In article ,
David Richerby wrote:
If the WC match is between Soviet GMs and held in the USSR, it's
hard to argue that any other country should have had much of a say
in the match conditions.
I disagree.

But you seem to be agreeing; or are you claiming that "[not]
much of a say" means "no say"?

If we're to call these people `world champions' rather
than `Soviet champions',

[Note in passing -- many people did observe in the period of
Soviet hegemony that the Soviet Championship was sometimes a stronger
event than the Candidates' Tournament.]

the world needs to have had a say in how the
champion is decided. Which it did, through FIDE.

Indeed. But when the WC, challenger and venue are all Russian,
and so FIDE is talking to the Soviet Chess Federation (a) representing
Botvinnik, (b) also representing Bronstein [or whoever], and (c) also
representing the interests of the venue, and when [as until recently]
FIDE is not the huge international corporation you might imagine, but
rather the proverbial one-man-and-his-dog, FIDE's role as broker is
somewhat limited.

You might claim that Botvinnik, Bronstein and the venue ought
not all to have had their interests protected by one same national
federation, but that's a different matter, and in the Real World, it's
hard to see what else could have happened.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham