Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 1930 FIFA World Cup is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 11, 2010.
WikiProject Uruguay (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Uruguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to sports in Uruguay. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Football (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Strictly speaking, this wasn't the first World Cup. It was the first FIFA World Cup. Sir Thomas Lipton organised an international tournament, in the early 1900's which was also dubbed the The Sir Thomas Lipton Trophy or "The Lipton Crown of Italy World Cup" (websites differ on the name), so I'm not sure whether the words "World Cup" were used contemporaneously.

Mintguy 21:52 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thomas Lipton Cup couldn't be First World Cup in modern terms as it was club competition.

AlexCzech 11:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Football World Cup 1930 → 1930 FIFA World Cup – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions#Requested move of Football World Cup articles. --Pkchan 10:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved per requested move. --Pkchan 12:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Full table[edit]

What is the point of this section? It was a knockout tournament! I'll remove unless anyone has a good reason to keep it. Guinnog 07:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing, also for 1934. Guinnog 06:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Removing again. Please justify why this should be here, rather than reverting it again Guinnog 17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The rankings were used by FIFA to determine seeds in recent years. The tables from 1978 to present are valid and for consistency we can include the ones from 1930-1974 as well. For that matter FIFA has ranked the early tournaments anyway and a document with those rankings can be found here Libro0 17:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The best reason I can think of is the fact that they are now official. It would be a good addition to the articles. In fact I am not sure why they aren't included. Libro0 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Third-place match[edit]

Strange, the Spanish wikipedia claims that the third-place match was planned but that Yugoslavia refused to play in protest against partial refereeing in their semifinal. Can anyone confirm or disprove this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 08:03, June 23, 2006.

I did this search and I can't find any evidence of such a claim. Perhaps we could ask over there what the evidence is for the assertion? If true, this is an interesting fact. --Deville (Talk) 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I asked on the talk page of the Spanish article to see if anyone had a source for this. If anyone answers me over there, we can add it here. --Deville (Talk) 23:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
On the Spanish wikipedia they cite an article in Spanish saying that there was no third place game but, the US earned third by goal diffential --Coasttocoast 23:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Yugoslav national news article claiming a medal in their possesion indicates third-place is actually a first place (1er) medal. How would that be refuted in a Wikipedia article? Also, are the metallurgic composition of the medals from this event known? --Fixblor 9:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the proof - a 3rd place cup in their hands: Also, form reliable resources, the 2nd goal for Urugai (when result was 1:1) in semifinal was scored after policeman returned the ball into the game from goal-out :)! Same source sais there was NO 3rd place match - Yugoslavia (Serbian players only) was 3rd by agreement because Uruguay took the 1st place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Disputed goal totals[edit]

For the Chile-Mexico game on 16 July, FIFA says the first two goals were scored by Subiabre for Chile. RSSSF says they were scored by Vidal and an own goal by Rosas of Mexico. Which is it? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would always go with FIFA; it's their tournament. --Guinnog 00:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Likewise in the Argentina-Chile game of 22 July, FIFA says the Chile goal was scored by Subiabre, while RSSSF says Arellano. There appear to be a LOT of these inconsistencies in the Wikipedia data; it makes sorting out who's who and what's what very difficult if not impossible. RSSSF is considered by some to be authoritative. What's Wikipolicy here? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And again: Romania-Peru, 14 July: FIFA says the first goal was scored by Desu, RSSSF says Stanciu. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be WP:V, and I'd find it hard to trump FIFA as the policy says: "...refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers", and they are surely reputable publishers and fact-checkers of their own tournament. Interesting discrepancy though, as you say. --Guinnog 00:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but RSSSF isn't just some dude with a website; it's pretty serious. And these are dramatic differences. Whether or not FIFA is a reliable fact-checker of 1930 events is open to SOME question. I'd like someone with knowledge of this situation to weigh in before just changing it all wholesale.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Another one: was the second USA goal on 17 July an own goal by González of Paraguay (RSSSF) or a regular goal by Tom Florie (FIFA), or a goal by Bert Patenaude (widely believed but disproven)? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found this, from FIFA World Cup goalscorers: "In earlier tournaments, FIFA match reports are known to be inaccurate, so Cris Freddi's book Complete Book of the World Cup 2006 is used as the most authentic known publication." Hmm.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting and surprising. Hmmm indeed. --Guinnog 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to make any changes until I read Freddi's book. I assume that the figures for RSSSF, Freddi, and Wikipedia are in agreement, though with the number of errors I'm finding, I wonder. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. That page (FIFA World Cup goalscorers) and presumably that book credits Bert Patenaude with 4 goals, presumably counting the hat trick whereas FIFA and RSSSF don't. So yet more discrepencies. Jooler 12:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't noticed that. I AM noticing that WHOEVER is right, the Wiki pages are LOADED with internal inconsistencies -- even knowing very little in the way of verifiable concrete facts about the 1930 Cup, I know that what we have here is a stinky stew, with multiple pages disagreeing with each other.

The more I read about RSSSF, the more I'm inclined to just take them for it, as they HAVE done the research. However, their authoritativeness is undermined by some egregious misspellings of players' names, which is another area where Wikipedia is in a dire condition. RSSSF's official statistics report for 1930, at, lists "Prequinho", "Scopello" and "Sousa" in the Scorer's List, despite spelling them correctly (Preguinho, Scopelli, Souza or Souza-Ferriera) in the game summaries.

Names are a big issue with me -- it is VERY DIFFICULT to tell players apart when they are customarily referred to in four or five different ways, as is common with Brazilian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Mexican players especially. The non-Latin-character-set players can be problematic as well. There are also players with similar but different names who in some places are receiving credit for each other's goals and stuff. I've also noticed that MANY redlinked players actually DO have pages, just under another version of their name. Man, this needs some serious effort to clean up.

I can't believe that the most popular game in the world has its most basic facts in doubt -- in baseball, by contrast, the most mundane statistical details of players from the 1870s are minutely recorded. Well, I guess you could call it an opportunity.... \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's what I did: I changed ALL the goals to the FIFA officially-reported goals. This is in accordance with WP:V, which states among other things that the goal is not truth but verifiability. To seriously do the research to figure out what the truth is would be original research and thus not allowed here. FIFA is the official source even if they are wrong. As verification I have inserted a Report link to EACH match, which is the official FIFA report for that match -- not trivia, not some journalist's article, not an unverified web page, but the real deal according to the people who run the game.
However, to cover the bases, I have added ref tags, with notes below indicating exactly which goals are disputed, and to whom RSSSF credits them. I did this for goals where RSSSF reports a different time as well. The RSSSF report is linked in the External Links section, so these corrections, whether true or otherwise, can be verified.
I then corrected the Scorers Table to reflect the FIFA results. The entire page now reflects BOTH the FIFA official reports AND the RSSSF disagreements. Wikipedia is not the place to hash out the truth; it is an encyclopedia, and thus gives the references. I might be more amenable to using the RSSSF figures instead IF I could find anywhere a detailed description and justification for why they think the FIFA reports are wrong. For Wikipedia to say, as it does in the goalscorers article, that "everyone knows the official reports are wrong" requires at a minimum a serious citation for why this is so. None is presented here or there. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Group denominations[edit]

Groups in the 1930 and subsequent world cups were not called "A", "B", "C", "D"; they were called by ordinal or roman numbers, as in "Groups 1-4" or "I-IV", or "First-Fourth", as far as I know. Letters were used for the first time in 1974, when the first round groups were called "1-4" and the second round groups "A" and "B". According to Oceano's "Enciclopedia Mundial del Futbol", Vol. 1, "El Libro del Mundial" by Eduardo Arias (ISBN 958-02-0853-0), and the site's "Previous world cups" section (under "Results"), this is how the gropus were called in the world cups:

Tournament Group "names"
1930 FIFA World Cup Groups "I-IV"
1934 FIFA World Cup

1938 FIFA World Cup

No groups
1950 FIFA World Cup

1954 FIFA World Cup
1958 FIFA World Cup
1962 FIFA World Cup
1966 FIFA World Cup
1970 FIFA World Cup

Groups "I-IV"
1974 FIFA World Cup

1978 FIFA World Cup

1st Round: Groups "I-IV"

2nd Round: Groups "A", "B"

1982 FIFA World Cup 1st Round: Groups "I-VI"

2nd Round: Groups "A-D"

1986 FIFA World Cup

1990 FIFA World Cup
1994 FIFA World Cup

Groups "A-F"
1998 FIFA World Cup

2002 FIFA World Cup
2006 FIFA World Cup

Groups "A-H"

This is an often ignored detail and it might be very trivial, but I think it would be worth it to make the change to help achieve greater accuracy. - ChaChaFut 00:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

World Cup Referees[edit]

Has anyone got any information on the World Cup referees for the first tournament? Am looking to fill in some biographical details and enter some category. Please check my Jean Langenus entry for ideas. One of the people I am most interested in finding out about is Thomas Balway. Further information on him would be most appreciated.


I reverted an edit that pit an "Awards" subheading as I think it is excessive to create an extra subheading just for a box with a flag in it. Oldelpaso 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The WP:GA review of 1930 FIFA World Cup on hold[edit]

Please address the one issue below and let me know...

  1. Fair use rationale needs to be added to Image:1930 Football World Cup poster.jpg

Jazznutuva 08:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Snowing in Montevideo[edit]

Laurent's memories are fuzzy when he affirms that it was snowing in the match France v Mexico. It never snows in Montevideo. I added a phrase that pointed this out, but it was removed. I think it should be stated that, even though Laurent did say that, it wasn't like that. I'm not sure which is the best way to point this out, though. Opinions? Ipsumesse (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It can snow in Montevideo, albeit rarely. Laurent is the only source we have. Perhaps it was hail not snow or something, but the quote is clearly attributed to Laurent. The only way to get further verifiable information would be to look in archives of contemporary Uruguayan newspapers. At a pinch, a footnote could be used. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I also guess that it might have been just some kind of hail. I just think we should point out that Laurent's statement is not probable, maybe as you suggest, in a footnote indicating this inconsistency. I'll see if I can check out if there was any snowing in Montevideo in the '30s. In the while, what do we do? A footnote? Ipsumesse (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of US Team[edit]

"The US team, which contained one ex-professional of British origin,[14] and some international migrants along with mostly natural-born players, were reputedly dubbed "the shot-putters" by an unnamed source in the French contingent"

Can we delete those sentences? The make up of no other team is discussed, and it seems rather silly to comment on the US team as if it was anything special. I don't think this is the proper article for that. Farkeld (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:James Bond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reassessing this articles GA status as part of the WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • This article is reasonably well written. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    b (MoS):
    • The article complies sufficiently with the MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    • No evidence of OR
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • The article is broad in scope Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    • I am placing the article on hold for seven days whilst the references are fixed, otherwise OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • OK looks to be all fixed now, GA status confirmed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this. if you look at the pages for the individual players, 10 were born in the US, 5 in Scotland, and 1 in the UK. Of the foreign-born players only 3 played overseas--and one of those did so after starting his career in the US. Also, almost all of the foreign born players came over to the US as youth. Glanville is not known for his neutrality. At the least, replacing "migrants" with "immigrants" would be preferable and more neutral.Kgilbert78 (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Third/Fourth place[edit]

A few years ago, FIFA seem to have decided that the USA finished third and Yugoslavia fourth. Does anyone have the details of when and why this was done? first remember it in this press release for the 2006 World Cup giving full rankings for all previous World Cups. Was it just somebody updating the website who decided to fit a square peg into a round hole, or was there an official announcement, as there have been when, say, goals are reassigned or squad players awarded medals? It's not good enough for this and other articles simply to cite FIFA saying that USA were third and Yugoslavia fourth; an explanation for the discrepancy is required. jnestorius(talk) 10:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

To part-answer my own question, the technical committee's reports have included full rankings since 1986: Mexico report, part 6 PDF p.230, shows Yugoslavia in 4th place. So the 2005 press release was not an innovation. But I'm still not happy:
  1. I doubt that the 1930 rankings were assigned in 1930 or any time soon after. The first technical report was for the 1966 World Cup, and none up to 1982include retrospective rankings.
  2. As late as 2002, the Yugoslavia result was still given as "semi final" rather than "4th place" in FIFA's website.
  3. The 3-4 distinction in 1930 seems to be qualitatively the same as ranking losing quarter-finalists 5-6-7-8. Unless we are to give, say, Ireland's best result as "8th" rather than "Quarter-Final", it seems inconsistent to give Yugoslavia 4th rather than Semi-Final.

There is no point in speculating about how much thought went into FIFA's decision to escalate this one factoid from a statistical footnote to the general website. Since it has their imprimatur, Wikipedia must abide. However, there is nothing to prevent us putting a footnote against references to this 3rd-4th statistic at the relevant mentions on Wikipedia, to explain the anomaly. jnestorius(talk) 12:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments for FAC[edit]

Hi Oldelpaso, I thought it better to leave some comments here rather than clutter up the main FAC. Hope they help:

  • I would prefer "1930 FIFA World Cup was the first FIFA World Cup" be reworded so we don't repeat FIFA World Cup if possible, or if we do, separate it a little further, e.g. "1930 FIFA World Cup was the inaugural edition of the world championship ... – the FIFA World Cup." or similar.
  • I would also expand and use association football in the first instance, so we don't terribly confuse the rest of our "footballing" buddies. Thereafter football is fine on its own.
  • "chose Uruguay" - perhaps "selected Uruguay as the host nation"?
  • "who beat Mexico" - would prefer "defeated", but that's personal.
  • You have "3 confederations" in the infobox but this isn't expanded upon in the article. I think they should be identified.
I have removed this from the infobox since it is a misnomer. Neither CONCACAF nor its predecessors existed in 1930.
  • ": 1920–1928" - why not just prose it : "from 1920 to 1928".
  • Don't we normally capitalised The for The Football Association?
  • No need to relink FA in the participants section.
  • "the sea trip" "the trip by sea"?
  • "This is the same vessel ..." which vessel? You haven't mentioned one, just that they embarked at Barcelona... OH, I get it. Same ship picked them up... perhaps not clear enough?
Restated "Conte Verde" to avoid confusion.
  • "This is the same vessel which carried..." You could just say "The same vessel carried..."?
  • "plus Thomas Balway" "along with Thomas..."?
  • Is Balway's wife's death strictly relevant here?
  • Perhaps Summary should be "Tournament summary"?
  • "on July 13" previously, your date format was DD MM YYYY, this appears to be reversed?
  • Be consistent with relinking the teams. You relinked the USA and Mexico but not France and Belgium...
  • Laurent's quote here has a hyphen where it should be a spaced en dash or unspaced em dash (i think!)
  • "The US team" - can we stick with USA as this appears (so far) to be the only time you drop the A.
  • Can you check our MOS for how to space ellipses? The caption for the ball images has two of them, I'm not sure if they need a space before/after them...
  • Two single-sentence paras in the Final section isn't great for me.
  • July 30 - date consistency again?
  • "disagreement ... disagreed" - repetitive prose, maybe you could "failed to agree" the second time round?
  • I think the links to the main articles need en-dashes as well, even if this does mean creating some redirects.
  • What sources the attendances in the results section? Mainly concerned over that 300 vs 2,500odd one.
  • Why do the scorelines have spaces between the goals and the en-dash? Isn't that contrary to MOS?
  • Second semi final has attendance of 93,000 while final has 80,000 - this conflicts with the prose?
  • MOSFLAG for using flags without country names in the scorers list.
This is one of those where I never know what the correct approach is. Isn't there a clause about sports statistics being an exception? I've tried changing the flagicon templates to flag templates.
  • Note 1 has spare .
  • Don't mix date formats in the references. All human-readable or all ISO.
  • Ref 10 - we have an archiveurl field in the cite web for this kind of thing, as you used in ref 11?
  • Ref 15 could use a space after the language parameter.
  • Ref 33 and Ref 35 use RSSSF differently.
  • Ref 36 the page number isn't p. x (it's px) unlike other page refs here.
  • Ref 48 could use an en-dash.
  • Ext links - first one needs an endash, second one is odd (that note about different goals) - does it make it a good source to link to really? Third one could use a spaced en-dash.
On reflection, the latter two might as well be removed.

Hope these help. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is just a flying visit – I'm about to be rendered offline until Sunday. Hopefully I'll be able to work on it then. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Done apart from the attendances. which I'll have to think about. The attendances in the results list are from the FIFA page linked in each one. However, in the prose the attendance for the final also uses a FIFA source, so FIFA aren't consistent themselves. Most books use 93,000 for the final. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine but your summary of the final says 80,000 but 93,000 in the prose, while the semi-final says 93,000 in the summary.... am I getting something wrong here?! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Standard practice in football competition articles when using the footballbox template is to use spaces between the en dashes, as is shown in the template's documentation. cassius1213 19:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Where does the "Final Ranking" come from?[edit]

For example, why is Chile ranked above Brazil? Chile had more points from the group stage, but also played one extra game. Is this from some official FIFA source? Grover cleveland (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslav participants[edit]

Perhaps mentioning that Yugoslavia squad consisted only of Serbian players could be a useful addition to the Participants section. Prior to the World Cup Yugoslav national championships between 1926 and 1930 were all won by clubs from Croatia (Građanski Zagreb, Hajduk Split and Concordia Zagreb) and players from those clubs were regularly included in Yugoslavia squads for the 1924 and 1928 Olympics as well as various international friendlies. However, due to political circumstances at the time of the January 6th Dictatorship (which lasted between 1929 and 1934), the Football Association of Yugoslavia moved its headquarters from Zagreb (where it had been originally founded in 1919) in Croatia to Yugoslavia's capital Belgrade in Serbia in May 1930, two months before the 1930 World Cup. In protest, Croatian clubs decided to boycott the national team and in response the Belgrade-based football federation sent a team which consisted of players from Serbian clubs (mostly based in or near Belgrade) plus three Serbian players who played in France. Therefore their win against Brazil was seen as a remarkable achievement at home as many players who had made the World Cup squad were seen as second string players. On the other hand, despite the fact that Croatian clubs had dominated Yugoslav football in the late 1920s, not a single Croat had appeared in the 1930 World Cup (and neither did the Slovenian Maksimilijan Mihelčić who was at the time the Yugoslav national team's first choice goalkeeper). If others agree with including something about this in the article, I could look up references to back this up. Timbouctou (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Name "World Cup"[edit]

Am I right to think the tournament was not officially called the "World Cup" at the time, but rather the "World Championship"? It's common to use the name of a trophy as a metonym for the competition, but I think the official naming history is something like this:

Year Tournament official name Trophy official name
1930 World Football Championship World Cup
1946 World Football Championship Coupe Jules Rimet
1974 FIFA World Cup FIFA World Cup

The posters and logos of tournaments are as follows:

Year Poster Main title Other titles
1930 1er Campeonato Mundial de Football
1934 Campionato Mondiale di Calcio Coppa del Mondo·Coupe du Monde·World's Cup·Weltmeistersschaft·Copa del Mundo
1938 Coupe du Monde
1950 IV Campeonato Mundial de Futebol Taça Jules Rimet
1954 Championnat du Monde De Football
1958 Coupe Jules Rimet
1962 Campeonato Mundial de Futbol / World Football Championship / Championnat Mondial de Football Coupe Jules Rimet
1966 World Cup
1970 IX football world championship
1974 Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft 1974 / FIFA World Cup 1974 / Coupe du Monde de la FIFA 1974 / Copa Mondiale de la FIFA 1974
1978 XI Campeonato Mundial de Fútbol

Of course I'm not suggesting the article should be moved to "1930 World football championship" or the like, but if the former official name was something other than "World Cup" then it ought to be given in the lede. jnestorius(talk) 16:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pull out quote by Lucien Laurent[edit]

WOuld it make sense to state in the attribute what country Laurent is from? I don't know who he is and had to look him up to see why he would be quoted there. COuld something like this be added "member of the French team" or was he the by chance the Captain and we could say, "Captain of French team"?Rhodesisland (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Map of USA should not include Alaska[edit]

Alaska didn't become a state until 1959. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but it was indeed part of the USA, just it was a territory. Alaskans were citizens, and would have been eligible for the national team, if there were any good enough. But I doubt there were many soccer players in Alaska then. Wschart (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

general knoewledge[edit]

in which place did the first worldcup played? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Third / Fourth place[edit]

There have been a few edits recently about the third/fourth place issue, putting Yugoslavia third. This is a murky area, but all the points of view are explained and attributed in the Third and fourth place section. If changes are to occur anywhere, it should be in that section that it is done. In terms of the actual third and fourth positions in the infobox etc, if we are to separate the USA and Yugoslavia, it is FIFA's tournament, so it is their ranking that we use.

There is also a slow burning edit was as to the exact flag and name used for Yugoslavia. I suggest the editors involved discuss it here instead of just switching it back and forth. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Bronze Medal from Montevideo proves that Yugoslavia was 3rd. Its real since sing on medal is written in Spanish and year is 1930. There isn't better evidence than this is real medal. Snake bgd 20:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is translation form the text form Newspaper: "Bronze Medal, unique in-house, is the legacy of Dr. Kosta and it testifies to the success of most of our football. This is proof that we were third, although most states for decades that we have completed the distribution of the seats, and Fifa's website today says: 3 place the United States, 4th Yugoslavia. So it was after all - 3rd Yugoslavia, 4th United States - and one of the explanations for such an order is that we lost in the semifinals of the World Cup and that is why we have the advantage over the Americans." Snake bgd 20:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am aware of the existence of that medal, and that Serbian sources have published articles about it (it is already included in the Third and fourth place section). In the article, we can say that those sources claim 3rd place for Yugoslavia on the basis of the medal. But FIFA is the ultimate authority for the competition, and at present FIFA's literature lists the USA as third. It is not permitted for us to choose what is "better evidence", we merely report what the sources say. You said on my talk page that you have contacted FIFA about it in the hope that FIFA will make a change. If FIFA come out and change their records, then we can change things here. But we should not be making such changes pre-emptively. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In any case, a bronze medal would not be conclusive proof - there is also evidence that the USA captain was awarded a bronze medal [1]. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers form 1930. On July 31 1930, page 9, title translated form Serbian (Uruguay is third time World champion; Yugoslavia takes third place). Also on August 1 1930, page 8, both national teams Yugoslavia and USA made deal, main title form newspaper is (Bloody clashes in Argentina over lost game), subtitle (Why we didn't play against USA). Snake bgd 21:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to provide fuller translations of those articles? Oldelpaso (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure but look there is also bronze medal form Yugoslavian captain, this confuse me most. Snake bgd 21:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Its possible that USA and Yugoslavia split 3rd place. Snake bgd 21:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There's a lot of unknowns here. The two player medals have the same design (the goddess Nike, and the FIFA logo at the bottom). The Hadži medal is inscribed with "A U DE F", which is presumably Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol. As to exactly when and why they were awarded, we can only speculate. There's a lot from this World Cup where details are unclear and sources contradict each other! Oldelpaso (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I will edit with all references official and unofficial. Bought medals will be in references. Snake bgd 22:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The medals are evidence of what FIFA did in 1930. We are responsible for reporting the case as it is known in 2013. The truth in 2013 is that FIFA reports third place as having been credited uniquely to the US. We might individually believe that it is unreasonable of FIFA to have made such a conclusion 56 years after the event, but we cannot as encyclopaedic editors pretend that they did not. Kevin McE (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely agreed with you. Snake bgd 00:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The other issue mentioned by the OP is that of the flag. It seems counter-intuitive to represent the country by its naval flag in a realm that clearly has no direct connection to maritime forces. I will restore the KoY flag, and ask that compelling reason for the naval flag be presented before any restoration of that variant. Kevin McE (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture form Kingdom proving that was real flag in 1930. Without coat of arms was people flag and with it it was state flag. Snake bgd 21:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
According to this website the national flag was without the coat of arms, opposed to the state flag. In sports competitions national flags are normally used and unless sources claiming the opposite are found I see no reason to make an exception for 1930 Yugoslavia. (According to vexillological markings by Helmer, the state version was used on public buildings and on unarmed government vessels. The national version without the coat of arms was meant to be used by citizens on land). Timbouctou (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
If you have a look at the surviving footage from the 1930 opening ceremony, the Yugoslavian delegation is filmed close-up for a few seconds at 1:37. The actual flag on the pole is unidentifiable (as is that for Bolivia a couple of seconds later), but the guy at the front of the Yugoslavian group is fussing with and showing off another flag, a triband which clearly has no coat of arms: (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Peru's match against Uruguay[edit]

The Uruguayan media was also impressed by the Peruvian performance. See [2]. The current structure of the paragraph places Peru in bad light, making it seem as if the Peruvians were happy to lose. The pride comes in the style and form of play shown by the Peruvian team, lauded both in Peru and Uruguay.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the problem.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Argentina flag[edit]

Why is there used flag of Argentina without sun? It's not symbol of Argentina. Actual flag of Argentina was used before 1930 World CupAight 2009 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Participant Map[edit]

Can someone add Yugoslavia to the participant map? (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Goalscorings and reports[edit]

I see both the reports and goalscoring data is missed from the main page, remaining only in the groups' articles. I think that info is too important for remaining hidden in another article, and it should be brought back. Besides, it's a bit incoherent to use different game-formats for the Group Phase and the Knockout Stages. Ipsumesse (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Third and fourth place[edit]

Why was "not" played the Third Place Match? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Because this match was "not" established until 1934, for the only time in the history. Twillihero Grumicker (Messages) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


Is the fact that Bolivia's match versus Yugoslavia was the only one played by the Bolivians against non-South American opposition until 1972 not notable enough? 1982vdven (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really. What difference does it make to anything? – PeeJay 17:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It shows how isolated Bolivia was in footballing terms compared to other nations that participated in early World Cups. 1982vdven (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm failing to see the significance. – PeeJay 18:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If a country plays 90 internationals over a span of several decades, and only one of those is against an opponent outside of their own continent (and which happens to take place during the World Cup), is that not significant? 1982vdven (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Not really. Kante4 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, because such a situation was common with teams that took part in 1930, right? Oh wait, no it wasn't. Even Cris Freddi comments on it in his book on the World Cup, I believe. 1982vdven (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Third place[edit]

First I would like to point out, that FIFA cannot be the ultimate source for everything. In numerous debates I was told that per Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, the neutral, independent sources like newspapers can be better than what some organization has to say about itself on its webpage. So, why are we making exception here?

Second, the "proof" for USA 3rd place is Florie's medal, but Yugoslavia players got the exact same medal, seen here by Marjanović:

Third: Yugoslavia has that other bronze medal that USA don't have, seen in many many sources:

Fourth, contemporary newspaper sources from 1930 indicate that Yugoslavia was third, that their anthem was played etc. and also explain why, there are also many, I'll put just one:

So, there are no indications for USA third place except self published FIFA statements, that aren't supported by any relevant, contemporary or independent sources. Therefore I propose to put Yugoslavia in third place.Linhart (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If noone will comment, I will put Yugoslavia in third.Linhart (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 1930 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)