It took an astonishing two full days for the notorious footage of the match known as the Battle of Santiago to make its way from South America to the UK for broadcast. In that brief time, the game transformed into a brutal legend, captivating football enthusiasts and those drawn to its alarming brutality. Frank McGhee, writing for the Mirror, stated, “The match is universally agreed by observers as the ugliest, most vicious and disgraceful in soccer history. If you think that is exaggerating, watch the film on TV. But send the kids to bed first – it deserves a horror certificate!”
David Coleman’s memorable introduction to the BBC broadcast has entered the annals of legend. “Good evening,” he began. “The game you are about to see is the most stupid, appalling, disgusting and disgraceful exhibition of football in the history of the game. This is the first time these countries have met; we hope it will be the last. The national motto of Chile reads: By Reason or By Force. Today, the Chileans were not inclined to be reasonable, while the Italians resorted solely to force, leading to a disastrous spectacle for the World Cup. If the tournament is to continue in its current form, action must be taken against teams that play in such a manner.”
While the Battle of Santiago is often remembered as an extraordinarily turbulent event, it was just one of several violent encounters throughout this particular tournament. Prior to the match’s start, the Chilean newspaper Clarin described it as resembling a World War more than a World Cup event. The Express warned on match day, “The tournament shows every sign of developing into a violent bloodbath. Reports read like battlefront despatches. Italy vs. Germany was described as ‘wrestling and warfare.’ Players were forced to evade the ball for their safety. Football was overshadowed as players aimed to injure one another.”
In the tournament’s initial two days, eight matches resulted in four red cards, three broken legs, a fractured ankle, and several cracked ribs. The opening game in England’s group saw Argentina triumph over Bulgaria through a display of “hacking, tripping, pushing and other dirty tactics.” Following the match, Bulgarian player Todor Diev, with a cut nose and legs marked by studs, remarked that Argentina played “like boxers.”
In Russia’s inaugural match against Yugoslavia, Eduard Dubinski suffered a broken leg after a challenge from Muhamed Mujic. Although Mujic was not sent off, his association was so troubled by the foul that they voluntarily suspended him for a year. “It is lamentable that Fifa are not equally honest,” the Express criticized. “They have ignored their own ruling that any offenders be dealt with immediately after the offence. Without action against the few out-and-out villains, this ugly situation has been allowed to continue.”
“It became evident after just two days that many teams were so desperate to avoid an early exit that they had forgotten football was merely a game, and the World Cup its grand showcase,” wrote Donald Saunders, the Telegraph’s football correspondent, in his later published book on the tournament. “Reports from all four centers detailed violence, bad temper, severe injuries, and scant artistry from the world’s leading professionals.”
Italy had already displayed poor conduct in their first match, but now they faced increased stakes against the host nation, fervently supported by their fans, in a match they could not afford to lose. The Observer noted that “the patriotism here for the national team is astonishing,” and the atmosphere intensified when articles in the Italian publications La Nazione and Corriere della Sera described the prospect of hosting the tournament as “pure madness.” They portrayed Santiago as a backwater where “the phones don’t work, taxis are rarer than faithful husbands, a cable to Europe costs an arm and a leg, and a letter takes five days to arrive,” and its inhabitants as suffering from “malnutrition, illiteracy, alcoholism, and poverty.” Corrado Pizzinelli from La Nazione stated bluntly, “Santiago is terrible. Entire neighborhoods are given over to open prostitution.” Journalists who penned these critiques had to flee the country, and an Argentinian journalist mistaken for one of them was assaulted and hospitalized.
Fifa, concerned about the potential for violence at the match, and responding to complaints from the Italian FA regarding the original appointment of a Spanish official, brought in seasoned English referee Ken Aston. The Italians were not pleased, as Aston had officiated Chile’s first game, but they had no choice.
From the outset, Chileans were aggressive, spitting at Italians and provoking them with kicks. However, when the Italians retaliated, they bore the brunt of the punishment. A foul was called just 12 seconds into the match, and the first red card was issued after only four minutes. Giorgio Ferrini, the Italian player involved, refused to leave the pitch, causing a 10-minute delay as armed police escorted him off the field. “The pitch quickly became a battlefield as players ignored the ball and focused on kicking their nearest opponent,” the Mirror reported. Notable moments included Leonel Sánchez, son of a professional boxer, breaking the nose of Italian captain Humberto Maschio with a left hook, escaping any repercussions, and then punching Mario David, an Italian right-half, who was sent off for retaliating. In a twist of irony, Sánchez took the free kick that led to Jaime Ramírez giving Chile a 73rd-minute lead against nine men, with Jorge Toro sealing a late victory.
“I had my back to the incident at the time,” Aston explained regarding Sánchez’s punch. “If the referee or linesman sees nothing, nothing can be done. I’m sure the linesman did see it, but he chose not to inform me.” The linesman, Leo Goldstein, was often perceived as having received his World Cup officiating opportunity due to his unique history as a Holocaust survivor. Having narrowly escaped death, he volunteered to referee a match and continued this career after the war. Aston remarked, “I was stuck with a Mexican and a little American. They weren’t very good, so it became almost me against the 22 players.”
“We weren’t the ones throwing punches; we were the victims,” David recalled years later. “Sánchez broke Maschio’s nose, and the referee did nothing, but he sent off Ferrini for simply trying to get back at Sánchez without even making contact. Then, their goalkeeper passed the ball to Sánchez, who sat on it and held it between his legs. To kick the ball, I had to kick him a bit too, and when he got up, he punched me, but the referee ignored it. Then I went for Sánchez with my leg outstretched and caught him in the shoulder, and the shameless Aston sent me off too. I stood at the tunnel entrance to watch the rest of the game, and even with nine men, we fought until the end.”
“The Italians couldn’t comprehend – and neither can I – why Sánchez was allowed to remain on the field after mimicking Rocky Marciano, while one of their players was expelled for a lesser offence,” wrote Jimmy Hill in the Observer. “From that moment on, control slipped away from both players and officials. Allowing a player to stay on the field after such a blatant disregard for the rules was an egregious error. The players must bear the primary blame, but the officials must also accept their share of responsibility for this grotesque decision.”
“I anticipated a challenging match, but not an impossible one,” Aston stated. “I just aimed to do my best. I did consider abandoning the match, but I couldn’t risk the safety of the Italian players if I did. I thought that then, and I still believe it now. I can assure you, I didn’t add any stoppage time.”
The animosity between the nations escalated. In Chile, Italians found themselves barred from bars, restaurants, and even supermarkets, while the squad’s training camp was placed under armed guard. Jorge Pica, a prominent member of the Chilean FA, stirred further controversy by suggesting the Italians were drugged. “They appeared to take to the field solely with the intent to injure the Chileans,” he claimed. “It was like a rodeo. Frankly, I suspect they were under the influence of drugs. I now see the necessity for laboratory tests on players after matches.” Meanwhile, the Italians lodged a formal complaint against Aston for biased officiating, labeled the Chileans as “cannibals,” and in Rome, the army was dispatched to safeguard the Chilean consulate.
Criticism of Aston’s officiating was most vociferous in Italy. “I remember one journalist referred to him as ‘an unmentionable English vermin,’ and I completely agree with him,” David stated. However, such sentiments were not confined to Italy. Peco Bauwens, a former referee and honorary president of the German FA, remarked, “I have never seen an English referee so weak.” “I have self-respect,” Aston retorted. “Otherwise, I would have taken the easy way out and abandoned the game.”
As the World Cup continued to be marred by violence – even while the Battle of Santiago unfolded, Yugoslavia was engaged in “another ugly brawl” against Uruguay in Arica, which also saw two send-offs – Aston and Bob Davidson, the Scottish referee from Italy’s opening match, approached Fifa president Sir Stanley Rous. “All referees who witnessed this game and have observed the general malice in most matches want to inform Rous that they haven’t traveled all this distance to officiate this kind of behavior,” Davidson stated.
“The World Cup is on a path toward disgrace unless Sir Stanley Rous and his committee act swiftly and decisively to rectify the situation,” the Mirror cautioned. “Chile today is a nation rife with rumors and threats.” Rous listened to the referees’ demands for stringent action against offenders and assured them of his intentions. They left the meeting satisfied, but then Fifa suspended Ferrini for just one match and reprimanded both David and Sánchez without further action. Nevertheless, representatives from all 16 teams were summoned to the Carrera Hotel in Santiago, where Rous emphasized the necessity for improved standards. “What will the children think upon witnessing the abhorrent behavior of top players? We need to preserve the integrity of this tournament,” he asserted. “This should not be about winning at any cost.”
However, Fifa’s attempts at reform were laughably inadequate. Four years later, Pelé was brutally kicked out of the 1966 World Cup after suffering an injury in Brazil’s second match in Chile. “I have heard it said since, and I firmly believe it, that Sir Stanley Rous instructed referees to overlook the ‘virile’ game played by European teams,” he wrote in his autobiography, “resulting in efforts to physically incapacitate me.”
Even in Chile, little improved. During the semi-final between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the Swiss referee was compelled to call captains together as the match “developed into a brawl,” and warned them to eliminate the rough play. In the other semi-final, featuring Chile and Brazil, two players were sent off, including the standout player of the tournament, Brazil’s Garrincha, who suffered a head injury from one of the many objects thrown at him as he exited the field. After the match, he was seen in tears in the dressing room. “Sure, I was sent off,” he lamented, “but all afternoon, I was being kicked. There’s a limit to how much a man can endure before he must respond. I may have been wrong, but I am ready to accept the consequences.”
The Brazilian FA, however, was not as accommodating. Garrincha’s eligibility for the final depended on a Fifa disciplinary committee hearing, where the match officials would present their accounts. However, the referee, Peruvian Arturo Yamazaki, received a call from his country’s president asking him to downplay his testimony, and he made Garrincha’s actions seem trivial. The linesman, Uruguay’s Esteban Marino, who had initially influenced Yamazaki’s decision, mysteriously failed to appear at all.
“He just vanished. It felt like something straight out of an Agatha Christie novel,” reported Brazilian journalist Argeu Affonso, covering the tournament. “It was Agatha Christie football. He just disappeared, and no one knew where he had gone.” It was later revealed that Brazilian World Cup referee John Etzel had been given $10,000 in cash by his FA to ensure Marino’s absence. Without Marino, Fifa ultimately lacked sufficient evidence to impose a ban on Garrincha, who played in Brazil’s 3-1 victory over Czechoslovakia in the final. “I was the one who won the World Cup,” Etzel later boasted, and he gained even more, having only given Marino half of the cash while keeping the rest for himself. A fitting conclusion to an extraordinarily lawless event.
What the Observer wrote: Coping with the Rough Stuff
By Jimmy Hill, Coventry City manager, 10 June 1962
Some argue that Ken Aston should be awarded the V.C. for his valiant efforts to contain the chaos between Chile and Italy last Saturday, while others contend that both nations should be permanently banned from world competition. Can those of us 9,000 miles away, informed by television yet not blinded by the smoke of the battlefield, inject some reason into the events of the week?
The match was so rough that it would have made Wilf Copping raise an eyebrow; punches were frequently thrown, and boots were flying faster and more wildly than hooves in a cavalry charge. One cannot downplay the shocking lack of sportsmanship exhibited by the players, but this should not be used as a reason to disparage soccer in this country.
In fact, just days ago, English players were criticized by the press as “too gentlemanly” to succeed in the World Cup. A fault suddenly becomes a virtue, and the friendly handshakes exchanged with the Hungarians following their brilliant display are now seen not as weakness but as strength.
When one reflects on the relentless criticism players and officials face for failing at the national level, it’s no wonder that a “win at all costs” mentality emerges.
The World Cup is a grueling competition for men. Football is a physical game requiring immense skill and artistry. Bodies are meant to collide, and hacking was a fundamental aspect of the sport. However, it was also expected that tempers would be controlled, and tactics would remain fair and not violent.
The Italians began energetically but soon became frantic. No professional player, whether from Latin America or Europe, loses all sense of fair play and caution without cause. The Italians had to win this match to stay in the tournament. Ferrini had already been sent off. David, Italy’s right-back, faced Sánchez, Chile’s outside-left, who was shielding the ball beneath him, and after several attempts, he cleared the ball. It was rugged, but only slightly illegal – he did play the ball.
Sánchez sprang up, only slightly hurt, and knocked David down with a quick left hook. Once the ensuing melee subsided, the Italians could not understand – nor could I – why Sánchez was allowed to remain on the pitch despite a clear imitation of Rocky Marciano, while one of their players had been expelled for a less serious and far less obvious offense.
From that moment, control slipped away from both players and officials. It was a dreadful decision to permit a player to stay on the field after such a blatant violation of the rules. It’s possible that Mr. Aston’s focus was on the ball as it rolled away, but the linesman was positioned just a few yards away and should not have been unsighted.
The players must bear the majority of the blame, but officials must also accept their accountability for making this grotesque mistake. To compound matters, David himself was later sent off for a high boot interception, a dangerous maneuver, but he did indeed lunge at the ball and make contact.
Mr. Aston demonstrated commendable restraint and determination to see the match through, but one must question whether this game warranted such care and attention. His courage cannot be doubted, but in this instance, sending off a Chilean player would have been the ultimate act.
Normally, a referee can reinforce a decision by delivering well-chosen words to an offending player. However, when both parties speak different languages, this means of control is lost. Only the whistle conveys the referee’s authority and skill.
In the future, we must consider implementing filmed evidence in subsequent inquiries and commissions, as is done in racing. If the camera’s keen eye can complicate the task of the vicious and underhanded player, the sooner we use film, the better.
In my opinion, the individuals responsible for Saturday’s match should be made to watch footage of their antics a dozen times. If that doesn’t instill shame in them – nothing will.
