The barefoot myth: Why India gave up the chance to play in the FIFA World Cup

"When will India play the FIFA World Cup?" is a quadrennial question posed in and around the sub-continent around this time of the year. Another question that does the rounds is - "Why did India not play the World Cup in 1950?" The difference between the 'when' and the 'why' is quite significant.

India had, quite literally as things stand, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to partake in the World Cup 72 years ago. You might have come across the famous 'barefoot' reason for the country's non-participation. Being kicked out of the World Cup for not having boots is a story that fits in with India's erstwhile identity. Having won Independence three years ago, the fledgling nation was just emerging as a sovereign entity and was not yet one with the ways of the world.

But, thanks to proof, the barefoot story is barely credible.

The myth which has been perpetuated for decades is that it was the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) which did not allow India to play barefoot. In reality, FIFA had no mandate on boots back then.

"The FIFA equipment regulations came in 1953. Before that, they never said that you had to wear boots. If you look at the 1952 Helsinki Olympics, most Indians weren't wearing boots. So, the argument that it was FIFA not allowing India to play the World Cup holds no water," football journalist Jaydeep Basu told VICE Asia, in a documentary made in collaboration with Budweiser under the #yourstotake campaign.

Even in the photos of the Indian team at the 1948 Olympics, some players can be seen wearing boots.

The barefoot story has been proved to be a myth, but the fact remains that India did pull out of the 1950 World Cup at the eleventh hour. The reason for the withdrawal reveals how much the world of sports has changed since then.

Lack of funds, Olympics preference

Traversing the 14,766 km which separated India and the 1950 FIFA World Cup hosts Brazil meant that the All India Football Federation (AIFF) had to pay an estimated Rs. 1 lakh to fund the trip. While the AIFF was seriously strapped for money back then, different state associations were ready to step up.

"The IFA, the parent body of Bengal football, were ready to give Rs. 25,000, Mysore Football Association named a contribution of Rs. 10,000, and the Maharashtra Football Association were ready to give around Rs. 15,000," Basu said.

Thanks to the state bodies, even the problem of funds were taken care of. What then proved to be the impediment?

"AIFF even said that the Indians were getting ready for the World Cup, but then they developed cold feet," sports historian Gautam Roy said.

In those days, the World Cup had not reached its "greatest show on the earth" status. The Olympics were the grander of the two occasions, and naturally the Indian government thought that participation at this multi-sporting event would be more prestigious.

READ | FIFA World Cup vs Olympics — Which is the biggest sporting event in the world?

Moreover, it was India's terrific showing at the 1948 Olympics, bare feet and all, and their narrow 1-2 defeat to France that further perpetuated the tournament's precedence over the World Cup.

It didn't help that India didn't actually qualify for the Brazil tournament on merit, but due to sheer consequences of circumstances. The newly independent country was grouped with Burma (now Myanmar) and Philippines for the qualifiers. After the other two nations withdrew, India got the single Asian slot by default.

"The real story, which I also believe, was that the government of India felt the Olympics was more important for India to go, because World Cup was not so big," said former national team captain Bhaichung Bhutia.

'Biggest mistake in Indian football'

Just ten days prior to the start of the tournament in 1950, the AIFF sent a cable citing reasons like insufficient time, delayed information and difference in the selection of players for their withdrawal from the FIFA World Cup.

"This was probably the biggest mistake, the most unfortunate thing to happen to Indian football," commented Roy.

Uruguay beat Brazil in the deciding match of that World Cup, reasserting the dominance of South American football post the second World War, while India - one of Asia's top sides at the time - focussed elsewhere. They had beaten AFC Ajax 5-1 and Wales 4-1 two years ago, and were going to win the Asian Games gold medal the next year, but the World Cup remained uncharted territory.

Who knows where the sport would have reached here if India did play in 1950, or whether participation would have made a difference in the current scenario of Indian football. However, despite the lack of footage, stories passed down generations are testament to the prowess of the Indian team back then.

"You can't quantify what could have been achieved, but being an optimist, if we would have played, things would have definitely be better for football in India," said current national team captain Sunil Chhetri.

"Sadly, the footage isn't there, but this is something my father, uncles, everyone used to tell us - how glorious the years were then," he added.

Talimeren Ao's comment

While it is unfortunate that India did not get a chance to feature in the World Cup, the more interesting question is how the barefoot myth came to being.

The answer to this might lie in what then-Indian captain Talimeren Ao told the British media after the Indian team has lost 1-2 to France in 1948 Olympics.

"We play football in India, whereas you play bootball," the Indian captain's quotes were splashed over front pages of British newspapers the day after the match.

This difference between the colonisers and the till-recently-colonised was well liked by the British public, and it was through English media that the story of the bootless Indian team spread across the world over many years, before the advent of the internet made fact-checking much more accessible.