Uruguay, who had won the inaugural competition in 1930, defeated the host nation, Brazil, in the deciding match of the four-team group of the final round, causing what is sometimes known as one of the biggest upsets in sports history, occasionally called the Maracanaço.

After the war, FIFA were keen to resurrect the competition as soon as possible, and they began making plans for a World Cup tournament to take place.

As a result, FIFA had difficulties finding a country interested in hosting the event, since many governments believed that their scarce resources ought to be devoted to more urgent priorities than a sporting tournament.

The World Cup was at risk of not being held for sheer lack of interest from the international community, until Brazil presented a bid at the 1946 FIFA Congress, offering to host the event on condition that the tournament take place in 1950 rather than the originally proposed year of 1949.

[3] Brazil (the host country) and Italy (the defending champion) qualified automatically, leaving 14 places remaining.

Before the qualification competition, George Graham, chairman of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), had said that Scotland would only travel to Brazil as winners of the Home Championship[5] (England, by contrast, had committed to attending, even if they finished in second place).

[5] After Scotland ended up in second place behind England,[6][7] the Scottish captain George Young, encouraged by England captain Billy Wright, pleaded with the SFA to change its mind and accept the place in Brazil; however, Graham refused to change his position and so Scotland withdrew from the tournament.

[8] FIFA invited Portugal, Republic of Ireland and France, who had been eliminated in qualifying, to fill the gaps left by Scotland and Turkey.

The draw, held in Rio on 22 May 1950, allocated the fifteen remaining teams into four groups:[9][10] After the draw, the Indian football association, All India Football Federation (AIFF) decided against going to the World Cup, citing travel costs (although FIFA had agreed to bear a major part of the travel expenses),[11] lack of practice time, team selection issues, and valuing the Olympics over the FIFA World Cup.

France's withdrawal, coupled with Belgium's before qualifying and Romania's elimination, meant that Brazil had become the only team to have played in every World Cup from its inauguration in 1930 to date, a mark that has persisted to the present day.

A new playing format was proposed by the Brazilian organisers of the tournament to maximise matches and ticket sales since the stadium and infrastructure were so costly.

Italy, the defending champions, lost their unbeaten record at the World Cup finals with a 3–2 defeat by Sweden in its opening match and failed to progress to the second round.

Brazil won their first two matches with a 7–1 thrashing of Sweden and 6–1 rout of Spain, putting them on top of the group with one game left to play against Uruguay; in second and only a point behind.

Thus the difference in quality between the teams was not excessive; unlike Spain and Sweden the Uruguayans were used to the challenges in the big South American stadiums.

On 16 July, before a huge home crowd of 199,954 (some estimated as 205,000) in the Estádio do Maracanã, the host nation only had to draw against Uruguay and the trophy would be theirs.

After such crushing victories over Spain and Sweden, it looked certain they would take the title, and the home nation duly went ahead in the second minute of the second half, thanks to a goal from Friaça.

"[19]The average attendance of nearly 61,000 per game, aided greatly by eight matches (including five featuring hosts Brazil) held in the newly built Maracanã, set a record that would not be broken until 1994.

In order to present itself as a modern country, Brazil invested a today's equivalent of 290 million US-Dollars into new stadiums.

[22] In 1986, FIFA published a report that ranked all teams in each World Cup up to and including 1986, based on progress in the competition, overall results and quality of the opposition.