Validity of Sweden win

[mcekevin]

I'm afraid the claim " So Sweden’s victory over North Korea will remain a valid UFWC title match," apparently regardless of whether FIFA ever report it as a match of A status, seems to remove any validity to the claim that the UFWC is based on the criteria that all matches must be FIFA A internationals.

And if being a full A international is not the criteron for inclusion, then the UFWC is determined by games that the UFWC chooses to include with no evident criterion for inclusion or exclusion, and so loses any claim to independent integrity.

The match result of Sweden vs N Korea has never been given by FIFA as the result of an A international. I am aware it was listed as an A fixture in advance, but the only relevant status of a game is that under which it was played, not under which it was listed as a fixture.

I propose that the title be restored to N Korea, and that the matches against Sweden and Thailand be ignored for UFWC purposes. UFWC cannot claim to be based on A internationals, and then allow results to be changed by games that are not A internationals.

[netzakh]

There can be several reasons why there games are not full A internationals.

www.football-rankings.info/2012/11/fifa-ranking-rules-for-friendly-matches.html

As for the game between Korea DPR and Sweden, the number of substitutions was not exceeded by either team, and the main referee was definitely FIFA certified (he officiated e.g. at Australia vs Korea DPR UFWC game).

However, if even one of the two referee assistants was not FIFA certified, then the game cannot be A. More importantly, it often happens in such tournaments that the half-times last 45 gross minutes instead of 45 net minutes (and in the past, there could even be 40-minute half-times etc.).

I strongly suggest that it be figured out why FIFA de-listed this tournament, and that UFWC incude only games recognized as A at the time they took place (e.g., 10 substitutions in a team during a friendly had been OK until 2004).

I also suggest another look at those (in)famous 1995 Carlsberg cup games: I agree that if U-21 team plays as the A team then it has to be considered the A team, but were there other reasons why those games did not comply with the FIFA requirements as of January 1995?

[mcekevin]

The comment in the report of the Sweden Finland match ( Angry emailers, FIFA complainers and pedantic Wikipedia-ists will be pleased to note that both matches are currently listed as FIFA ‘A’ matches…)is unworthy of you Paul.

You need to respond to the challenge that allowing a result that has never been presented as the result of a FIFA A international is inconsistent with the rules of the UFWC. I cannot understand why you would want to undermine the standing of your project when clearly much of the community here is not in agreement with you.

[Paul]

Hi Kevin, and everyone else,

I've replied in more detail to you via email Kevin. However, just to summarise for everyone else here:

While I understand your argument, FIFA's results database cannot always be relied upon. FIFA have not yet responded with clarification, but the facts as best as I understand them suggest that the King's Cup matches were not classed as "A" matches because of an organisational issue, and not because of any issues with the teams or matches themselves. Both the Swedish and Finnish FA regarded the matches as "A" matches.

A decision had to be made. It would be unfair on those who follow the UFWC to leave the results "in limbo" until FIFA provide clarification. There appeared to be no reason why these matches shouldn't be classed as "A" matches. They actually fit the definition of an "A" match in the UFWC rules. (Also note that the longstanding UFWC rules don't make any reference to a match appearing in FIFA's results database.) The decision was made in accordance with the UFWC rules:
www.ufwc.co.uk/about/rules/

Apologies if anyone took offence at the "not worthy" comment. It was intended as a fun response to several negative emails, tweets and comments, meaning we would all be relieved that the next match is definitely an "A" match. The UFWC is supposed to be fun, after all. Finally, I don't agree that much of the community disagrees with the decision. There have been many more positive responses than negative ones.

I hope that at least helps explain the reasoning behind the decision, even if some of you don't agree with it, and I really hope you will all stick around for Sweden vs Argentina.

[bardino]

FIFA is not FOOTBALL, IN THE 19' CENTURY IT WAS NOT, UFWC IS SWEDEN FOR ME, SWEDEN WON VERSUS NORTH KOREA. BYE BYE W UFWC....

[netzakh]

FIFA's results database cannot always be relied upon.

While this is definitely true of the events before 1950, and basically true of those before 1985, I would still use the FIFA official list after the rankings were introduced in 1993 as I assume they are paying more attention since the rankings can influence e.g. seeding in official tournaments.

There is also a difference whether a game gets removed from the FIFA list (i) because it occurs to someone that it would not be official by today's rules, as it happened to some games in 1920s and 1930s or (ii) because it occurs to be erroneously included—in UFEC, there was a game between Ireland and Hungary in 1993 that had long been listed in the FIFA list, but the Irish team was actually and officially "Ireland XI"—I must admit it was fun to have Iceland as the UFEC holder several games thereafter and I was very reluctant to change my personal notes a few years ago... or (iii) because FIFA gets informed by the tournament organisers that the game is not official several days before the game takes place.

It would be unfair on those who follow the UFWC to leave the results "in limbo" until FIFA provide clarification.

In recent years, UFWC has acquired certain international fame. However, one of the main critical opinions, if not the one main critical opinion, about UFWC, is that the inclusion of friendlies is not credible because friendlies are not taken seriously etc.—we know that argument (and we also know that all those alternative projects based on official matches only are really boring).

Thus, it would be unfair to the UFWC community to undermine the entire project by inclusion a fixture whose status is unclear. There is nothing wrong with describing the current situation as "The UFWC holder is Sweden if 2013 King's Cup games are official and DPR Korea if not"—I agree it would be different if there is no response from FIFA in two months, but there is nothing wrong with being at least a little patient.

It would be also unfair to have the Wikipedia article about UFWC deleted as original research, which it would become if the inclusion criteria change from "what is recognised as full international"—which means FIFA as of today whether one likes it or not—to "what Paul Brown wants to include." I still think that one of the weakest point of UFWC is how 1995 Carlsberg Cup is treated.

(The situation is a bit different with all the spinoffs, especially with the wooden cutlery collection. There are several opinions as to which track was followed by UFWWS after WWII, and the quality of data about Asia make any UFAsC and UFAsWS pure speculation before 1990. However, these projects remain pure fun within this website.)

[netzakh]

According to the discussion, the games are not listed by FIFA due to the stupidest possible reason: the Thai Football Federation did not notify the AsFC in time.

For the sake of maintaining the international credibility of UFWC (unfortunately, many people would not care about why the game is not listed), I suggest the following.

• Frustrating as it is, the games of 2013 King's are removed from UFWC.
  
• FIFA recognition is added as a requirement from 1996 on (it definitely cannot be added with indefinite retroactivity, and I deliberately propose 1996 to avoid the 1995 Carlsberg Cup issue).
  
• If news should appear about a friendly game or tournament like this, someone would be highly praised to remind the bureaucrats responsible about submitting proper notifications in time.
  

---

I am a European, and I really want UFWC back to Europe. However, I want it legally.

[Paul]

Hi all,

I've posted a more detailed response, which hopefully will answer a few questions and demonstrate that the decision has been made in accordance with UFWC rules, here:

www.ufwc.co.uk/2013/01/sweden-3-0-finland/comment-page-1/#comment-3944

Paul

[brunei]

Hi Kevin, Paul is right, and you know, he is the man who created this website, the official book editor and more things.

I think the rules are clear and easy to understand, and of course the games were international A matches according FIFA rules, but FIFA did not recorded those. This were two national teams, with referees and all the formalities.

I write a clear example for this, and I hope help everybody:
In South America (mostly in Argentina) is very common international friendlies with local teams, in fact ARG and Brazil had a recent tournament called "Superclasico de las Americas" (The Americas' derby) and the main condition is that both teams will be conformed that players who plays only in Argentinian or Brazilian leagues (players can play in the rival's league)

For all Argentinians and Brazilians those games are not importants (unless we win ), but FIFA considerates them as FULL INTERNATIONAL "A" MATCHES as other played with european-league players

The question is that: How can be an FULL match, if they've got conditions to play? I think the FULL matches wouldn't have conditions to play... but if Argentina holds the title at the moment of play against Brazil in the Derby, it will be an UFWC match
It's like a youth or Olympic U-23 team, but they aren't in the FIFA and UFWC records

Thanks for your time, and thank you PAUL to clarify my doubts