Opposite of orthopraxy...

Note: orthopraxy n. - correct action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For the good of the Game"..."For the Game; For the World"...two new slogans from FIFA , having just entered a 'new era', seems OK.

"FIFA will enter a new era on 1 June, one in which football's social responsibility and community will take centre stage. The slogan summarises FIFA's mission to develop the game, touch the world and build a better future"

FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter (just re-elected, now FIFA top-dog until 2011) emphasised that "football's social responsibility and the resources available now and in the future will enable FIFA to take a giant step forward and make a major contribution to social development through football." Great, unless you live at high altitude where FIFA, just last week, banned international games, naturally this has caused furore throughout Latin America, principally the 'high' Andean countries. Some feedback HERE on the BBC. Apparently Blatter and the committee took this decision after advice from their medical Committee, I would like to see any reasoning and evidence they presented and hope the Andean Football Associations demand it too (the limit has been set at 2500m)

"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,"

...not healthy? OK, prove it; how many players have suffered adversely from playing at high altitudes?...anyway my point is....to say "not fair", NOT FAIR?!! What about playing in freezing Scandinavian countries? Boiling hot African countries? Countries with massive populations?(Brazil, Russia etc...) not fair either as they have more players to select from...countries with several established leagues, not fair, they have a better chance of playing more higher-standard games thereby increasing the percentage of experienced players. What about where wages are higher so that players don't need 'day jobs'? Where the coaches and physios are presumably better so naturally, one assumes, it would follow that the players are at an advantage; a few examples but you know what I mean. One comment from the points of view posted on the BBC: Mike Durrance in Bogota:

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?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 16/06/07: It seems that FIFA have seen sense and have already changed their minds: they have raised the limit to 3000m; I think they should forget silly decisions and let football be played where it's always been played...everywhere.