And the haters say that Pele couldn't play (and star) for a top European club. Look at what he did for Santos against Benfica and Milan. Simply put, he could had been a megastar in Europe, end of discussion.
These guys dont know that until the 90s south american and european clubs weren't too different like today. Only after 2000s with changing law and all the money that enters the european football that south american clubs can't fight against europeans. So Pelé did played against great teams, Brazil was champion in World cup in 58 and 62, Pelé plays against several of his teammates that crushed europeans in World Cup. So, my dear fellas, sometimes europe is not the center of the world.
It's a shame/what a pity. that Real Madrid couldn't win the first club World Cup in 2000. then Real would be the club where the very first world cup won in 1960 and 2000 the very first club World Cup
LOL you didn't have to add Corinthians x Vasco we all saw the real world champion was Boca in 2000. That little test tournament didn't have any champions except bench of RM
Agree in tbe sense that the tournament wasn't legit coz the critério for qualifying was bogus on the europe and south american sides BUT Real did play their best team man, so did United just a 3 minute search online will show you that. And they did have the african, asian and concacaf champions as well so it was a nice torunament, it was just kind of weird coz 2 brazilians were in the final. The problem was Vasco was the 98 winner, neither the 99 or 2000 libertadores winners participated that's what kind of fucks it up
@@Luckymag-if4dw Man they were in the off season, when changes and benches play, besides regardless in Man U was at it's best Corinthians had no business being there if it was a championship of world champions. They had not won the Libertadores Cup ever, they had never been the champion of America. They had never played for a world championship ever. Why would they get to play at their home court against the champion of Europe and others. Palmeiras should have been there not Corinthians. So in 1999 the World Champion was Man U and in 2000 the world champion was Boca. That little tournament did not determine the world champion that year at all.
@@bpmachete I totalmente agree, I said it in the beggining, I was jist correcting on the fact that they did play their best players, regardless of how fit they were or how they trained. Corinthians were there coz they were the national champions of the hosts nation that year, something I always felt made no sense, but since the hosts were always in africa or asia they were never good enough to win it even though Kashima got close one year. But still that would have kind of tarnished the tournament and then you put one in Brazil obviously a brazilian giant can win it in their home. So yeah it made no sense, it might be official to fifa but it ain't legit for us
Es mucho mas meritorio ganar un mundial de club para cualquier equipo sudamericano y sobretodo en estos tiempos q las dferencias economicas a favor de Europa son ABISMALES...
@@javiermartinmehdi1914 Is simple that.. Soth american clubs were invincibile. Bocajrs 77 Olimpia 79 Nacional 80 Flamengo 81 Penarol 82 Gremio 83 Independente 84 In 1985 juventus were the First european club that won in Tokio world Clubs Cup.... Now every players goes to powerfull european club.. Like Real Madrid, Barcellona, Milan 20 years ago .. The last south American club that won the world title was corinthians 10 years ago...
@@fabiosciarrelli9999 Mi club RIVER PLATE fue campeon en 1986 antes el Steaua de Bucarest y tenia 5 campeones mudiales de Argentina en el plantel tanto del mundial 86' como del mundial 78" solo los hiper crack salian del pais antes de los 90" despues se nos llevan hasta chico de divisiones inferiorrs se hace IMPOSIBLE COMPETIR asi...
