I suppose I should comment on the controversial FIFA ruling that disallows soccer matches at high altitude. The decision means that World Cup (and other important) soccer matches can’t be played in La Paz, Bolivia (the ban applies to other locations as well). It would also apply to other cities at “high” altitude. I understand the indignation, but the issue, sadly, has become another distraction taking away from larger social, political, and economic issues.
Clearly, games at high altitude tend to favor the Bolivian national team, which wins a large proportion of its games in La Paz, even against powerhouse national teams like Brazil or Argentina. Of course, home field always gives teams an advantage. But playing games at 13,000 feet can be highly stressful on most athletes. (And, no, I don’t think the comparison to “hot climates” is a good one.)
But should the altitude “ban” really affect Bolivian international soccer? I don’t think so. Not really. Why? Because Bolivia could easily play its international games in Santa Cruz (at the Tahuichi Aguilera Stadium), which is at sea level. After all, Santa Cruz is a larger city (1.4 million) & has (few would disagree) better infrastructure. I certainly see no reason why Bolivia couldn’t play Argentina, Brazil, et al. there.
There’s no doubt that FIFA is notoriously corrupt. And, yes, soccer is in large part a game of playing in adverse conditions & trusting in fate (so playing in altitude shouldn’t “matter”). But Bolivia can play its national games in Santa Cruz, so what’s the problem?
But, of course, the world isn’t fully rational. And politicians—right & left—need trivial issues to inspire & mobilize social forces. Sadly, the FIFA ruling has become one of these things that can distract people long enough to ignore real issues. Who knows, perhaps the constitutional convention will be sure to include an article in the new magna carta on the issue?
-----
PS. That said. If you want, you can join the email campaign against FIFA.
