'm wrong:

  • they are different tournaments;
  • there's a strict relationship between both competitions.

So, what is the best way to unify the titles and statistics regarding both competitions? FTota 15:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it would be best to keep the statistics at the new FIFA Club World Championship article. Mariano(t/c) 15:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not unify statistics in the same fashion as for the European Cup and Champions League? The information provided here, separating the tournaments, contradicts the general consensus in the football community and competent sources like FIFA and CONMEBOL. girco 16:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Great! Any other ideas? I think this will work fine.FTota 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, keep them separate and point to each other. Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Allright, I did it. I appreciate your help. Now everything is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FTota (talkcontribs) 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon's comments[edit]

I rv'd the latest anon's comments since he removed and modified previous existing comments. Whoever posted them is welcome to re-write them here, this time without disturbing previous words. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

See User_talk:Mrzero#Fair use. ed g2stalk 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
That's YOUR interpretation which is very controversial. The CLUB LOGOS are extremely helpful in pages like that. It's an extra identification and helps to improve the quality of the article. Everyone wants to improve Wikipedia and you are always doing the opposite thing. I am Brazilian and I can't remember many teams names but when I see the logo it's much easier to identify. Sorry but your points are very weak and i'll revert your changes.

--201.44.215.240 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorting[edit]

Club names are usually sorted by their common names. Thus AC Milan is sortes as Milan, and all the Club Atletico clubs by their names and not by Club, and so forth. The reason why Milan has AC before is to avoid confusion with Internationale Milan. Please, stop changing the proper sorting. --Mariano(t/c) 13:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Crazy talk[edit]

Completely false and exaggarated; I have strong evidence (which I left at the external links section) that the IC was, in fact, financially attractive. The match generated over £50,000 (approximately £1.27 million in 2010), a record earning for any English club at the time. And on that same page, it is clear that the British tried to destroy the competition long before any of the happenings in 1969. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Points[edit]

Can someone explain how the points system worked that was used up to 1969? It doesn't seem to make much sense and I can't work it out from the scores and points for the games listed.

If an explanation already exists somewhere, can it be linked to the article. –Craigthomas1 (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Two points for a win, one each for a draw. Seems simple enough. Falastur2 Talk 23:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

More champions[edit]

I stronly suggested to add the champions of Toyota cup and Intercotinental cup to the champions list, and the most successful club would become Milan(4 times winner). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.116.143.182 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Intercontinental Cup is NOT official as a world club cup[edit]

The Intercontinental Cup may (perhaps) be official before UEFA and/or CONMEBOL, but these two entities have jurisdiction over Europe and South America, but NOT over the whole world.

Only FIFA has world jurisdiction as for soccer.

Here (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/news/newsid=660747/index.html) FIFA (the only soccer authority at world level) makes it clear that, officially for FIFA, Corinthians was the first world champion in 2000, therefore competitions prior to 2000 (such as 1960-created Intercontinental Cup) are not official FIFA events.

Since FIFA is the sole body which can officialise competitions at world level, and FIFA does not see the Intercontinental Cup as one of its official events, therefore seeing the Intercontinental Cup as a "world title" is not an officially determined fact but a matter of one's personal opinion.

On its web-site, FIFA tells its official documents (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html , http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html) apart from the other parts of its web-site, implying that the latter parts are not its official views. The only one FIFA official document to mention the Intercontinental Cup (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompcwc/01/15/71/66/fcwc2012_kit.pdf) does NOT use the word "world" to refer to the Intercontinental Cup. In this document the word "world" is limited to the FIFA Club World Cup. The Intercontinental cup is mentioned as a predecessor to the FIFA Club World Cup but is NOT mentioned as being itself a club world title.

A UEFA official document saying that FIFA did NOT authorise the Intercontinental Cup: http://pt.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Publications/01/59/87/45/1598745_DOWNLOAD.pdf

For those who read Spanish, three times on which FIFA openly referred to the Intercontinental Cup as a non-official, non-FIFA and friendly cup: http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1960/09/05/pagina-2/1384381/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental and http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1967/03/16/pagina-8/931136/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental and http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1966/07/27/pagina-6/936416/pdf.html?search=intercontinental

Here FIFA refers to the Intercontinental Cup as a symbolic world title (http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html) ;

in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Japan welcomes the world with open arms" on its web-site, FIFA writes "Brought up watching the annual Europe-South America clash, Japanese fans are counting the days to the kick off of the true world club showdown", therefore FIFA makes clear the difference between "Europe-South America clash" and "the true world club showdown" (refering to the FIFA Club World Cup).

also in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Continental champions prepare for Tokyo draw" on its web-site, FIFA writes "the Toyota Cup, which superseded the Intercontinental Cup in 1980, has been revamped by FIFA to reach out to all confederations and associations across the globe so the winners may truly be regarded as the best club side in the world", therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup truly indicates the world club champion.

(http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=99485.html)

To sum up:

1- FIFA is the only soccer official authority at world level

2- FIFA has never officialised the Intercontinental Cup as a FIFA event;

3 - FIFA has never treated the Intercontinental Cup as a world title in any of its official documents;

4- even on its non-official materials on its web-site, FIFA is very dubious when it refers to the "world value" of the Intercontinental Cup.

5- Therefore, seeing the Intercontinental Cup as a world title is not an official determination by who is legitimate on the matter: FIFA

6- Therefore, seeing the Intercontinental cup as a world title is YES a matter of personal opinion, not an official fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.6.207 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

More infos:

1- Check out the FIFA video for the draw of the 2012 FIFA Club World Cup: http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/video/video=1707121/index.html

Here, FIFA once again refers to Corinthians as the 1st club world champion; Blatter says the logical approach for FIFA is to have a competition with all 6 continental champions, implying that two-continental cups (such as Intercontinental and Interamerican Cups) are not the FIFA logical approach; when saying that Chelsea aims to be the second English club to be world champions, FIFA's Fahmy refers to Manchester United 2008 world title but DOES NOT refer to Manchester United 1999 Intercontinental title.

2- The Intercontinental Cup aimed at indicating the best of Europe+South America but NOT the best of the world. Three occasions on which the Intercontinental Cup had the chance to expand in order to cover all the world (or at least more of the world) but UEFA/CONMEBOL did not accept the expansion:

1- the 1960's, Asia and Concacaf request participation at the Intercontinental Cup and they are denied: http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1966/07/27/pagina-6/936416/pdf.html?search=intercontinental and http://pt.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Publications/01/59/87/45/1598745_DOWNLOAD.pdf

2- in april 1978, Mexican Club America beats Argentine Boca Juniors for the 1977 Interamerican Cup. Based on that achievement, Club America attempts to play the Intercontinental Cup representing the Americas, but it is denied . For those who read Spanish: http://hemeroteca.informador.com.mx .

3- Mexican teams start participating at Libertadores Cup in 1998. Mexican Cruz Azul reaches Libertadores Final in 2001, and before the final (Cruz Azul X Boca Juniors), Conmebol announces that Cruz Azul would NOT be allowed to represent Conmebol at the Toyota Cup even if Cruz Azul won Libertadores.

Facts above 2 and 3 prove that the Intercontinental Cup was not open to Mexico/Concacaf clubs even if they unquestionably beat the South American champions on the pitch. Meaning: the competition system indicated the best of Europe+South America, NOT the the best of the world.

Result:

1- the Intercontinental Cup is not officially a world title. therefore it is a matter of opinion to see it as a world title. 2- Argumentation can be put against seeing the Intercontinental cup as a world title.

When FIFA created its 2000 Club World Championship, a great many of sources worldwide regarded it as the very true first club world title, therefore NOT regarding the Intercontinental Cup as a world title: the Portuguese wikipedia article on the Intercontinental has a very large collection of links to these sources, and I will not do "copy and paste" here for so many many many sources. Check them there. Just to mention a few: even the Japanese Football Association and Toyota web-sites do NOT treat the Intercontinental cup as a World title ; even the Conmebol and UEFA web-sites do NOT treat the Intercontinental cup as a World title; even AC Milan and Internazionale (who won both Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup) do NOT equalise the two competitions on their palmares list on their web-sites; even web-sites of clubs such as Porto, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Atletico de Madrid, Estudiantes Argentina, Olimpia, Peñarol, etc, treat the Intercontinental Cup merely as Intercontinental Cup but NOT as a World title; Catalan sport newspaper El Mundo Deportivo and BBC's Tim Vickery also treat differently the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup; etc.

All these links (and many many more) are available on the Portuguese Wikipedia article on the Intercontinental Cup. Check them there and you will see that many many many people worldwide do NOT see the Intercontinental Cup as a world title.

The Portuguese Wikipedia article on the Intercontinental Cup has also Mexican, South Korean, Costa Rican and Australian sources stating that the Intercontinental Cup was NOT a world title. I think in these cases it goes without saying the reason why they do not see the Intercontinental Cup as a world title.

Therefore, Mr. Dante The Peruvian should stop writing his personal view that the Intercontinental Cup was a world title , and should stop seeing his personal view as a proven fact.

The statement that the Intercontinental Cup was a world title is a personal interpretation about it and NOT an officially FIFA-determined fact. And this has to be made clear in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.6.207 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: when I say that this statement (the statement that the Intercontinental Cup was a world title) is a personal opinion, I am not questioning how many people in the world think so or how many think differently. Perhaps Mr. Dante Peruvian thinks that everybody in the world agrees with him on the "world value" of the Intercontinental Cup; but I can assure that endless of extremely relevant sources worldwide do NOT see the Intercontinental Cup as a World title (see the Portuguese language article on the subject). The point is: FIFA (the only soccer authority officially legitimate to do so) does NOT OFFICIALLY treat the Intercontinental Cup as a Club World Cup; therefore, it is a matter of personal opinion, and consequently the article simply cannot state it purely (meaning: state it without further comments and notes) that "the Intercontinental Cup was seen as a World Title". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.6.207 (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Responding at 6 points:
1- Cite: "FIFA is the only soccer official authority at world level"
So what? FIFA NOT DECIDES about club association football due clubs are not officially affiliated to FIFA (and your Mundo Deportivo's articles said that), but to their respective national association and thus participates in national tournaments. The interclub football is the responsibility of the member associations and confederations according its own statutes (cf. also Why was UEFA created?, p.15).
Also, FIFA not just organise worldwide competitions, but competitions at intercontinental level as Confederations Cup. Although in that tournament involving all the confederations, it is an intercontinental tournament (between continents). The hierarchy of a tournament (if global or local) do not define the participants, but the organization of the tournament, is why a national tournament can be even with 2 participants as having the same format as the World Cup and no be considered a world tournament.
2- Cite: "FIFA has never officialised the Intercontinental Cup as a FIFA event;"
Who said that Intercontinental Cup (official, not "friendly competition") was "FIFA event" if the tournament was runned by UEFA and CONMEBOL? Kid, the Intercontinental Cup was an official tournament having been organised by the two most influential confederations in football history (and that is not opinion, but a fact). Here is talking about the the legitimacy of the title "world champion" assigned to the winner of the Intercontinental Cup from 1960 to 2004 and FIFA in facts recognise it. History said that Intercontinental Cup was created to define "the best club team in the world" in 1960 and initially FIFA not organised it because was forbidded of organise ANY club competition by the art. 38 of its own statute (cf. 50 years of the European Cup, p.7). As you can see, not only FIFA rejected held Intercontinental Cup, but also organise European Cup in 1955 and had refused to organize any tournament interclubs because then vetoed by it ownstatute.
3 - Cite: "FIFA has never treated the Intercontinental Cup as a world title in any of its official documents;"
In its "official documents" FIFA considers the UEFA Champions League as just a "qualifier" for the Club World Cup, but really is not it, but is an independent with rules, format and trophy itself. Furthermore, since in your MD articles, "FIFA had no relationship with the Intercontinental Cup" "[...] was not a FIFA competition", FIFA's position regarding the value of the tournament is encyclopaedically irrelevant because the value is assigned exclusively by its organisers and, at least for one of them, was clearly a world competition.
4- Cite: "even on its non-official materials on its web-site, FIFA is very dubious when it refers to the "world value" of the Intercontinental Cup." (sic.)
"Dubius", no. It is a fact and FIFA literally says it (cf. Ending a year on a high, FIFA World Magazine (FIFA official media) ed. December 2009, p.57 & p.15 of that UEFA document and items 1; 2; 7 and 10 to this FIFA official article). As I wrote before, History said that Intercontinental Cup was created in 1960 to define "the best club team in the world" and "world champion" is the only honorific title that certifies it as "champion of Europe" certifies the best of Europe and "champions of the country", the best in the country.
5- Cite: "Therefore, seeing the Intercontinental Cup as a world title is not an official determination by who is legitimate on the matter: FIFA"
and
6- Cite: "Therefore, seeing the Intercontinental cup as a world title is YES a matter of personal opinion, not an official fac" (sic.)
Kid, do not get confused: "world champion", "king of Europe", or "Home's emperor" in sports are simply honorific titles reserved for winners of some sporting achievements, but but have not no value for itselves. For example, according the regulations of the UEFA Champions League, the club winner is just recognised simply as "UEFA Champions League winner" because FIFA forbade it use the world "EUROPE" (cf. 50 years of the European Cup, p.9)—UEFA can be use exclusively for national team tournaments—as a condition for approving the tournament in 1955—and with that title is taken the official photo after the final. So, as you says, "Champion of Europe" and/or "European [club] champion" would unofficial titles because UEFA can not give that recognition to clubs, but although it, is widely accepted in ths sports community that the CL winner is "champion of Europe". In the same way it applies to the Intercontinental Cup because for that was created and therefore considered by FIFA CWC predecessor and part of the history of that competition (cf. Club World Cup: History, p.9 and cr. pp.26-28 for the Intercontinental Cup roll of honour). For that, when FC Internazionale have won the 2010 WC and Sao Paulo the 2005 WC, FIFA said in both cases that thriumphs were the clubs'"third worldwide title" (here and here).
For finish, about this link: There seems to be confusion regarding the Rio Cup case: Palmeiras wanted to recognise that tournament as "the first Club World Cup", but FIFA rejected, but the fact that FIFA recognised the Intercontinental Cup winner as world club champion (see also here). Nobody is saying they are the same competition, only that both competitions assigned the same title like English First Divition and Premier League or Serie A and the Italian football championship from 1898 to 1929.
What appears on the other Wikipedia versions is absolutely irrelevant: Wikipedia is a source of third level, therefore, does not refer to anything. And as for what the BBC et al write: the Intercontinental Cup and the Club World Cup competitions are different than assigned the same honorific title to the winning club.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is stupid. The Intercontinental Cup may not have been a de jure "world championship", but it certainly was a de facto one, as per a multitude of reliable sources. Thanks. – PeeJay 11:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Was de facto by FIFA's own inability to perform club tournaments until 2000. What happens is that IP user wants to show the Intercontinental Champion Clubs' Cup as a "friendly" / "unofficial" competition and that is completely false.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ANSWER TO MR DANTE:

The stupid argumentations by Mr. Dante the Peruvian only show he is not impartial but only a supporter of some Intercontinental-Cup-winning team that partially wants to enhance the status of the Intercontinental Cup (checking his page, I discovered he supports Juve). Let's see Mr Dante's stupid argumentations:

1- Cite: "FIFA is the only soccer official authority at world level"

So what? FIFA NOT DECIDES about club association football due clubs are not officially affiliated to FIFA (and your Mundo Deportivo's articles said that), but to their respective national association and thus participates in national tournaments. The interclub football is the responsibility of the member associations and confederations according its own statutes (cf. also Why was UEFA created?, p.15).
Also, FIFA not just organise worldwide competitions, but competitions at intercontinental level as Confederations Cup. Although in that tournament involving all the confederations, it is an intercontinental tournament (between continents). The hierarchy of a tournament (if global or local) do not define the participants, but the organization of the tournament, is why a national tournament can be even with 2 participants as having the same format as the World Cup and no be considered a world tournament.

ANSWER: :::::::: ALL RIGHT, MR DANTE PERUVIAN, you said: "FIFA NOT DECIDES about club association football due clubs" ... AND THEREFORE WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE FIFA CLUB WORLD CUP IS A MIRAGE, A MYTH, SOMETHING NON-EXISTENT .... Sincerely, Mr Dante, your argumentations deserve l.o.l.

Mr Dante also said that: "FIFA's position regarding the value of the tournament is encyclopaedically irrelevant because the value is assigned exclusively by its organisers and, at least for one of them, "was clearly a world competition."

All right, tell me, Mr Dante: since when does UEFA jurisdiction cover the world? since when does CONMEBOL jurisdiction cover the world? as far as I remember, UEFA+CONMEBOL have jurisdiction over Europe+South America, not the whole world. And when you mention, "was clearly a world competition." ... can you show an OFFICIAL UEFA and CONMEBOL document stating that the Intercontinental Cup was a world title ???? I just remember them calling the competition Intercontinental or European/South American Cups. The CBD (Brazilian FA) and the whole Brazilian, Uruguayan press treated the Rio Cup as a world title back in 1951, but everybody knows that the Brazilian FA does not have jurisdiction over the world- as UEFA and CONMEBOL neither have. According to your extremely stupid argument, Mr Dante, any institution in the world could have the right to make legitimate world competitions....

The point about the Confederations Cup ("Also, FIFA not just organise worldwide competitions, but competitions at intercontinental level as Confederations Cup.") is just a manner for Mr Dante to try to confuse in order to disguise Mr. Dante's lack of solid argumentationss... According to this view about the Confederations Cup ("Also, FIFA not just organise worldwide competitions, but competitions at intercontinental level as Confederations Cup."), we should conclude that both the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup are intercontinental events, but NOT conclude that they are world events....

Mr Dante's (once more, stupid) argumentation: "As you can see, not only FIFA rejected held Intercontinental Cup, but also organise European Cup in 1955 and had refused to organize any tournament interclubs because then vetoed by it ownstatute."

Well, if FIFA rejected so much the task of organising club competitions, why then FIFA's Stanley Rous proposed in 1967 that FIFA itself should make the Intercontinental Cup and expanded it under the auspices of FIFA to include Asia and Concacaf ???? (http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1966/07/27/pagina-6/936416/pdf.html?search=intercontinental) Well, if FIFA rejected so much the task of organising club competitions, why then the FIFA Congress proposed the FIFA Club World Cup soon in 1970 ???? (http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1969/07/25/pagina-10/966431/pdf.html?search=copa ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1970/01/08/pagina-10/954957/pdf.html?search=Copa, http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1970/01/08/pagina-13/949785/pdf.html?search=Copa) Mr Dante can't reply the facts on the El Mundo Deportivo article of 1967 and prefers to "pretend that he did not read it". By the way, here (http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1970/01/08/pagina-10/954957/pdf.html?search=Copa) says that since 1962 FIFA proposed to stage a Club World Cup. So, since 1962 it is a complete lie that FIFA always pulled itself out of club competitions.

Mr. Dante also lacks straight thougt, apparently. Many contradictions is his arguments: in some points of his talk, Mr Dante repeats time and time again that the Intercontinental Cup did not need FIFA envolvment or approval or etc because club competitions were originally precluded from the FIFA statute... on other points, he highlights how FIFA acknowledged the world value of the Intercontinental Cup. Interesting thoughts of Mr Dante: when FIFA says it was non-official as world title (meaning: official as European-South American title; but unofficial as world title), then Dante says "OK, it doesn´t need FIFA"; when FIFA says it was world title, then Dante says "it is world title and FIFA acknowledges it"...

Mr Dante´s argumentation: "6- Cite: "Therefore, seeing the Intercontinental cup as a world title is YES a matter of personal opinion, not an official fac" (sic.)"

Kid, do not get confused: "world champion", "king of Europe", or "Home's emperor" in sports are simply honorific titles reserved for winners of some sporting achievements, but but have not no value for itselves. For example, according the regulations of the UEFA Champions League, the club winner is just recognised simply as "UEFA Champions League winner" because FIFA forbade it use the world "EUROPE" (cf. 50 years of the European Cup, p.9)—UEFA can be use exclusively for national team tournaments—as a condition for approving the tournament in 1955—and with that title is taken the official photo after the final. So, as you says, "Champion of Europe" and/or "European [club] champion" would unofficial titles because UEFA can not give that recognition to clubs, but although it, is widely accepted in ths sports community that the CL winner is "champion of Europe". In the same way it applies to the Intercontinental Cup because for that was created and therefore considered by FIFA CWC predecessor and part of the history of that competition (cf. Club World Cup: History, p.9 and cr. pp.26-28 for the Intercontinental Cup roll of honour). For that, when FC Internazionale have won the 2010 WC and Sao Paulo the 2005 WC, FIFA said in both cases that thriumphs were the clubs'"third worldwide title" (here and here).

MY ANSWER: I agree ENTIRELY that: 1- the Intercontinental Cup is a predecessor to the FIFa Club World Cup ; the Intercontinental Cup is official before those legitimate on Europe+South America (UEFA & CONMEBOL) and therefore is official as European-South American title; 3- Europe and South American are ALMOST ALWAYS the best houses of soccer.

However, I say: European/South American title IS NOT world title; ALMOST ALWAYS is not ALWAYS; "predecessor to Club World Cup" IS NOT the same as the Club World Cup itself.

In Brazil, 1950-1966 we had the Rio-São Paulo tournament. Just to make a comparison: 1- the Rio-São Paulo tournament 1950-1966 was predecessor of the Brazilian championship, which was in 1967 an expasion of the Rio-São Paulo tournament; 2- the Rio-São Paulo tournament was official for both Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo state soccer associations; 3- São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are ALMOST ALWAYS the best houses of Brazil soccer... and HARDLY ANYONE in Brazil thinks that the Rio-São Paulo tournament gave any kind of "honorific" or "de facto" Brazilian title... everybody in Brazil agrees São paulo and Rio de Janeiro are almost always the best of Brazil soccer and that the Rio-São Paulo tournament is official and valid as a two-state tournament, but nobody in Brazil thinks Rio-São Paulo is a Brazil title either official or "honorific" ...

I see that when Mr Dante can't reply a fact, he omits it, but there we go again: if we consider Nacional Montevideo as world champion 1980 for beating Nottingam at Toyota Cup 1980, why wouldn't it be fair to consider Pumas UNAM Mexico as world champion for beating the very same Nacional Montevideo at Interamericana Cup 1980 soon after the Toyota Cup 1980???

I highlight that 2 times in History, non-European-non-South-American clubs proved beyond doubt on the pitch that they could beat South American clubs on the pitch, and based on that , they asked the right to compete in the Intercontinental Cup and were denied just because they were not South American :

1- in april 1978, Mexican Club America beats Argentine Boca Juniors for the 1977 Interamerican Cup. Based on that achievement, Club America attempts to play the Intercontinental Cup representing the Americas, but it is denied . For those who read Spanish, see the newspaper of April 16 1978 and the days thereafter: http://hemeroteca.informador.com.mx .

2- Mexican teams start participating at Libertadores Cup in 1998. Mexican Cruz Azul reaches Libertadores Final in 2001, and before the final match (Cruz Azul X Boca Juniors), Conmebol announces that Cruz Azul would NOT be allowed to represent Conmebol at the Toyota Cup even if Cruz Azul won Libertadores.

Also interesting that I made clear that the FIFA web-site clearly cuts its official documents from the other parts of the site, and the sole imaginable purpose of that is to make clear what are FIFA official views and what are NOT FIFA official views... Mr Dante didn't give any answer on that but he keeps mentioning texts which are NOT in the "official documents" part of the FIFA site... these texts , mentioned by Dante, are produced by FIFA News Center, a News Centre that produces texts about many subjects sometimes even texts on footballers's weddings... clearly those texts are NOT any FIFA official position. Just to mention, CONMEBOL web-site also clearly cuts its official documents and positions from the other parts of the site.

Dante, in your answer, you skipped MOST things presented by me , and showed a great despise and arrogance, for example by calling me "kid" and thinking your opinion as better than the opinion of the others, for example when you say "And as for what the BBC et al write: the Intercontinental Cup and the Club World Cup competitions are different than assigned the same honorific title to the winning club)"...once again, Dante, you say your opinion, atribute it others, BUT WITHOUT LINKS TO COMPROVE IT.

Last but not least: Dante says "What happens is that IP user wants to show the Intercontinental Champion Clubs' Cup as a "friendly" / "unofficial" competition and that is completely false.--"

Once again Mr Dante is false: I totally agree that the Intercontinental Cup is official as long as a Europe+South America title; however it is YES unofficial as long as a world title.

Your problem, Dante, is that you are somewhat unhappy cause AC Milan and Internazionale have both world and intercontinental title; while Juventus only has Intercontinental title...

Dante also said: "This discussion is stupid."

I agree talking is stupid, Dante. You are being intelectually dishonest in your talk here, Dante, so talking with you is stupid...

Dante also said: "The Intercontinental Cup may not have been a de jure "world championship", but it certainly was a de facto one, as per a multitude of reliable sources."

I agree that there are a multitude of reliable sources with this view, and I agree that a multitude of other reliable sources (AT LEAST AS MANY AS and AS RELIABLE AS) do NOT consider the Intercontinental Cup as a World title... Brazilians have researched the subject deeply and the Portuguese wikipedia has more than 300 links to the most worldwide reliable and respected sources, many of them regarding the Intercontinental Cup as world title while many of them disagreeing entirely on that... Therefore, the topic is, at least, debatable. I had suggested Dante that you might see the Portuguese wikipedia and check all these links (there are many links in English there..). However, in your opinion , as you said: "What appears on the other Wikipedia versions is absolutely irrelevant" ... Due to the things you said, Dante, it is crystal clear that you regard anything but your own opinion as irrelevant...

I will ERASE the debatable sentence from the article. If you disagree, Dante, please be kind enough to demand Moderation for our debate on this article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.13.236 (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


PS: Dante's version/edition of this article says that the Intercontinental Cup was "the most important tournament at international level in which any club could participate" ... if so, then why UEFA site calls the Champions League "FOOTBALL's premier club competition" rather than "UEFA's premier club competition" or "EUROPE's premier club competition" ???? (http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/index.html)

I will not lose my time here discussing with this Dante. He is supporter of a club (Juventus) which won Intercontinental but never won World while its biggest rivals (from Milano) won both Intercontinental and World. That's why he wants to insist in equalising the importance of the Intercontinental Cup to the Club World Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.13.236 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)




Here (http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1960/09/05/pagina-2/1384381/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental) FIFA PROHIBITS the Intercontinental Cup in 1961 unless the participants accepted the FIFA view that it was a PRIVATE & FRIENDLY tournament. Here (http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1962/11/09/pagina-3/649833/pdf.html?search=intercontinental) FIFA declares in 1962 that it wants to regulate the Intercontinental Cup. Here (http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1966/07/27/pagina-6/936416/pdf.html?search=intercontinental , http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1967/03/16/pagina-8/931136/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental) FIFA declares in 1967 that the Intercontinental Cup was a friendly tournament. Here (http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1970/01/08/pagina-10/954957/pdf.html?search=Copa , http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1970/01/08/pagina-13/949785/pdf.html?search=Copa , http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1969/07/25/pagina-10/966431/pdf.html?search=) in 1970 FIFA once more proposes THAT FIFA SHOULD REGULATE THE INTERCONTINENTAL CUP SO THAT THE INTERCONTINENTAL CUP COULD BE PLAYED AS AN OFFICIAL TOURNAMENT, and once more says that the FIFA decision to regulate the Intercontinental Cup (and turn it into a Club World Cup) dates back to as early as 1962.

So, stop saying the lie that "the Intercontinental Cup was a Club World Cup even without FIFA because FIFA did not get involved in club competitions". The Intercontinental Cup lasted 1960 through 2004 and EARLY SINCE 1961, FIFA made clear that the Intercontinental Cup was a friendly and unofficial as it was not played under FIFA auspices. (meaning, friendly and unofficial as long as a club world title)

I do not question whether or not the Intercontinental Cup was official or not for UEFA or CONMEBOL or both. However, UEFA, CONMEBOL or even UEFA+CONMEBOL do NOT have jurisdiction over soccer AT WORLD LEVEL, but at the level respectively of Europe, South America or Europe+South America. UEFA can say the Intercontinental Cup is official as a European title, OK; Conmebol can say it is official as a South American title, OK; they can jointly say it is official as a European/South American title, OK.

However, it happens that UEFA or CONMEBOL or even UEFA+CONMEBOL do NOT have any legitimacy or jurisdiction to say it is offcial AS A WORLD TITLE. This right, this jurisdiction, is entitled to FIFA only , and EARLY SINCE 1961 FIFA makes clear that only competitions under FIFA auspices are legitimate AS WORLD-LEVEL competitions.

Dante The Peruvian showed the pdf about the creation of UEFA Champions Cup. The UEFA Champions Cup was created on suggestion of French newspaper L'Equipe, the same newspaper that, EXACTLY FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE INTERCONTINENTAL CUP AS A WORLD CLUB TITLE, proposed in 1973 and 1975 that an all-continent Club World Cup should be created (see http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1968/01/06/pagina-4/989608/pdf.html?search=  ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1973/11/29/pagina-13/1002908/pdf.html?search=concacaf). This is just an EXAMPLE (among thousands of relevant reliable sources that do NOT see the Intercontinental Cup as being worth as a world title) to show Mr Dante that he can think that "everybody in the world agrees that the Intercontinental cup is worth a world title", but reality is rather different.

As a fact, the SOLE authority of soccer AT WORLD LEVEL is FIFA, and FIFA and only FIFA has the legal and “de facto” authority to “enforce” that a certain competition is a world soccer competition; and FIFA has never officialised the Intercontinental Cup AS OFFICIAL AT WORLD LEVEL (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/news/newsid=660747/index.html); therefore, it is matter of opinion to see the Intercontinental Cup as a world title or not. As an EXAMPLE, I guarantee that, after the 1980 Interamerican Cup between Pumas UNAM X Nacional Montevideo, no Mexican whatsoever would ever agree to call Nacional Montevideo as World Champion for beating Nottingam at the 1980 Toyota Cup.

In its non-official texts (produced by FIFA News Centre, which produces texts even on footballers' weddings…), FIFA recognizes that the Intercontinental Cup was WIDESPREAD SEEN BY MANY PEOPLE as a Club World Cup. However, in its very same texts (these texts were already posted above) FIFA makes clear that the Intercontinental Cup was, at most, a “symbolic, honorific, not the true” club world title. Meaning: FIFA admits that the Intercontinental Cup was SEEN BY MANY PEOPLE as a club world title but that it was never an official or a full-fledged club world title. Meaning: FIFA admits that seeing the Intercontinental Cup as a world title has always been PURELY A MATTER OF OPINION.

I will list a number of reliable sources that DO NOT mention the Intercontinental Cup as a World Title. Most of them (if not all) agree the Intercontinental Cup was the predecessor to the Club World Title, but none of them mentions the Intercontinental cup as being the same worth as the World Club title itself:

1. Toyota site: http://www.toyota-global.com/events/sports_sponsorship/soccer/cwc/activities.html

2. Japanese Football Association: http://www.jfa.or.jp/eng/history/index.html

3. UEFA & Conmebol: http://www.conmebol.com/pages/Ver_Todas_Las_Competiciones.html ; http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/eusa/history/index.html ; http://www.uefa.com/uefa/aboutuefa/organisation/history/newsid=3790.html

4. French Newspaper L’Equipe: already mentioned.

5. Spanish newspaper EL Mundo Deportivo: http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1981/03/12/pagina-19/1057196/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1981/12/14/pagina-26/1407974/pdf.html?search=Flamengo ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1992/12/15/pagina-8/1254294/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1993/12/17/pagina-56/1285533/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1983/12/10/pagina-22/1102234/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1975/04/11/pagina-3/1003541/pdf.html?search=intercontinental ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1998/12/01/pagina-17/1386746/pdf.html?search=intercontinental ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/2002/12/03/pagina-16/525917/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/2002/12/03/pagina-16/525917/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1998/12/01/pagina-17/1386746/pdf.html?search=intercontinental ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1999/10/14/pagina-39/427670/pdf.html?search=mundial ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1999/10/15/pagina-19/424083/pdf.html?search=mundial ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1999/02/02/pagina-54/416164/pdf.html?search=mundial ; http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1997/08/30/pagina-42/381368/pdf.html?search=mundial ;


7. Costa Rican Newspaper El Diario: http://wvw.nacion.com/ln_ee/1999/octubre/04/deportes5.html

8. Korean Newspaper Korean Times: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/sports/2009/12/136_56979.html , http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2010/05/136_58633.html , http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/08/211_73776.html

9. Clubs (Barcelona, Corinthians, Internacional Porto Alegre): http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/detail/card/honours-football ,


Mr Dante said: “Intercontinental Cup does not need FIFA officialization because it was made by UEFA and CONMEBOL, and at least one of them (Conmebol) sees it as official and sees it as a world title”.

However, it happens that Conmebol does NOT have jurisdiction over football at WORLD level, only at South American level. If I agreed with Mr Dante’s extremely stupid argumentation, I might for instance say that the Rio Cup 1951-1952 is a world title even without FIFA officialisation “because it was official for the Brazilian FA and the Brazilian FA saw it as a world title”; or, for another instance, I might for instance say that the Pequeña Copa del Mundo 1952-1957 is a world title even without FIFA officialisation “because it was official for the Venezuelan FA and the Venezuelan FA saw it as a world title”. This proves how stupid are Mr Dantes’s argumentations.

As about the FIFA media release (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/news/newsid=660747/index.html) on which FIFA declares that Corinthians was the very first Club World Champion: this media release refers not only to the Rio Cup 1951-1952 but also to all competitions created previous to 2000. See that the media release says: “With respect to the history of the FIFA Club World Cup and intercontinental club competitions in YEARS GONE BY, SUCH AS the Copa Rio in the 1950s, the FIFA Executive Committee endorsed the view that the first edition of this competition was held in 2000 in Brazil where Corinthians became the very first FIFA club world champions. Other tournaments are not considered official FIFA events”…. Well, “SUCH AS” indicates that the Copa Rio was given AS AN EXAMPLE, and as far as I remember, the Intercontinental Cup was created in 1960, which is certainly a “YEAR GONE BY” relative to 2000. Therefore that media release makes clear that also the Intercontinental Cup is NOT a title official at FIFA.

FIFA can recognize that SOME (OR EVEN MANY) PEOPLE AND SOURCES see the Intercontinental Cup (IC) as a Club World title, but as the competition is not official at FIFA according to FIFA itself, then FIFA simply CANNOT OFFICIALLY declare it a world title. Since FIFA does NOT OFFICIALLY declare the IC as a world title but only recognizes that some (or many) people saw it that way, then there´s no OFFICIAL FIFA position on the matter, and since there’s no OFFICIAL determination of the SOLE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY on WORLD soccer (FIFA), therefore there is NO OFFICIAL enforcement to accept the Intercontinental Cup as a WORLD club title . Therefore, seeing the IC as a WORLD title is purely a matter of opinion.

It must be pointed out that in FIFA official documents, the IC (Intercontinental Cup) is considered by FIFA as PREDECESSOR TO and PART OF THE HISTORY OF the FIFA Club World Cup, but NOT as a Club World Cup itself. On its official documents, FIFA HAS NEVER equalised the worth of the two competitions (IC and Club World Cup). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.11.171 (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Too long; didn't read. What I did read, however, I will respond to: UEFA refers to the Champions League as "football's premier club competition" because it is UEFA's competition; they obviously have an inherent bias towards preferring their own competitions. Anyway, to all intents and purposes, the Intercontinental Cup was definitely a world championship; Europe and South America were the only continents at the time that were capable of providing a team worthy of being called world champions, thus the title "world champions" was definitely applicable. – PeeJay 01:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Not only by that, but because by then the only national associations affiliated to FIFA that had direct fit to the FIFA World Cup were South American and European teams while the rest of the semiprofessional teams of the other FIFA members had to play an elimination phase against a third European or South American team or between themselves. In addition, in 1960 the only confederations competitions were the European Champions' Cup and the Copa Libertadores.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, PeeJay, as you said, you didn't read the whole thing. Had you read the whole thing, you would know that, soon after Toyota Cup 1980, its winners (Nacional Montevideo) were beaten at Interamerican Cup 1980 by Mexican side Pumas UNAM, proving false your prejudiced misconception atributing the existence of good club football only to Europeans and South Americans. The same thing had happened in 1978 in the Interamerican Cup between Mexican Club America and Boca Juniors.
Dante the Peruvian had stated that BBC "confirms that the Intercontinental Cup had the same status of the FIFA Club World Cup" or something like that. Here I show articles on BBC and UEFA sites by BBC´s Tim Vickery stating that the Europeans (mainly the British) saw the Intercontinental Cup as "little more than a glorified friendly" match and that the Europeans see the FIFA Club World Cup more seriously than they saw the Intercontinental Cup: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2008/12/one_of_my_regrets_is.html ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2010/12/post.html ; http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/eusa/news/kind=1/newsid=276659.html
I have not "admitted" anything, much less tell what a subject in a blog, which is the same as zero in an encyclopedia:FIFA & UEFA's own documents confirmed that FIFA was no authority to organise interclub tournaments and the items of your favorite newspaper indicate that FIFA HAS NOT took action in the Intercontinental Cup and its legitimacy of what allocated despite the demands of the "world football" simply "because it was not their business", but the bussiness of its organiser (UEFA-CSF). And the Interamerican Cup does not define anything: it is history that says that football was written by European and South American for the most part.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I will not lose more of my time here. Mr Dante is not here with seriousness and honesty. He is not here with the desire of contributing impartially and seriously. He is here because he wants to level the palmares of his club (Juventus) up to the palmares of its rivals (Ac Milan and Internazionale). AC Milan and Internazionale both have won both the Intercontinental and World titles, while Mr Dante's beloved Juventus has only won the Intercontinental title, and that is the only reason why Mr Dante insists so much on the brazen lie that the Intercontinental up had the same worth and status of the FIFA Club World Cup. All sources presented indicated that the Intercontinental Cup did NOT have the same status and worth of the FIFA Club World Cup. It is also funny that Mr Dante cited the BBC and UEFA as his evidence, but once I showed BBC and UEFA-site articles going CONTRARY to his opinion, he simply dismissed them, dismissing the very same sources that he had called upon. As I said, I will not lose my time talking with a person as dishonest as Mr Dante.
Mr Dante also wrote: And the Interamerican Cup does not define anything: it is history that says that football was written by European and South American for the most part. Mr Dante wrote this, prejudicedly despising the club football outside Europe and South America and despising the efforts of the Mexicans who ON THE PICTH won the Interamerican Cup. In other words, Mr Dante simply said: "Europeans and South Americans are the ones that really matter in Soccer, so to the hell with Mexicans, Africans, Asias, etc. Why should we care about them? They have never won anything in the History of football." Even people as stupid as Mr Dante should be careful before making prejudiced statements as he made. I am totally sure that Mr. Dante would NOT appreciate if someone said: "Let's make Libertadores Cup only with Brazilians, Argentines and Uruguayans, cause they are the ones that really matter in South American soccer, so to the hell with Peruvians. Why should we care about Peruvians? Peruvians have never won anything in the History of football." Being sincere, with due respect (I don´t want to disrespect anyone), Mr Dante's atittude here in this Discussion Page makes me see he is a complete idiot, but even such idiots should think carefully before making prejudiced statements, cause one's prejudice can always turn back at oneself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.9.25 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
PS: Mr Dante also wrote: "Not only by that, but because by then the only national associations affiliated to FIFA that had direct fit to the FIFA World Cup were South American and European teams while the rest of the semiprofessional teams of the other FIFA members had to play an elimination phase against a third European or South American team or between themselves. In addition, in 1960 the only confederations competitions were the European Champions' Cup and the Copa Libertadores."
Dante, try to think a bit more before using such idiotic argumentations as yours. You said that the Intercontinental Cup was a "world title" cause Europe and South America were in 1960 the only confederations with continental competitions (respectively the European Champions' Cup and the Copa Libertadores). According to this stupid rationale of yours, Dante, the European Champions Cups 1955/1956, 1956/1957, 1957/1958 and 1958/1959 should also be considered "world titles".... according to Mr Dante's extremely stupid rationale, the English FA Cup should be considered a Club World Cup because, when it was created, soccer did not exist outside England... What is more: if the Intercontinental Cup was a club world cup BECAUSE in 1960 the only confederations with competitions were Europe and South America, as Dante says, therefore the very same rationale would say that the Intercontinental Cup should STOP being considered a club world cup once the other continents (Africa, Asia, Concacaf) created their continental competitions.
Sure, the chances of Africans/Asians/"Concacafians"/"Oceanians" to reach to the FIFA World Cup were restricted in comparison to that of Europeans and South Americans. Anyway, small and restricted as the chances were, the fact is that Africans/Asians/"Concacafians"/"Oceanians" ALWAYS HAD A CHANCE to reach the FIFA World Cup, while they NEVER HAD ANY CHANCE to reach the Intercontinental Cup- and they never had such chance EVEN when they beat the South Americans on the pitch (Interamerican Cup 1977 and 1980 and Libertadores 2001- before 2001 Libertadores Cup final of Mexican Cruz Azul x Argentine Boca Juniors, Conmebol announced that Cruz Azul would NOT be allowed to play the Intercontinental Cup even if they beat Boca Juniors). See how things are, Dante: in your mind, you "decided" (from whichever "authority" you may think you have) that the Interamerican Cup is "neglectable" - but please see that, not only through Interamerican Cup, but also through Libertadores Cup (Libertadores Cup: the very same foundation of the creation of the Intercontinental Cup), the Mexicans would not be allowed to play the Intercontinental Cup even if they beat the South Americans. The reason: the Intercontinental Cup was a European/South American title, NOT a world title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.9.25 (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Lipton Cup and Pequeña Copa del Mundo[edit]

Where did Mr Dante get the idea that the Lipton Cup and the Pequeña Copa del Mundo were "best of the world title"???

To begin with, it is a complete misconception to equalise in value the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup.

All sources show that the FIFA Club World Cup has always been far more important.

Anyway, the theme is already discussed in the topic above.

Fact is that the Rio Cup was (very incorrectly) treated as World Title in Uruguay, Brazil and Italy.

Fact is that the Intercontinental Cup was (very incorrectly) treated as World Title in South America, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

However, this is definite NOT the case of the Pequeña Copa del Mundo. It was held in Venezuela and its most important competitors were Brazilian and Spanish sides. The Wikipedia Portuguese article on the Pequeña Copa del Mundo has many links to sources in Portuguese and Spanish language (the site "Futbol de Venezuela", Spanish newspaper El Mundo Deportivo, Brazilian newspapers from Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo), making clear:

1- that competition was not called a "World title" not even by the contemporary Venezuelan press

2- the contemporary Brazilian and Spanish presses treated that competition mostly as "Venezuela Cup" and "Caracas Cup" and quite seldom as "Small Club World Cup", and the Spanish press even cited that the competition was not up to "its pompous name".

3- Brazilian clubs won that Cup twice (Corinthians- 1953 and São Paulo- 1955) and the Brazilian press didn't give it even 10% of the importance it gave to Rio Cup, Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup.

4- If the Pequeña Copa do Mundo had had an impact such as that of a World Title, no Brazilian club would ever have dismissed to play it. And Vasco da Gama dismissed to play it in 1953 giving the berth to Corinthians. The same Vasco da Gama that in 1951 unscheduled a tour to Europe in order to give priority to the Rio Cup, that in 1998 travelled to Japan 10 days in advance to the match against Real Madrid in order to climatise, and in 1999 formed a super-team (with Romario, Edmundo) in order to play the 2000 FIFA Club World Championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.9.25 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Verifying some sources[edit]

In the lead section, the following appears:

"Despite being chronologically the fourth international competition created to define "the best team in the world" after Lipton Trophy, Copa Rio and Pequeña Copa del Mundo due to Fédération Internationale de Football Association's inability to organize club competitions..."

It is then cited by this PDF link. What exactly is this source supporting? --MicroX (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This: the Fédération Internationale de Football Association's inability to organize club competitions, cited between the pages 7 and 9 of the pdf document. I note also that all the "history" section is saturated with references that can not be read (such as those identified in Portuguese) and others that have not relation/supporting to the theory exposed by certain banned user...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The most those pages say is that FIFA's statutes only concerned it with competitions/matches involving national teams and not clubs. I bring this up because the statement "FIFA's inability to organize club competitions..." makes it sound like FIFA tried to organize club competitions (like a FCWC) in the past and failed due to their incompetence. What really happened is that L'Equipe wanted this new European Cup to be played between the champions of the national leagues of Europe to which FIFA said they would not interfere with such a tournament given it does not clash with domestic leagues and national team fixtures.
"The organisation of such a tournament is not subject to the prior agreement of FIFA, whose Statutes (Art. 38) only concern competitions between representative teams of national associations... I have no doubt that, if it is possible to reconcile the dates of this tournament with the busy calendar of the national championships and international matches, this event will be extremely interesting and very successful."
I would recommend changing the statement in the article to reflect the circumstances with better accuracy. --MicroX (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"Heavy pouching of South American stars"[edit]

The following sentence from the section "Toyota Cup" appears to be biased towards the South American point of view:

"The 1990s proved to be a decade dominated by European teams as Milan, Red Star Belgrade, Ajax, Juventus, Real Madrid, Manchester United and newcomers Borussia Dortmund of Germany were fueled to victory by its economic powers and heavy pouching of South American stars."

If you check the respective tournament finals referred to here, you'll note that Milan, Belgrade, Ajax and Manchester did not field a single player with South American nationality, whereas Juventus and Dortmund only fielded one. While it is true that the 1990s saw a general increase of the number of South American players in Europe, blaming that for the South Americans' poor form in the Toyota Cup seems a bit stretched to me. 128.176.228.13 (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

De facto world champions[edit]

Should that be in the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, must be here, and even in the lead section, because it represents, as any degree, a symbol, and for many clubs in the world, the fact of won this competition mean to have achieved its most prestigious title. In principle, there are four references based in articles signed by FIFA.com from the official FIFA website (see references 4, 9, 10 and 11 of the IC article), including the FIFA 2005 Activity Report (cf. p. 60), included in this article supporting the entire incriminate paragraph, mention explicitly its nature: The competition was created to define the best club team in the world, so all winners were typically styled the "World Champion" due to historically the highest level of inter-club football worldwide was represented by South America and Western Europe (or CONMEBOL and UEFA), and the continental club competitions organised by the other 4 confederations would be held after 1962 (at semiprofessional level, in fact, at the time the African and Asian national association teams had no direct fit for the World Cup, but for a playoff) and in several cases were suspended for a long time for extra-footballistic reasons, accentuating the position of the Europe-South America summit as football's "First World". It is stated de facto because it was not an prize conferred in an official ceremony, but simply the sports title which for more than four decades has been even announced at the stadium host to the competition's winner, which was accepted by most of the international football community as well as is also often referred to as "Champion of ..." or "[geographical area] Champion" to winners of each league or the main continental competition regardless if are effectively confer by legal means (what does not in most cases). Now, if someone wants to say that was not considered in the Portuguese language World despite this or this, is clearly stated why, without contradicting the position largely accepted.
Finally, his case is actually very similar to this tournament, which is often considered "worldwide" despite of not being in the strict sense of the term, could be used as a model of mediation rather than unilaterally delete information properly referenced.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Media treated it as such. -Koppapa (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Dantetheperuvian has made a pretty thoughtful argument in favour of inclusion. Koppapa agrees. Those who have removed the content have been notified of this post. If they don't show up with good oppose arguments, and if others don't post here with good oppose arguments, then that's it, the content should be added to this article soon. Objections? Anna F remote (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't expose my arguments better than Dantetheperuvian and the proposal from Anna F remote is very reasonable. It's very important stop these annoying edit wars, and enforce those editors to expose their arguments on the talk page or stoping vandalizing WP.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. Dantetheperuvian, I think plenty of time has gone by. Please feel free to add the content. Three of us agree, and the objectors have had their chance to weigh in. If it gets reverted, we can restore the content and cite this post. If they want it gone, they have to persuade us. Anna F remote (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)