FIFA Club World Cup is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's a confederations cup for clubs!
I think it would be fair to post the criteria used to select the team participants in this cup.
In 2000, the criteria were very different from those used from 2005 up to now. For example, the 1999 winner of the Libertadores Cup was not invited to participate and no one knows for sure why. Instead, the brazilian 1999 champion, Corinthians, was invited to participate. FIFA said that the invitation of Corinthians was because they would represent Brazil, where the games would be played. This does not happen anymore. Therefore, Corinthians was a "World Champion" without beating any other South American teams like Boca Jrs. from Argentina. ( EPleite ( talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)EPleite)
^^^ Vasco da Gama was the Libertadores representative in 2000. The tournament was to be held in 1999, which is why Palmeiras wasn't chosen. Corinthians were the current host champions, which have participated in other occasions (Al Wahda in 2010, for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.26.69 ( talk) 11:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. One thing: the article says that the 4 "weaker" continents will meet in a qualifying round, and the two left standing will meet the European and South American champions in the semis. Well, I gather the 4 "weak" continents include the CONCACAF members (North and Central Americas and the Caribbean), Africa, Asia and Oceania, while the Europeans would be the champion of the UEFA Champions League and the South Americans, the champion of the Copa Libertadores, right? The problem is exactly in the last part: teams from Mexico have been playing in the Copa Libertadores for a few years, but Mexico is also a member of the CONCACAF, wouldn't that mean that Mexican teams get two chances of making it to this year end tournament, which would be unfair to all other nations? Has FIFA given any explanation regarding this? Regards, Redux 23:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Up to now, Mexican teams have done pretty poorly in the Libertadores. They are just not as good as the big Brazillian and Argentinian teams, so this has never really been an issue. I guess its a bit like South African playing in the CONCACAF Gold Cup AND the African Cup of Nations. This gives them 2 chances to qualify for the Confederations Cup. It is very unlikely that they will win both cups so the issue. in theory should never arise. -- Ukdan999 18:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall Man United "insisting" on missing out on defending the FA Cup in 2000 at all, nor do I recall the FA being at all "reluctant" that they should do so. If anything, the positions were reversed--the FA was desperate for United to go to Brazil because it seemed to have decided that that would be the only criterion FIFA would use to decide the location of the 2006 World Cup, whereas United would have much rather played in the FA Cup, a competition that actually meant something to its players and supporters. As it stands, the statement in the article seems pretty unjustified, and could be mistaken as just a chance to take a cheap shot at Manchester United. Binabik80 01:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I have added a table for the champions from 2000 on. I've also made different pages from 2000 and 2005 competitions. Regards to all -- Mrzero 06:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
What about including Championships by team, country and confederation of the Intercontinental Cup?
Regards, FTota 19:24, 20 Dez 2005 (UTC)
There is an specific article for that -> Intercontinental Cup
It's not enough, Milan has 4 titles including Intercontinental Cup and Club Word Cup, which is the most in all clubs. However, as it splited into 2 items, this point cannot be seen anymore. BeijingCup ( talk) 06:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely agree since intercontinental cup winners are officially recognised by FIFA as world champions!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.73.195 ( talk) 17:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
Has anyone got any details as to when the next one will be or even if there will be one? -- iamajpeg 14:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The next tournament will be: "FIFA Club World Cup 2006" in Japan. It is not contest annually in Japan, will be different hosts starting in 2007. A club from the host country will play too. 201.52.221.64 18:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we change the topic title to " FIFA Club World Cup" instead of the current " FIFA Club World Championship" ?
Didnt the FIFA cancelled the Corinthians title? I am from Brazil and I heard in the press that FIFA cancelled the title... so.. is that true? and.. if it is.. why is the Corinthians there? -- Manny 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
My e-mail to the FIFA media: "The World Cup of 2000 Club Winer isnt Boca Juniors (Argentina)? In my humble opinion I think this a big mistake that can only confuse everybody including the FIFA website visitors." FIFA media answer: "Thank you for the e-mail enquiry you have sent to media@fifa.org."
Corinthians: not won any international competition... but was able to compete in a WC??? Another one: participants were champions of different seasons, 98 and 99, so which season we are talking about in this world cup? --Lucio Garcia 02:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia ( talk • contribs)
I checked the FIFA website. They have not posted the draw. When did they do the draw?
Well, sir, from what I see, only CONCACAF has qualified anybody. Namely Club America from Mexico. I had thought I had heard Auckland City had qualified as well, but I think that's just somebody assuming that will hold true, as Australia has bolted to the Asian confederation, leaving New Zealand the strongest domestic league in Oceania. So, not sure about the draw. I just skimmed the CWC website. Hasn't happened yet though.-- Coryma 02:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2000/club_championship/news/2000/01/15/edilson_mvp/index.html Falarcomsaopedro 07:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Gethomas3 ( talk · contribs) keeps changing the Champions table's layout to this version, without discussing it first. The current table layout looks much better and very clean to me, and there is no need to list the host country in a separate field if it is already listed in the venues area of the table. So, what do the other users think? Which Champions table's layout is better? -- Carioca 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Is that Golden Shoes still exists? According FIFA Official website, i did not see any Golden Shoes awarded since 2005 [1] [2] [3], so this mean it is violate Wikipedia:No original research. It should be remove away. -- Aleen f1 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It says Juventus is the only club to have won all the cups they could win, including the intertoto, and not ajax,while ajax won them all aswell, they even won the first intertoto cup held. But it's nowhere said on the page..
What ou on about? Ajax and Juvents have not won the Club World Cup, so they have never won all the competitions they could have won have they? Druryfire ( talk) 21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I want to make an alert about IP editions at 2011 FIFA Club World Cup. There is no evidence about the torunament return to Japan after UAE signature contract with FIFA to organize the FIFA Club World Cup. Please check it out and avoid vandalism. If I'm wrong my apologize. I think Wikipedia is not a primary source. Furthermore, the sources by the IP are used out of context.-- Futbolero ( talk) 07:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Since 2006 the trophy is not as pictured. Please update, if possible. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.60.99.232 ( talk) 02:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice additions there, but are those not a bit too long in the article about the fifa club world cup? - Koppapa ( talk) 20:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
i don't understand, why the user called God Football flooded the page with non-sense information just now? this article is about FCWC, not previous tournaments, there are specific articles for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AphexT4 ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
FIFA states that the only Cup World Cup predecessor is the Intercontinental Cup ( FIFA Club World Cup Statistical Kit 2012, p. 12), therefore, information on the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asian Cup is useless.-- Dantetheperuvian ( talk) 03:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
P.D.
"The idea of identifying the best club side in the world by staging a world championship was first raised at the end of the 1950s. In the post-war era, sport was once again helping to heal wounds and bring about reconciliation among people. Back then, the world of football was dominated by Europe and South America, whose teams thrilled fans with their contrasting styles of play. Brazil had won the FIFA World Cup™ in Europe for the first and so far only time in 1958. In Europe and South America, two continental club championships had been created: the European Champion Clubs’ Cup and the Copa Libertadores. And so it was only natural that the “World Championship” be contested by the winners of these two competitions. Santiago Bernabéu, Real Madrid’s legendary president, was the man who proposed that the premier club be decided by a match held over two legs. In the ensuing period, the competition experienced a number of ups of down. It appeared to be coming to an end in the mid-1970s until it was “rescued” by Japan, who breathed new life into the encounter in 1980 by turning it into a single game on neutral territory, originally in Tokyo and more recently in Yokohama. As the Toyota Cup, the contest regained the respect of the international football family. But football has come a long way since the intercontinental challenge was first launched. All the confederations stage a continental club championship, but for many years they were denied access to a top event at world level. For FIFA, who in 1954 had declined to take part in the organisation of a cup competition for European clubs, this was reason enough to get involved at club level by staging the inaugural FIFA Club World Championship TOYOTA Cup in Brazil in 2000"
— FIFA Activity Report 2005, Official Publication of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, p.62
DtP.
“ | FIFA can only "recognize" teams as World Champions that have competed under its auspices. As the European/South American is not an official FIFA event, and does not include teams from all continent, the winners cannot be considered as World Champions. | ” |
Were the same competition held by UEFA / CONMEBOL during 44 years since 1960 to 2004, so, official UEFA / CONMEBOL competition.
“ | The European/South American Cup will be replaced by a new annual FIFA Club World Championship in 2005, football's world governing body have announced. | ” |
“ | Beginning in 1960, the European/South American Cup has been played in Japan since 1980/81. FIFA organised a Club World Championship in 2000 in Brazil, won by SC Corinthians Paulista in a tourmanet where Europe was represented by Manchester United FC and Real Madrid CF.
The last European/South American Cup match will be played in Japan this December, with CA Boca Juniors having beaten AC Milan on penalties in the 2003 edition. The winners of last seaon's Champions League final, FC Porto, will meet CD Once Caldas, the victors in the Copa Libertadores. |
” |
-- Dantetheperuvian ( talk) 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
For short, I will call the Intercontinental Toyota Cups 1960-2004 as "IC" and the FIFA Club World Cup as "FCWC".
The fact is that the FCWC followed the IC as its successor. FIFA does acknowledge the IC as the competition forerunner to the FCWC, as a CONMEBOL/UEFA official competition and as merged to the FCWC in 2005. However, FIFA has never officially declared the IC as a world title, and FIFA has never officially declared the IC as having the same worth of the FCWC.
The fact that the IC was official under CONMEBOL/UEFA auspices means nothing to the point, for CONMEBOL/UEFA do not have jurisdiction over football all over the world, and provedly since 1962 FIFA had been trying to organise the FCWC (check Spanish newspaper El Mundo Deportivo links, on Portuguese wikipedia article), so it is a lie to say that "FIFA has never wanted to mingle with club football before 2000", as many people lyingly say.
There are also problems of sheer logic for someone to consider the IC as a world club cup: after all, why should we consider Nacional (from Uruguay) as "world champion 1980" for winning the Toyota Cup that year, rather than give this status to Pumas UNAM (from Mexico), who beat the very same Nacional (from Uruguay) for the Interamerican Cup weeks later??? We must also remember that 1978 Interamerican Cup Champion Club America (from Mexico) tried to play the Intercontinental Cup in 1978 basedly on its Interamerican Cup title, and Club America was denied that chance, giving proof that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world". Actually, CONCACAF and AFC (Asia) requested the enlargement of the IC under FIFA auspices as soon as 1967 (check Spanish newspaper El Mundo Deportivo links, on Portuguese wikipedia article), and they were denied by CONMEBOL and UEFA, once more showing that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world". And as a third proof that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world" , we have that in year 2001 when a Mexican club (Cruz Azul) made it to the final of the Libertadores and, before the finals, CONMEBOL announced that the Mexican club would not be allowed into the IC even if it won the Libertadores Cup. Clearly enough, no fewer than 3 times CONMEBOL and UEFA proved that they chose to make the IC a two-continental event rather than a world (all inclusive) event.
Last but not least, it is also a fake argumentation to say that the IC was a world title "because it was the world's top club competition when it was created, as UEFA and CONMEBOL were the sole confederations with continental club competitions". This kind of thinking is fake thinking because, under this very same line of thinking, the UEFA Champions Cup and the English FA Cup should also be considered "world titles" - after all, both of them were also inquestionably "the world's top club competition" at the moment they were created.
Actually, if we think that the IC was a world title because "UEFA and CONMEBOL were the sole confederations with continental club competitions when the IC was created", therefore, under the very same logic, we should stop considering the IC as a world title in 1967, for in 1967 Concacaf and Asia created their continental club competitions and therefore UEFA and CONMEBOL stopped being the "the sole confederations with continental club competitions".
That "concept" of "de facto world champion" does not mean anything at all- this "concept" is a stupid concept fabricated by someone and it is not supported by any important source. Thousands of extremely relevant sources throughout the World (BBC, UEFA, Conmebol, FIFA, Japanese Football Association, Toyota, several if not most clubs that won tha IC, etc) do NOT regard the IC as being a World Title , and do not regard the IC as being the same worth of the FCWC.
I want to make clear that I do not intend to reduce the importance of the IC. I understand perfectly that it was a very important soccer trophy and perfectly official under UEFA/CONMEBOL auspices.
However, I can say that under no aspect whatsoever (official organisation, name, targeted covered geographical area, impact) we can say that the IC was a "world title" the same worth of the FCWC. Definitely, the IC has never been an equivalent to the FCWC under any aspect at all.
Dantetheperuvian is a supporter of Juventus. He insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC.
It is very clear under all aspects (logic, geographical area targeted, organising institutions): to say that the IC was equivalent to the current FCWC, that is as stupid as to say that the old Rio de Janeiro/São Paulo tournament was equivalent to the current Brazilian League, or as stupid as to say that the old Aldao Cup was an equivalent to the Libertadores Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.10.223 ( talk) 04:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
PS: In the Intercontinental Cup Talk Page, Dantetheperuvian has been already informed (the links are in the Portuguese Wikipedia FCWC article) that ever since 1962 FIFA has provedly been trying to organise itself the FCWC. However, Dantetheperuvian keeps mentioning the 1955 FIFA's refusal to organise the UCL in order to keep saying the lie that "FIFA has never wanted to mingle with club football before 2000". You see: even knowing that his point is false, Dantetheperuvian keeps supporting that point.
Someone correctly wrote that Dantetheperuvian "mixes oranges with apples". That's the true. He tries to use the succession of the IC to the FCWC as an argumentation to try to "equalise" the two competitions in terms of importance and significance. However, the mere fact that the two competitions were predecessor and successor does NOT mean at all that they were "worth equivalent" or anything like that.
That is why I gave up discussing with this Dantetheperuvian. I like discussing with well-intentioned intelectually-honest people, not with ill-intentioned intelectually-dishonest people like this Dantetheperuvian. He is just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC.
Last but not least, someone also wrote "The first World Cup envolving all continents was in 1974, so, "the first trully world champion" was Germany and not Uruguay (just Intercontinental). That is so funny...". Well, I guess this stupid lie must have been written by none other than Dantetheperuvian, who else if not him to say such a brazen and stupid lie? Actually, a "world cup" does not need to necessarily "include" teams from all continents- but it has to "be open, give some chance of participation, even if small, to all in the world". The 1930 World Cup and the World Cup Preliminary Competition (from 1934 on) were always open to all FIFA-affiliated countries that put up a national team and enrolled for participation, irrespective of which continent each country was from. Well, as you can see, here we have more one stupid lie put forth by someone (probably by Dantetheperuvian) with the intention of turning the IC into what it never was: a club world cup.
You can see, this Dantetheperuvian is just a liar. Just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. It is pointless to discuss with a person like him.
God Football needs to explain why removal of his attempt to add vast extraneous pieces of history, which has not gained consensus and has also been criticised at WT:FOOTY, is described as vandalism. Either that, or he needs to retract that accusation and accept consensus that detailed histories of other tournaments is not relevant here. He also needs to explain why he believes that anyone would enter the word club while looking for information about the World Cup. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
There is not only irrelevant information as cite the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asian Championship, competitions which have nothing to do with this tournament, but false information as define "unofficial" the Intercontinental Cup and "commercial tournament" the Toyota Cup, plus split when are the same competition according all official Confederation documents about that. Also, The FIFA Club World Cup has only existed for twelve years, and the length of the history section should reflect that.-- Dantetheperuvian ( talk) 13:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what all the cryout is about. I support Koppapa's view above. If the content can go into individual articles, then at least there should be a wikilink on this page to each one of these individual articles. I don't think such a link currently exists on the page, and all the correct and well researched and well sourced information is just getting thrown by the wayside, it looks to me me? Thanks, warshy talk 17:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but neither the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asian Cup were "world club championships", even nominally, nor had any relation to the FIFA Club World Championship/Club World Cup (Interamerican Cup was abolished in 1998 when some teams in the CONCACAF were invited to participate in tournaments Copa CONMEBOL and Afro-Asian Cup, due to conflict between CAF and AFC, in 2000), so claim otherwise is simply original research against Wikipedia rules. In FIFA official documents like this (cf. p. 12) Intercontinental Cup is marked as only predecessor of the tournament (and, just in case, I'm not saying "they are the same tournament", I'm referring to " predecessor" and UEFA, CONMEBOL and FIFA's respective press releases explicitly noted that the Intercontinental Cup was to be abolished because it would be replaced by the FIFA Club World Cup). Now, if the idea is to create an article to indicate the evolution of "the idea of a club world competition" prior the FIFA Club World Championship/Club World Cup, these should include only Lipton Trophy, Rio Cup, Pequeña Copa del Mundo and the Intercontinental Cup, since the latter was often referred even more than the other to as "world club championship" ( see photo details).-- Dantetheperuvian ( talk) 22:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
... i now saved the contents of the most complet eversion from here in their respective tournament articles. 1, 2, 3 - Koppapa ( talk) 09:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have fully protected the page as it appeared when I became involved ( this revision). If you wish to make uncontroversial edits you may request an administrator perform them by starting a new section on this talk page explaining the edit and an administrator will perform it. I will check this page whenever I'm online and include any edit requests or you can use the {{ Edit protected}} template to attract other administrators' attention.
The page was protected because I feel that there should be more discussion rather than just the one line comments in edit summaries. If I am interpreting this correctly, God Football wishes to add information about leagues that existed prior to FIFA that provide context for the history of a "world cup" (whatever definition you go by). Others think that this information, while truthful and well sourced, is not appropriate for this page. Is this an accurate summary of the dispute? James086 Talk 13:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
@Jay: I actually disagree with you. The other competitions were actually precursors to FIFA establishing a CWC under its sponsorhip in 2000. Without all these precursors, and especially the Toyota Cup, FIFA would not have reached the international/global format that is currently used. And, as I said, one way or the other, the information is good and important for the history of the sport (Football), and for the history of the competition (CWC as opposed to just the national World Cup). warshy talk 20:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I think we agree on the overall picture. It is just a matter of going through the details of each competition, which is work that will have to be done sometime, I don't know if with GF participation or not. That will depend on him, I guess... Thanks. warshy talk 21:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of the material compiled by GF on the history of international football competitions is based on reliable secondary sources. Anything based on reliable secondary sources is not original research. It is just a matter of going through it and verifying that all assertions are backed up by reliable sources. This is work that will have to be done in any case, and GF seems to have a good sense of the sources, if he comes back... But there is no point in arguing about general policies at this point; each specific assertion can be discussed and verified later, when the work of incorpotating his material back into WP is done. warshy talk 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Sincerily, I have investigated users like Kevin and PeeJay, as well as others close to them, and started by going back four years ago; and I decided against making a formal complaint. The more I came to 2012, the more disgusted I became. I realized now that the level of disruption, uncivi lity and just plain tag-teaming/ninja ganging can only be possible with administrators that not only endorses behavior like that from them but are part of it. The amount of years this has gone on for and the apparent lack of any ban is proof of that: rules and regulations are worthless when some are allowed to circumvent them out of associations. I imagine it is the same in other subjects here.
I invite everyone to come over to BigSoccerpedia. I have asked, and been given the blessing, to start a wikia based on big soccer. Here is the website: here. Just like the forum bigsoccer, it is going to count with the contributions of thousands of bigsoccer members and will feature every tournament, club, etc possible. It is non-profit, of course. For now, I am designing the wikia to be as close as possible to bigsoccer. I am already 3/4 done. I will then start exporting pages from here and inserting it there to act as the basis of bigsoccerpedia. We will go from there.
It has been plain disgusting seeing how a circle of editors have hijacked certain subjects in wikipedia and, worse, administrators have backed-them up on it. It is not worth a headache and I invite everyone to give this a try. I am currently importing templates and writing new programs to drastically improve it farther than what we have here. God Football ( talk) 10:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on a request at my talk page, I've tried to do some copyediting of the text. I think I've fixed some of the awkward language and flow problems, but someone else is free to go over it again and see if it can't be made better. Also, one thing that should be fixed is that every single sentence does not need a seperate footnote; once per paragraph is sufficient unless a statement is particularly contentious or contains a direct quote. The current writing is VERY over-footnoted. Condense and move most of the footnotes to the end of paragraphs, especially where the same source or sources are used for the whole paragraph, there's really no need to cite that same source for each sentence. Having too many footnotes impedes reading, and for this reason they really should just go at the end of each paragraph, unless some statement is a direct quote, or is very contentious (and I don't see much that is that contentious). -- Jayron 32 13:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The "History" section of this article is still too detailed. Why on earth do we have so much detail about the "precursor" tournaments in comparison to the history of this tournament? I concede that we should mention previous world club tournaments, but not in this much detail. I'd really like to cut it down, but I won't do it unless I get a decent number of responses here. – Pee Jay 23:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Although it hasn't been updated following the 2015 tournament, this document (particularly the section that starts on page 13) is very useful as a source for the statistical records from the Club World Cup. Please consider using this in future, instead of individually sourcing each player's number of appearances in the competition (for example). – Pee Jay 11:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Most of the world regards the UEFA Champions League as the most distinguished club level trophy. You might want to bring some reliable sources for the claim, that Chinese or Australian football fans deem the FIFA Club World Cup to be a more important competition.
I can't find any reliable sources, which claim, that British media are even less interested than German or Dutch media.
I can't find any reliable sources, which compares the sporting level of the FIFA Club World Cup with the Intercontinental Cup. This source doesn't say anything about the "sporting level" of the two competitions. It just says, that European teams win more often now.
-- Mai-Sachme ( talk) 17:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
El cazador ( talk) 05:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It is a widely know fact that the tournament has different importance across the world. The difference is well source in the "Reception" section so why not have a sentence about it in the lead, as lead is summary of the article? Qed237 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on FIFA Club World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on FIFA Club World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
FIFA has ruled today that all titles won between 1960-2004 can be considered as "World Champions": here Spanish
Should these be merged?-- Fernando ( talk) 15:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose a merge. They are two different competitions, with different organisers, different scope, and were even running concurrently at one point. FIFA have only given retrospective recognition to the Intercontinental Cup as a world championship, they haven't claimed it was the same competition as theirs. Jellyman ( talk) 11:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose a merge. For the same reasons presented bt Jellyman. FIFA may have now regarded them as being of equal worth or status, but still they are different competitions, with different organisers and history. El cazador ( talk) 19:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose For reasons above. Different competitions. From what I remember they are pretty well referred to one another already, but if any more needs done there, it should be in case anyone is unaware of the other tournament. But not merge. Crowsus ( talk) 10:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
approve marge, FIFA Council decided from 1960 to 2004 World Club Championship. The only exception is 2000 experimental Brazilian cup which was held by invitation as Copa Libertadores Winner didn't play the tournament. Mei5535 ( talk) 19:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The last two editions (2019-2020) before the possible upcoming expansion in 2021 are 'most likely' to be held in China, according to https://tribune.com.pk/story/1759215/3-2019-fifa-club-world-cup-big-chance-held-china-infantino-told-jack-ma/, I think you should create new pages for the 2019-2020 editions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.222.50.1 ( talk) 23:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if Barcelona have their 5th title, how TF are Madrid, with 4 titles, more successful? I've updated the infobox based on this error, but if you have a correction for me, you may leave me a message on my talk page, given that you provide me with a reliable source. Anyway, I'm done writing now. Have a great rest of your day. GOLDIEM J ( talk) 06:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
From 1960 to 2004 all International Cup winners are World Champion (equivalent to 2005 first Fifa Organized FIfa Club World Cup).
Boca Juniors - champion 2000 Manchester United - Champion 1999 etc...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5024793/Manchester-United-two-time-world-club-champions.html https://ge.globo.com/futebol/futebol-internacional/noticia/fifa-reconhece-titulos-mundiais-de-flamengo-gremio-santos-e-sao-paulo.ghtml https://www.conmebol.com/noticias/fifa-acepta-propuesta-de-conembol-de-reconocer-titulos-de-copa-intercontinental-como-mundiales-de/
It is official by FIFA that before 1960 no Fifa Club Word Cup was ever held. And that from 1960 to 2004 all winners are considered world champion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mei5535 ( talk • contribs) 03:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
2000 Libertadores Championship: Boca Juniors winner On 28 November 2000, Real Madrid played against Boca in Tokyo and Boca Juniors won 2x1. Since Fifa officially award Boca Juniors World Club Champion in 2000, there is no "new" World Championship tornament. Document [1] Fifa soccer council officially declared 1960 to 2004 World Club Champion [2] Mei5535 ( talk) 18:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
As of official sources, not website layout, signed documents goes: Fifa council approved all winners from 1964 to 2004 World Champion. Latest official document confirm this. First year 2000 tournament was experimental as it did not include Libertadores Champion and was decided in a match of a brazilian club vs brazilian club
From 1960 to 2021 all matches were played by Europe UEFA champion vs COPA Libertadores champion. In the year 2000, the match was played by Real Madrid vs Boca Juniors in Japan. [3] Mei5535 ( talk) 19:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
References
The merger proposal… I propose merging Future FIFA Club World Cup (China) into this article. All of the information in the Future Club World Cup page is based on plans from several years ago which appear to be dead in the water per NYTimes https://nytimes.com/2022/05/05/sports/soccer/sounders-club-world-cup.html . There's so little actual information about this that it doesn't warrant its own article. Rambo Apocalypse ( talk) 15:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe it should be added to the article. Give a reason if you disagree. The third and fourth games have been held in all periods.
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Spain (ESP) | 8 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
2 | Brazil (BRA) | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 |
3 | England (ENG) | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
4 | Germany (GER) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Italy (ITA) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
6 | Argentina (ARG) | 0 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
7 | Mexico (MEX) | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
8 | Japan (JPN) | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
9 | DR Congo (COD) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Ecuador (ECU) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
Morocco (MAR) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
Saudi Arabia (KSA) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
United Arab Emirates (UAE) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
14 | Egypt (EGY) | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
15 | Colombia (COL) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Costa Rica (CRC) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
New Zealand (NZL) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
Qatar (QAT) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
South Korea (KOR) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
Totals (19 entries) | 19 | 19 | 19 | 57 |
This table shows how many medals the clubs of each country have won. Instead of the table of medals, the title can be written as the performance of the countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHcc20 ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The decision was made official at a FIFA Council meeting on October 27, 2017, in India, when president Gianni Infantino expressed his desire to create a more robust competition for the Club World Cup - which was made official in 2023 with the 2025 Super World Cup. There were 42 editions of the Intercontinental Cup - from 1960 to 2004 -, played between the champions of the Libertadores and the Champions League, with 25 different world champions. https://ge.globo.com/futebol/mundial-de-clubes/noticia/2023/12/23/fifa-nao-reconhece-os-titulos-de-mundiais-de-santos-flamengo-gremio-e-sao-paulo-checamos.ghtml
also https://twitter.com/FIFAcom/status/1338111177285640195
"It's official: FIFA recognized the Intercontinental Cups as world titles In this way, South America has a total of 13 champions between 1960 and 2004, six of them are Argentine teams: Boca (3), Independiente (2), River, Estudiantes, Racing and Vélez (1)" https://www.lanacion.com.ar/deportes/futbol/la-fifa-reconocio-las-copas-intercontinentales-como-titulos-del-mundo-nid2076625/ Kksssn ( talk) 00:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
EDIT add more source "FIFA decided this Friday to officially recognize as champions of the Club World Cup the teams that won the Intercontinental Cup between 1960 and 2004, a group in which six Argentine teams enter, with the aim of establishing a unifying criterion between both tournaments." [1] Kksssn ( talk) 00:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
FIFA Club World Cup is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's a confederations cup for clubs!
I think it would be fair to post the criteria used to select the team participants in this cup.
In 2000, the criteria were very different from those used from 2005 up to now. For example, the 1999 winner of the Libertadores Cup was not invited to participate and no one knows for sure why. Instead, the brazilian 1999 champion, Corinthians, was invited to participate. FIFA said that the invitation of Corinthians was because they would represent Brazil, where the games would be played. This does not happen anymore. Therefore, Corinthians was a "World Champion" without beating any other South American teams like Boca Jrs. from Argentina. ( EPleite ( talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)EPleite)
^^^ Vasco da Gama was the Libertadores representative in 2000. The tournament was to be held in 1999, which is why Palmeiras wasn't chosen. Corinthians were the current host champions, which have participated in other occasions (Al Wahda in 2010, for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.26.69 ( talk) 11:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. One thing: the article says that the 4 "weaker" continents will meet in a qualifying round, and the two left standing will meet the European and South American champions in the semis. Well, I gather the 4 "weak" continents include the CONCACAF members (North and Central Americas and the Caribbean), Africa, Asia and Oceania, while the Europeans would be the champion of the UEFA Champions League and the South Americans, the champion of the Copa Libertadores, right? The problem is exactly in the last part: teams from Mexico have been playing in the Copa Libertadores for a few years, but Mexico is also a member of the CONCACAF, wouldn't that mean that Mexican teams get two chances of making it to this year end tournament, which would be unfair to all other nations? Has FIFA given any explanation regarding this? Regards, Redux 23:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Up to now, Mexican teams have done pretty poorly in the Libertadores. They are just not as good as the big Brazillian and Argentinian teams, so this has never really been an issue. I guess its a bit like South African playing in the CONCACAF Gold Cup AND the African Cup of Nations. This gives them 2 chances to qualify for the Confederations Cup. It is very unlikely that they will win both cups so the issue. in theory should never arise. -- Ukdan999 18:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall Man United "insisting" on missing out on defending the FA Cup in 2000 at all, nor do I recall the FA being at all "reluctant" that they should do so. If anything, the positions were reversed--the FA was desperate for United to go to Brazil because it seemed to have decided that that would be the only criterion FIFA would use to decide the location of the 2006 World Cup, whereas United would have much rather played in the FA Cup, a competition that actually meant something to its players and supporters. As it stands, the statement in the article seems pretty unjustified, and could be mistaken as just a chance to take a cheap shot at Manchester United. Binabik80 01:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I have added a table for the champions from 2000 on. I've also made different pages from 2000 and 2005 competitions. Regards to all -- Mrzero 06:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
What about including Championships by team, country and confederation of the Intercontinental Cup?
Regards, FTota 19:24, 20 Dez 2005 (UTC)
There is an specific article for that -> Intercontinental Cup
It's not enough, Milan has 4 titles including Intercontinental Cup and Club Word Cup, which is the most in all clubs. However, as it splited into 2 items, this point cannot be seen anymore. BeijingCup ( talk) 06:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely agree since intercontinental cup winners are officially recognised by FIFA as world champions!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.73.195 ( talk) 17:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
Has anyone got any details as to when the next one will be or even if there will be one? -- iamajpeg 14:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The next tournament will be: "FIFA Club World Cup 2006" in Japan. It is not contest annually in Japan, will be different hosts starting in 2007. A club from the host country will play too. 201.52.221.64 18:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we change the topic title to " FIFA Club World Cup" instead of the current " FIFA Club World Championship" ?
Didnt the FIFA cancelled the Corinthians title? I am from Brazil and I heard in the press that FIFA cancelled the title... so.. is that true? and.. if it is.. why is the Corinthians there? -- Manny 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
My e-mail to the FIFA media: "The World Cup of 2000 Club Winer isnt Boca Juniors (Argentina)? In my humble opinion I think this a big mistake that can only confuse everybody including the FIFA website visitors." FIFA media answer: "Thank you for the e-mail enquiry you have sent to media@fifa.org."
Corinthians: not won any international competition... but was able to compete in a WC??? Another one: participants were champions of different seasons, 98 and 99, so which season we are talking about in this world cup? --Lucio Garcia 02:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia ( talk • contribs)
I checked the FIFA website. They have not posted the draw. When did they do the draw?
Well, sir, from what I see, only CONCACAF has qualified anybody. Namely Club America from Mexico. I had thought I had heard Auckland City had qualified as well, but I think that's just somebody assuming that will hold true, as Australia has bolted to the Asian confederation, leaving New Zealand the strongest domestic league in Oceania. So, not sure about the draw. I just skimmed the CWC website. Hasn't happened yet though.-- Coryma 02:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2000/club_championship/news/2000/01/15/edilson_mvp/index.html Falarcomsaopedro 07:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Gethomas3 ( talk · contribs) keeps changing the Champions table's layout to this version, without discussing it first. The current table layout looks much better and very clean to me, and there is no need to list the host country in a separate field if it is already listed in the venues area of the table. So, what do the other users think? Which Champions table's layout is better? -- Carioca 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Is that Golden Shoes still exists? According FIFA Official website, i did not see any Golden Shoes awarded since 2005 [1] [2] [3], so this mean it is violate Wikipedia:No original research. It should be remove away. -- Aleen f1 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It says Juventus is the only club to have won all the cups they could win, including the intertoto, and not ajax,while ajax won them all aswell, they even won the first intertoto cup held. But it's nowhere said on the page..
What ou on about? Ajax and Juvents have not won the Club World Cup, so they have never won all the competitions they could have won have they? Druryfire ( talk) 21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I want to make an alert about IP editions at 2011 FIFA Club World Cup. There is no evidence about the torunament return to Japan after UAE signature contract with FIFA to organize the FIFA Club World Cup. Please check it out and avoid vandalism. If I'm wrong my apologize. I think Wikipedia is not a primary source. Furthermore, the sources by the IP are used out of context.-- Futbolero ( talk) 07:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Since 2006 the trophy is not as pictured. Please update, if possible. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.60.99.232 ( talk) 02:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice additions there, but are those not a bit too long in the article about the fifa club world cup? - Koppapa ( talk) 20:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
i don't understand, why the user called God Football flooded the page with non-sense information just now? this article is about FCWC, not previous tournaments, there are specific articles for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AphexT4 ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
FIFA states that the only Cup World Cup predecessor is the Intercontinental Cup ( FIFA Club World Cup Statistical Kit 2012, p. 12), therefore, information on the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asian Cup is useless.-- Dantetheperuvian ( talk) 03:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
P.D.
"The idea of identifying the best club side in the world by staging a world championship was first raised at the end of the 1950s. In the post-war era, sport was once again helping to heal wounds and bring about reconciliation among people. Back then, the world of football was dominated by Europe and South America, whose teams thrilled fans with their contrasting styles of play. Brazil had won the FIFA World Cup™ in Europe for the first and so far only time in 1958. In Europe and South America, two continental club championships had been created: the European Champion Clubs’ Cup and the Copa Libertadores. And so it was only natural that the “World Championship” be contested by the winners of these two competitions. Santiago Bernabéu, Real Madrid’s legendary president, was the man who proposed that the premier club be decided by a match held over two legs. In the ensuing period, the competition experienced a number of ups of down. It appeared to be coming to an end in the mid-1970s until it was “rescued” by Japan, who breathed new life into the encounter in 1980 by turning it into a single game on neutral territory, originally in Tokyo and more recently in Yokohama. As the Toyota Cup, the contest regained the respect of the international football family. But football has come a long way since the intercontinental challenge was first launched. All the confederations stage a continental club championship, but for many years they were denied access to a top event at world level. For FIFA, who in 1954 had declined to take part in the organisation of a cup competition for European clubs, this was reason enough to get involved at club level by staging the inaugural FIFA Club World Championship TOYOTA Cup in Brazil in 2000"
— FIFA Activity Report 2005, Official Publication of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, p.62
DtP.
“ | FIFA can only "recognize" teams as World Champions that have competed under its auspices. As the European/South American is not an official FIFA event, and does not include teams from all continent, the winners cannot be considered as World Champions. | ” |
Were the same competition held by UEFA / CONMEBOL during 44 years since 1960 to 2004, so, official UEFA / CONMEBOL competition.
“ | The European/South American Cup will be replaced by a new annual FIFA Club World Championship in 2005, football's world governing body have announced. | ” |
“ | Beginning in 1960, the European/South American Cup has been played in Japan since 1980/81. FIFA organised a Club World Championship in 2000 in Brazil, won by SC Corinthians Paulista in a tourmanet where Europe was represented by Manchester United FC and Real Madrid CF.
The last European/South American Cup match will be played in Japan this December, with CA Boca Juniors having beaten AC Milan on penalties in the 2003 edition. The winners of last seaon's Champions League final, FC Porto, will meet CD Once Caldas, the victors in the Copa Libertadores. |
” |
-- Dantetheperuvian ( talk) 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
For short, I will call the Intercontinental Toyota Cups 1960-2004 as "IC" and the FIFA Club World Cup as "FCWC".
The fact is that the FCWC followed the IC as its successor. FIFA does acknowledge the IC as the competition forerunner to the FCWC, as a CONMEBOL/UEFA official competition and as merged to the FCWC in 2005. However, FIFA has never officially declared the IC as a world title, and FIFA has never officially declared the IC as having the same worth of the FCWC.
The fact that the IC was official under CONMEBOL/UEFA auspices means nothing to the point, for CONMEBOL/UEFA do not have jurisdiction over football all over the world, and provedly since 1962 FIFA had been trying to organise the FCWC (check Spanish newspaper El Mundo Deportivo links, on Portuguese wikipedia article), so it is a lie to say that "FIFA has never wanted to mingle with club football before 2000", as many people lyingly say.
There are also problems of sheer logic for someone to consider the IC as a world club cup: after all, why should we consider Nacional (from Uruguay) as "world champion 1980" for winning the Toyota Cup that year, rather than give this status to Pumas UNAM (from Mexico), who beat the very same Nacional (from Uruguay) for the Interamerican Cup weeks later??? We must also remember that 1978 Interamerican Cup Champion Club America (from Mexico) tried to play the Intercontinental Cup in 1978 basedly on its Interamerican Cup title, and Club America was denied that chance, giving proof that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world". Actually, CONCACAF and AFC (Asia) requested the enlargement of the IC under FIFA auspices as soon as 1967 (check Spanish newspaper El Mundo Deportivo links, on Portuguese wikipedia article), and they were denied by CONMEBOL and UEFA, once more showing that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world". And as a third proof that the UEFA/CONMEBOL intention in the IC was to indicate the "best of Europe + South America", not "the best in the world" , we have that in year 2001 when a Mexican club (Cruz Azul) made it to the final of the Libertadores and, before the finals, CONMEBOL announced that the Mexican club would not be allowed into the IC even if it won the Libertadores Cup. Clearly enough, no fewer than 3 times CONMEBOL and UEFA proved that they chose to make the IC a two-continental event rather than a world (all inclusive) event.
Last but not least, it is also a fake argumentation to say that the IC was a world title "because it was the world's top club competition when it was created, as UEFA and CONMEBOL were the sole confederations with continental club competitions". This kind of thinking is fake thinking because, under this very same line of thinking, the UEFA Champions Cup and the English FA Cup should also be considered "world titles" - after all, both of them were also inquestionably "the world's top club competition" at the moment they were created.
Actually, if we think that the IC was a world title because "UEFA and CONMEBOL were the sole confederations with continental club competitions when the IC was created", therefore, under the very same logic, we should stop considering the IC as a world title in 1967, for in 1967 Concacaf and Asia created their continental club competitions and therefore UEFA and CONMEBOL stopped being the "the sole confederations with continental club competitions".
That "concept" of "de facto world champion" does not mean anything at all- this "concept" is a stupid concept fabricated by someone and it is not supported by any important source. Thousands of extremely relevant sources throughout the World (BBC, UEFA, Conmebol, FIFA, Japanese Football Association, Toyota, several if not most clubs that won tha IC, etc) do NOT regard the IC as being a World Title , and do not regard the IC as being the same worth of the FCWC.
I want to make clear that I do not intend to reduce the importance of the IC. I understand perfectly that it was a very important soccer trophy and perfectly official under UEFA/CONMEBOL auspices.
However, I can say that under no aspect whatsoever (official organisation, name, targeted covered geographical area, impact) we can say that the IC was a "world title" the same worth of the FCWC. Definitely, the IC has never been an equivalent to the FCWC under any aspect at all.
Dantetheperuvian is a supporter of Juventus. He insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC.
It is very clear under all aspects (logic, geographical area targeted, organising institutions): to say that the IC was equivalent to the current FCWC, that is as stupid as to say that the old Rio de Janeiro/São Paulo tournament was equivalent to the current Brazilian League, or as stupid as to say that the old Aldao Cup was an equivalent to the Libertadores Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.10.223 ( talk) 04:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
PS: In the Intercontinental Cup Talk Page, Dantetheperuvian has been already informed (the links are in the Portuguese Wikipedia FCWC article) that ever since 1962 FIFA has provedly been trying to organise itself the FCWC. However, Dantetheperuvian keeps mentioning the 1955 FIFA's refusal to organise the UCL in order to keep saying the lie that "FIFA has never wanted to mingle with club football before 2000". You see: even knowing that his point is false, Dantetheperuvian keeps supporting that point.
Someone correctly wrote that Dantetheperuvian "mixes oranges with apples". That's the true. He tries to use the succession of the IC to the FCWC as an argumentation to try to "equalise" the two competitions in terms of importance and significance. However, the mere fact that the two competitions were predecessor and successor does NOT mean at all that they were "worth equivalent" or anything like that.
That is why I gave up discussing with this Dantetheperuvian. I like discussing with well-intentioned intelectually-honest people, not with ill-intentioned intelectually-dishonest people like this Dantetheperuvian. He is just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC.
Last but not least, someone also wrote "The first World Cup envolving all continents was in 1974, so, "the first trully world champion" was Germany and not Uruguay (just Intercontinental). That is so funny...". Well, I guess this stupid lie must have been written by none other than Dantetheperuvian, who else if not him to say such a brazen and stupid lie? Actually, a "world cup" does not need to necessarily "include" teams from all continents- but it has to "be open, give some chance of participation, even if small, to all in the world". The 1930 World Cup and the World Cup Preliminary Competition (from 1934 on) were always open to all FIFA-affiliated countries that put up a national team and enrolled for participation, irrespective of which continent each country was from. Well, as you can see, here we have more one stupid lie put forth by someone (probably by Dantetheperuvian) with the intention of turning the IC into what it never was: a club world cup.
You can see, this Dantetheperuvian is just a liar. Just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. It is pointless to discuss with a person like him.
God Football needs to explain why removal of his attempt to add vast extraneous pieces of history, which has not gained consensus and has also been criticised at WT:FOOTY, is described as vandalism. Either that, or he needs to retract that accusation and accept consensus that detailed histories of other tournaments is not relevant here. He also needs to explain why he believes that anyone would enter the word club while looking for information about the World Cup. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
There is not only irrelevant information as cite the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asian Championship, competitions which have nothing to do with this tournament, but false information as define "unofficial" the Intercontinental Cup and "commercial tournament" the Toyota Cup, plus split when are the same competition according all official Confederation documents about that. Also, The FIFA Club World Cup has only existed for twelve years, and the length of the history section should reflect that.-- Dantetheperuvian ( talk) 13:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what all the cryout is about. I support Koppapa's view above. If the content can go into individual articles, then at least there should be a wikilink on this page to each one of these individual articles. I don't think such a link currently exists on the page, and all the correct and well researched and well sourced information is just getting thrown by the wayside, it looks to me me? Thanks, warshy talk 17:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but neither the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asian Cup were "world club championships", even nominally, nor had any relation to the FIFA Club World Championship/Club World Cup (Interamerican Cup was abolished in 1998 when some teams in the CONCACAF were invited to participate in tournaments Copa CONMEBOL and Afro-Asian Cup, due to conflict between CAF and AFC, in 2000), so claim otherwise is simply original research against Wikipedia rules. In FIFA official documents like this (cf. p. 12) Intercontinental Cup is marked as only predecessor of the tournament (and, just in case, I'm not saying "they are the same tournament", I'm referring to " predecessor" and UEFA, CONMEBOL and FIFA's respective press releases explicitly noted that the Intercontinental Cup was to be abolished because it would be replaced by the FIFA Club World Cup). Now, if the idea is to create an article to indicate the evolution of "the idea of a club world competition" prior the FIFA Club World Championship/Club World Cup, these should include only Lipton Trophy, Rio Cup, Pequeña Copa del Mundo and the Intercontinental Cup, since the latter was often referred even more than the other to as "world club championship" ( see photo details).-- Dantetheperuvian ( talk) 22:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
... i now saved the contents of the most complet eversion from here in their respective tournament articles. 1, 2, 3 - Koppapa ( talk) 09:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have fully protected the page as it appeared when I became involved ( this revision). If you wish to make uncontroversial edits you may request an administrator perform them by starting a new section on this talk page explaining the edit and an administrator will perform it. I will check this page whenever I'm online and include any edit requests or you can use the {{ Edit protected}} template to attract other administrators' attention.
The page was protected because I feel that there should be more discussion rather than just the one line comments in edit summaries. If I am interpreting this correctly, God Football wishes to add information about leagues that existed prior to FIFA that provide context for the history of a "world cup" (whatever definition you go by). Others think that this information, while truthful and well sourced, is not appropriate for this page. Is this an accurate summary of the dispute? James086 Talk 13:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
@Jay: I actually disagree with you. The other competitions were actually precursors to FIFA establishing a CWC under its sponsorhip in 2000. Without all these precursors, and especially the Toyota Cup, FIFA would not have reached the international/global format that is currently used. And, as I said, one way or the other, the information is good and important for the history of the sport (Football), and for the history of the competition (CWC as opposed to just the national World Cup). warshy talk 20:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I think we agree on the overall picture. It is just a matter of going through the details of each competition, which is work that will have to be done sometime, I don't know if with GF participation or not. That will depend on him, I guess... Thanks. warshy talk 21:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of the material compiled by GF on the history of international football competitions is based on reliable secondary sources. Anything based on reliable secondary sources is not original research. It is just a matter of going through it and verifying that all assertions are backed up by reliable sources. This is work that will have to be done in any case, and GF seems to have a good sense of the sources, if he comes back... But there is no point in arguing about general policies at this point; each specific assertion can be discussed and verified later, when the work of incorpotating his material back into WP is done. warshy talk 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Sincerily, I have investigated users like Kevin and PeeJay, as well as others close to them, and started by going back four years ago; and I decided against making a formal complaint. The more I came to 2012, the more disgusted I became. I realized now that the level of disruption, uncivi lity and just plain tag-teaming/ninja ganging can only be possible with administrators that not only endorses behavior like that from them but are part of it. The amount of years this has gone on for and the apparent lack of any ban is proof of that: rules and regulations are worthless when some are allowed to circumvent them out of associations. I imagine it is the same in other subjects here.
I invite everyone to come over to BigSoccerpedia. I have asked, and been given the blessing, to start a wikia based on big soccer. Here is the website: here. Just like the forum bigsoccer, it is going to count with the contributions of thousands of bigsoccer members and will feature every tournament, club, etc possible. It is non-profit, of course. For now, I am designing the wikia to be as close as possible to bigsoccer. I am already 3/4 done. I will then start exporting pages from here and inserting it there to act as the basis of bigsoccerpedia. We will go from there.
It has been plain disgusting seeing how a circle of editors have hijacked certain subjects in wikipedia and, worse, administrators have backed-them up on it. It is not worth a headache and I invite everyone to give this a try. I am currently importing templates and writing new programs to drastically improve it farther than what we have here. God Football ( talk) 10:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on a request at my talk page, I've tried to do some copyediting of the text. I think I've fixed some of the awkward language and flow problems, but someone else is free to go over it again and see if it can't be made better. Also, one thing that should be fixed is that every single sentence does not need a seperate footnote; once per paragraph is sufficient unless a statement is particularly contentious or contains a direct quote. The current writing is VERY over-footnoted. Condense and move most of the footnotes to the end of paragraphs, especially where the same source or sources are used for the whole paragraph, there's really no need to cite that same source for each sentence. Having too many footnotes impedes reading, and for this reason they really should just go at the end of each paragraph, unless some statement is a direct quote, or is very contentious (and I don't see much that is that contentious). -- Jayron 32 13:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The "History" section of this article is still too detailed. Why on earth do we have so much detail about the "precursor" tournaments in comparison to the history of this tournament? I concede that we should mention previous world club tournaments, but not in this much detail. I'd really like to cut it down, but I won't do it unless I get a decent number of responses here. – Pee Jay 23:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Although it hasn't been updated following the 2015 tournament, this document (particularly the section that starts on page 13) is very useful as a source for the statistical records from the Club World Cup. Please consider using this in future, instead of individually sourcing each player's number of appearances in the competition (for example). – Pee Jay 11:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Most of the world regards the UEFA Champions League as the most distinguished club level trophy. You might want to bring some reliable sources for the claim, that Chinese or Australian football fans deem the FIFA Club World Cup to be a more important competition.
I can't find any reliable sources, which claim, that British media are even less interested than German or Dutch media.
I can't find any reliable sources, which compares the sporting level of the FIFA Club World Cup with the Intercontinental Cup. This source doesn't say anything about the "sporting level" of the two competitions. It just says, that European teams win more often now.
-- Mai-Sachme ( talk) 17:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
El cazador ( talk) 05:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It is a widely know fact that the tournament has different importance across the world. The difference is well source in the "Reception" section so why not have a sentence about it in the lead, as lead is summary of the article? Qed237 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on FIFA Club World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on FIFA Club World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
FIFA has ruled today that all titles won between 1960-2004 can be considered as "World Champions": here Spanish
Should these be merged?-- Fernando ( talk) 15:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose a merge. They are two different competitions, with different organisers, different scope, and were even running concurrently at one point. FIFA have only given retrospective recognition to the Intercontinental Cup as a world championship, they haven't claimed it was the same competition as theirs. Jellyman ( talk) 11:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose a merge. For the same reasons presented bt Jellyman. FIFA may have now regarded them as being of equal worth or status, but still they are different competitions, with different organisers and history. El cazador ( talk) 19:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose For reasons above. Different competitions. From what I remember they are pretty well referred to one another already, but if any more needs done there, it should be in case anyone is unaware of the other tournament. But not merge. Crowsus ( talk) 10:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
approve marge, FIFA Council decided from 1960 to 2004 World Club Championship. The only exception is 2000 experimental Brazilian cup which was held by invitation as Copa Libertadores Winner didn't play the tournament. Mei5535 ( talk) 19:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The last two editions (2019-2020) before the possible upcoming expansion in 2021 are 'most likely' to be held in China, according to https://tribune.com.pk/story/1759215/3-2019-fifa-club-world-cup-big-chance-held-china-infantino-told-jack-ma/, I think you should create new pages for the 2019-2020 editions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.222.50.1 ( talk) 23:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if Barcelona have their 5th title, how TF are Madrid, with 4 titles, more successful? I've updated the infobox based on this error, but if you have a correction for me, you may leave me a message on my talk page, given that you provide me with a reliable source. Anyway, I'm done writing now. Have a great rest of your day. GOLDIEM J ( talk) 06:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
From 1960 to 2004 all International Cup winners are World Champion (equivalent to 2005 first Fifa Organized FIfa Club World Cup).
Boca Juniors - champion 2000 Manchester United - Champion 1999 etc...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5024793/Manchester-United-two-time-world-club-champions.html https://ge.globo.com/futebol/futebol-internacional/noticia/fifa-reconhece-titulos-mundiais-de-flamengo-gremio-santos-e-sao-paulo.ghtml https://www.conmebol.com/noticias/fifa-acepta-propuesta-de-conembol-de-reconocer-titulos-de-copa-intercontinental-como-mundiales-de/
It is official by FIFA that before 1960 no Fifa Club Word Cup was ever held. And that from 1960 to 2004 all winners are considered world champion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mei5535 ( talk • contribs) 03:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
2000 Libertadores Championship: Boca Juniors winner On 28 November 2000, Real Madrid played against Boca in Tokyo and Boca Juniors won 2x1. Since Fifa officially award Boca Juniors World Club Champion in 2000, there is no "new" World Championship tornament. Document [1] Fifa soccer council officially declared 1960 to 2004 World Club Champion [2] Mei5535 ( talk) 18:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
As of official sources, not website layout, signed documents goes: Fifa council approved all winners from 1964 to 2004 World Champion. Latest official document confirm this. First year 2000 tournament was experimental as it did not include Libertadores Champion and was decided in a match of a brazilian club vs brazilian club
From 1960 to 2021 all matches were played by Europe UEFA champion vs COPA Libertadores champion. In the year 2000, the match was played by Real Madrid vs Boca Juniors in Japan. [3] Mei5535 ( talk) 19:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
References
The merger proposal… I propose merging Future FIFA Club World Cup (China) into this article. All of the information in the Future Club World Cup page is based on plans from several years ago which appear to be dead in the water per NYTimes https://nytimes.com/2022/05/05/sports/soccer/sounders-club-world-cup.html . There's so little actual information about this that it doesn't warrant its own article. Rambo Apocalypse ( talk) 15:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe it should be added to the article. Give a reason if you disagree. The third and fourth games have been held in all periods.
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Spain (ESP) | 8 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
2 | Brazil (BRA) | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 |
3 | England (ENG) | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
4 | Germany (GER) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Italy (ITA) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
6 | Argentina (ARG) | 0 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
7 | Mexico (MEX) | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
8 | Japan (JPN) | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
9 | DR Congo (COD) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Ecuador (ECU) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
Morocco (MAR) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
Saudi Arabia (KSA) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
United Arab Emirates (UAE) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
14 | Egypt (EGY) | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
15 | Colombia (COL) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Costa Rica (CRC) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
New Zealand (NZL) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
Qatar (QAT) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
South Korea (KOR) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
Totals (19 entries) | 19 | 19 | 19 | 57 |
This table shows how many medals the clubs of each country have won. Instead of the table of medals, the title can be written as the performance of the countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHcc20 ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The decision was made official at a FIFA Council meeting on October 27, 2017, in India, when president Gianni Infantino expressed his desire to create a more robust competition for the Club World Cup - which was made official in 2023 with the 2025 Super World Cup. There were 42 editions of the Intercontinental Cup - from 1960 to 2004 -, played between the champions of the Libertadores and the Champions League, with 25 different world champions. https://ge.globo.com/futebol/mundial-de-clubes/noticia/2023/12/23/fifa-nao-reconhece-os-titulos-de-mundiais-de-santos-flamengo-gremio-e-sao-paulo-checamos.ghtml
also https://twitter.com/FIFAcom/status/1338111177285640195
"It's official: FIFA recognized the Intercontinental Cups as world titles In this way, South America has a total of 13 champions between 1960 and 2004, six of them are Argentine teams: Boca (3), Independiente (2), River, Estudiantes, Racing and Vélez (1)" https://www.lanacion.com.ar/deportes/futbol/la-fifa-reconocio-las-copas-intercontinentales-como-titulos-del-mundo-nid2076625/ Kksssn ( talk) 00:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
EDIT add more source "FIFA decided this Friday to officially recognize as champions of the Club World Cup the teams that won the Intercontinental Cup between 1960 and 2004, a group in which six Argentine teams enter, with the aim of establishing a unifying criterion between both tournaments." [1] Kksssn ( talk) 00:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)