Fifa bans high-altitude football (1 Viewer)

Zé Tahir

JhoolayLaaaal!
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004
29,281
#1
Football's governing body, Fifa, has banned international matches from being played at more than 2,500m (8,200ft) above sea level.

Fifa said the decision was made because of concerns over players' health and possible distortion of competition.

The ruling was greeted with dismay in Latin America, notably in Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, where games in La Paz are played at 3,600m (11,811ft).

Bolivia's President, Evo Morales, vowed to lead a campaign against the ban.

Speaking after an emergency cabinet meeting, Mr Morales said the ruling amounted to discrimination.

"This is not only a ban on Bolivia, it's a ban on the universality of sports," he told reporters.
Mr Morales also said he would send a high-level delegation to Fifa's headquarters in Zurich and called on other countries to join his campaign.

"We cannot allow discrimination in soccer, we cannot allow... exclusion in the world of sports," he added.

Many of Bolivia's major cities, including Sucre and Potosi, are at high altitude.

'Discrimination'


Local commentators in Peru, which was hoping to stage upcoming World Cup qualifiers in Cuzco at 3,400m (11,154ft), suggested Fifa made the decision after pressure from South America's two major football powers, Brazil and Argentina.

Both nations have struggled in recent years while playing at altitude, where the thin air hands an advantage to those acclimatised to the conditions.

Playing sport in conditions of high altitude places heavy demands on the body, forcing the heart to work harder.

Earlier in 2007, Brazilian club Flamengo said they would not play again at altitude after several of their players needed oxygen during a game against Bolivian team Real Potosi, held at nearly 4,000m (13,120ft).

The ban will also affect Ecuador whose national side has qualified for the last two World Cups, winning through on the basis of strong performances in Quito, at 2,800m.

Mexico City, where the 1970 and 1986 World Cup Final was played, just beats the Fifa limit, having an altitude of 2,240m (7349ft).

Fifa's president, Sepp Blatter, said the organisation had expected protests from Latin America.

"The executive committee have listened to a proposal from the medical committee and have decided to act because to play at above that altitude is not healthy or fair," he said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6697159.stm

Published: 2007/05/28 17:11:01 GMT


:disagree:
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

K10

Senior Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,698
#2
If it is really a health concern, then Fifa is right. However, if it is not, Fifa is wrong.

What about Peruvian players who now have to switch and play at sea level. Does it affect them?
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,480
#3
Well, I guess Ecuador will have to build a floating pitch next to the Galapagos Islands because I don't think any of their major cities lie under 2,500 meters..

So now FIFA is discriminating against countries laced with beautiful moutains. Those horrible mountain-hating bastards.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,480
#4
If it is really a health concern, then Fifa is right. However, if it is not, Fifa is wrong.

What about Peruvian players who play at sea level. Does it affect them?
If it was all about health concerns, those FIFA bastards would also throw out Estadio Azteca in Mexico City because not only does it stand 2,000 meters abou sea-level, it also is located in one of the worst aerial cesspools of pollution on the entire globe. All sorts of pollutants hover in that stank air and that makes breathing all the more difficult, perhaps even more than higher up in the beautiful Andes.

So yeah, this decision is rather dubious.
 
OP
Zé Tahir

Zé Tahir

JhoolayLaaaal!
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004
29,281
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #5
    Fifa's retarded. There are so many athletes that actually go to these areas to train so that they can perform better, so why would there be anything harmful about it? Besides it's not called home-field advantage for nothing.

    This is the funniest part though; taken from a different article:

    But Kleber Leite, vice president of the Brazilian club Flamengo, said the ruling was "a victory for humankind".

    -BBC
    :howler:

    You mean it's a victory for Brazil.

    edit:

    LATIN AMERICAN CITIES


    Bolivia: La Paz - 3,600m (11,811ft)
    Ecuador: Quito - 2,800m
    Colombia: Bogota - 2,640m
    Peru: Cuzco - 3,500m
     

    Joaco

    the cronopio
    Dec 11, 2005
    5,213
    #7
    This is pure bullshit.
    They say teams like Bolivia, Ecuador or Colombia have some advantage to play in hight altitude stadiums... If I'm not wrong Bolivia there is a lot of team that has won playing in Bolivia. Ecuador was in the last WC because their coach made a great work, and because they do great football.
    And what about African teams? Play with 40º of heat is not take some advantage? is it not bad for health? And what about teams that go down to the ground? they suffer the same consequence that teams that go to high altitude to play.
    And what about football? football (here, in South America) it's a sport that it's supposed that ANYONE can play. It doesn't matter if it's rich, poor, black, ugly, pretty, tall, small, Argentinian, Chilean, Bolivian, etc. And with this kind of "rules" FIFA is destroying the essence of football.
    Fuck you, Blatter.
     

    Hambon

    Lion of the Desert
    Apr 22, 2005
    8,073
    #9
    Fifa really shouldnt have made this an issue. Look at the nfl and the broncos. There have not been any serious health issues and the league is still running smoothly after all these years of teams playing in the mile high stadium. even though altitude does cause some unfairness towards other teams you shouldnt ban the regions altogether IMO brazil and argentine should quit there crying and big up.

    oh ya blatter . .eat a dick

    good post nihilist + rep
     
    OP
    Zé Tahir

    Zé Tahir

    JhoolayLaaaal!
    Moderator
    Dec 10, 2004
    29,281
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #10
    This is pure bullshit.
    They say teams like Bolivia, Ecuador or Colombia have some advantage to play in hight altitude stadiums... If I'm not wrong Bolivia there is a lot of team that has won playing in Bolivia. Ecuador was in the last WC because their coach made a great work, and because they do great football.
    And what about African teams? Play with 40º of heat is not take some advantage? is it not bad for health? And what about teams that go down to the ground? they suffer the same consequence that teams that go to high altitude to play.
    And what about football? football (here, in South America) it's a sport that it's supposed that ANYONE can play. It doesn't matter if it's rich, poor, black, ugly, pretty, tall, small, Argentinian, Chilean, Bolivian, etc. And with this kind of "rules" FIFA is destroying the essence of football.
    Fuck you, Blatter.
    Fifa really shouldnt have made this an issue. Look at the nfl and the broncos. There have not been any serious health issues and the league is still running smoothly after all these years of teams playing in the mile high stadium. even though altitude does cause some unfairness towards other teams you shouldnt ban the regions altogether IMO brazil and argentine should quit there crying and big up.
    Excellent posts my bruvva's :agree:
     

    Hambon

    Lion of the Desert
    Apr 22, 2005
    8,073
    #13
    Just got back from camping up in traverse City mich. This is probably my 4th time camping and i still really dont see it as a relaxing get away. Other than that just getting ready for summer classes and getting in shape for miami later this summer.what ever happened to up gettin together.?
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    111,480
    #14
    Just got back from camping up in traverse City mich. This is probably my 4th time camping and i still really dont see it as a relaxing get away. Other than that just getting ready for summer classes and getting in shape for miami later this summer.what ever happened to up gettin together.?
    Traverse City? My relatives have cabins up there on a couple lakes... nice getaway for a while but it gets boring rather quickly. Still love the place though.
     

    Cronios

    Juventolog
    Jun 7, 2004
    27,412
    #15
    Good points,this is almost racism, today its the altitude, tomorrow might be temperature and who else knows what they might think of again...
    However i have to admit that from the medical point of view they have right,
    i m not sure about the number they have established though (2500m)
     

    Hambon

    Lion of the Desert
    Apr 22, 2005
    8,073
    #16
    Traverse City? My relatives have cabins up there on a couple lakes... nice getaway for a while but it gets boring rather quickly. Still love the place though.
    Tell me bout it . . We got some cabins with the familia on duck lake , 1 day was enough for me. As soon as we got back to detroit we hit the tittie bars for some real beauties.
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    111,480
    #17
    Tell me bout it . . We got some cabins with the familia on duck lake , 1 day was enough for me. As soon as we got back to detroit we hit the tittie bars for some real beauties.
    Yeah my relatives have cabins on Long Lake and I think Spider Lake. If you don't have jet skis and four-wheelers it gets boring pretty quickly.

    Do you have family in Detroit or Dearborn?
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    83,438
    #20
    I thought this was bullsh*t the minute I read the article.

    Guess that means if Nepal is SOL of ever being able to host a home match.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)