I thought Steinberg was the Post's designated person to cover random sports teams at the White House.

Actaully, any news on the squad for the USMNT China game?

Not surprising coming from FIFA, but a really poor decision.

Is there a scientific explanation of how they came up with that particular altitude as a cutoff? There are certainly times when I wouldn't have minded the cutoff being at about 7,000 feet, but I think you're right that it's unfair, particularly to the Bolivians who will be unable to play in their national capital.

Also, this is another big blow to the Dali Lama, as Tibet (avg. 16,000 ft) will not be allowed to play soccer at all if they ever gain their independence. Maybe Blatter's in league with China.

It is not a great decision. It takes that home advantage away from all countries affected by this.
At the same time is the reason also becuase there were a couple players in the past that have died becuase of high altitude??

Well, I can attest to the altitude thing. I live at 7200 ft. and just ran a race at 8600. Your lungs learn to suck every last molecule of oxygen out of the air, but it's A) still not good enough and B) achieved by nothing so much as high altitude exposure.

It's no accident that, say, DC is winless at, say, Colorado, in a sport that requires, say, intense aerobic exercise.

It's only acceptable if FIFA offers a solution. Why should a club team whose home stadium is above 8,200 feet NOT be allowed to host international club matches at their home pitch?

I think the altitude decision is quite lame... I hate having to watch my team play at altitude, but you should be able to play home international matches where you'd like. Personally, I think the smog in Mexico City has got to have more of an adverse affect than any level of altitude could.

Yet another stupid ruling by FIFA.

Stupid decision.

Sometimes (okay a lot of times) I don't think FIFA fully thinks things out before they implement their ideas.

Thought I might see a blog post about this, but Derby County moved into the EPL yesterday with a win in the playoff match against West Brom in the Coca-Cola Championship Division.

We are Derby! WE ARE DERBY! Super Derby! Super Rams!

Being from one of the countries that have to travel to Bolivia for qualifying games, I support the decision. Ever seen a game in La Paz? It is quite unfair, nothing compared to playing in cold or hot and humid conditions. Bolivia should get to the wrold cup based on soccer merits, not on the fact that they get to play all home games with an unfair advantage. Bolivia should play home games in Santa Cruz, where their best players come from anyway. I do not think the ban should apply to club teams, as it would be unfair to force a team from La Paz to have to play in another city where they don't have a fan base.

Right decision: it doesn't just come down to competitive advantage -- FIFA's job is to make sure teams don't exploit an unfair and unsafe competitive advantage. You're not allowed to have a completely destroyed field (e.g. sand) so that neither team can really play and you get a tie. I'm pretty sure you couldn't turn on heaters and blast the field until it became 140 degrees. Is the advantage of home field at those extremes unfair? Looking at the record of Bolivia et al., it's pretty clear.

i was pulling for West Brom but nonetheless, it is a bad decision by FIFA and my immediate reaction was that the heat and cold, albeit less, have a negative effect on conditioning Smart teams visit the high altitude stadium and train there to become acclimated to the weather.

Heat and cold vary. Alaska reaches 90 degrees sometimes and even the Bahamas get cold. There is no way to regulate that in terms of scheduling matches. Some things you just gotta live with.

Altitude is not one of those things. Quito will always be the ridiculous height that it is.

It makes sense to control the things you can control and not to worry about those things that you can't.

How high is Mexico City? Maybe we can bribe Blatter to ban games there. Seems like the guy is willing to consider anything... for the right price.

Nice quote that FIFA taught the USA about soccer. What an idiot.

Discriminatory and elitist.

Stupid decision.

The same teams who play at high altitude usually have tio play games at sea level when they are visiting.

When, say, Bolivia has to play, say, Brazil in WC qualifies, where do you think the Brazilian federation schedules the game? At sea level and possibly at the most hot and humid part of the day. That's home field advantage.

Further, its not like clubs playing in high altitude do not lose at home in Libertadores games. Toluca lost twice at home in Libertadores, the team from Cuzco got eliminated at home, etc.

This is high on the LAME-O-METER on the part of FIFA.

So here's my question: if they built an indoor stadium at altitude and pressurized it, would I still have to sit in a middle seat between two armrest hogs while the guy in front reclines his seat all the way.

Where is Bolivia supposed to play its games anyways?

La Paz (3,577m) Cochabamba (2.558 m), Sucre (2.790m), Oruro (3.702) and Potosí (3.976 m) are the only stadiums they have desgniated for international games.

This is just a bad decision. As long as the high altitude is natural and not artificially created, I think national teams should be allowed to enjoy their home field advantage.

I think they picked 8200 feet because that's exactly 2500 meters and a nice round number. I'd wager that's about the only thought they put into picking that number.

How many times has Bolivia won the World Cup exactly? And how many times have they used their altitude advantage to rob somebody? Be serious, people! If it were that big a problem, FIFA would have done something long ago. It's part of the experience, part of the challenge, part of the mystery and rich culture and heritage of the game. Of course its tough to play there, that's why it means something. Otherwise, it would just be pounding on Bolivia, which isn't really that hard, if we're being honest. And Goff is right, why should altitude be singled out as the factor; teams have to play friendlies in Saudi Arabia! If that heat doesn't drain you, nothing will.

What other cities are affected aside from the ones mentioned in the blog post?

Stupid and then some! What about having all matches banned where smog levels reach a certain point? Can FIFA ban the US from having qualifying matches where it is colder than 60 degrees? I am guessing a lot of CONCACAF teams would support that rule! Being able to hold matches in Feb. in Colombus or Denver is our right. Funny that most of the places covered by this are countries where they don't have the economic or political power to stop this.

Again, Blatter sticking his nose into things that don't matter.

Screw Columbus, i vote we move all winter qualifying games to our soon to be constructed MGOS (mexico games only stadium) in Bismarck, North Dakota.

"our soon to be constructed MGOS (mexico games only stadium) in Bismarck, North Dakota"

Greatest. Idea. Ever.

The "health risk" argument is lame at best.
It was already brought up in 1996 when FIFA wanted to ban games above 3,000mts.

It was already covered, argued, and defeated by citing studies that showed no health risks. FIFA backed off that argument and dropped the proposed rule.

So why use the same argument & this time at a lower height limit?? Does FIFA know what double jeopardy means?

The interesting thing is FIFA has yet to release this "new medical recommendation"

totally bogus, pointless decision.

people don't only play soccer at sea level, they play it everywhere in the world. this rule robs the game of some of its flavor.

Why is Blatter still in charge? Hasn't the world learned ANYTHING in the past few years of his FIFA reign?

There is no competitive advantage playing at sea level. Those players who live and train at altitude can run for days at sea level. Still, 8200 feet might be a little low.

I've got to say, the example they used in the article did seem a bit unfair -- 13,000 feet is a bit extreme to be playing a football match.

Now, I hate to use the discriminatory card, but let's consider this: Would this have even been an issue if England, Germany, France, Italy, Brasil, Argentina, and other soccer-power countries had an advantage? I wondered who pushed for this change and how many teams are really affected by the altitude?

one: if most of Bolivia's better players come from Santa Cruz, and perhaps most of their better players don't even play in Bolivia, then wouldn't it bother most of their better players to play at such a high altitude?

two: It's a ridiculous rule.

The altitude limit is discriminatory and dumb. If FIFA is concerned about altitude sickness, it should allow visiting teams to stay the night before a game in a city at lower altitude within the same country. As I understand it, if athletes have only been at high altitude for a few hours, it doesn't affect them nearly as much as if they've been there for 24 hours or more.

I believe Argentina did this in 2001 for the WC qualifying game in Ecuador. The team stayed overnight in Guayaquil, on the Pacific Ocean, and flew up to Quito on game day. Every Andean country has a major city at or near sea level where visiting teams could stay overnight. The games need to be scheduled in the late afternoon or evening, to allow for the visiting team's flight to the high altitude city. I don't see how this system would be an unreasonable burden on either team, or the fans attending the game.

If high altitude is such an advantage, why have no high altitude teams won the Cup? Dumb decision.

This decision has some merit, although its seems to hit the national teams of Bolivia & Ecuador the hardest. Other big club teams will also be affected. National teams usually arrive the very same day to play the high altitude game as this apparently minimizes the impact on the body. I've seen Brazil play qualifiers in La Paz and they basically just knock the ball around and wait for a counter opportunity to score. Its an unfair advantage.

"our soon to be constructed MGOS (mexico games only stadium) in Bismarck, North Dakota"

field of dreams -- "if you build it, they will come"

USMNT vs China Roster is out! :)

http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_281962.html

I've seen Brazil play in La Paz too. This wasn't an issue the first 100 years they kicked our asses. Then all of a suddden we beat them to qualify for WC '94 and suddenly the altitude's an issue? Give me a break.

Wow Goff, you've been busy in the last few days. I go on vacation and it takes a day to catch up.

This whole discrimination angle is a bit much. I'm not saying I like the decision, but it's at least consistent with prevailing sentiment on altitude sickness: Altitude sickness - wikipedia notable highlights:

- HAPE occurs in ~2% of those who are adjusting to altitudes of ~3000 m (10,000 feet) or more

- HACE is a life threatening condition that can lead to coma or death. It occurs in about 1% of people adjusting to altitudes above ~2700 m (9,000 feet).

Athlete's are probably better able to acclimate than the average person, but to me, dex shouldn't have to be in the trainer's bag next to the miracle sponge or magic spray.

Some of Bolivia's best players come from Santa Cruz, but they usually don't play there for long as the "big" teams in Bolivia are from La Paz (Bolivar and The Strongest). Bolivia has done well in qualifying when most of the players in their national team play in La Paz. They have had more trouble when some of their best players have gone abroad and can't do so well at high altitude. Do you recall Moreno doing well with Bolivia during his best days with DC United? Nope, he did not do very well because of this problem. I think long term, it may be better for Bolivian soccer if they play at lower altitude, as their best players would perform better, and they wouldn't concentrate their play on tiring the other team or taking long range shots (the ball moves a lot faster at high altitude). Going to low altitudes does not hamper the peformance of athletes that live at high altitudes (many runners actually train at high-altitude because it helps), and players in Bolivia are used to playing teams at low altitude as part of their league so they would be used to the way the ball moves. Going to high-altitude the same day helps, but does not come close to eliminating the problems.

Bottom line, it is unfair to play in a location where one team can run normally and the other is forced to play with as little running as possible. Nobody has died from this, but nausea, light headedness, and nosebleeds are not uncommon.

If player health is the question, then you can't have any games played at over 85 degrees either. That's dangerous, as well.

Or what about games played on water-logged fields in pouring rain? Incredibly dangerous.

The "logic" used to make this decision is nothing but a slippery slope. Of course, it's actually not "logic" at all, but lobbying by Brazil and Argentina.

I'm no fan of Sepp Blatter, but this decision is a good one. Altitude gives teams an advantage far beyond any advantage gained by heat or cold (though reasonable guidelines about scheduling games in extreme climates when other climates are available might make sense as well). The only way to acclimate to altitude is to train at altitude for a long period of time (a week won't cut it), and usually only the home team can do that. Thus, the home team has a huge advantage, as evidenced by the lobsided home/away records compiled by high-altitude teams such as Mexico, Bolivia, and Ecuador.

This decision is fair. What's unfair is that teams like Uruguay and Paraguay have been periodically elbowed out of qualifying for the World Cup by teams high-altitude teams like Ecuador.

And, to fans in high-altitude cities who will never have a qualifier scheduled in their town again, I say: tough break, but live with it. Fans in low-altitude cities in your country have been deprived for decades so that your national federations can schedule games in the high-altitude stadiums that give them the largest competitive advantage, so no whining now that the shoe's on the other foot.

One of the things that brought about the rule was the rumor that Peru was going to start playing in Cusco, solely to exploit the altitude.

FIFA could have addressed this by prohibiting matches above a certain level, yet granting an exemption for national capitals. Sure Quito is high, but its also were everyone lives (the same with La Paz). It seems silly to make Ecuador play in Guayaquil when most of their players live and play in Quito. Or to make Bolivia to play in a smaller stadium in a smaller city that happens to be at a lower altitude.

Sure it would be good to limit the gamesmanship aspect, but given that its very difficult to come up with solution that is fair for everyone, just let it be.

zzzzzzzzz

Any news on the new stadium?

Altitude sickness is serious business. Playing when it's super hot is bad too but it's easily combated with frequent hydration which the players do get. It's not possible to toss oxygen tanks onto the field and to put wax plugs in their ears to help their equilibrium.
The number FIFA chose seems a bit low, but so be it.
The calls asking "why has no high altitude team won the WC" Uhhh...when was the last time a WC was played in a high altitude place exclusively? The altitude advantage is only present when they are playing at altitude.
I'm not totally on board with this decision yet, but it is something to consider.

I am really trying, but this doesn't make any sense to me. One of the most stupid decision FIFA has even made. What's next? Banning "our soon to be constructed MGOS (mexico games only stadium) in Bismarck, North Dakota"