Football altitude ban: Your views

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/talking_point/6709113.stm

Version 0 of 1.

Bolivian President Evo Morales is protesting against the ban Fifa's controversial decision to ban international games at high altitude has prompted a massive response from BBC News website readers across Latin America.

Read a selection of their comments, by country, below.

BOLIVIA

The ban will seriously affect Bolivia. All games will have to be played in Santa Cruz, as most cities in Bolivia are higher than the 8,000ft limit. The Brazilians play their games in Manaus in the heat and humidity. Playing for home advantage is part of Latin American soccer! Alison Bain, Cochabamba, Bolivia

I agree with the ban, provided that Fifa also bans countries whose temperatures go above 40 degrees, like Brazil, or nations whose temperature drops below zero degrees. Kizito Chiwala, La Paz, Bolivia

If we are able to live in the altitude of La Paz, why can't sportsmen from all over the world play here? Perhaps it is all down to money, as always. Regrettably, this is a form of discrimination.Christian Conesa, La Paz, Bolivia

I live in the lowlands of Bolivia and have just spent three days in La Paz at 3600m, where I have been unable to think due to the effects of high carbon dioxide levels in my blood. My visit was one non-stop headache. I could only take three steps at a time, pausing to rest often. It would be impossible for me to imagine physical exercise of any kind in those conditions. There is a science to this. We know it takes a person at least one month to adapt to the altitude. How can anyone consider it fair to have a newly-arrived athlete compete against someone who has had months of acclimation?Bennett Hennessey, Santa Cruz, Bolivia

ECUADOR

I agree with the ban. I grew up at high altitude. Although I do not experience breathing problems while I'm not exercising, I easily get fatigued when I play sports. The effects could be worse for people who are not adapted to the conditions.Issakias Pedro, Quito, Ecuador

LATIN AMERICAN CITIES Bolivia: La Paz - 3,600m (11,811ft)Ecuador: Quito - 2,800mColombia: Bogota - 2,640mPeru: Cuzco - 3,500m To assume that high altitudes play a major role in football games is wrong, otherwise countries like Ecuador, Colombia, Peru and Bolivia would always be the champions of competitions such as the Libertadores and World Cup qualifying games. Argentina and Brazil have had major victories in these countries, so there is no truth to these accusations. Of course there are some effects to playing in altitude but even the players of the high altitude countries come from sea level. The major point here is that Fifa is destroying the virtue of the sport, condemning those that live there. Sport should be a reason to unite not to divide.Fernando, Quito, Ecuador

Now that nations like Ecuador, Colombia and Bolivia are beating Brazil and Argentina during the eliminations at high altitude, and Uruguay and Chile can't make it to the World Cup, they are complaining about their "health". For more than 40 years when they defeated us even at altitude there was no argument. Even during the Tour de France bikers reach high-altitude, so let's ban that part of that event as well. Ecuador, Colombia, Peru and Bolivia should stay out of the next World Cup in protest. Ironically Mexico City at 2200 meters is safe enough.Agustin Yerovi, Guayaquil, Ecuador

I do not agree with this ban. If Fifa maintains it they should start banning places that are excessively humid or cold. This kind of discrimination aimed at developing Andean countries cannot and should not stand. Athletes of all sorts (especially those who train in high altitudes to reach optimal physical form) should join the movement against Fifa. This is a question of fairness.Jorge Andrade, Quito, Ecuador

I am not sure the implications of this decision have fully sunk in here yet. It means that the national side will have to play their home games away from the stadium where they won all but two of their games in the last World Cup qualifiers. Meanwhile they only won one of their away games - in La Paz. On a purely statistical basis Ecuador provides ideal evidence for the advantages for the home team at altitude, but I don't think it is really as simple as that. Ecuador has both high altitude and low altitude cities and teams and these regularly have to play home and away games - they cope. I think there is a need to separate out the questions of home advantage and threats to health. Phil Willcox, Cuenca, Ecuador

BRAZIL

I strongly support this decision, at last a good decision by Fifa officials. Teams are often defeated at high altitudes by poor teams. [Brazilian club side] Flamengo played against [Bolivian club side] Real Potosi at amazing 4,000 metres, and managed to tie the match, thanks to the strength of the Brazilian players, and some oxygen bottles. It's not a question of politics, but a question of health and fairness.Filipe Barini, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Lack of oxygen does affect you dangerously if you are not used to it Carlos Afonso, Rio, Brazil I agree. I've been to Cuzco and it's impossible to walk for longer than 15 minutes without feeling extremely tired, with headaches and dizziness. Bogota is not so bad. Perhaps they should raise the ban to 3,000 metres. If you want quit smoking spend some time in Cuzco. After the first cigarette you'll be so tired that you'll think twice before smoking the second one.JosÃ© Alves Pereira, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

I totally agree with the ban. Our local football clubs have a serious disadvantage when matches are played at very high altitudes. The Brazilian squad had to fly to Mexico City one month in advance to become acclimatised ahead of the 1986 World Cup.Luis Eliecer, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

As much as I sympathise with President Morales, my personal experience is that it is easy to play anything at 3,600 m if you are living at that altitude for a long time - like in Morales's case. Lack of oxygen does affect you dangerously if you are not used to it. This is the main reason why hotels in La Paz keep portable oxygen devices ready for guests, and at the airport arrivals area you can breathe oxygen in a special room for free to start adapting. The reverse is no problem - people from high altitudes do not feel any problem when playing at sea level. Fifa knows this, of course, and is being objective. I am actually surprised this took so long to be dealt with.Carlos Afonso, Rio, Brazil

COLOMBIA

This is a completely unfair decision apparently motivated by national federations from Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. It is as arbitrary as banning games at sea level or above a certain temperature. Where are the teams from the cities affected meant to play at when they compete in international tournaments? It's also very curious that the height limit imposed by Fifa is just above Mexico City - a place where football is emerging rapidly. Of course Fifa wants to avoid conflict with them. Hugo Acosta, Bogota, Colombia

Colombia cannot now play international soccer games in its capital city, Bogota, a city of around 8 million inhabitants. How stupid!Who decided on the figure of 2,500m? Why not lower it a bit so that Mexico City is affected as well? Who does Fifa represent? All, or simply the powerful soccer nations?Mike Durrance, Bogota, Colombia

I do not plan to protest, but I do not agree with Fifa's decision. It will affect us a lot, especially the capital cities, such as Bogota and La Paz. If Fifa approved this resolution because of health reasons, they must release the data to prove their decision.Juan Carlos Tovar, Bogota, Colombia

PERU

Fifa needs to consider the economic ramifications of such a decision before implementing it Powe, Valladolid, Mexico I personally believe the ruling to be completely unfair, as each country has their unique weather conditions and may be affected by a change in climate anywhere, not just altitudes. It is true that it needs some getting used to, but exercise in high altitudes is not impossible. It is quite the same as anywhere else after a few days of practice. It is not fair. It is a cheap way of eliminating heavy competition between South American countries, and that should not be allowed. Ilona Kraft, Lima, Peru

MEXICO

Fifa needs to consider the economic ramifications of such a decision before implementing it. These are poor nations in which football is a major source of pride and industry. Altitude does not provide any substantial advantage to a home team, especially not compared to the disadvantage of never being able to play a home international game. Powe, Valladolid, Mexico

GUATEMALA

After many years of living in Europe and returning to my home town, I tend to experience blood pressure problems due to the abrupt change in altitudes. It takes me weeks to adjust to Quetzaltenango's high altitude after being away. I am a young and healthy person in my early twenties and still I experience fatigue and headaches. So, in my opinion Fifa could be right. Maria, Quetzaltenango, Guatemala

PANAMA

Of course Evo Morales and all other Bolivians can play football with no ill effects. They live there and are accustomed to the altitude! They even have a slightly higher haemoglobin level than the rest of us to compensate for the low atmospheric oxygen pressure. The reason Fifa has banned those matches is that most of the players from other countries will suffer the detrimental effects of altitude. It's just a question of common sense.Emily, Panama

VENEZUELA

I do not agree with the ban. The whole point of having different stadiums in different weather conditions is that teams are truly tested. In the South American eliminatory round, each team is given one game away and one at home with each team. Each team then gets the advantage of being at home and under familiar conditions once. This may be harsh, but any good team can overcome these differences and it makes for great showmanship and training.Martin Lopez, Caracas, Venezuela