FIFA bans high-altitude international matches

FIFA has banned international games from being played more than 2,500 meters above sea level.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter said the decision was taken Sunday after a review by the medical team for world soccer's governing body.

Bolivia has held World Cup qualifiers at an altitude of about 3,600 meters at its capital La Paz. There has been criticism that Bolivia's advantage is not only unfair, but also dangerous for the players' health.

Earlier this year, Brazilian club Flamengo said they won't play again at altitude after several of their players needed oxygen during a game staged at nearly 4,000 meters against Bolivian team Real Potosi.

Read more
---------------------
Great idea in my opinion.

I think it's a travesty. FIFA are pandering to the CBF again. By all means ensure that players are properly acclimatised before playing at altitude, but there's no need to prohibit the use of such venues altogether. If a Bolivian amateur player can compete at 4,000 metres without keeling over, a highly trained athlete at the peak of fitness can do the same. It's not as though he belongs to a different species. Why should Europeans be compelled to play at extreme temperatures if Brazilians can't play at high altitude?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheridan

Why should Europeans be compelled to play at extreme temperatures if Brazilians can't play at high altitude?

---

Exactly. Setting a silly precedent if you ask me.

...and to think I compalined bitterly during USA 94 about Stan being fried alive!!!:D

Ridiculous. On that basis Vinnie Jones and his ilk should've been banned from football years ago. No surprise that it's only federations with no political power that are affected - Bolivia and Ecuador, I don't think Peru play internationals above 2,500m. After traipsing around Bolivia last year I will attest to having had initial respiratory problems but after 5 or so days you aclimatise to probably 90%, enough not to have major problems. The better solution would therefore have seemed to be to ensure the teams arrive 5 or so days in advance of the match. One could appreciate this being more difficult for clubs which just makes the decision to solely apply it internationals even more frustratingly perplexing. Also, club players in the Copa Libertadores, several times every year, are still expected to be able to cope with playing in Bolivia while an international is protected for the odd game every so often.:( To rectify the international issue they could have set the fixtures in such a way that Bolivia and Ecuador were faced in the same week. In other words there are ways around the health risks, but there is no escaping the gloomy cloud of subterfuge. You can be sure if the paragon of preperation Roy Keane had to lead a team in Bolivia he'd see to it that the altitude problem was circumvented, it's not Bolivia's problem the likes of Brazil take a lax attitude and only arrive two days in advance or that the fixtures are inappropriately arranged, unfortunately though they look set to be the fall-guys. Once more; :(

A further point to consider is the domestic league of these countries. Should teams that have to journey from the lowlands to the Altiplano every couple of weeks now have the right to say they shouldn't be forced to play at higher altitudes? Is this increasingly smacking of something sinister, are FIFA retards or is it me who's ****ing retarded? (please don't say it's the latter, I'm quite fragile - sorry, that's a lame attempt at trying to lighten my mood a little:o) As a curious aside, my bedroom wall is currently adorned with a 'The Strongest' towel - they're one of the, ahem, strongest side in Bolivian football. It has a captivating roaring tiger staring out at me, most inspiring. I'll support your cause my little Bolivian amigos. :)

ridiculous decision. i was just saying myself the othjer day when we were playing bolivia that its that kind of variation that makes international football interesting. and as someone said, its not going to help clubs and it brings into question "health concerns".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

it brings into question "health concerns".

---

This is what worries me. Is it really a danger to health, despite the fact that games have been played at those altitudes for a long time and I can't ever remember (just off the top of my head, admittedly) any incidents before.

Extreme head and cold conditions, lots of travel to away games, all of these are clearly not so good for you.

Some clear-cut evidence to show that high-altitude games pose a clear health risk would go a long way to justifying it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

This is what worries me. Is it really a danger to health, despite the fact that games have been played at those altitudes for a long time and I can't ever remember (just off the top of my head, admittedly) any incidents before.

Extreme head and cold conditions, lots of travel to away games, all of these are clearly not so good for you.

Some clear-cut evidence to show that high-altitude games pose a clear health risk would go a long way to justifying it though.

---

But FIFA have decided that, for some reason, playing above 2,500m is not allowed while playing at 40 degrees celsius with 100% humidity is. It's obviously under pressure from the big South american countries.

I'm sure there is medical research available to say it's unhealthy to play in extreme heat so expect Bolivia/Ecuador to retaliate in some way by trying to set a temperature limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paudie

But FIFA have decided that, for some reason, playing above 2,500m is not allowed while playing at 40 degrees celsius with 100% humidity is. It's obviously under pressure from the big South american countries.

I'm sure there is medical research available to say it's unhealthy to play in extreme heat so expect Bolivia/Ecuador to retaliate in some way by trying to set a temperature limit.

---

Thats my point. (perhaps not very well made - I may edit my post to make it clearer and then you will look stupid for not understanding:cool:)

This opens up the door to a lot of other claims, which may be equally valid. Bye Bye World Cup in Africa.

I fully back this innovative and health-concious measure from FIFA. I for one can only safely play football at a temperature of 21C, 56% humidity, 101.325 kPa atmospheric pressure. Any other conditions and I overheat, resulting in dangerous tackles, shortness of breath and confusion. It's about time that FIFA respected health requirements like these.

Has anyone forgotten about Mexico City, another high altitude location? What about the Nepal/Bhutan international sides? Nairobi is also high altitude but do the other African countries complain every time they play Kenya? Don't forget, footballers were killed by lightning playing football. Remember the mid-day kick offs in USA and Mexico to suit the TV channels in the World Cups of 1970, 1986 and 1994. We should nominate Gerald Fleming as the official climatologist for FIFA!!:D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingdom hoop

Ridiculous. On that basis Vinnie Jones and his ilk should've been banned from football years ago. No surprise that it's only federations with no political power that are affected - Bolivia and Ecuador, I don't think Peru play internationals above 2,500m.

---

FIFA bans high-altitude football

That one said Peru were planning to play internationals in Cuzco at 3,400m.

It's a disgraceful decision. The FIFA are getting progressively worse: no taking your shirt off when you score, not being allow to decide when you retire from international football and now you can't play your matches above a certain altitude. It's going beyond a farce. For shame. :mad:

It's disgusting to think that the big FA's in the world have that much power with FIFA. In fairness, what would Brazil and Argentina do? Split off and form their own mini-World Cup? In that case the South American qualifying would be more interesting as would the Copa America.

I'm sure that we will all agree, in hindsight, that this is one of FIFA's best decisions in the past 20 years. With any luck, this will be the start of them attempting to clean up the game of the problems of safety that beset it.

Hopefully now they will go on to ban people who might possibly die before they turn forty, regardless of cicumstance, from playing too. It's lives they're saving.

With some luck, before too long they will also ban playing football in wet or windy conditions too - it simply destroys the game as a spectacle, no hope minnows win in appalling conditions, and there is the possibility of players slipping and falling, perhaps spraining an ankle or wrist is huge on mucky surfaces. Also, think of the insurance costs that would hit FIFA if they had to insure the bigger clubs' players.

Indeed, as much as the cold and wet can be bad for the game, so too can the heat. Why should the players who are good enough to play for good teams have to play in places where the locals were too poor or stupid to afford to wage a war to take territory with a nice gentle breeze as suits a game of football. Expensive suits don't cope well in the heat. Matches over a certain temperature should be banned.

And the whole concept of using a ball - those thibngs can do serious injury - we all remember Murdo McLeod in 1990, when he took a blistering free kick straight on the head - brain damage would quite possibly have been on the card.

Indeed, perhaps it is too much to hope for, but I think that, with the right number of bans introduced, with the safety of the players always to the front of the mind of course, we might be able to get to a place where a few select managers can simply announce their team and a computer in Switzerland can compute the result - this would be far safer for both the playes and the multinational clubs that will no longer have to pay them. The lives saved by this can only be parallelled by the money saved in insurance and wages. For far too long, the dangers to the safety of the players and the unpredictablity of matches as a result has been allowed to sully the great game. I trust FIFA to remove these problems at the source, and help the game to move into a new, football free era - potentially, the most safe - and lucrative - era of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderblaster

Has anyone forgotten about Mexico City, another high altitude location? What about the Nepal/Bhutan international sides? Nairobi is also high altitude but do the other African countries complain every time they play Kenya? Don't forget, footballers were killed by lightning playing football. Remember the mid-day kick offs in USA and Mexico to suit the TV channels in the World Cups of 1970, 1986 and 1994.

---

High altitude was not such a problem for the Mexico 1970 WC, Mexico city < 2500m most venues were around 1500m. It was the insane midday kick offs that caused the problems.
3,500 - 4000 m is a problem. I remember Brazil chose to fly in 2 hours before a crucial qualifier (Bolivia?) because they had no way to get there in the required 5 or 6 days time. They just about managed a 1-1 result, their players were literally at walking pace after 10 mins.
I think it's a good ruling.

FIFA is currently looking for a select number of stadia in a Goldilocks zone where all football matches will be played from now on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

FIFA is currently looking for a select number of stadia in a Goldilocks zone where all football matches will be played from now on.

---

Hmm - some sort of city thats perfect in every way...

I´m in mexico at the moment and although i´m not sure about the stadium in mexico city theres another huge venue that is over 2,500. was in Cusco last week and once you´ve been ther a couple of days you start adjusting pretty well, shame the whole city is one big hill tho:D

Tim Vickery column
Tim Vickery

By Tim Vickery
South American football reporter

Read my answers to this week's questions

Fifa got all high and mighty last week with the decision to forbid matches at altitude.

A protest against Fifa's decision in Quito
Ecuadoreans express their disgust against the decision in Quito
But as the campaign against the ban gathers momentum, some type of climbdown looks increasingly likely.

There is no doubt that playing at altitude represents an enormous challenge for the unacclimatised player, who loses part of his athletic capacity in the rarefied air.

A glance at the home and away records of Bolivia and Ecuador, South America's mountain specialists, will quickly show the difference.

But this does not form the justification for the Fifa ban.

Perhaps one day a debate will take place on the subject of how much home advantage is too much advantage.

This, though, will have to look at a wide range of conditions, and not just altitude.

The altitude ban is being based on the health risks being run by unacclimatised players. It has two major problems.

The first is medical. The evidence at this point is flimsy. Some specialists argue that playing in extreme heat is considerably more dangerous.

The medical commission of the South American Federation will meet soon, so Fifa can expect its position to be undermined by a barrage of evidence.

The other problem is political. As is stands, the ban appears to apply not only to games involving national teams, but also to international club competitions.

Quito Mayor Paco Mancayo gives his support to the rally
Paco Moncayo, Mayor of Quito, gives his support to the rally

Ecuador don't have to play at Quito, just as Bolivia don't have to play at La Paz. If necessary they can move down the Andes to find other venues.

But what of the clubs based in the mountain cities? Are they expected to move, or to cease to exist?

The ban would exclude a huge swathe of South America from international competition.

So it flies directly in the face of the current diplomatic and economic moves towards regional integration, the fashionable idea of the moment in a continent looking for a path to prosperity.

This helps explain the fact that, whatever their football leaders think, the presidents of Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela were quick to come out against the ban.

It is probable, then, that once all the politicking has taken place the measure will not apply to international club games.

It is even possible that it will not apply to national team matches, and that the whole thing will be forgotten pending further investigation.

If that happens then Brazil, seen as the main force behind the ban, can only have themselves to blame.

The seeds of the current controversy were first sewn in the qualifiers for the 1994 World Cup.

At that point South America's nations were still divided into separate groups, and as ill fortune would have it, Brazil were placed in the same group as Bolivia and Ecuador.

Bolivain President Evo Morales
Bolivain President Evo Morales is a prominent voice opposing Fifa

Brazilian teams have developed a phobia about playing at altitude, and it was alleged at the time that Brazil put pressure on both opponents to switch their matches to venues at sea level.

They did this successfully in the case of Ecuador, unsuccessfully in the case of Bolivia, where, at La Paz, Brazil suffered their first ever defeat in World Cup qualification.

Despite that reverse Brazil went on to qualify for USA 94, and win it too. As holders they were automatically through to France 98.

They were back in the qualifiers for the 2002 World Cup, by which time South America had adopted the current marathon format, with all 10 nations playing each other home and away.

The allegations of manipulation in 1993 had left a bad taste, so in order to ensure the integrity of the qualifying campaign countries were limited to one designated city where they would stage all their home games.

This was specifically designed to contain the problem of altitude. If one country had to go up to La Paz, everyone had to. There could be no external pressure.

Brazil, on account of its size, was given the right to have two home cities.

They chose Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, the traditional centres, and quickly found the fans to be very demanding.

The Maracana and Morumbi stadiums echoed with boos, the players' morale was in tatters and World Cup qualification was in real doubt.

Brazil pulled a fast one. Using the excuse of an energy crisis affecting the south east of the country, they moved their final home games to other venues - smaller cities where the supporters were more tolerant.

It broke the rules but they got away with it and three wins got them safely over the finish line.

But now they are paying the price. They themselves took away the plank that had been put in place to contain the problem of altitude.

If they could pick and choose their venues, so could the others. The one designated city was dead.

Peru decided to pull a fast one of their own. For the next campaign they were planning to take their matches against Brazil and other altitude haters high up the Andes to Cuzco.

This was the development that led to Fifa hitting the panic button and announcing the ban - leaving politicians and administrators to sort out a mess as high as a mountain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

High altitude was not such a problem for the Mexico 1970 WC, Mexico city < 2500m most venues were around 1500m. It was the insane midday kick offs that caused the problems.
3,500 - 4000 m is a problem. I remember Brazil chose to fly in 2 hours before a crucial qualifier (Bolivia?) because they had no way to get there in the required 5 or 6 days time. They just about managed a 1-1 result, their players were literally at walking pace after 10 mins.
I think it's a good ruling.

---

But Geysir surely these inequities and geographical imponderables are part of what gives the game it's appeal and intrigue. If I recall the Brazil game that they lost in La Paz enroute to USA 94 they made wholly inadequate attempts to acclimatise.

Even if I were to accept that they shouldn't be asked to play 3400 meters above sea level ...where do you stop the trickle down consequences? Should we or the scandinavians be asked to play away qualifiers in Turkey, Greece or Israel in June or August?