Skip to main content

The Withdrawn Teams and their Replacements in World Cup History

 


A number of teams did need to withdraw from the World Cup for several reasons and were replaced in the final round.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is only four months away, but the latest developments around the globe and in the host nations raise concerns about whether the tournament will ever continue to be held in North America. After the violence in Guadalajara, one of the city hosts in Mexico, the US military strikes to support Israel on Iran’s soil hit deeper than just political issues, especially following the departure of their religious Supreme Leader recently.

Iran has reportedly been in doubt about participating in the current FIFA World Cup, as they are based in the USA. The travel restriction for Iran’s fans to US home soil could definitely trigger a worsening of the situation. 

FIFA has yet to decide team Melli's fate in the final round, as well as their replacement. Iraq and UEA have been deemed the potential one on the list. 

 Throughout the tournament’s history, several teams had to withdraw for different reasons. Most of them were replaced by their direct oppositions, but a few simply lost their berth as their replacement opted to decline the opportunity. Here are those teams which experienced such circumstances, plus their story beyond.

However, only the teams whose withdrawal had a direct impact on their opponent’s chance to qualify directly count here, while those which declined to play at the early stage of the qualifiers will not be included.

Italy 1934 (three nations)

In the second edition of the FIFA World Cup, Italy 1934, the qualifying round was firstly introduced for all contestants, including the host. However, several nations opted to withdraw from the qualifiers, with specifically three nations from South America choosing to do so voluntarily.

The reigning champion, Uruguay, refused to travel as a sign of protest to their European counterparts due to their rejection of participating in the previous edition, even by invitation. Meanwhile, Peru and Chile withdrew because of logistic and financial reasons. Such led Brazil and Argentina to take their place. They were their direct opposition in the qualifiers with only a single game for two berths for CONMEBOL.

France 1938 (five nations)

In the following edition, more nations opted to withdraw from the tournament. Uruguay remained absent from the qualifying round; Argentina followed their neighbouring rival’s footsteps, as they felt dismayed by FIFA’s decision to be more in favour of Europe instead.

The 1938 edition was supposed to be given to CONMEBOL due to the expected turn.

Unfortunately, the world football governing body was more in favour of Europe, with France as the elected host, instead of Argentina, which had already applied for the host. Consequently, Brazil was taking Albiceleste’s place.

Apparently, they were not the only team withdrawing from the competition at the expense of the other team securing the berth by walking over. Egypt and Cuba were the ones who did and were replaced by the USA and Romania.

Meanwhile, Austria was unable to send their team due to the ‘Anschluss’ despite being qualified. They were colonised by Germany. Their spot was initially given to England by invitation path. However, the FA declined, as they saw it lacked prestige compared to their own British Home Championship.

Brazil 1950 (ten nations)

The first edition of the FIFA World Cup after World War II was also not immune to the withdrawal issue. Ten nations decided to decline to send their team in the competition due to various reasons, including two elite sides.

Argentina was one of them. Albiceleste was involved in a political disagreement with Brazil, resulting in their rejection of taking part in the 1950 edition. Peru and Ecuador also opted for the same but with different motives. Their absence gave the advantage for Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Chile to take their berth.

Meanwhile, from UEFA, France also declined to go, despite replacing the withdrawing Scotland because of the travelling schedule. Portugal, which was supposed to take two consecutive teams which withdrew, Austria and then Turkey, did the same, whereas Switzerland qualified at the expense of Belgium. They were not in their ideal circumstance to send the team after suffering the world war.

The weirdest team withdrawing from the world cup was India. The South Asian side qualified through walkover win following Burma's withdrawal. Nevertheless, they eventually opted not to play themselves due to their obligation to wear boots!! India preferred to play with barefeet but such proposal was rejected by FIFA despite their fairly successful campaign in summer Olympics 1948 without boots on the pitch.

Switzerland 1954 (one nation)

In the following edition, Poland became the only team to withdraw at that time. They declined to play against Hungary in a two-legged qualifying match mainly due to internal non-sporting reasons, which was quite a shock. As a result, the Mighty Magyar went through the final round without even having to kick the ball.

Apart from Poland, Argentina also continued to decline playing in the qualifiers. However, their absence did not instantly impact the other teams’ success in qualifying, as only two berths were available for the CONMEBOL side.

West Germany 1974 (one nation)

The last team to withdraw from the crucial stage of the World Cup leading to the direct berth in the final round was the USSR. The Eastern Europe giant rejected playing in Santiago for the second leg of the intercontinental playoff for the sake of their own security following the coup of Augusto Pinochet. The former Chilean president was infamous for executing people in the national stadium, in which the USSR and Chile were scheduled to square off.

They requested FIFA name a different venue for the match, but an agreement could not be reached. The Soviet Union was eventually disqualified, as they remained firm on their refusal at the expense of Chile’s return to the FIFA World Cup after their absence in Mexico 1970.

 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Managers Taking Charge of the Rival Sides in International Football

  Only a few managers who have been up to the rare challenge in taking charge of the rival side of their own nations in international football. Being the manager of your own national team would undoubtedly be an incredible experience for a coach. The pride of leading one's own country to an international major tournament is irreplaceable. However, fate can be cruel at times, and the opportunity to lead a rival nation arises before your own. Such is difficult, but for someone who is unattached, it is simply too good to pass up. This is what happens to Thomas Tuchel. The former Chelsea, Bayern Munich, PSG, and Dortmund manager was recently appointed by the FA as Gareth Southgate 's successor. He is the best available candidate and a proven winner for his team, which matches the desired profile. The only flaw in him is that he is German, England's long-time rival on and off the pitch . Fortunately, such rivalry is no longer an issue in modern era, despite their conflict in...

The Overlooked Notable Winter Transfers in Major European Leagues 2023/24

  A number of notable winter transfers in five top European leagues this season involving well-known players may have gone unnoticed. The winter transfers in major European leagues were completed on February 1. Several big names have made moves to save their futures, revive their careers, or simply look for more minutes on the pitch. The winter transfer window is the best opportunity for clubs to sign players who can make an immediate impact as the season progresses. Unfortunately, such is quite tricky. Some clubs succeed, while others may not. The January transfer window also allows clubs to sign players who have either been bench warmers, such as England international Kalvin Phillips, or have failed to live up to expectations, such as Italian forward Andrea Belotti. Certain clubs also look for additional names in the squad, sometimes on loan , to provide more competition or to cover for players who have been sidelined for an extended period of time or are absent due to their ...

Top players who failed in both Real Madrid and Barcelona

  Several top players had attempted to thrive in both Real Madrid and Barcelona in their careers but failed. Real Madrid and Barcelona are undoubtedly two of the most famous elite clubs in the world. Thus, a chance to play in either one or even both of them is too good to turn down. Such would not only improve their career but also their level of performance, winning mentality, and even exposure. Some players managed to shine in one of them, whereas a few were even able to thrive on both sides. The likes of Ronaldo Luiz Nazario, Luis Figo, and Michael Laudrup are the perfect example of the latter. Unfortunately, some others have not succeeded in neither team, despite having the rare opportunity to play for both La Liga powerhouses in a star-studded squad. Here are several top players who had failed stints in both Santiago Bernabeu and Camp Nou. Two of them were even considered legendary figures in their home soil and Eastern Europe. Alfonso Perez Alfonso Perez was one of ...