Talk:FIFA Club World Cup

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Table added, pages separated

message: 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)
thread_title: What about including Championships...

message: 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)
replies: text: See User_talk:Mrzero#Fair use. ed g2s • talk 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Club logos removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: In December in Japan as usual. See Fifa Page.--tequendamia 17:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next championship? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I moved this page to its new title. For discussion, go to Talk:FIFA#Rebranding_of_championships. --Gabbec 06:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 2006 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Draw 

message: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2000/club_championship/news/2000/01/15/edilson_mvp/index.html Falarcomsaopedro 07:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Ball 2000 

message: 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)
replies: text: The current table looks pretty good to me. I see no reason for changing it, and yet: changing it for a worse version IMHO. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champions table's layout 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: They've both won the Intercontinental Cup.  Omg †  osh  02:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only juventus? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The page you talk about does have sources, and the sources do say that in 2011 and 2012 the tournament will be played in Japan. Druryfire (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake 2011 edition 

message: 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)
replies: text: Iv'e changed the location of the two cups, now its fixed to show the current in the infobox.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trophy Photo. Update. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Info on interconti cup and copa rio

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

text: How about moving the content to Football Club World Championship (and sections to its relevant tournament articles)? To me it was well sourced content.-Koppapa (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not support any such move. The content can go in the individual articles about each of the previous "world club championships", but it shouldn't be collated into a single article, and especially not this article. No one is denying that the information was well sourced and true, but it was badly placed in this article. – PeeJay 16:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

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

message: ... 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)
thread_title: Nevertheless

message: 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  template to attract other administrators' attention.
The page was protected because I feel that there should be more discussion rather than just the one line comments in edit summaries. If I am interpreting this correctly, God Football wishes to add information about leagues that existed prior to FIFA that provide context for the history of a "world cup" (whatever definition you go by). Others think that this information, while truthful and well sourced, is not appropriate for this page. Is this an accurate summary of the dispute? James086Talk 13:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think I'll unprotect and just leave him a message on his talk page. It does seem that consensus exists not to include the information. I'll keep this page watched to see how the discussion continues. James086Talk 13:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your summary above is correct: "God Football wishes to add information about leagues that existed prior to FIFA that provide context for the history of a "world cup" (whatever definition you go by)." The material is all good and important, the questions now are how to add it, and where to add it. I think a history like that could go here in this page, but if the consensus is to create a different page for the history of the matter, that is also OK. One way or the other, this important and accurate material for the history of the sport and the competition should not just be thrown out and go to waste, imo. warshytalk 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be forgetting that this article is about the FIFA Club World Cup, not any of its predecessors, none of which are actual precursors to the current tournament. Like I say, by all means mention that attempts have been made to have worldwide club tournaments in the past, but we definitely do not need a summary of every single edition of every precursor competition, as God Football seemed to be adding. – PeeJay 19:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

text: They are not precursors as they do not share a common history. Would you expect to see a history of the Football League Championship in the article about the Premier League? Of course not; so why would you expect to see histories of competitions like the Intercontinental Cup included in an article about the FIFA Club World Cup? – PeeJay 20:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some are and some are not. The Toyota Cup, as I said, is definitely a precursor. And in any case, those that are not direct precursors, such as maybe the Intercontinental Cup, would still have a place in WP, granted there was link from here that linked to them. As I have been trying to say since yesterday, all the info compiled by GF should not be simply thrown out. Some of it may belong to different pages, granted there is a link from here to these pages. But now, as the info was just thrown out, all the work will have to be redone, sometime... warshytalk 20:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said, they are all predecessors to the FCWC, but in this article, they do not deserve the level of detail God Football has given them. It seems you and I are coming to the same conclusion but from different angles. In the meantime, the article should remain as it is, and any relevant information can be retrieved from the edit history. Whether that information is restored to this article (some of which I would support, don't get me wrong) or to the various other articles about the precursor tournaments will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. – PeeJay 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only Club World Cup's predecessor was the Intercontinental Cup (also called "Toyota Cup" by FIFA due its format's change and location) according to UEFA, CONMEBOL and FIFA official press notes annuncing the elimination of competition in favor of the 2nd edition of the FIFA Club World Cup. Include tournaments that have nothing to do is an original research vetoed by Wikipedia rules.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of the published sources presented by God Football presents Afro-Asian Cup and/or Interamerican Cup as predecessors of the Club World Cup or a projects of the idea of make a tournament which can be defined the best team in the world (that makes FIFA in its official documents with the Intercontinental Cup). About those tournaments, no reputable source supports God Football's theory and, at most, explain that those tournaments were created from the initial success of the Intercontinental Cup in the first half of the 1960s, so these competitions have cause-effect relationship with Intercontinental Cup, but not with the Club World Cup, that's what I mean by "original research". Also, its false say that the Intercontinental Cup was "unofficial" because the tournament was created with official value by UEFA and CONMEBOL and, for that, it is officialy recognised by FIFA and is also false present Intercontinental Cup and Toyota Cup as different competitions when really that are the same as the European Cup and Champions League are the same cup.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: Based on a request at my talk page, I've tried to do some copyediting of the text.  I think I've fixed some of the awkward language and flow problems, but someone else is free to go over it again and see if it can't be made better.  Also, one thing that should be fixed is that every single sentence does not need a seperate footnote; once per paragraph is sufficient unless a statement is particularly contentious or contains a direct quote.  The current writing is VERY over-footnoted.  Condense and move most of the footnotes to the end of paragraphs, especially where the same source or sources are used for the whole paragraph, there's really no need to cite that same source for each sentence.  Having too many footnotes impedes reading, and for this reason they really should just go at the end of each paragraph, unless some statement is a direct quote, or is very contentious (and I don't see much that is that contentious).  --Jayron32 13:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Per a new request on my talk page, I've looked over the recent changes, and things are looking pretty good; I think there's little in the realm of copyediting I could improve myself, though I am hardly the best copyeditor in the world.  Fresh eyes can always be found at WP:GOCE.  One thing I will note: many of the references can (and probably should) be expanded with more bibliographic information.  Most of the reference are little more than a URL-linked title and a retrieval date; where possible as much information should be included, such as authors of the sources (where known) and any information on the original publications (original print and/or web publication dates, page numbers, publisher information, etc.  If you're going to make a run for FA, this sort of minutiae will be expected for the high standards of FA.  --Jayron32 01:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedited this some, more tips for improvement 

message: The "History" section of this article is still too detailed. Why on earth do we have so much detail about the "precursor" tournaments in comparison to the history of this tournament? I concede that we should mention previous world club tournaments, but not in this much detail. I'd really like to cut it down, but I won't do it unless I get a decent number of responses here. – PeeJay 23:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This tournament just hasn't much history itself. I find the history section interesting, it is sourced and i don't think it makes the the article too long. -Koppapa (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be interesting, but it is a violation of WP:UNDUE. When the pre-history of a tournament receives as much coverage as the actual history of a tournament, that is not giving due coverage to either part. If the information is truly interesting, it can find a place elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. – PeeJay 10:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already a lot shorter than last year's version. You are talkng about the two paragraph above the 'Birth of the CWC', right? Ok, maybe the could be trimmed a bit further, maybe remove quotes and pictures. I just remember my above comments, where i moved the text to the respective tournament articles, so nothing should be lost. -Koppapa (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much detail 

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

message: :Hello, I read the linked sources on the Tournoi de Paris, and they do not support 2 of the claims written in the article: 
:1- The Tournoi de Paris was a competition initially meant to bring together the top teams from Europe and South America to determine a de facto "best club in the world; 
:2- Afterwards, Real Madrid secluded themselves from the competition and argued that it should be seen as a friendly tournament from then on.
El cazador (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims on the Tournoi de Paris 

message: 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)
replies: text: Exactly my opinion. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023061234/http://www.emeroteca.coni.it/bookreader.php?&c=1&f=9961&p=3 to http://www.emeroteca.coni.it/bookreader.php?&c=1&f=9961&p=3#page/4/mode/1up
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225041824/http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225041824/http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904091017/http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/game/historygame4.html to http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/game/historygame4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109024044/http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament%3D107/edition%3D3692/news/newsid%3D71334.html to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament%3D107/edition%3D3692/news/newsid%3D71334.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109024139/http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament%3D107/edition%3D4735/releases/newsid%3D96696.html to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament%3D107/edition%3D4735/releases/newsid%3D96696.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130304185528/http://corinthians.com.br/site/futebol/titulos/ to http://www.corinthians.com.br/site/futebol/titulos/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: The two competitions were organised by two different organisations, better keep it separated. The honor is another thing. Matthew_hk tc 06:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't support a merge. They are very different competitions. Number 57 09:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Approve to merge. FIFA is about to expand the current FIFA Club World Cup tournament. The champion will be recognized as "the club world champion", so it should be merged together with past club world champions, or it will cause a confusion among club world champions in the future with the club world champions in the past, who have been recognized by FIFA. Cristianferix (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that even mean? An expansion of the Club World Cup has no bearing on the status of the Intercontinental Cup in its history. The Intercontinental Cup was an entirely separate competition that briefly ran concurrently with the Club World Cup, and even if FIFA says Intercontinental Cup winners can be considered world champions, that doesn't mean Ajax won the Club World Cup in 1995. – PeeJay 16:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles merge with Intercontintal Cup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2019-2020 'Most likely' will be held in China 

message: 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)
replies: text: Was vandalism. Barcelona have 3 titles. -Koppapa (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 titles more successful than 5?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes they are recognized as "world champions", but not the winners of this specific competition which started in 2000, the sources are clear (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), do not mix apples and pears and interpret the sources in your own way, FIFA just recognised those former competitions, hosted by Conmebol/UEFA, as official which they previously didnt recognize, but this doesnt mean that they are "FIFA Club World Cup" winners. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And I see that this was already proposed above in 2017 and clearly opposed. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

text:  This competition didn't start in 2000. The sources are clear: 2000 Brazil Tournament was an experimental tournament which didn't include Libertadores champion and neither UEFA Champion.  1999–2000 UEFA Champions League: Real Madrid winner
2000 Libertadores Championship: Boca Juniors winner
On 28 November 2000, Real Madrid played against Boca in Tokyo and Boca Juniors won 2x1. 
Since Fifa officially award Boca Juniors World Club Champion in 2000, there is no "new" World Championship tornament. 
Documenthttps://exame.com/casual/fifa-reconhece-titulos-mundiais-de-clubes-a-partir-de-1960/
Fifa soccer council officially declared 1960 to 2004 World Club Champion
https://twitter.com/agdws/status/923846229922123776
Mei5535 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Future FIFA Club World Cup (China) - Merger Proposal 

message: I believe it should be added to the article. Give a reason if you disagree. The third and fourth games have been held in all periods.
===Medals (2001–2022)===
:Those are not the Olympic Games so we won't use this medals tables because they are not meant for club football competitions, the countries doesn't receive any kind of medal for the participation, only the clubs. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a completely misleading table. – PeeJay 13:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: add

message: :Those are not the Olympic Games so we won't use this medals tables because they are not meant for club football competitions, the countries doesn't receive any kind of medal for the participation, only the clubs. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a completely misleading table. – PeeJay 13:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Medals (2001–2022)

message: 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)
replies: text: See above, everything is explained, this competition did not exist before 2000, how hard it is to understand that "world titles" and "FIFA Club World Cup" are NOT the same things. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifa does recognize 1960 to 2004 as valid "Club World Cup"