April 3, 2014 - Pele

  • Episode: 19086
  • (0)

Aasif Mandvi reports on a Supreme Court ruling that gives wealthy Americans a stronger voice in politics, and Pele shares highlights from his remarkable soccer career.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]>> Jon: WELCOME TO "THE DAILY

SHOW."

MY NAME IS JON STEWART.

MAN, GOOD SHOW TONIGHT.

OUR GUEST LEGENDARY BRAZILLANFOOTBALLER PELE.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]I'LL ASK HIM HOW HE FEELS ABOUT

ACHIEVING HIS LIFE'SGOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAALS!

[LAUGHTER]BUT FIRST BIG CAMPAIGN FINANCE

DECISION OUT OF THE NATION'SHIGHEST COURT.

>> BREAKING NEWS FROM THESUPREME COURT.

MAJOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONCASE.

>> THE CASE WAS BROUGHT BYALABAMA BUSINESSMAN SHAUN

MCCUTCHEON WHO ARGUES HESHOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT

AS MANY CANDIDATES AS HEWANTS IN AN ELECTION CYCLE.

>> Jon: WHO IS STOPPING YOU?

I MEAN IT'S YOUR LAWN, RIGHT?

I MEAN --[LAUGHTER]

WAIT A MINUTE, YOU DON'T MEANSUPPORT LIKE SUPPORT, YOU MEAN

SUPPORT LIKE SUPPORT.

>> I THINK THIS IS A FUNDAMENTALFREE SPEECH ISSUE ABOUT YOUR

RIGHT TO SPEND YOUR MONEY ON ASMANY CANDIDATES AS YOU CHOOSE.

>> Jon: RIGHT, RIGHT.

I'M SORRY IT'S THE WHOLE MONEYEQUALS SPEECH AS A WAY TO

FURTHER AMPLIFY BIG DONOR'SINFLUENCE ON POLITICS.

YOU KNOW, BECAUSE FOR SOMEREASON MONEY EQUALING MONEY

WASN'T GETTING IT DONE.

[ LAUGHTER ]>> THE COURT LEFT IN TACT HOW

MUCH ANY PERSON CAN GIVE TO ASINGLE FEDERAL CANDIDATE BUT IT

DID AWAY WITH A LIMIT ON HOWMUCH ANYBODY CAN GIVE TO ALL

CANDIDATES PUT TOGETHER.

[ LAUGHTER ]>> Jon: VICTORY.

FINALLY WE'RE RID OF THECOROSIVE

INFLUENCE OF NOT ENOUGH MONEY INPOLITICS.

>> BASICALLY IT GIVES PEOPLE WHOHAVE A LOT OF MONEY AT THEIR

DISPOSAL THE CHANCETO SPREAD THEIR INFLUENCE EVEN

MORE WIDELY. IF YOU HAVE $1MILLION THINK OF HOW MANY

CHUNKS OF $5200 THAT MAKES.

>> YOU CAN WRITE A LOT OFCHECKS.

>> Jon: YEP. LOTS AND LOTS OF

$5200 CHECKS.

THE LAST GREAT HOPE OFPRESERVING OUR DEMOCRACY FROM

THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OFMONEY IS CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME.

[LAUGHTER]ALL RIGHT, WHAT RATIONALE --

[ APPLAUSE ]-- WHAT RATIONALE DID THE COURT

USE TO JUSTIFY THIS 5 TO 4 SPLITDECISION.

LET'S HEAR SOME DISSENT FROMLIBERAL JUSTICE KAGAN.

>> IF YOU TAKE OFF THEAGGREGATE LIMITS PEOPLE WILL

BE ALLOWED, YOU PUT TOGETHER THENATIONAL COMMITTEES

AND STATE COMMITTEES AND ALL THECANDIDATES IN THE HOUSE

AND THE SENATE IT COMES TOOVER $3.5 MILLION.

>> Jon: I AM SORRY.

THE VISUAL -- THE SUPREME COURTDOESN'T ALLOW CAMERAS INTO THE

SUPREME COURT.

I ASSUME TO PROTECT THE JUDGE'SPRIVACY FROM THOSE REVENGE

UP-ROBE PORN SITES.

[LAUGHTER]BUT WHAT YOU SAW THERE WE HAD

OUR DAILY SHOW COURT SKETCHARTIST AT THE COURT TO CAPTURE

THE ARGUMENTS.

THAT'S WHERE THOSE DRAWINGS COMEFROM.

HERE IS THE CONSERVATIVEREBUTTAL.

FIRST SCALIA SPEAKS FROM THEBENCH IN HIS HOT TUB FULL OF

MONEY.

GO.

>> JUST TO PUT THAT INPERSPECTIVE, HOW MUCH MONEY IS

SPENT BY POLITICAL PARTIES ANDPACS IN ALL ELECTIONS THROUGHOUT

THE COUNTRY?

WHEN YOU ADD ALL THAT UP I DON'TTHINK $3.5 MILLION IS A HECK OF

A LOT OF MONEY.

>> Jon: ANTONIN SCALIA'SARGUMENT THE STRICT

CONSTRUCTIONIST JUSTICE, HISARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE SURE

$3.5 MILLION SOUNDS LIKE A DONORIS MAKING IT RAIN UNTIL YOU

COMPARE THAT TO THE MONSOONSEASON OF MONEY THAT WE

UNLEASHED IN OUR PREVIOUSCITIZENS UNITED DECISION

ALLOWING CORPORATIONSAND UNIONS TO DONATE TO

SUPER PACS. I BELIEVETHE FIGURE THERE THE

LIMIT WAS WHATEVER THE (bleep)YOU WANT.

[ LAUGHTER ]YOU MAY THINK EVEN THOUGH THERE

ARE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INPOLITICS, SURELY MILLIONS CAN

STILL HAVE SOME CORRUPTINGEFFECT, NO?

AND AREN'T WE, BY ATTEMPTING TOLIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS, JUST TRYING

TO LIMIT THE CORRUPTINGINFLUENCE OF MONEY OR AT LEAST

THE APPEARANCE OF THE CORRUPTINGINFLUENCE OF MONEY.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THATBECAUSE IT TURNS OUT YOU ARE

(bleep) WRONG. [ LAUGHTER ]

BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THISSUPREME COURT, THE ONLY KIND

OF CORRUPTION THAT MATTERSIS THE NARROWEST POSSIBLE

THOMAS NAST-LIKE MONOCLE TOPHATTED MAN HANDS A BAG OF MONEY

LABELED MONEY FOR BRIBE

TO A LITERAL FAT CAT WHILE THEAMERICAN PUBLIC STANDS BEHIND

THEM WEARING A BARREL KNOWN ASQUID PRO QUO CORRUPTION.

>> UNLESS THE MONEY ISTRANSFERRED.

YOU HAVE TO GET IT FROM THEPERSON WHO WANTS TO CORRUPT TO

THE PERSON WHO IS GOING TO BECORRUPTED.

UNLESS THE MONEY CAN MAKE ITFROM A TO B I DON'T SEE WHERE

THE QUID PRO QUO ARGUMENT IS.

>> Jon: IS HE (bleep) THAT BAG?

NO WONDER THEY DON'T WANTCAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM.

SO LET ME GET THAT STRAIGHT.

JUSTICE ALITO DOESN'T SEE HOWMONEY CORRUPTS POLITICS UNLESS

YOU CAN DRAW A STRAIGHT LINEFROM I AM GIVING YOU THIS MONEY

TO DO THIS THING FOR ME.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN FIND JUSTICEALITO A BROADER NONLITERAL QUID

QUO PRO LIKE AN HISTORICALEXAMPLE OF THE CORRUPTING

INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN POLITICS.

WHAT IF WE REACHED BACK INHISTORY TO LIKE THIS WEEKEND.

>> THE REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS AREHEADING WEST TO LAS VEGAS.

THEY ARE SPEAKING AT THE SPRINGMEETING OF REPUBLICAN JEWISH

COALITION BUT MORE IMPORTANTTHEIR PRIVATE TALKS WITH ONE

MAN, REPUBLICAN SUPERDONOR SHELDON ADELSON.

>> Jon: I WOULD RESPECTFULLYLIKE TO APPROACH THE BENCH AND

REMIND THE COURT THAT WHEN THEMEDIA REFERS TO SHELDON ADELSON

AS A SUPER DONOR THEY ARE NOTTALKING SPERM.

I HOPE.

A PACK OF REPUBLICANPRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS JUST FLEW

ALL THE WAY TO LAS VEGAS JUST TOKISS THE SCOOTER RIDING ASS OF

ONE 80-YEAR-OLDBILLIONAIRE.

DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHINGTHOUGH RIGHT.

I MEAN PEOPLE ON FEAR FACTORSPEED EAT A PLATE OF BULL

TESTICLES FOR $50,000.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THE TWO ARECONNECTED.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT MONEYCHANGES THEIR BEHAVIOR.

>> LATER ACCORDING TONBC NEWS CHRISTIE DID APOLOGIZETO ADELSON.

>> HE ENDED UP HAVING TOAPOLOGIZE FOR REFERRING THE WEST

BANK AS QUOTE OCCUPIEDTERRITORY.

>> Jon: STILL DON'T THINKMONEY HAS A MORE

GENERL CORRUPTING INFLUENCEON POLITICS? CAUSE I CAN TELL

YOU THIS MY FAMILYIS FULL OF 80-YEAR-OLD JEWS WHO

WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO TELLPOLITICIANS WHAT WORDS THEY CAN

AND CANNOT USE TO DESCRIBEISRAEL BUT AS OF THIS TAPING NO

PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS HAVE FLOWNTO THEIR HOUSE TO SOLICIT THAT

OPINION.

OBVIOUSLY WE TAPE AT 6:00, THESHOW IS ON AT 11:00, THINGS

COULD CHANGE BETWEENTHAT TIME. THERE MAY

BE A PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULSCONFERENCE AT MY AUNT DORIS'S

HOUSE RIGHT NOW.

IF SO OBVIOUSLY MONDAY'S SHOWWILL BE A FULL APOLOGY.

IN WHO'S DELUSIONAL MIND ISDEMOCRACY MADE BETTER BY LETTING

WEALTHIER PEOPLE CONTROL MORE OFIT?

>> I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEPOLITICAL LEFT DOESN'T LIKE

DECISIONS LIKE CITIZENS UNITEDAND McCUTCHEON BECAUSE THEY

EXPAND THE PLAYING FIELD.

THEY ENABLE MORE CITIZENS TO BEINVOLVED, MORE CITIZENS

TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE CANDIDATESAND CAUSES THEY BELIEVE IN.

THAT'S GOOD FOR AMERICA.

>> Jon: (bleep).

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]I CAN'T EVEN DO THE TURTLE

VOICE.

I WON'T EVEN -- HOW THE(bleep) DOES THIS DECISION

ENABLE MORE CITIZENS TOCONTRIBUTE?

ACCORDING TO THE AP IN 2012, 646INDIVIDUALS BUMPED UP AGAINST

THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITTHAT THIS CASE STRUCK DOWN.

MCCUTCHEON DOESN'T GET MOREPEOPLE INVOLVED.

IT LETS THOSE 646 INDIVIDUALSGET THEMSELVES MORE INVOLVED.

HOW DID THE SUPREME COURT HANDLEVOTER I.D. LAWS?

>> THEY SAID STATES CAN REQUIREA VOTER I.D. AT THE POLLS TO

PREVENT VOTER FRAUD.

>> Jon: THE COURT CONVENIENTLYIGNORES THE REAL EFFECTS OF

DONOR LOBBYIST INDUSTRIALCOMPLEX UNDER THE GUISE OF

MAKING OUR DEMOCRACY MOREINCLUSIVE YET THEY ARE

PERFECTLY OKAY WITH VOTERI.D. LAWS UNDER THE GUISE OF

PROTECTING US MOSTLY NONEXISTENTVOTER IN PERSON VOTER FRAUD.

ACTUALLY MAKES OUR DEMOCRACYLESS INCLUSIVE.

CORRUPTION THAT ACTUALLYHAPPENS, I DON'T SEE IT.

VOTER FRAUD THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN?

HM?

[LAUGHTER]JUSTICE IS BLIND BUT IN ONLY ONE

EYE.

[ LAUGHTER ]SO MONEY DOESN'T CORRUPT OUR

SYSTEM.

LAST YEAR THEY STRUCK DOWN PARTSOF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

RACISM DOESN'T APPARENTLYCORRUPT OUR SYSTEM ANYMORE

BECAUSE THESE JUSTICES STRUCKDOWN SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT

PARTS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

SO WHAT IF THE VIEW OF THESEJUSTICES HAS A CORRUPTING

INFLUENCE ON OUR DEMOCRATICPROCESS?

>> DO YOU THINK THAT THE RULESWILL CHANGE IN ALLOWING

TELEVISION CAMERAS IN THE COURT?

>> NOT A CHANCE BECAUSE WE DON'TWANT TO BECOME ENTERTAINMENT.

>> I THINK THERE'S SOMETHINGSICK ABOUT MAKING ENTERTAINMENT

OUT OF REAL PEOPLE'S LEGALPROBLEMS.

>> THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT THEIMPACT ON TELEVISION ON THE

FUNCTIONING OF THE INSTITUTION,BOTH THE CIVIL TRIAL AND THE

SUPREME COURT ARGUMENT.

ALL OF THE JUSTICES VIEWTHEMSELVES AS TRUSTEES OF THE AN

EXTREMELY VALUABLE INSTITUTION.

>> Jon: TELEVISED SUPREMECOURT HEARINGS, APPARENTLY THE

ONE THING SO CORROSIVETO THE PROCESS THAT IT CAN NEVER

BE ALLOWED TO EXERT ITS UNHOLYINFLUENCE

UPON OUR SACRED DEMOCRATICINSTITUTION IS TRANSPARENCY.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]>> Jon: WELCOME BACK TO THE

SHOW.

SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUTYESTERDAY'S SUPREME COURT

DECISION STRIKING DOWN FEDERALCAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS,

INDIVIDUAL DONORS ET CETERA.

OUR SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST AASIFMANDVI IS IN WASHINGTON

TONIGHT WITH MORE. ASSIF, THANKYOU FOR JOINING US.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

ASSIF WITH THIS RULING THE COURTONCE AGAIN EQUATING MONEY WITH

SPEECH.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, JON, LIKE THEOLD SAYING GOES, MONEY TALKS.

[ LAUGHTER ]>> Jon: WELL, THEN I GUESS

(bleep) IS EXERCISE BECAUSE(bleep) WALKS.

>> PRECISELY, JON.

GREAT ANALYSIS.

[LAUGHTER]>> Jon: HOW --

>> JON WHAT THE SUPREME COURTHAS CODIFIED TODAY IS THAT MONEY

IS INDEED EQUIVALENT TO SPEECH.

IN OTHER WORDS MO MONEY MOPRONOUNS.

>> Jon: BY THAT LOGIC CUTTINGENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS COULD BE A

FORM OF CENSORSHIP?

>> HOW IS THAT?JON, I DON'T KNOW WHAT AMERICA

YOU LIVE IN THIS THIS AMERICAYOU EARN

THE RIGHT TO SPEAK WITH YOURMONEY.

>> Jon: NOT ALL RICH PEOPLEHAVE EARNED THEIR MONEY.

SOME OF THEM HAVE WHAT YOU CALL,YOU KNOW, VERY TALKATIVE PARENTS

WHO -->> JON, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING

THE LISTENING DON'T CARE WHERETHE TALKING IS COMING FROM.

ALL THEY WANT IS THAT SWEET,SWEET WALKING AROUND VERBIAGE.

THIS COUNTRY WAS FUNDED ON THEPRINCIPLE --

>> Jon: DID YOU JUST SAY FUNDED-- YOU SAID FUNDED?

>> FUNDED, NO FOUNDED.

>> Jon: YOU SAID FUNDED.

YOU SAID FUNDED.

>> I DID NOT. THEPRINCIPLES SET IN

PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY BYOUR FUNDING FATHERS.

>> Jon:YOU SAID IT AGAIN.

YOU SAID FUNDED.

>> I ASSURE YOU I DIDN'T.

CAN I JUST BLING YOU BACK TO THEPOINT?

>> Jon: ASSIF IF MONEY EQUALSSPEECH AS INCOME INEQUALITY

GROWS, POOR PEOPLE DON'T GET AVOICE.

>> OF COURSE THEY DO IT'S JUSTTHAT IT'S A LEVEL THAT

[WHISPERING] -- REPRESENTS THEIRSIGNIFICANCE.

>> Jon: I CAN BARELY EVEN HEARWHAT YOU WERE SAYING THERE.

>> FACE FACTS, MONEY EQUALSSPEECH. SO IN THIS COUNTRY

THE RICH PEOPLE ARE VERIZON, CANYOU HEAR ME NOW?

HOW ABOUT NOW.

RIGHT?

>> Jon: WHAT ARE THE POORPEOPLE?

>> THE POOR PEOPLE ARE THE GUYIN THE SUBWAY THAT

TELLS YOU YOUR STOP.

[LAUGHTER]>> Jon: WHAT?

>> EXACTLY.

THAT'S RIGHT.

>> Jon: ASSIF MANDVI,EVERYBODY.

THANK YOU, ASSIF.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE][CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

>> Jon: WELCOME BACK.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY GUESTTONIGHT LEGENDARY FOOTBALLER WON

THREE WORLD CUPS DURING HISPROFESSIONAL CAREER IS THE

ALL-TIME LEADING GOAL SCORER INSOCCER HISTORY.

HIS NEW BOOK IS CALLED WHYSOCCER MATTERS.

HERE IS A LITTLE TASTE, JUST ASMALL TASTE, OF WHAT MADE HIM

THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME.

♪ ♪

♪ [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

>> Jon: WOW.

PLEASE WELCOME PELE.

SO GOOD TO SEE YOU.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]IT'S SUCH AN HONOR FOR ME TO

HAVE YOU HERE NOT JUST BECAUSEOF HOW GREAT YOU WERE AS A

PLAYER BUT HOW YOU PLAYED THEGAME WITH SUCH TENACITY, SUCH

SKILL BUT ALWAYS WITH SUCHHEART.

I ADMIRE THAT GREATLY.

>> THANK YOU.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]>> YOU KNOW, JON, SOMETIMES IT'S

HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY BECAUSEJUST GOD KNOW WHY YOU DO SOME

THINGS.

YOU KNOW?

>> Jon: YEAH.

>> MY FATHER WAS A SOCCERPLAYER.

PLAYED PROFESSIONAL.

>> Jon: OH, HE DID PLAYPROFESSIONAL?

>> YEAH, MY FATHER WAS APROFESSIONAL IN STATE OF

MINAS GERAIS WHERE I WAS BORNAND THEN THEY WENT TO STATE

OF SAO PAOLO AND PLAYAT SAO PAOLO.

>> Jon: CROWDED.

>> BAURU IS NOW NEXT TO SAOPAOLO CAPITAL AND THEN THERE I

START. MY FATHER STOP I START.

AND THAT'S I JUST WANT TO BE --I SAY OH, MY GOD ONE DAY I GONNA

BE LIKE MY FATHER.

>> Jon: IT'S BEAUTIFUL.

[ APPLAUSE ]>> Jon: AND WHEN YOU STARTED,

YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THATPEOPLE REALIZE WHAT YOU

OVERCOME TO DO THIS.

YOU GROW UP VERY LITTLE MONEY.

YOU USE FOR A SOCCER BALL, ASOCK STUFFED WITH NEWSPAPER

OR AN OLD FRUIT, SOMETHING.

>> GRAPEFRUIT.

>> Jon: THAT'S HOW THEY PLAYON THE DIRT.

AND YOU -- WERE YOU ALWAYS --DID YOUR SKILLS COME TO YOU JUST

SO NATURALLY?

WERE YOU ALWAYS EVEN AS AYOUNGER PLAYER ABLE TO PLAY WITH

THE BIGGER KIDS?

>> AT THAT TIME WE DIDN'T HAVETHE FACILITY WE HAVE TODAY.

THE NEW TECHNOLOGY WITH BALLS,SHOES, AT THAT TIME --

>> Jon: YEAH.

>> YEAH.

>> Jon: DO YOU KNOW WHY INMANY REASONS WHY SOCCER NOW HAS

ALL OF THIS.

DO YOU KNOW WHY?

>> BECAUSE THE BASE I THINK --

>> Jon: BECAUSE OF YOU.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]SO IN 1950 BRAZIL HOSTS THE

WORLD CUP.

YOU ARE NOT ON THE NATIONALTEAM YET.

HOW OLD ARE YOU IN 1950?

>> FOR THE NEW GENERATION,SOMEONE KNOW ABOUT BUT FOR THE

NEW GENERATION. WEUSED TO LOOK -- MY FATHER

DIDN'T PLAY. BECAUSE THERE WAS AGOOD TEAM IN BAURU.

IN THE WORLD CUP IN 1950 THEYSAID OKAY THE TEAM IS GOING TO

RELAX AND THEN GONNA INVITE MYFRIENDS -- SOME FRIENDS,

SOME PLAYERS TO GO TO MY HOUSE,TO LISTEN.

AT THAT TIME WE DIDN'T HAVE ATV.

YEAH, I WAS EIGHT TO NINE YEARSOLD.

>> Jon: WOW.

>> AND THEN I WAS PLAYING WITHMY FRIENDS THERE, THE SON OF THE

OTHER PLAYERS EXERCISE BECAUSEWORLD CUP IN BRAZIL.

BRAZIL WAS THE BEST TEAM AT THATTIME.

BUT IF YOU STAY FAR AWAY YOUDON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE

YOU DON'T SEE IT ON TV.

THEN I COME I SAW SILENCE.

I CAME INSIDE OF MY HOUSE.

MY FATHER AND THE OTHER PLAYERSWAS SO SAD.

AND MY FATHER WAS CRYING.

BUT FIRST TIME I SAW MY FATHERCRY.

I SAY WHY YOU CRY?

BECAUSE MY FATHER USED TO SAY,MEN DON'T CRY.

YOU REMEMBER THAT.

SUPPOSED TO BE MACHO MAN, MACHOMAN.

I SAID WHY YOU CRY?

HE SAID BRAZIL LOST THE WORLDCUP.

HE WAS SO DEPRESSED I SAID IGONNA WON WORLD CUP FOR YOU, NO

WORRY.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]>> Jon: HERE IS MY HOPE.

HERE IS MY HOPE FOR THE WORLDCUP.

YOU KNOW I LOVE THE UNITEDSTATES SOCCER TEAM.

BUT THEY ARE IN THE GROUP OFDEATH.

IF WE GET OUT THE QUARTERS ICAN'T -- WE'RE WITH GHANA,

PORTUGAL, GERMANY.

IT WILL BE NICE.

THEY'LL A GOOD TRIP.

IT WILL BE FINE.

SO HERE IS MY HOPE.

BRAZIL IN THE FINAL AGAINST WHODID THEY LOSE TO IN

1950, URUGUAY? SO THEY GOAGAINST URUGUAY IN THE FINAL,

IT'S REVENGE FOR 1950.

WHO SCORES THE WINNING GOAL?THE HAND OF PELE.

>> YOU CAN SAY THE HAND OF GOD.

>> Jon: YEAH!

>> LISTEN, I GONNA JUST TAKE ONETIME.

>> Jon: SURE, SURE.

>> AS WE TALK ABOUT THE WORLDCUP.

>> Jon: YES, YES.

>> I PLAY FOUR WORLD CUP.

>> Jon: YES.

>> THE FIRST ONE WAS 17 YEARSOLD IN SWEDEN.

FORTUNATELY BRAZIL WON THETOURNAMENT.

>> Jon: YOU WERE VOTED SECONDBEST PLAYER IN THE ENTIRE

TOURNAMENT AND BEST YOUNGPLAYER.

>> SECOND ONE BRAZIL WON INCHILE.

IN ENGLAND 1966.

BRAZIL THREE WORLD CUPS CAME INWITH A BIG TEAM AND LOST WORLD

CUP.

I GOT INJURY.

>> Jon: BUT THEY REALLY KICKEDYOU IN THAT ONE.

THEY WERE VERY VICIOUS TO YOU.

I WAS NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT ONE.

>> AND THEN THAT SUPPOSE -- IWAS DEPRESSED.

I SAID THIS WILL BE MY LASTWORLD CUP.

BUT THEN 70 I WAS IN GOOD SHAPE.

I SAY, OKAY.

I GONNA PLAY.

GOD GAVE IT TO ME THE WORLD CUP.

>> Jon: YEAH.

>> AND THEN I BRING SOMETHINGFROM 70 FOR YOU.

>> Jon: YOU GOTTA BE KIDDINGME.

FOR GOD SAKES, NO.

AWWWWW!

OH, WOW.

OLE, OLE -- MY FRIEND.

GOD BLESS.

THANK YOU, MY FRIEND, SO MUCH SOLOVELY.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, "WHYSOCCER MATTERS" IT'S ON THE

BOOKSHELVES NOW.

THE GREAT PELE.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE][CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

>> Jon: HERE IT IS.

HERE IT IS YOUR MOMENT OF ZEN.

>> MONEY AND POLITICS IS SPEECHWHETHER YOU ARE GIVING $1 OR

$1,000 TO CANDIDATES.

Loading...