Altitiude Discrimination

Thanks to your favorite Scottish SC fan and mine, DCTrojan, for bringing to my attention a proposed recently passed ban by FIFA on matches played at elevations higher than 2,500m, which is 8,200 feet, as well as the protests that this announcement triggered in high altitude countries Eduador and Bolivia.


Getting really high: Legalize it, FIFA, don't criticize it

Since my longwinded ass basically started it's own blog in the comments section over there, I wanted to put what I wrote up here {with minor tweaking} so that I could easily reference it in the future.

First, my response/rant:

Interesting. Sounds like a case of the powerful/strong {Brasil, Argentina, Uruguay, FIFA} trying to assert their power and further marginalize the poorer/weaker nations that happen to play at high altitude. The results show that the altitude teams kick ass in their home qualifiers, even against the big boys, and for the big boys it is a total pain in the arse that they would much rather do without.

I think such a ban would be bullshit. Home field advantage is a wonderful thing in sport, especially footy, and furthermore, it is great that the poorer nations with much less resources have this built in advantage. I’m sure that Che would agree…

Look, any nation can host their home qualifier anywhere in their country that they like, and countries 1) should use their geography to maximum advantage and 2) should not be punished for the natural geography that mother nature bestowed upon them. Brasil have every right to play their home qualifiers in the middle of the Amazon jungle, and Argentina could play teams in Bariloche or freaking Ushuaia if they like. The difference is that they are so good that they don't need to, whereas the little guys either do need to or simply do because their main cities happen to be at very high altitudes.

Related to this, I have always thought that US Soccer does an extremely poor job with choosing sites for World Cup qualifiers. It is well known that when the US plays in Central American countries, those countries sometimes play the match in the most bumfuck places just to make the road trip as painful as possible for the gringos {flight, several hour bus ride to a remote area, etc}.

So- why doesn’t the US do the same thing, or at least use our weather diversity to our advantage? If I were US Soccer, I would schedule the home match against Canada in Miami, Dallas, or Phoenix, and the matches against tropical countries in the coldest place they can find at whatever time of year it is: Boise, Minneapolis, Buffalo, or some High School football stadium in Alaska.

Instead they do stupid ass shit like schedule the US-Mexico game in Los Angeles, creating a road home game for El Tri where 80,000 of the 95,000 fans are cheering for Mexico and lobbing ziplock bags of piss at the US bench and fans.

I suppose in the last 10 years US Soccer has become good enough vis a vis the rest of CONCACAF that they don’t need to do this, but they sure as shit should have been doing it between 1950 and 1994.

Estadio Olímpico Atahualpa, Quito, Eduador. Elevation: 9,300 ft.

Then I got to thinking what the numbers really were, because I specifically remembered when writing this that Ecuador qualified for last summer's World Cup by doing great at home and poorly on the road, and many pundits writing them off because their success was achieved at altitude.

So I ran some numbers:

OK, I ran some numbers, and it is no surprise why they are taking to the streets and protesting in Ecuador and Bolivia, other than the fact that is it discriminatory and insulting. But let’s stick to the footy:

2006 World Cup qualification:

Ecuador:

Finished 3rd out of 10 with 8 wins, 4 draws, and 6 losses. Their record at home was 7 wins, 2 draws, and 0 losses, and their home results against the Big Two were 1-0 win over Brasil and a 2-0 win over Argentina. Their road record was 1 win, 2 draws, and 6 losses.

Bolivia:

Finished 10th out of 10 with 4 wins, 2 draws, and 12 losses. Their record at home was 4 wins, 2 draws, and 3 losses, and their home results against the Big Two were a 1-1 draw with Brasil and a 1-2 loss to Argentina. Their road record was 0 wins, 0 draws, and 9 losses.

2002 World Cup Qualification:

Ecuador:

Finished 2nd out of 10 with 9 wins, 4 draws, and 5 losses. Their record at home was 6 wins, 2 draws, and 1 loss, and their home results against the Big Two were 1-0 win over Brasil and a 0-2 loss to Argentina {Aug. 15, 2001: the last time they lost at home}. Their road record was 3 wins, 2 draws, and 4 losses.

Bolivia:

Finished 7th out of 10 with 4 wins, 6 draws, and 8 losses. Their record at home was 4 wins, 4 draws, and 1 losses, and their home results against the Big Two were a 3-1 win over Brasil and a 3-3 draw with Argentina. Their road record was 0 wins, 2 draws, and 7 losses.

1998 World Cup Qualification {Brasil did not have to qualify as they were the holders}:

Ecuador:

Finished 7th out of 9 with 6 wins, 3 draws, and 7 losses. Their record at home was 6 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss, and their home results against the Big Two was a 1-0 win over Argentina. Their road record was 0 wins, 2 draws, and 6 losses.

Bolivia:

Finished 8th out of 9 with 4 wins, 5 draws, and 7 losses. Their record at home was 4 wins, 4 draws, and 0 losses, and their home result against the Big Two was a 2-1 win over Argentina. Their road record was 0 wins, 1 draw, and 7 losses.

I stopped there because in 1994 they were broken into 2 groups of 5 and it wasn’t true round robin.

Totals over the last 3 World Cup Qualifying campaigns:

Ecuador:
Home: 19 wins, 5 draws, 2 losses
Road: 4 wins, 6 draws, 16 losses
Home record against Big 2: 4 wins, 1 loss

Bolivia:
Home: 12 wins, 10 draws, 4 losses
Road: 0 wins, 3 draws, 23 losses
Home record against Big 2: 2 wins, 2 draws, 1 loss

Note also that in 1993 in La Paz, little Bolivia beat Brasil in a World Cup qualifier, which was Brasil's 1st outright loss in a World Cup qualifier. Ever.

I didn’t take the time to filter out the matches where these two played each other, but you get the idea. The numbers are pretty damn amazing.

So yeah, I would be protesting too.

Estadio Hernando Siles, La Paz, Bolivia. Elevation 11,932 ft.

Plain and simple this ban is bullshit; they are using the health issue to mask what is really going on- the powerful strong countries do not want to be bothered with having to play the little guys in situations where the little guys have a built in advantage, which is the very essence of a home & home series in this or any other sport.

If health is so important, then why not a ban for any matches in Mexico City, where the air is so polluted that is affects players from breathing when they play at the 3rd largest stadium in the world in front of 115,000 fans, which just so happens to be at 2,240m/7,349 feet??? Or other cities in South America with massive air pollution problems?

By the way, isn't is so freaking obvious that they chose 2,500m as the arbitrary elevation for the ban because it is just above Mexico City and therefore wouldn't upset a "powerful"/"important" soccer nation like Mexico?

Hey, fucktards of FIFA, did you ever think that your policy of scheduling more and more silly tournaments {Confederations Cup, which has already resulted in one players death, anyone?} in your never ending cash grab for you and your well connected sponsors is much more harmful to players health than playing games at altitude?

Here's hoping that the ban doesn't pass.