MARGARET Thatcher's government agonised over whether to demand British teams withdraw from the 1982 World Cup amid fears they could have to play Argentina while the two countries' troops were still fighting in the Falklands.
Newly-released official documents show that while Conservative ministers believed the prospect of such a sporting clash would be "unacceptable" to their own party, they did not want to pick up the bill if the football authorities were left out of pocket.
England, Scotland and Northern Ireland all qualified for the 1982 World Cup finals held in Spain, with the opening game of the tournament scheduled for the middle of June.
Among the papers released by the National Archives at Kew, west London, is a report by environment secretary Michael Heseltine, written in May 1982 as the taskforce steamed towards the Falklands, warning that British and Argentine players could soon be facing each other on the football pitch.
But while Mr Heseltine, as the Cabinet minister responsible for sport, acknowledged that a match involving one of the home countries against Argentina would be a distasteful prospect, he argued it would be wrong to call for a boycott.
Withdrawal by the UK teams would, he said, be greeted as a "moral victory" by the Argentinians while damaging relations with Spain where there was strong support for the Argentine cause. And then there was the cost.
"The financial consequences of a withdrawal are considerable," he wrote.
"There could be a ban on competing in the 1986 World Cup; a heavy FIFA fine; the possibility of compensation; the cancellation of travel and accommodation arrangements; and players' contracts would have to be met.
"The Scottish and Northern Ireland Football Associations could be bankrupted."
In the event, the Argentines surrendered as the tournament began, and all sides were eliminated without playing each other.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article