Talk:FIFA U-20 World Cup

AET vs no AET

Guys, don't you think that if the finals went to a penalty shootout the notation aet is redundant? I believe aet should be used only if the results of the match were determined by the extra time. If the game ended in a ps, then obviously the result of the match is after extra time.

I'll wait a couple of days for posts before changing anything

--Sebastian Kessel 5 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Yes and no... In 1991 third place match there were PKs but no AET. http://www.rsssf.com/tablesw/wyc91.html But is it important to show that distinction? Probably not. --Dr31 5 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Of course it is important! What a question!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is kind of irrelevant... so what do we do? --Sebastian Kessel 5 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether an overtime is played??? Are you serious???--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I say kill it, unless someone else thinks they are important. But if you do it, be consistent; there are other pages affected: Football World Cup, Football U-17 World Championship, all the continental tournaments (CONCACAF Gold Cup, European Football Championship, etc), and a bunch more... --Dr31 6 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

Makes Sense, I'll start here and try to make my way across (I already started with the Copa America). --Sebastian Kessel 6 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

It makes NO SENSE!!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know I'm entering a bit late here, but I think the distinction is quite important. Quoting the first line, the notation aet is not redundant since not all the finals that went to a penalty shootout did it so after an extra time. There's been cases when the penalties took place inmediately after the 90', so the different cases should be noted. Ipsumesse (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You read this conversation and you think this is a joke!! A penalty shootout with extratime before is a different thing than a shootout without extratime. And it took almost 3 years that this nonsense was healed!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U-20/U-17

The name of the U-20 Tournament (this article) is "FIFA World Youth Championship" while the U-17 is called "FIFA U-17 World Championship." Even both the women's U-20 and U-17 follow the same format as the U-17. For consistency's sake, I'm proposing that this page be moved to "FIFA U-20 World Championship." Any opposition? Akrabbim 01:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"U-20 World Cup"

Starting with the 2007 edition in Canada, the tournament will be called "FIFA U-20 World Cup" [1], and apparently all FIFA tournaments will start to be called "World Cups" (see [2], very last sentence), so I guess this page should be moved, as well as that for the 2007 edition. FIFA's website hasn't changed the U-17 championship's name yet, so that should probably wait until it's clear. --Gabbec 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA U-20 World Cup is now the official name, so this page should deinitely be moved to there. There also needs to be a change in the first sentence explaining the (now) former name. Canadiana 17:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I moved this page to its new title, as well as other renamed competitions. For discussion, go to Talk:FIFA#Rebranding_of_championships. --Gabbec 06:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quina Quen?

I think the link from Quina is kind of wrong...

Top Scorer Layout

In the U-17 article, the top scorers are listed in chronological order, while here it is listed by number of goals. I prefer chronological. Should this be changed, for consistency as well as for easier reading? Jmcnally 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be changed, since the other awards are listed in chronological order. --Scaryice 11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Golden Ball/Shoe Awards

Under the Golden Shoe and Golden Ball listings, the 2003 tournament host is listed as the United States instead of the actual host, the United Arab Emirates (the listing for the Fair Play award correctly has the UAE as the host). Is there any reason for this, or is it a mistake that can be fixed? Dalton Imperial 03:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exact age requirement

The article is not clear about the exact age requirement on players. It says that the championship is "for male players under the age of 20" without clarifying what this means. Checking the regulations for the 2011 tournament, I discovered that the requirement is not at all what you would expect. Instead, the requirement is that "all players of its representative team were born on or after 1 January 1991" (§22.2). Thus players should be under the age of 20 on the last day of the year preceding the year of the tournament. Source: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/28/32/07/regulationsfu20wccolombia2011_e.pdf 83.250.145.53 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Shoe Awards incorrect

The Golden Shoe Awards are not correct. For example, in the 1995 edition Dani won the Silver Shoe and Nuno Gomes didn't get any award, I remember that very well. And FIFA web site states the same as me: http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=104/edition=191263/awards/index.html Paulojmartins (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuno Gomes isn't listed here. The Technical report has however 3 shoes awarded in 1995. -Koppapa (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia and Yugoslavia

In light of the recent back and forth of edits as to whether Serbia's 2015 win counts as a 2nd title following Yugoslavia's win in 1987. Arguments for: this is similar to present-day Germany and West Germany, wherein West Germany's top 4 FIFA results are counted in Germany's tally; SFR and FR Yugoslavia existed consecutively, not concurrently, so if they both had had top 4 results, the tally would be listed under a single name (Yugoslavia); FR Yugoslavia became Serbia and Montenegro, which is legally succeeded by Serbia. Arguments against: no official FIFA statement designating Serbia as Yugoslavia's medal successors; FR Yugoslavia is not the legal successor of SFR Yugoslavia; legal succession is not relevant to FIFA succession. --Venomwind (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. There is an official statement and that is on the website. http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=srb/about.html The article should be adjusted as accordingly as under the medal tally, the 1987 world cup title is included and therefore Serbia has two titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.53.151 (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote would be a good idea. There are several FIFA articles calling it Serbia's first title. For example 1, 2, 3. -Koppapa (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As always the same mistake: all the winners of UEFA or FIFA are ALWAYS the Associations, which are the real members, representing one particular geographical area. In the 1980's, Yugoslavia's FA (founded in 1919) won the FIFA Youth Cup (superb team, btw). This FA of Yugoslavia was the same representing in the 1990's Serbia and Montenegro (with a different legal name) and later on Serbia. FIFA said so. It's indeed Serbia's first title - but the FA itself has two titles, since it's the same member of FIFA. FIFA's Federations can change their names (USA's did it - they used to be called USA FA, and later changed to US Soccer Federation). Another good example is Germany/West Germany, this case they didn't have to change their FA's name so both were and are represented by the same (DFB). So calling it Serbia's first title is just like calling Germany's first world title in 2014. It doesn't matter. One have to look always to the FIFA's FA. You see, just because one FA represent different areas ("countries" or islands or whatever) over time or have a different name it doesn't change the fact that particular FA was never disbanded or have sucessors legally. So DFB (now representing Germany, founded in 1900) has 4 FIFA world Titles, and FSS (now representing Serbia, it was before known as Yugoslavia FA and few years later Serbia and Montenegro FA, founded in 1919) has 2 FIFA U-20 titles.--Good Hope Phanta (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

by "damso": PLEASE be aware that Serbia and Yugoslavia are 2 different countries by constitution. Yugoslavia was multinational country (all of Yugoslavias) but today Serbia is defined as country of Serbs only. It is not moral correct to Yugoslavia results to be assigned to Serbia.Comparation with Germany is not good because Germany was united in 1990,and no one lose their results, but Yugoslavia was divided (in war) so the result of all nonSerbs and halfSerbs in Yugoslavia cannot be assigned to Serbs.It is problem for international relations in Ex Yugoslavia countries. I agree that it is technically the same number in FIFA information records for YUG and SRB, but the same record does not mean the same country.

So I suggest to count medals separatly for YUG and SRB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.1.18 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys...I think we all know that the nation that took over Yugoslavia in footballing terms is Serbia. I don't see what the issue is to be honest. Ask yourselves, if Russia was to win, what would you do to the table? Druryfire (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that time Yugoslavia consisted of croats, bosniaks, slovenes, macedonians and serbs so saying that Yugoslavia and Serbia is the same is not true. It's like taking pride on something someone else did. This shall be changed and be like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_European_Under-21_Championship where Serbia and Yugoslavia are seperated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.136.107 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia should not be credited for having two titles. If you credit them for two titles because of the situation with Yugoslavia, you must give credit to all the teams that formed after the country dissolved. Does that mean that Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia all won the cup? The Soviet Union is still given credit for winning an earlier cup, as is West Germany. Yugoslavia won the cup in 1987. If Czechoslovakia had won, would you say the Czech Republic and Slovakia both won? As others have said, saying that Yugoslavia and Serbia are the same is simply not true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.138.241 (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all you have to do is click on the Serbia national under-20 football team article and the Yugoslavia history is their. Yes Yugoslavia and Serbia are not the same country, but in footballing history I do believe that Serbia are credited with anything that Yugoslavia did. Obviously, the article in question will never please everyone and should be left with separate honors for both. The day another nation like Germany win's will bring up this debate again and again. Druryfire (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia included present day Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Slovenia, and Macedonia. If Serbia gets credit for the '87 cup, then fine; it's split 6 ways. So looks like for the first time in history we have a six-way split for a cup! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.138.241 (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Yugoslavia won the 1987 championship. Any indication otherwise is a blatant historical inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.138.241 (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what your opinion is. FIFA has made it clear that Serbia is the successor of Yugoslavia and inherits it's results. Just because Croatia can't come close to winning something doesn't mean you have to try and vandalise this page and detract from other country's victories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.16.9 (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detracting from other countries victories? Yugoslavia won the 1987 cup. It is a simple historical fact that is easy to confirm with a preponderance of evidence. Just like the Soviet Union and West Germany won their respected cups. Let's just rewrite history books while we're at it. Nothing wring with perpetuating misinformation seemingly.

The FIFA consider the Serbia as champion in 1987. (http://www.fifa.com/fifa-tournaments/teams/association=SRB/index.html)

Luizengmec (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed for many other tournaments and is not unique for this tournament. Basically Serbian fottball association is successor of Yugoslavia football association and inherit their records. Same for Russia as successor for Sovjet Union and Germany as successor for West Germany. If you dont agree take it to WT:FOOTY for discussion as this spans over several tournaments. Also as mentioned above this is how FIFA does it. Qed237 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Bid for Hosting

Hundreds of edits so far done in this section all without referenced and confirmation. As now India is the only nation who submitted bid for the tournament. Need to protect this section until final confirmation by FIFA. सुमित सिंह (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect cities for the semifinals

In the bracket there's an error over which city will host which semifinal. The first one (45 vs 46) will be played in Gdynia and the second one (47 vs 48) in Lublin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.227.212.3 (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting events and activities

Making good health and happiness in our society and is trading in business for traveling to different countries, and is additional part of keeping the most popular events in mood of our world, 154.160.20.229 (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table of contents