A Very Brief Review of the German Press Coverage of the 1930 World Cup

Follow me on Twitter: @WC1930blogger

This is a very brief review of some of the newspaper coverage in the German press of the first World Cup in Uruguay in 1930. It does not represent the entirety of the coverage in that country and all references are from secondary sources published online in the last ten or fifteen years. Some of the references are from a site that is no longer available online and unfortunately, I do not have the original German text, only an English translation (via google). 

The German football magazine Kicker did not feel necessary to send a correspondent to Uruguay in July 1930. The vast distance and the almost three-month trip was a costly adventure and there was no real vested interest since their own country had decided not to participate. Instead, according to RP Online, it had decided to employ the Belgian referee, John Langenus and the Hungarian, Moricz Fischer, the FIFA vice president, as ''rapporteurs''.

The written match reports were dispatched via mail on board ships sailing to Europe and reaching their destination a couple of weeks later. Reports of the first round matches were first published in Kicker on the 29th July 1930, a day before the World Cup Final.

The few lines on the World Cup Final could be read on the 26th August, some twenty-seven days after. Their own correspondent, John Langenus, refereed that match. The Belgian referee received some severe criticism in the Argentinian press for his performance. It should, therefore, be no surprise that his description of the Final contained no criticism of his own handling of the match.

According to an article on www.kejelhejel.de, which is no longer available online, ''the renowned Fußball Woche, wrote briefly and contemptuously of the 'Tale of the World Cup'. The Münchner Neuesten Nachrichten, later known as the Süddeutsche Zeitung, told in advance about the upcoming finale but did not think worthy of printing the result. In Britain, the most important newspaper, The Times, didn't even give it a single mention.''

Readers of Fußball Woche were informed in advance what to expect of the World Cup Final. ''One can predict with certainty'', wrote the Berlin publication, ''that there has been the usual, perfectly balanced struggle between Uruguay and Argentina, in front of approximately 100,000 passionate spectators shattering with tension, either 1-0 or 2-1 expected for one of the parties or even undecided.''

Unfortunately, racist stereotypes were common during this period. ''With the runners'', wrote F. Richter in the journal Fußball, ''represented a genuine negro named Andrade, the exotic touch of colour. The long time Andrade falls on his head through his favourite game. The blacks seem to have skulls like coconuts.''

Our last reference comes once more from Fußball Woche, more commonly known as FUWO, when it informed its impatient readers on the 15th September 1930, ''We can now continue our original coverage only because the steamship connection of South America in August was so bad that for weeks no letter could be expedited.''

Without examining the original publications any conclusions should be drawn tentatively. The delayed coverage in Kicker is one area of criticism, especially when one considers that other European newspapers published match reports the day after the event via cablegrams from news agencies such as Associated Press and United Press. It begs the question on whether the magazine provided funds to its two correspondents to send despatches via telegraphy. However, the German journal should be given credit for it was willing to employ eyewitnesses to the event.

In the other examples, there appears to be negative coverage on the one hand and apathy on the other. The errors in their assumptions and the racist language suggest that further research is needed to determine whether certain patterns can be inferred.

1930 World Cup Final - A Tale of Two Footballs

Those familiar with the 1930 World Cup may have read in various publications or articles, how just before the final was to kick off there was disagreement among the two teams, Argentina and Uruguay, over the choice of match ball.

In Brian Glanville's The Story of the World Cup (1993), he writes: ''Each team insisted on a ball of native manufacture; a point which hadn't been covered in the regulations...''. Cris Freddi in Complete Book of the World Cup (2002) also raises the issue and noting that the referee, John Langenus, ''ordered each half to be played with a different ball.'' These are just two references of many that relate to this story. Langenus would toss a coin to determine which ball would be used first, ''To a fusillade of firecrackers, he did. Argentina won'', described Glanville.

It is worth noting in reviewing a quick sample of contemporary match reports, none of the them mention the disagreement, for instance Argentina's La Nacion (31 July 1930) and El Grafico (9 August 1930) were more concerned about the death threats aimed at Luis Monti. But was this because it appears that the Argentinians were being petty about the choice of ball, and the Argentinian press were conveniently ignoring it?

It should be noted that this was an era before FIFA had exclusive contracts with certain ball manufactures to provide balls for the World Cup, and Glanville is right when he points out that this was not covered in the regulations. It was down to the hosts, more specifically the organizing committee, to provide the balls for the whole competition.

When I first read about this story in the dramatic build up to the final, it seemed that the Argentinians were causing trouble with their bitter rivals, an intent to unnerve the Uruguayans moments before the match. And the decision of Langenus to use both balls for different halves was some kind of fair solomonic compromise.

But information provided by Rony J Almeida in his book Where the Legend Began (2006), in my opinion, makes the Uruguayans to be the ones being petty and difficult. According to Almeida, on July 9th 1930, the Organizing Committee had made the choice to use Argentinian made footballs as the official World Cup match ball. Apparently, it was a political decision by the Uruguayan FA, ''...in spite of Uruguayan government interests'', wrote Almeida.

There were high level request made to the organizing committee, such as from the Secretary of Public Education, in charge of the Director of Sports, to use locally made footballs. However, the Organizing Committee believed that the ''high level'' requests were too closely linked to business interests i.e that they had a close relationship with the ball manufactures, and the committee took the ethical decision to go with the Argentine manufacturers.

So, it was the Uruguayans who wanted to ignore the decisions of the organizing committee and it begs the question why the field administrators, competition organizers and the referee Langenus didn't stick to the rules? Was there some kind of bias going on here as the stakes were raised for the title of World Champion? And did it really matter? Probably not. Some of the Argentinians did not play so well in the final, intimidated by the tense atmosphere during the build up to the match, and the Uruguayans adopted a tough physical game to win the final 4-2 and become first ever World Champions.