FIFA hates andean nations (I am not sure if this is about sports or not)

[Barnabas]

Fifa has forbidden international football/soccer matches in stadiums over 2500 mts height...

Because they say it is dangerous for the health of people not adapted to that geography.. it seems it produces alkalosis to people not used to great heights..
But then lots of matches have been played with great heat, which is more dangerous

This is discrimination against people who live in mountains, to favour people who live at sea level...

All these stadiums will be banned for international matches




The president of the Bolivian football federation, and the coach of the colombian team said Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay are behind this


Playing over 2500 mts is our advantage, our only chance to win is making our opponents play at altitudes in which they can barely breath and run, we know we suck, if we have to play all the matches at sea level now, then andean countries will never make it to the world cup, and the teams will always lose at libertadores cup

[SlowwHand]

They way you say all this is funny.

[Winston]

I must say I sympathize with your feeling of frustration.

If they were to also forbid all matches below 200 meters, Denmark wouldn't be able to play at all.

[Berzerker]

stop making a mountain out of a molehill

[SlowwHand]

It's the other guys. They want to make a molehill out of a mountain. Yeah. It's them, isn't it, Barnabas?

[Imran Siddiqui]

FIFA always sucks. This is yet another way. Home field advantage also means the elevation of the field.

[Drake Tungsten]

Altitude sickness is a serious thing; FIFA is right on this one...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

now the americans will be able to win away games against mexico.
meixcans will still be freezing in columbus, OH

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, LoA, Azteca isn't on the list. Only Toluca for Mexico is.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

what height is azteca at?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, the elevation of Mexico City is 2,240 meters, according to wikipedia. So it seems that El Azteca just barely is on the good side of the mark.

[Colon™]

It'd be pretty infuriated if all of a sudden they'd forbid national team games to be played in Brussels because of some geographical circumstance. It's not as if Bolivia can help it La Paz lies at +2500 above sea level. Imagine how England would react if they were told Wembley is a no-go.
Moreover, the ban applies to clubs as well (at least the immediate cause was a game between Flamengo and Real Potosi) and while national teams can still play on home turf elsewhere in the country, that doesn't quite apply to clubs from high-altitude cities.

The principle it establishes also isn't healthy, if you consider climate as a condition for fairness.

Finally, for decades this high-altitude advantage was apparently just fine and now it's all of a sudden unfair and dangerous?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The principle it establishes also isn't healthy, if you consider climate as a condition for fairness.

Exactly. When are we going to see complaints about certain places being too hot or too cold to play during certain times of year? As LoA points out, the US national team schedules its home games in Mexico in places like Columbus, Ohio, if its during the fall/winter months to get the advantage of the climate (American players are more used to the cold than Mexican players).

[Drake Tungsten]

I think most of you have never done anything physically exerting at +2500m. It sucks...

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, the elevation of Mexico City is 2,240 meters, according to wikipedia. So it seems that El Azteca just barely is on the good side of the mark.

Some coincidence the limit is 2,500 metres and not 2,000.