If they were retiring the trophy...

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Like they did in 1970 when Brazil won it for a third time, they'd be doing it on Sunday night.

Argentina (1978 and 1986) and Germany (1974 and 1990) have both won the FIFA World Cup twice so far, so one of them will win it for a third time.

Brazil (1994 and 2002) and Italy (1982 and 2006) have also won this trophy twice, but hey, not this year.

[Bored Of Education]

If they were retiring the trophy...

Are they not retiring it?

[Satchmo Distel]

If they were retiring the trophy...

According to one site:

According to the new regulations of FIFA, the trophy cannot be won outright any more so the winners are awarded a replica which they get to keep as a permanent reminder of their success. Reports suggest that there is only space to accommodate four more winners name on the trophy, which means only the winning team till 2030 world cup will find a mention.

[Sean of the Shed]

If they were retiring the trophy...

They could just keep adding plinths.
Just look where they have got to with the shield for the winners of the Southern League.

Here's Bristol Rovers in 1904/05:



And here's Hemel Hempstead Town 109 years later:



Here it is in close up:

[Patrick Thistle]

If they were retiring the trophy...

Shedmundo wrote: They could just keep adding plinths.
Just look where they have got to with the shield for the winners of the Southern League.

Here's Bristol Rovers in 1904/05:



And here's Hemel Hempstead Town 109 years later:



Here it is in close up:

That's just superb

[Sits]

If they were retiring the trophy...

Well I don't see why "FIFA regulations" couldn't be changed so Sunday's winners do keep it.

Otherwise the answer must be the Stanley Cup / Borg-Warner route. If that got dropped under an open topped bus there'd be trouble.

[G-Man]

If they were retiring the trophy...

This trophy is so iconic that the World Cup would virtually require rebranding. I can see why FIFA don't want to retire it.

[Mumpo]

If they were retiring the trophy...

Rogin o adepto de sofá wrote: Argentina (1978 and 1986) and Germany (1974 and 1990) have both won the FIFA World Cup twice so far

Um...

[Harbinger of Hope]

If they were retiring the trophy...

Mumpo Redentor wrote:

Argentina (1978 and 1986) and Germany (1974 and 1990) have both won the FIFA World Cup twice since 1970

Um...

Fixed.

[Various Artist]

If they were retiring the trophy...

Being anal about things, if Germany win it still won't be their third time to win the current trophy, will it?

Harbinger of Hulk wrote:

Argentina (1978 and 1986) and West Germany (1974 and 1990) have both won the FIFA World Cup twice since 1970

Um...

Fixed.

They were certainly West Germany in 1974 (and obviously 1954 before that), and didn't they play under that name in 1990 too since the Berlin Wall had only come down some seven or eight months earlier? So it would be their first ever as 'Germany', technically, although obviously it's generally accepted that the current state lays claim to the footballing heritage of the other.

G-Man wrote: This trophy is so iconic that the World Cup would virtually require rebranding. I can see why FIFA don't want to retire it.

I do think the post-1974 World Cup is the most beautiful sporting trophy ever created — it's not stupidly oversized, it has that perfect solidity to it from the 'globe' (not a 'cup' at all of course) yet the partially-twisting figures supporting it have a lovely fluidity to their lines, and the twin jade-coloured bands at the bottom set off the gold just nicely. For some reason, it still only ever seems 'right' to me seen held in Diego Maradona's hands, though — perhaps a reflection of how I first encountered it, as Italia '90 is the earliest World Cup I remember so I got to know those iconic shots of him kissing the trophy very well in the build-up there.
I'd prefer the cachet and historical significance of it continuing to be the same physical artefact in 2034 and beyond, but if you're going to retire it the centenary might be as good a time as any. There's no reason, after all why they couldn't replace the Cup with an identical one after 2030: using a new trophy doesn't have to mean using a different one — as shown by the FA Cup this year: haven't they just replaced the previous cup used for only c.20 years, which itself replaced a smaller version some 70 years earlier? The design is the same so no-one seems to mind that it's not the very same actual piece of silverware.

[Central Rain]

If they were retiring the trophy...

I know we've done this before, but they were the Federal Republic of Germany in 1954, 1974 and 1990 and they are the Federal Republic of Germany now. It's the same state with the same constitution and the same football association. The only difference is that it covers more territory than it used to.

[Kurt Bafokeng]

If they were retiring the trophy...

We just won't give it back.
So there.

[Various Artist]

If they were retiring the trophy...

Central Rain wrote: I know we've done this before, but they were the Federal Republic of Germany in 1954, 1974 and 1990 and they are the Federal Republic of Germany now. It's the same state with the same constitution and the same football association. The only difference is that it covers more territory than it used to.

Fair enough, I evidently wasn't looking at it anally enough then. I suppose 'West' and 'East' were only ever labels of convenience.

[NHH]

If they were retiring the trophy...

Just reminded myself that I wrote this 11 years ago here:

Sporting trophies don’t appear to have figured much in the way of criticism; like much of sport, it appears to be too far below the radar of the critiquing classes. But they are worthy objects of discussion, if only for the obvious point that they don’t get made by themselves. Someone commissions them. Someone buys them. The organisation responsible is saying something about itself at the time of first sourcing the trophy; this may have little to say about the now, or it could say something about what they thought about the now back then. If you see what I mean.

To kick this little series off, I’ll begin with my absolute favourite – The FIFA World Cup Trophy, designed by Sergio Gazzaniga. It was commissioned to replace the original trophy named after Jules Rimet, variously described as the creator, founder and father of the world cup (I can’t believe he was the first person to have the idea of working out who the world’s best team were, but he did actually get the thing off the ground, so fair play to him). Brazil had won the trophy three times and so kept the statuette, and FIFA needed a new one. 53 designs were received and Gazzaniga’s won.

It stands 36cm and weighing in at 4.9Kg. It’s an absolute beauty. It says much about the organisation at the time that having allowed Brazil to keep the last one, the rules were changed to prevent this happening again. This one is in it for the long haul. FIFA had an eye on the future, and I think they did a good job, which is a statement you’d be hard pushed to make today.
So why do I like it? The simplicity and the symmetry are the main ones. The weight too. There was always something that didn’t seem right in the fact that the Jules Rimet trophy was so small and light; something so important shouldn’t look so inconsequential and be able to handed around with little effort. The Ashes in cricket suffer from this same problem to my mind.

It should have a near religious sense of a relic, as it is the nearest sport gets to something that transcends the temporary circumstances of the time. It is the perfect trophy for the greatest competition in football, the dream of kids all over the world to one day win, and as they get older and realise they are rubbish, to see their team win.

So the World Cup, heavy beast that it is, feels right. To see a player struggle to hold it and lift it above their head mimics the struggle they have had to win it (apart from France, but I won’t go there). The player holding it above their head mirrors the trophy itself, where two figures hold a globe aloft.

Trophies seem to be little more than updated replayings of hunting rites; the presentation is to demonstrate to the world that they have killed it, they have vanquished the foe. We did this, and we did it for you is the message. The World Cup is perhaps the finest at this. Deceptively heavy, pleasingly simple yet still redolent of great wealth, and looks a treat when held aloft. FIFA might just have bumbled into choosing this design, but I’d like to think not. Even so, in age of gaudy trophies and transient tournaments, the greatest tournament in the world have the greatest trophy in the world. FIFA probably wouldn’t choose this now, of course.

But it seems they might be up for trying, with talk of them getting a new one made. FIFA’s choice said much about the game in 1974 when it was first awarded. Respectful, though with less of a nod to the standard curves and heraldic figures of past trophies and cups than one would expect. It spoke of an organisation secure in its knowledge that football was the greatest game, and confident of its prospects. The modern game has moved on so much since then, and FIFA has done so too. A new prize would unlikely to have that respect and comfort with history of the game and its future. Just like FIFA itself.

[Various Artist]

If they were retiring the trophy...

That's great NHH, I can't help but agree with all of it. Eleven years' passage don't seem to have made it any less relevant now, either.

[Sits]

If they were retiring the trophy...

Seconded. When this thread began I was for "keep it after three" being the tradition, but I've been converted.

Lucky Brazil eh? Well, back then anyway. The Jules Rimet is a little Art Deco beauty.