There was corruption in other world cups as well to favor certain teams. Italy in 1934, England in 1966, Argentina in 1978, South Corea in 2002, and Argentina again in 2022.
David, yes Italy had probably their worst World Cup ever! This in my opinion, started the action in Italy to prevent the influx of foreign players, as the main teams were at that time overloaded with players from around the World, thus preventing the young Italian players from playing for the big clubs like Inter and Milan etc!
I was there at the Argentina game. Ratting should not have been sent off, and I dont think we'd have won if he'd stayed on. Krietlein was, I think, more weak than corrupt, but he ruined the game ! Stiles vile foul against the French should have seen him sent off, but again possibly biased refereeing played a part. In retrospect, Englands victory put us back years with its emphasis of strength over skill. We are still living with it today, which is why Englands World Cup win when I was 19 is still the only one now I am 74 !!!
The reality is England won and nobody can take it away from us I am proud to say I saw it maybe we were more patriotic back than and prouder of our country unlike people today who are made to feel ashamed of it
An interesting counter view for a piece I'm writing on how various events - mostly not sporting - changed life especially in Britain.. 1966 - The world cup win
Brazil's super side of 1958 was put together ‘on the spot’, then the same tactics, an outdated version of 4-2-4, were used in 1966. I know Pele was kicked out of the competition, but the truth is that Brazil were swamped in midfield. Against three or four in midfield, as played by Hungary and Portugal, the Brazilians had no chance.
The Argentinians took note for their 1978 world cup. And in 2022 things had "progressed" to the point where they did not have to actually host the tournament themselves for it to still be rigged.
And England deliberately moved the semi-finals against Portugal to another stadium so that Eusebio couldn't get enough sleep. Portugal probably would've won,and fortunately Argentina got their revenge 20 years later when Maradona single-handedly eliminated England
Sadly there is some truth in this. More to the point when (then) West Germany won the WC in '54, they set up the the Bundeslegia shortly afterwards, and the rest is history. England did nothing!
That tournament was so robbed, the tournament should be won by Portugal, if England didnt robbed us in the semifinals, changing the venue at the last minute
@@FranciscoCorreia10 actually, prior to this game - Portugal never defeated Germany plus Germany had a solid team so I don't think they would of met the same fate at all!. However that doesn't anything away from Portugal cuz they still had a solid team! Even their clubs like Benfica(eusebio club) in the champions league at the same year was slapping teams 10-0 lol- it would of dope to see them win the world cup! They had a lot of talent
Very,very interesting video. But I do find it hilarious Argentine and other South American teams complaining of unfairness. They're the worse. They think cheating is fine, being guile is how you win. So I won't be bothered too much about this. Pele being battered wasn't very sportsman like obviously. A German referee favouring England? I can't see that happening.....
There were no substitutes it was starting 11 versus starting 11, in 1970 Ramsey made substitutions ,took of Bobby Charlton to rest him ,when England we 2-0 up against west Germany
This is almost as ridiculous as suggesting that in the 1970 World Cup England were sabotaged by Bobby Moores arrest and Gordon Banks stomach upset. There will always be those who will cry "It's not fair!!!" That's life folks, it's rarely fair!
There are a lot of sweeping statements here, few of which are tested by way of evidence. I'd suggest people go to the games themselves (yes, Stiles' tackle vs France was bad, but note the injury to Greaves in the same game; England's "transgressions" vs Argentina? What were they? etc.) There is no weighing of evidence here. And too many dots being joined to form unwarranted conclusions. Extremely unreliable. (And, no, I wouldn't have given England's third goal vs West Germany),
Indeed, Rattin's sending off for dissent was a major injustice. Dissent is a yellow-card offence (a booking in those days). If he had already been booked for dissent (or something else) and continued to show dissent, the sending off would have been reasonable, but he hadn't. For clarity: I am English, love football, and I watched the game live as a child. As for England's third goal in the final, it was unclear at the time whether the whole ball crossed the line. Another view came out a while later that showed it probably didn't. That was on the linesmen because he should only have recommended the award of a goal if he was certain the whole ball crossed. However, although there were errors, I think the notion of a behind-the-scenes plot is fanciful.
@@Ruda-n4h Yes, you are right about that, but if no swearing is involved, a yellow card should be issued first and a second yellow i.e. a red, if the arguing persists after the initial yellow. Of course, in those days there was no coloured card system, so the equivalent of first yellow was for the referee to write the player's name in his notebook and make it clear to the player that he had done so. My understanding is that this first step was never taken.
Harsh words indeed, but hardly unbiased. The South Americans as a whole have sadly a poor reputation of being very bad losers and of eternally seeing conspiracies against them when things don't go their own way. It was regrettable that referees from two of the later finalists were appointed to each other's matches, but it was hardly the British authorities who nominated them, but the FIFA, and unless you are saying that the matches were fixed so that both England and Germany won their respective games, there was no garantee that either of them would get into the final anyway. Anybody watching the matches of Argentina in 1966, as I did, was shocked at the brutality of the fouls they commited, especially the dirty, half- concealed back stabbing attacks that they specialised in. As far as the other unfortunate mishaps in the organisation of training grounds etc. are concerned, poor administration was sadly nothing new to Britain at that time, and complaining about trains being late? Well, join the millions of commuters in England, mate, so who are you telling? Hardly a conspiracy, or was British Rail also involved ? I wonder how many similar stories can be taken from the archives of World Cup championships held in South America and rehashed, portraying them in the worst possible light? I have spoken to foreigners who visited England in 1966 to witness the matches, and they all spoke about the friendliness and kindness of their English hosts. But what do I know ? The South American championships must have been the height of perfection and competence in every way, compared to these allegedly lousy, incompetent, arranged and corrupt European games. Regurgitating these old, heavily one- sided and sometimes ridiculous stories (the reporter had to sit between two cigar smoking Brazilians - was that England's fault too ?) doesn't do England (or Germany !) any favours other to bring about a new generation of xenephobic Anglophobes from all over the world. Thanks for nothing for uploading this cartload of manure. Your country must be proud of you.
You are in denial. This World Cup was rigged from start to finish. Uruguay had 2 players sent off by the british referee and in the first 10 min the German defender clear the ball on the line with his hand and the english referee called corner kick! You said it was FIFA who nominated the referees for the quarter finals? true. Who was FIFA president at the time? Stanley Rous... where was he from again? That's right. - Providing training grounds with tall grass and no goal posts?? is that southamerica's fault? - apart from Englands 3rd goal not crossing the line, the 4th one was scored with half the stadium invading the field which according to the rules of the time, if anyone invidades the game stops, so 3rd and 4th goal shouldn't have counted. - so much for England should not have counted the list is sooo long. I know it's hard to swallow and you prefer to keep living in denial, but unfortunately for you, while English remember this WC fondly, the rest of the world UNANIMOUSLY, do not.
This is dismal sour grapes almost sixty years after the event. I have never come across any evidence that the vast majority of genuine football fans across the world were unhappy with the 66 World Cup. In fact, the next day, one newspaper quoted reports fromnewspapers across the globe hailing England's victory. The only dissentingvoices came from Argentina. As for the Final, people forget that England were the better team, that West Germany created nothing in extra time, and that their equaliser at the end of normal time followed a blatant handball. As Ramseysaid to his players after 90minutes "You have won it once. Now go out and win it again." I cannot believe that people are still whingeing about this tournament so long after the event. They need to get a life. I would say the same to any English fans still moaning about the "hand of God" in 1986.
At 3:01 the opponents Pele and co are arguing with are Scottish (Greig, Clark, McKinnon). This was a friendly played a few weeks before the 66 Finals (I was there as a schoolboy) and was an entertaining game played in a very good spirit. Using it to illustrate South American discontent with the WC is slightly misleading. And the boxer the Argentinian fighter refused to meet in the ring was not English, but the Scot Walter McGowan! (7:31) Seems we Scots are dragged into the argument on all sides...
I would like to remind people who so like English bashing of sum world cups were there was a clash of European and South American teams the battle of berne between Hungary and Brazil in 1954 and the battle of Santiago Italy and Chile in 1962 and I haven't scratch the surface England whon
Dimitre, you are sadly wrong, the beat footballing team were probably Portugal, with Eusebio as the star player of the tournament, but the most organised and best all - round team were England, no question! This was my tournament, I was there!
John Saunders, thank you for your reply, I cannot understand htgat headline, "the 1966 World Cup was a nightmare" I was THERE at the Final, and before that at 3 games at Villa Park in Birmingham, it was well run, apart from the referees, Pele should have had much more protection, and in my humble opinion Nobby Styles should have been sent off several times! I think on the whole, the best team won the thing! I know I will get different comments especially from North of the border, ut that's the usual Scottish sour grapes!
ke gab,what the hell are you talking about? Were you actually there in England in1966? If not you are totally misinformed,the game where Argentina lost to England 1-0 was a terrible match! The Argentine team did everything possible to stop England,some of the tackles were GBH! So after their captain Ratain,had many times tried to tell the referee Kreitlein,how to referee the game,he was sent off,quite rightly,the other game you mention,that is Brazil v Portugal,I am not sure what you mean by the inference,maybe you can explain?
Listen, for South American countries to bleat about how they were treated in 1966,is just sour grapes, I watched 3 games in Birmingham and the Final at Wembley stadium, the weather played a big part in the poor showing of the South American teams, it was cold and wet, throughout the tournament, which seemed at the time to effect them more than European teams, although there was one exception, Italy! They had a wretched tournament! And were attacked by the Italian fans when they returned to Italy! The best footballing team were Portugal, the best organised team were England, yes there some questionable decisions made by referees, but look at the unbelievable decisions made against England since then! In my opinion England deserved to win the trophy, no one who was at the Final will ever forget that day, and the evening in the centre of London was an event as well! So much so that I could not get out of Trafalgar Square, and ended up missing my train, but finally reached home in the morning in the Midlands by taxi! What a night!
Yeah england deserved the trophy thats why they changed the venue in the last minute against Portugal, even Eusebio admitted that if the stadium wasnt changed in the last minute we would have won and we would probably won the World Cup, but its ok England didnt won nothing since and lost against us 3 times in the euros 2000 and 2004 and the 2006 world cup
@@7Ian so you are an ageism person then? Think carefully about what you say pal! We of a certain age, have experiences that you can only dream of, you sound like a little boy who has thrown his toys out of the pram pram.
This person talks a lot of falsehoods. The first England goal against France was not offside and Ramsey did not call anyone 'an animal' directly, and I don't think ever saw the 1978 finals. A lot of his 'evidence' is the South American's biased point of view.
I would agree that England were not the best team and would not have won the World Cup had they not had home advantage. However, they deserved to win the final on the day, the third goal was over the line (just) and any idea that the tournament was fixed in their favour is frankly ludicrous and doesn’t bear scrutiny. The host nation at a World Cup has always had an advantage, not only playing in front of the home crowd but also the pressure it puts on referees. As well as England in 1966, I doubt whether West Germany in 1974 and Argentina in 1978 would have won the World Cup had they not staged it. The Germans had an easy first round draw and played their decisive second round match on a pitch that was disadvantageous to their opponents, instead of postponing it. However, I don’t begrudge them their victory as they deserved to win the final on the day because they were the more positive team. Argentina had the advantage of playing all their games after their opponents, had several controversial decisions go their way and there was the suspicious match against Peru about which nothing though, has ever been proven. And in the final a very weak referee always gave them the benefit of the doubt, but again they were worthy winners - an attacking team built to go forward.
Similarly, I doubt very much whether Mexico would have reached the quarter-finals in 1970 and 1986, South Korea the semi-final in 2002 or Spain even the second round in 1982, had they not all had home advantage. The draws for the finals have also been very largely fixed. In 1961 there were photographs of Sepp Herberger, inspecting the beds and the kitchens of a hotel in Chile. And guess which hotel the Germans stayed at for their first qualifying round matches in the Chile World Cup a year later?
There was corruption in other world cups as well to favor certain teams. Italy in 1934, England in 1966, Argentina in 1978, South Corea in 2002, and Argentina again in 2022.
Perfidious Albion...
David, yes Italy had probably their worst World Cup ever! This in my opinion, started the action in Italy to prevent the influx of foreign players, as the main teams were at that time overloaded with players from around the World, thus preventing the young Italian players from playing for the big clubs like Inter and Milan etc!
The Italians did restrict foreign players after 1966. It wasn't lifted until 1980, when Juventus signed Liam Brady from Arsenal
66 was a triumph, never to be repeated
No wonder why England has NEVER been near a title outside the British Isles.
I was there at the Argentina game. Ratting should not have been sent off, and I dont think we'd have won if he'd stayed on. Krietlein was, I think, more weak than corrupt, but he ruined the game ! Stiles vile foul against the French should have seen him sent off, but again possibly biased refereeing played a part. In retrospect, Englands victory put us back years with its emphasis of strength over skill. We are still living with it today, which is why Englands World Cup win when I was 19 is still the only one now I am 74 !!!
wasn't a win tho was it and that team were all thuggery and no talent
No wonder why England has NEVER been near a title outside the British Isles.
It was a clear win, and no amountof whingeing, moaning, and massaging of the facts will ever taje that away.@@chancesareshewears
Is history repeating itself in 2021 Denmark v England match
Never knew the reality . Thanks for letting us know...
The reality is England won and nobody can take it away from us I am proud to say I saw it maybe we were more patriotic back than and prouder of our country unlike people today who are made to feel ashamed of it
Just because it's on RUclips doesn't mean it's true.
An interesting counter view for a piece I'm writing on how various events - mostly not sporting - changed life especially in Britain.. 1966 - The world cup win
Brazil's super side of 1958 was put together ‘on the spot’, then the same tactics, an outdated version of 4-2-4, were used in 1966. I know Pele was kicked out of the competition, but the truth is that Brazil were swamped in midfield. Against three or four in midfield, as played by Hungary and Portugal, the Brazilians had no chance.
The Argentinians took note for their 1978 world cup.
And in 2022 things had "progressed" to the point where they did not have to actually host the tournament themselves for it to still be rigged.
And England deliberately moved the semi-finals against Portugal to another stadium so that Eusebio couldn't get enough sleep.
Portugal probably would've won,and fortunately Argentina got their revenge 20 years later when Maradona single-handedly eliminated England
this World Cup was as bad as I am now
You are ryt
Sadly there is some truth in this. More to the point when (then) West Germany won the WC in '54, they set up the the Bundeslegia shortly afterwards, and the rest is history.
England did nothing!
That tournament was so robbed, the tournament should be won by Portugal, if England didnt robbed us in the semifinals, changing the venue at the last minute
Eusebio was a god at that tournament, he should've won Portugal's very first World Cup.
@@bryanp5843 unfortunely England stole us the cup
i dont know about that - i thought Germany should of won it
@@KG-qf5jt eusebio scored eight goals before facing england in the finals and germany would probably face the same fate
@@FranciscoCorreia10 actually, prior to this game - Portugal never defeated Germany plus Germany had a solid team so I don't think they would of met the same fate at all!. However that doesn't anything away from Portugal cuz they still had a solid team! Even their clubs like Benfica(eusebio club) in the champions league at the same year was slapping teams 10-0 lol- it would of dope to see them win the world cup! They had a lot of talent
Very,very interesting video. But I do find it hilarious Argentine and other South American teams complaining of unfairness. They're the worse. They think cheating is fine, being guile is how you win. So I won't be bothered too much about this. Pele being battered wasn't very sportsman like obviously. A German referee favouring England? I can't see that happening.....
I'm with you, in a fair and square 1978 and 2022 world cups there would have been a different champion.
5:53 The ball definitely did not cross the line.
Definitely did and it was known then.
Fucking hell. No wonder we've never been allowed another one. We all know about the Dodgy last goal but the rest of the tournament was a myth to me.
Excellent documentary ❤
There were no substitutes it was starting 11 versus starting 11, in 1970 Ramsey made substitutions ,took of Bobby Charlton to rest him ,when England we 2-0 up against west Germany
This is almost as ridiculous as suggesting that in the 1970 World Cup England were sabotaged by Bobby Moores arrest and Gordon Banks stomach upset. There will always be those who will cry "It's not fair!!!" That's life folks, it's rarely fair!
Thank you for making this. This is amazing.
There are a lot of sweeping statements here, few of which are tested by way of evidence. I'd suggest people go to the games themselves (yes, Stiles' tackle vs France was bad, but note the injury to Greaves in the same game; England's "transgressions" vs Argentina? What were they? etc.) There is no weighing of evidence here. And too many dots being joined to form unwarranted conclusions. Extremely unreliable. (And, no, I wouldn't have given England's third goal vs West Germany),
Well said.
Indeed, Rattin's sending off for dissent was a major injustice. Dissent is a yellow-card offence (a booking in those days). If he had already been booked for dissent (or something else) and continued to show dissent, the sending off would have been reasonable, but he hadn't. For clarity: I am English, love football, and I watched the game live as a child. As for England's third goal in the final, it was unclear at the time whether the whole ball crossed the line. Another view came out a while later that showed it probably didn't. That was on the linesmen because he should only have recommended the award of a goal if he was certain the whole ball crossed.
However, although there were errors, I think the notion of a behind-the-scenes plot is fanciful.
Persistent arguing with a referee is a sending off offence.
@@Ruda-n4h Yes, you are right about that, but if no swearing is involved, a yellow card should be issued first and a second yellow i.e. a red, if the arguing persists after the initial yellow. Of course, in those days there was no coloured card system, so the equivalent of first yellow was for the referee to write the player's name in his notebook and make it clear to the player that he had done so. My understanding is that this first step was never taken.
Or it could just be sour grapes.?!!
Good video
Harsh words indeed, but hardly unbiased. The South Americans as a whole have sadly a poor reputation of being very bad losers and of eternally seeing conspiracies against them when things don't go their own way. It was regrettable that referees from two of the later finalists were appointed to each other's matches, but it was hardly the British authorities who nominated them, but the FIFA, and unless you are saying that the matches were fixed so that both England and Germany won their respective games, there was no garantee that either of them would get into the final anyway. Anybody watching the matches of Argentina in 1966, as I did, was shocked at the brutality of the fouls they commited, especially the dirty, half- concealed back stabbing attacks that they specialised in. As far as the other unfortunate mishaps in the organisation of training grounds etc. are concerned, poor administration was sadly nothing new to Britain at that time, and complaining about trains being late? Well, join the millions of commuters in England, mate, so who are you telling? Hardly a conspiracy, or was British Rail also involved ?
I wonder how many similar stories can be taken from the archives of World Cup championships held in South America and rehashed, portraying them in the worst possible light? I have spoken to foreigners who visited England in 1966 to witness the matches, and they all spoke about the friendliness and kindness of their English hosts.
But what do I know ? The South American championships must have been the height of perfection and competence in every way, compared to these allegedly lousy, incompetent, arranged and corrupt European games.
Regurgitating these old, heavily one- sided and sometimes ridiculous stories (the reporter had to sit between two cigar smoking Brazilians - was that England's fault too ?) doesn't do England (or Germany !) any favours other to bring about a new generation of xenephobic Anglophobes from all over the world. Thanks for nothing for uploading this cartload of manure. Your country must be proud of you.
You are in denial. This World Cup was rigged from start to finish. Uruguay had 2 players sent off by the british referee and in the first 10 min the German defender clear the ball on the line with his hand and the english referee called corner kick!
You said it was FIFA who nominated the referees for the quarter finals? true. Who was FIFA president at the time? Stanley Rous... where was he from again? That's right.
- Providing training grounds with tall grass and no goal posts?? is that southamerica's fault?
- apart from Englands 3rd goal not crossing the line, the 4th one was scored with half the stadium invading the field which according to the rules of the time, if anyone invidades the game stops, so 3rd and 4th goal shouldn't have counted.
- so much for England should not have counted the list is sooo long. I know it's hard to swallow and you prefer to keep living in denial, but unfortunately for you, while English remember this WC fondly, the rest of the world UNANIMOUSLY, do not.
England cheated all the way.
This is dismal sour grapes almost sixty years after the event. I have never come across any evidence that the vast majority of genuine football fans across the world were unhappy with the 66 World Cup. In fact, the next day, one newspaper quoted reports fromnewspapers across the globe hailing England's victory. The only dissentingvoices came from Argentina. As for the Final, people forget that England were the better team, that West Germany created nothing in extra time, and that their equaliser at the end of normal time followed a blatant handball. As Ramseysaid to his players after 90minutes "You have won it once. Now go out and win it again."
I cannot believe that people are still whingeing about this tournament so long after the event. They need to get a life. I would say the same to any English fans still moaning about the "hand of God" in 1986.
At 3:01 the opponents Pele and co are arguing with are Scottish (Greig, Clark, McKinnon). This was a friendly played a few weeks before the 66 Finals (I was there as a schoolboy) and was an entertaining game played in a very good spirit. Using it to illustrate South American discontent with the WC is slightly misleading. And the boxer the Argentinian fighter refused to meet in the ring was not English, but the Scot Walter McGowan! (7:31) Seems we Scots are dragged into the argument on all sides...
This channel is so underrated. Keep up the good work bro
England's "Hard earned reputation for chivalry and fairness" are you insane? Never travelled? Not one for history? you are 'aving a laff
I would like to remind people who so like English bashing of sum world cups were there was a clash of European and South American teams the battle of berne between Hungary and Brazil in 1954 and the battle of Santiago Italy and Chile in 1962 and I haven't scratch the surface England whon
England never had good national team
1966 they stole the cup or was given to them
Yes they javr6
Dimitre, you are sadly wrong, the beat footballing team were probably Portugal, with Eusebio as the star player of the tournament, but the most organised and best all - round team were England, no question! This was my tournament, I was there!
They're overrated and "pecho-frío"
@@davidmichaels8934 agree with you about Portugal. Theyd have beaten England in a neutral venue.
No wonder why England has NEVER been near a title outside the British Isles.
John Saunders, thank you for your reply, I cannot understand htgat headline, "the 1966 World Cup was a nightmare" I was THERE at the Final, and before that at 3 games at Villa Park in Birmingham, it was well run, apart from the referees, Pele should have had much more protection, and in my humble opinion Nobby Styles should have been sent off several times! I think on the whole, the best team won the thing! I know I will get different comments especially from North of the border, ut that's the usual Scottish sour grapes!
Hi
The worst refereeing and fixing in any WC, the revenge is England not making any finals since…until they host it again in the future..😂
You obviously didn't watch the 1978 World Cup.
Cómo lo puedo escuchar en idioma castellano ???
ke gab,what the hell are you talking about? Were you actually there in England in1966? If not you are totally misinformed,the game where Argentina lost to England 1-0 was a terrible match! The Argentine team did everything possible to stop England,some of the tackles were GBH! So after their captain Ratain,had many times tried to tell the referee Kreitlein,how to referee the game,he was sent off,quite rightly,the other game you mention,that is Brazil v Portugal,I am not sure what you mean by the inference,maybe you can explain?
Listen, for South American countries to bleat about how they were treated in 1966,is just sour grapes, I watched 3 games in Birmingham and the Final at Wembley stadium, the weather played a big part in the poor showing of the South American teams, it was cold and wet, throughout the tournament, which seemed at the time to effect them more than European teams, although there was one exception, Italy! They had a wretched tournament! And were attacked by the Italian fans when they returned to Italy! The best footballing team were Portugal, the best organised team were England, yes there some questionable decisions made by referees, but look at the unbelievable decisions made against England since then! In my opinion England deserved to win the trophy, no one who was at the Final will ever forget that day, and the evening in the centre of London was an event as well! So much so that I could not get out of Trafalgar Square, and ended up missing my train, but finally reached home in the morning in the Midlands by taxi! What a night!
they lost to North Korea
cold and wet in the summer? middle of july. So you are around 90 years old then since you saw the games
Yeah england deserved the trophy thats why they changed the venue in the last minute against Portugal, even Eusebio admitted that if the stadium wasnt changed in the last minute we would have won and we would probably won the World Cup, but its ok England didnt won nothing since and lost against us 3 times in the euros 2000 and 2004 and the 2006 world cup
@@7Ian so you are an ageism person then? Think carefully about what you say pal! We of a certain age, have experiences that you can only dream of, you sound like a little boy who has thrown his toys out of the pram pram.
Yet, the english should not have even beat France.
This person talks a lot of falsehoods. The first England goal against France was not offside and Ramsey did not call anyone 'an animal' directly, and I don't think ever saw the 1978 finals. A lot of his 'evidence' is the South American's biased point of view.
Coys
European with there politics
First
So basically England has never really had an awesome team. This tournament was clearly rigged man.
1966 wolrd cup absolutely rigged ...!!!! British r good at stealing 😂🤣😅
I would agree that England were not the best team and would not have won the World Cup had they not had home advantage. However, they deserved to win the final on the day, the third goal was over the line (just) and any idea that the tournament was fixed in their favour is frankly ludicrous and doesn’t bear scrutiny.
The host nation at a World Cup has always had an advantage, not only playing in front of the home crowd but also the pressure it puts on referees. As well as England in 1966, I doubt whether West Germany in 1974 and Argentina in 1978 would have won the World Cup had they not staged it.
The Germans had an easy first round draw and played their decisive second round match on a pitch that was disadvantageous to their opponents, instead of postponing it. However, I don’t begrudge them their victory as they deserved to win the final on the day because they were the more positive team.
Argentina had the advantage of playing all their games after their opponents, had several controversial decisions go their way and there was the suspicious match against Peru about which nothing though, has ever been proven. And in the final a very weak referee always gave them the benefit of the doubt, but again they were worthy winners - an attacking team built to go forward.
Similarly, I doubt very much whether Mexico would have reached the quarter-finals in 1970 and 1986, South Korea the semi-final in 2002 or Spain even the second round in 1982, had they not all had home advantage.
The draws for the finals have also been very largely fixed. In 1961 there were photographs of Sepp Herberger, inspecting the beds and the kitchens of a hotel in Chile. And guess which hotel the Germans stayed at for their first qualifying round matches in the Chile World Cup a year later?
No wonder why England has NEVER been near a title outside the British Isles.