1966 & 1974 World Cups Were Fixed - Former FIFA President (non hmfc)

[slfjambo]

1966 & 1974 World Cups Were Fixed - Former FIFA President :eek:

 

Former FIFA President Joao Havelange has made some quite sensational, and potentially damaging, allegations by claiming that the 1966 and 1974 World Cups were fixed so that England and Germany would win respectively

 

 

 

The 1966 World Cup held in England has been the centre of a number of conspiracy theories over the years. These include England?s quarter final victory over Argentina when the hosts won 1-0 after the South Americans had seen their captain Antonio Rattin controversially handed a straight red card for arguing with the referee.

 

It has been claimed that there was a plot for England to win the World Cup, and the referee from this game was German, while the official in Germany?s quarter final win over Uruguay was English. The controversy continued in the final with Geoff Hurst?s famous ?was it over the line?? goal.

 

Joao Havelange, who was FIFA President from 1974 until 1998 is certain to have further fuelled these conspiracy theories by openly stating that the 1966 and ?74 World Cups were fixed.

 

"In the three matches that the Brazilian national team played in 1966, of the three referees and six linesmen, seven were British and two were Germans," Havelange told Folha de Sao Paulo.

 

"Brazil went out, Pele ?exited? through injury [following some rough defensive play], and England and Germany entered into the final, just as the Englishman Sir Stanley Rous, who was the President of FIFA at the time, had wanted.

 

"In Germany in 1974 the same thing happened. During the Brazil-Holland match, the referee was German, we lost 2-0 and Germany won the title," said Havelange.

 

"We were the best in the world, and had the same team that had won the World Cup in 1962 in Chile and 1970 in Mexico, but it was planned for the host countries to win.?

 

World Cup hosts have been at the centre of many conspiracy claims over the year. In 1978 Argentina needed to beat Copa America holders Peru by four clear goals to reach the final ahead of Brazil. They won 6-0 but their were dark rumours that Peru, who had an Argentine-born goalkeeper, had thrown the game. Meanwhile in 2002, minnows South Korea were at the centre of similar claims as they finished fourth after seeing a host of dubious decisions go their way in the victories over Italy and Spain.

[leginten]

Havelange is a mentalist if he thinks that Brazil were good enough to win the World Cup in 1974. They were garbage, brutal with it and were rightly whipped by the Dutch. And the conspiracy theory takes a further nosedive with the awarding of a first-minute penalty to the Dutch in the final.

 

1966, though, is an entirely different matter...

 

[TheSandman]

What's the Source of the article?

[Cobblers]

If he thinks Brazil were the best team in the world in 1974 he's clearly gone senile. Thye were absolute ******. Lucky to draw with Scotland and could only put 3 past Zaire who lost 9 to Yugoslavia. If Scotland had played the right team (or played them last) against Zaire instead of playing an ageing Dennis Law they wouldn't have even got through the group stage.

 

 

As for 1966 I have to agree obviously a bloody fix.

[Cobblers]

Havelange is a mentalist if he thinks that Brazil were good enough to win the World Cup in 1974. They were garbage, brutal with it and were rightly whipped by the Dutch. And the conspiracy theory takes a further nosedive with the awarding of a first-minute penalty to the Dutch in the final.

 

1966, though, is an entirely different matter...

 

 

Beat me to it;)

[slfjambo]

What's the Source of the article?

 

 

http://www.goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=753029

[Boab]

I remember the Brazil/Holland game quite well and I think he's talking pish.The Dutch were immense that night and deserved to win.Even more deserving was the Brazilian sending off(can't remember the big guys name)which was a shocker.

To say the Germans never deserved to win the Final is equally pish.I think the guy is talking out an orifice and it ain't his mouth.

[lost in leith]

I remember the Brazil/Holland game quite well and I think he's talking pish.The Dutch were immense that night and deserved to win.Even more deserving was the Brazilian sending off(can't remember the big guys name)which was a shocker.

To say the Germans never deserved to win the Final is equally pish.I think the guy is talking out an orifice and it ain't his mouth.

 

Spot on. IIRC there have been a couple of books documenting what a rogue Havelange was, and how he made a fortune out of football. Brazil were kicked out of the World Cup in 1966. THey reacted by sending a big physical team to Germany in 1974, who were the worst Brazil team in my lifetime. Holland were light years ahead of them.

[Ben Dover]

Spot on. IIRC there have been a couple of books documenting what a rogue Havelange was, and how he made a fortune out of football. Brazil were kicked out of the World Cup in 1966. THey reacted by sending a big physical team to Germany in 1974, who were the worst Brazil team in my lifetime. Holland were light years ahead of them.

 

 

So what was their strategy in 1970

 

Getting back to 1974 though. As folk have already said, that team was an afront to the jersey and they got played off the park by Holland. Topped of by a 'tackle' for the sending off that would get you lifted by the police in this country nowadays

[lost in leith]

So what was their strategy in 1970

 

Getting back to 1974 though. As folk have already said, that team was an afront to the jersey and they got played off the park by Holland. Topped of by a 'tackle' for the sending off that would get you lifted by the police in this country nowadays

 

To play some of the best football ever seen And score the greatest ever team goal

[alwaysthereinspirit]

He didn't take charge till 1974. 8 years after England won it. And they say we're paranoid. Did Brazil win it while he was in charge

[Boab]

To balance things out,the Argentina/Peru game in 1978 was as dodgy an outcome of a game that i've ever seen.

It is quite a thing that Brazil were never in a final between 1970 and 1994.Nothing dodgy in that,just unusual when you think about it.

[Peter Olivers Army]

If he thinks Brazil were the best team in the world in 1974 he's clearly gone senile. Thye were absolute ******. Lucky to draw with Scotland and could only put 3 past Zaire who lost 9 to Yugoslavia. If Scotland had played the right team (or played them last) against Zaire instead of playing an ageing Dennis Law they wouldn't have even got through the group stage.

 

 

As for 1966 I have to agree obviously a bloody fix.

 

On the part concerning us Scots, very true! Donald Ford should have been a starter instead of sentiment ruling and picking Denis Law.

 

The whole '66 tournament was a farce on so many levels. It IS an amazing coincidence concerning the nationality of officials at Brazil games.

 

But I'm sick of raking over these old ashes and Havelange is a repugnant man, better suited to Mafia leadership than football.

 

So, tough titties Joao.

[Carl Spackler]

To balance things out,the Argentina/Peru game in 1978 was as dodgy an outcome of a game that i've ever seen.

Apart from Celtic pumping St Mirren that time obviously.

[Corrie Jambo]

All I know about 1966 was that Nobby Stiles kicked the best player in the tournament (Eusebio) off the pitch and knew he wouldn't get sent off against Portugal.

[Boab]

Apart from Celtic pumping St Mirren that time obviously.

 

Sorry,the 1978 game comes a poor second.

[colinmaroon]

Old Bumblevange was making a bit of sense until he mentioned Holland's 2-0 victory over Brazil!

 

Holland were so superior to Brazil that night that it should have been 4 or 5!!!

 

There was no fix necessary!!!

 

 

 

.....................

[shaun.lawson]

This needs to be put in the context of how Havelange rose to the top (as such things do) in the first place: by persuading African, Asian and South American associations that European dominance of FIFA ensured their views would never be heard. In effect, FIFA was portrayed as a neo-colonial, white man's conspiracy, headed by the ultimate British aristocrat, Sir Stanley Rous.

 

It's hard to conceive of someone doing more damage to football than the egregious, objectionable Havelange once he usurped Rous - but this has remained the narrative throughout his career, and plays to a Latin audience always inclined to favour conspiracy over ******-up. In Argentina, England's victory in 1966, and the way in which their side, Brazil and Uruguay exited the event is regarded as 'The Robbery of the Century'; and the 1990 final is also commonly believed to have been fixed. Yet strangely, no mention whatever is made of the Argentine government's bribing of their Peruvian counterparts with grain in 1978; the Hand of God; nor of either the stonewall penalty West Germany had turned down minutes before wrongly being awarded one in Rome, or the Hand of God, Mk II: Diego handling on the line against the USSR earlier in the event.

 

Similarly, many Argentine, Uruguayan, Italian, Spanish and Portugese fans honestly believe the 2002 event to have been fixed as well. Korea, of course, benefited from a series of increasingly scandalous decisions, which peaked in a match I'm convinced was definitively fixed: the quarter-final against Spain. But while Brazil, always popular with FIFA and just as much with the locals in Japan, cruised to the title, their main rivals seemed to exit in curious circumstances: Argentina, drawn in the toughest group in the event's history (while Brazil's was ludicrously weak) and being knocked out in the first round; Italy, having a staggering five goals wrongly ruled out in their four matches; and then Spain, who on form were the only side who could maybe have stopped the selecao picking up their fifth title.

 

This is simply how it is in international sport: it's war waged through other means, and continues to be so long after the results are apparently decided. Nation shall speak bile unto nation. Much more likely, though, is that South American sides, brought up believing in these legends, close ranks when playing in Europe, stifling play and effectively bringing the worst upon them. As for 1966: well, it was dubious. Brazil received no protection at all from a series of flaccid, inept officials against Portugese and Hungarian brutality; a German referee sent off an Argentine against England for "the look in his eye", while an Englishman sent off two Uruguayans against Germany (the first, after he was clearly provoked); after the tournament had begun, England's semi-final was moved from Goodison Park to Wembley; and then there's the Azeri linesman in the final too.

 

Personally though, while I can certainly see how it all looks, I hardly think it's evidence of some sort of conspiracy. The referees against the South American sides were just incompetent, and Germany's equaliser in the final should never have happened in the first place, both because Jack Charlton was fouled in the lead-up to their free kick, and there was a handball as it flew across the box to Wolfgang Weber. Moreover, the venue for the semi hadn't actually been finalised as the event kicked off: for commercial reasons, it was to be announced later on, and it was this imperative which led to England's game being played at Wembley, something Rous actually opposed, because he knew what it would look like.

 

But then, I'm English: I would say this, wouldn't I? Just as Argentinians deny what happened in 1978. Which is why these disputes will never truly be resolved: when patriotism gets in the way, reason tends to fly out of the window, and that's something that goes for us all where football is concerned.

[Charlie-Brown]

There may be some mileage in the notion that 1966 was obviously a FIX as every major tournament before and after has proved that England are only slightly better than mediocre in a world context and behind many other nations in terms of achievement.

[shaun.lawson]

There may be some mileage in the notion that 1966 was obviously a FIX as every major tournament before and after has proved that England are only slightly better than mediocre in a world context and behind many other nations in terms of achievement.

 

Exactly the argument that Havelange himself would employ. Unfortunately, this ghastly man conforms very accurately to my simple rule of South America:

 

Little thief goes to jail; big thief becomes President.

[shaun.lawson]

http://www.todoslosmundiales.com.ar/mundiales/1966inglaterra/historias/0022robo_siglo.htm

[Charlie-Brown]

There was also this famous travesty in 1966 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su3u7DnLfI0

[shaun.lawson]

God bless Azeri linesmen. He'd served at Stalingrad, and I've no doubt at all this played a major part in his decision - because of course it wasn't a goal.

 

Roger Hunt, though, could've prevented over four decades of subsequent bickering by just knocking the rebound across the line instead of turning away in celebration; and as I mentioned above, there was a handball by the German number 3 in the moments leading up to their equaliser anyway (it's about 6:00 in):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT2CAbraGjc&feature=related

 

Indeed, I actually think there's a question mark over four of the final's six goals! Arguably, only their first and our second should've been allowed.

[Charlie-Brown]

As a Scotsman you've always got to be suspicious / paranoid that any tournament held in England will be skewed to ensure England do as well as they possibly can although only the English themselves can overcome their penalties phobia.

[shaun.lawson]

As a Scotsman you've always got to be suspicious / paranoid that any tournament held in England will be skewed to ensure England do as well as they possibly can although only the English themselves can overcome their penalties phobia.

 

All tournaments held anywhere are skewed to help the hosts: it's a commercial reality. 2002 was the worst I've ever seen, but FIFA wanted a France-Brazil final in '98, and got it; and UEFA wanted a Holland-France final in 2000, and if it wasn't for the Oranje missing two penalties during the game, then three more in the shootout that followed against Italy, would've got it as well. England, meanwhile, benefited from scandalous decisions against Spain in '96, and I've always believed ****z' goal in extra time during the semi should probably have stood too.

[Charlie-Brown]

It is true that tournament hosts generally benefit from favourable group draws and generous match officials, I certainly can't remember any hosts being involved in refereeing controversy that went against them or denied them a result......

[Tazio]

And how many stadiums did England play at in 1966?

[shaun.lawson]

And how many stadiums did England play at in 1966?

 

One, as I mentioned above. Which was and remains unprecedented - but was the result of a commercial decision taken midway through the event (weirdly, the semi-final venues had yet to be finalised even when the tournament got underway). Had West Germany-USSR been played at Wembley, the organisers feared the place would be only half full.

 

None of this compares in any way, though, to what really was a fix: the 1978 competition in Argentina:

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6347c16-3f2a-11dd-8fd9-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

[Gibbo]

Clearly the hosts have an advantage but I've never understood why playing at Wembley rather than Goodison is supposed to have given England an even greater advantage. The drawback of the change in preparation & routine resulting from a switch in venue would surely be outweighed by the benefit of the home crowd being closer to the pitch at Goodison than at Wembley.

[shaun.lawson]

Clearly the hosts have an advantage but I've never understood why playing at Wembley rather than Goodison is supposed to have given England an even greater advantage. The drawback of the change in preparation & routine resulting from a switch in venue would surely be outweighed by the benefit of the home crowd being closer to the pitch at Goodison than at Wembley.

 

England could stay in the same base they'd been at all tournament, though; Portugal had to travel down.

[The Future's Maroon]

Brilliant, absolutley brilliant!!

 

Still, it wont stop them going on about it unforunately!

[leginten]

****z'

 

That's absolute class. 'Mon the filter!

[carjam]

One, as I mentioned above. Which was and remains unprecedented - but was the result of a commercial decision taken midway through the event (weirdly, the semi-final venues had yet to be finalised even when the tournament got underway). Had West Germany-USSR been played at Wembley, the organisers feared the place would be only half full.

 

None of this compares in any way, though, to what really was a fix: the 1978 competition in Argentina:

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6347c16-3f2a-11dd-8fd9-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Yeh,haveto agree, there was no way anyone other than the Argies were going to win in 78... A TOTAL FARCE !. A question i'd ask is, tho i was only a nipper at the time, with the players we had, Celtic wining euro cup in 67 with a team that was totally scottish, we were the 1st team to beat England at wembley after they won ? the w.c. ( took them apart ), how the hell didn't Scotland qualify in 66 ?!!

[wavydavy]

I wonder if he has been having secret meeting with Vlad prior to making this statement:rolleyes:

 

 

1966 & 1974 World Cups Were Fixed - Former FIFA President :eek:

 

Former FIFA President Joao Havelange has made some quite sensational, and potentially damaging, allegations by claiming that the 1966 and 1974 World Cups were fixed so that England and Germany would win respectively

 

 

 

The 1966 World Cup held in England has been the centre of a number of conspiracy theories over the years. These include England?s quarter final victory over Argentina when the hosts won 1-0 after the South Americans had seen their captain Antonio Rattin controversially handed a straight red card for arguing with the referee.

 

It has been claimed that there was a plot for England to win the World Cup, and the referee from this game was German, while the official in Germany?s quarter final win over Uruguay was English. The controversy continued in the final with Geoff Hurst?s famous ?was it over the line?? goal.

 

Joao Havelange, who was FIFA President from 1974 until 1998 is certain to have further fuelled these conspiracy theories by openly stating that the 1966 and ?74 World Cups were fixed.

 

"In the three matches that the Brazilian national team played in 1966, of the three referees and six linesmen, seven were British and two were Germans," Havelange told Folha de Sao Paulo.

 

"Brazil went out, Pele ?exited? through injury [following some rough defensive play], and England and Germany entered into the final, just as the Englishman Sir Stanley Rous, who was the President of FIFA at the time, had wanted.

 

"In Germany in 1974 the same thing happened. During the Brazil-Holland match, the referee was German, we lost 2-0 and Germany won the title," said Havelange.

 

"We were the best in the world, and had the same team that had won the World Cup in 1962 in Chile and 1970 in Mexico, but it was planned for the host countries to win.?

 

World Cup hosts have been at the centre of many conspiracy claims over the year. In 1978 Argentina needed to beat Copa America holders Peru by four clear goals to reach the final ahead of Brazil. They won 6-0 but their were dark rumours that Peru, who had an Argentine-born goalkeeper, had thrown the game. Meanwhile in 2002, minnows South Korea were at the centre of similar claims as they finished fourth after seeing a host of dubious decisions go their way in the victories over Italy and Spain.

[shaun.lawson]

Yeh,haveto agree, there was no way anyone other than the Argies were going to win in 78... A TOTAL FARCE !. A question i'd ask is, tho i was only a nipper at the time, with the players we had, Celtic wining euro cup in 67 with a team that was totally scottish, we were the 1st team to beat England at wembley after they won ? the w.c. ( took them apart ), how the hell didn't Scotland qualify in 66 ?!!

 

Remember, there were only 16 teams at the finals back then, so only qualifying group winners went through - and Scotland got lumbered in a group with Italy. It'd have been remarkable if you had made it, really; and on the bright side, you missing out meant it was the Azzurri who finished up on the wrong end of one of the greatest shocks in World Cup history. Italy 0 North Korea 1.

 

Incidentally, that famous 3-2 win at Wembley formed part of the qualifying series for the 1968 European Championship. UEFA simply awarded the winners of the Home International tournament over a two year period a place in the last eight; but by losing in Belfast and drawing in Cardiff, even a 1-1 draw in the return at Hampden wasn't enough for the Scots to stop England going through (we eventually finished 3rd). Typical Scotland, eh?

[John Findlay]

With regard to 66. For Germany's equalising goal to make it 2-2 the ball hit the Germans left side ribs and not his hand. Roger Hunt should have put it away as the ball did not cross the line. Considering it was the first half of extra-time the West(at the time) Germans still had time to equalise again.

 

Havelenge is slavering here. Read the biography of Pele by Harry Harrison and Pele's thoughts on Brazil of 1974. Where Pele says Scotland played them off the park in the group game and that 0-0 was an unjust result for us.

 

 

John

[Therapist]

Havelange is just a bitter old scrote because Brazil didn't win.

[N User]

No idea about the tournaments the old Brazilian is on about but the decisions in Korea were almost pushing old firm standard of bias/ cheating.

[Imeantasong]

England could stay in the same base they'd been at all tournament, though; Portugal had to travel down.

Wasn't the decision taken by FIFA very late (like the day before the game), which meant Portugal had to travel down to London on the day of the game?

[shaun.lawson]

Wasn't the decision taken by FIFA very late (like the day before the game), which meant Portugal had to travel down to London on the day of the game?

 

I know it was late - but not that late! Portugal travelled down 48 hours beforehand, I believe. Bear in mind that in this pre-commercial age (this was the final World Cup before the arrival of colour television), appallingly late decisions such as these weren't even particularly unusual. In 1958, with the event already well underway, FIFA tried to scrap the requirement for quarter-final play-offs between sides finishing level on points, only to be overruled, on purely financial grounds, by the Swedish organising committee. As a result, Wales and Northern Ireland were able to reach the quarter-finals, when they would otherwise have been eliminated.

 

And in 1970, Uruguay, prepared for a semi-final meeting with Brazil at the altitude of Mexico City, were abruptly required to travel to tropical Guadalajara instead, something which gave a huge advantage to a Brazilian side trembling at the memory of 1950. In truth, we've been lucky in the modern era: apart from 2002, few recent World Cups have matched their forerunners for controversy and scandal.

 

Below, a debate between, amongst others, an Englishman, an Argentine, and a Uruguayan about 1966. Note in particular the comments by the Argentine, Ariel Mazzarelli: his mixture of sardonic ridicule and refusal to acknowledge his side might ever have been at fault in any way still has me in stitches a decade or so after I first came across it. Trolling existed on the internet back then too, as you'll see: indeed, he reminds me strongly of a poster on here (no, not that one... ).

 

http://www.rsssf.com/rssbest/wc66.html

[spud]

It will not be the hosts that win it in 2010 as they are utter mince.

[shaun.lawson]

It will not be the hosts that win it in 2010 as they are utter mince.

 

An African side really ought to get to the semis, though - and FIFA will do everything they can to ensure the hosts at least make it through the group stage. And even though they're mince at the moment, Brazil will probably win it. Again.

[Bindy Badgy]

Seeing as European teams are incapable of winning outside of Europe it would appear to be between Brazil and Argentina.

[bigwull22]

Seeing as European teams are incapable of winning outside of Europe it would appear to be between Brazil and Argentina.

 

Brazil are the only team to win outside their continent, when was the last time a european team was not in the final?

[Bindy Badgy]

Brazil are the only team to win outside their continent, when was the last time a european team was not in the final?

 

1950.

 

Argertina won in Mexico which, according to this atlas, is in North America. However, it's as near enough to their own continent as makes no difference.