CONMEBOL 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (South America)

[Adiljutt156]

Brazil's defeat was truly surprising. I don't think coach Ancelotti has experienced this kind of match at such a high level in his career. It's truly a different game for them to play at this altitude.

Bolivia national football team has excellent skills which gave that team confidence to win this match. There were many players who did struggle for the team and team won the match at the end. Always effort is required for any team to win match against big teams as we know Brazil team has high quality players abd they were favorite to win this match but they could not do excellent in this match . Brazil  team has good track record as they won tough matches against big teams but in last match they could not be dominant and lost the match at the end. In the first half we saw no goal but in the second half we saw goal by Bolivia  team and that team did goal and be winner in the end.That was important match for Bolivia team because they have less points on the table and require win to get upper position on the table.

[Ale88]

LOL.. seriously?

Bolivia forces their opponents to play against them at the Estadio Hernando Siles in La Paz. Do you know about this stadium? It is situated at a height of 3,582 meters above sea level. Most normal human beings would face breathing difficulty at these heights. FIFA originally banned this stadium from hosting international matches, but Bolivia got the ban overturned in 2008. If this is allowed, what prevents Canada from hosting their matches in the North pole, or Nepal from hosting their matches in Mt. Everest?

Isn't that the whole point of "Home advantage"?

I guess some users live in a fantasy world
And do I really have to explain that Bolivia is not forcing anyone? If FIFA allows Bolivia to play in El Alto that means the other teams have to comply.
If and when FIFA will allow Canada to play in the North Pole and Nepal on the top of Mount Everest then the other teams will have to comply, as simple as that. Otherwise what's even the point of playing home and away games? There are fields where the problem is the cold, for others is the heat, the altitude or the pitch conditions.

[Sithara007]

I guess some users live in a fantasy world
And do I really have to explain that Bolivia is not forcing anyone? If FIFA allows Bolivia to play in El Alto that means the other teams have to comply.
If and when FIFA will allow Canada to play in the North Pole and Nepal on the top of Mount Everest then the other teams will have to comply, as simple as that. Otherwise what's even the point of playing home and away games? There are fields where the problem is the cold, for others is the heat, the altitude or the pitch conditions.

I was pointing out to the fact that FIFA tweaked the rules. First in 2007, they came up with an altitude limit of 2500. Then they increased it to 3000m. But this particular venue (Estadio Hernando Siles in La Paz) is located at an altitude of almost 3600 meters, which is much higher than even their tweaked limit. But somehow Bolivia managed to get a one-time exception for this venue. Home advantage means that you play in front of your fans. It doesn't mean that you create averse conditions for your opposing team.

[rdluffy]

Hehehe, every time we talk about South American qualifiers, the topic of altitude in some stadiums always comes up 

There are two sides to this:
Bolivia takes advantage of its home field, using it to its benefit and playing within FIFA rules

On the other hand, it harms athletes from other countries who are not used to high altitudes and the lack of oxygen

Both sides have their reasons, and this issue goes a little beyond the discussion we can have here
Perhaps using common sense in this case would be ideal
3,582 meters above sea level seems very extreme to me

Perhaps a stadium in an intermediate city would be ideal for both teams

[gunhell16]

Brazil's defeat was truly surprising. I don't think coach Ancelotti has experienced this kind of match at such a high level in his career. It's truly a different game for them to play at this altitude.

Bolivia national football team has excellent skills which gave that team confidence to win this match. There were many players who did struggle for the team and team won the match at the end. Always effort is required for any team to win match against big teams as we know Brazil team has high quality players abd they were favorite to win this match but they could not do excellent in this match . Brazil  team has good track record as they won tough matches against big teams but in last match they could not be dominant and lost the match at the end. In the first half we saw no goal but in the second half we saw goal by Bolivia  team and that team did goal and be winner in the end.That was important match for Bolivia team because they have less points on the table and require win to get upper position on the table.

Bolivia is amazing for finishing in 7th place in CONMEBOL. Just think, a 1-0 victory against Brazil! Because of that,
they've now secured a spot for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

The team led by Miguel Terceros is also great, and I think playing in your home country really makes a big difference. To be honest,
it really gives the players a boost.

[Ale88]

I guess some users live in a fantasy world
And do I really have to explain that Bolivia is not forcing anyone? If FIFA allows Bolivia to play in El Alto that means the other teams have to comply.
If and when FIFA will allow Canada to play in the North Pole and Nepal on the top of Mount Everest then the other teams will have to comply, as simple as that. Otherwise what's even the point of playing home and away games? There are fields where the problem is the cold, for others is the heat, the altitude or the pitch conditions.

I was pointing out to the fact that FIFA tweaked the rules. First in 2007, they came up with an altitude limit of 2500. Then they increased it to 3000m. But this particular venue (Estadio Hernando Siles in La Paz) is located at an altitude of almost 3600 meters, which is much higher than even their tweaked limit. But somehow Bolivia managed to get a one-time exception for this venue. Home advantage means that you play in front of your fans. It doesn't mean that you create averse conditions for your opposing team.

Actually the conditions are part of playing away as well. Every stadium is different and players from different part of the world are used to play in different weather and pitch conditions, as long as the basic rules are followed the players must play anyway. There are even team that play on synthetic pitches and the feeling with the ball is different compared to real grass, that could be considered an advantage as well, no? And yet, it's ok for UEFA and FIFA, so the players must comply.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

3,582 meters above sea level seems very extreme to me

Perhaps a stadium in an intermediate city would be ideal for both teams

Just asking.

What is the different between that and hosting a match in an area where climate does not favor other players from other regions?

For example, a place where there is extreme heat/high temperatures hosting a tournament which will involve players from countries as cold as Iceland, Denmark, or Finland or vice versa?
Should stadia in such places be banned too because the conditions are extreme for an average player?

[rdluffy]

3,582 meters above sea level seems very extreme to me

Perhaps a stadium in an intermediate city would be ideal for both teams

Just asking.

What is the different between that and hosting a match in an area where climate does not favor other players from other regions?

For example, a place where there is extreme heat/high temperatures hosting a tournament which will involve players from countries as cold as Iceland, Denmark, or Finland or vice versa?
Should stadia in such places be banned too because the conditions are extreme for an average player?

It's a complicated subject, and the answer isn't easy
However, I believe common sense should be used
Bolivia uses this stadium to gain a significant advantage over its opponents; it's not as if they only have this stadium available

I don't see any other notable cases of teams taking advantage of a situation like this

We had the case of Qatar in the World Cup, with its very high temperatures, where the stadiums had different air conditioning and there were breaks during the games

In this situation with Bolivia, as I said, common sense could be used and the games could be played at a slightly lower altitude, using common sense
I don't believe that high altitude is the same as the temperature of a country, for example

What's your opinion?

[Pumared]

3,582 meters above sea level seems very extreme to me

Perhaps a stadium in an intermediate city would be ideal for both teams

Just asking.

What is the different between that and hosting a match in an area where climate does not favor other players from other regions?

For example, a place where there is extreme heat/high temperatures hosting a tournament which will involve players from countries as cold as Iceland, Denmark, or Finland or vice versa?
Should stadia in such places be banned too because the conditions are extreme for an average player?

It's a complicated subject, and the answer isn't easy
However, I believe common sense should be used
Bolivia uses this stadium to gain a significant advantage over its opponents; it's not as if they only have this stadium available

I don't see any other notable cases of teams taking advantage of a situation like this

We had the case of Qatar in the World Cup, with its very high temperatures, where the stadiums had different air conditioning and there were breaks during the games

In this situation with Bolivia, as I said, common sense could be used and the games could be played at a slightly lower altitude, using common sense
I don't believe that high altitude is the same as the temperature of a country, for example

What's your opinion?

We can also mention the Club World Cup, where there were pauses due to the heat, as well as the World Cup in Qatar. So, there are always these difficulties in some matches or tournaments. However, the specific problem with Bolivia is precisely that only they can play comfortably in that stadium. As I said here, that's fair in my opinion. But it would be even fairer if they played somewhere else that didn't give them such an advantage.

[Pumared]

The squad list for the national team's upcoming friendlies has been released. What do you think of these Brazilian reinforcements? We're still without Neymar, and goalkeeper Alisson was injured yesterday and is out.

Bento (Al Nassr), Ederson (Fenerbahce) e Hugo Souza (Corinthians)

Caio Henrique (Monaco), Carlos Augusto (Inter de Milão), Douglas Santos (Zenit), Éder Militão (Real Madrid), Fabrício Bruno (Cruzeiro), Gabriel Magalhães (Arsenal), Lucas Beraldo (PSG), Vanderson (Monaco) e Wesley (Roma).

André (Wolverhampton), Bruno Guimarães (Newcastle), Casemiro (Manchester United), João Gomes (Wolverhampton), Joelinton (Newcastle) e Lucas Paquetá (West Ham).

Estêvão (Chelsea), Gabriel Martinelli (Arsenal), Igor Jesus (Nottingham Forest), Luiz Henrique (Zenit), Matheus Cunha (Manchester United), Richarlison (Tottenham), Rodrygo (Real Madrid) e Vini Jr. (Real Madrid).

[rdluffy]

The squad list for the national team's upcoming friendlies has been released. What do you think of these Brazilian reinforcements? We're still without Neymar, and goalkeeper Alisson was injured yesterday and is out.

Brazil will face South Korea on October 10 and Japan on October 14

Neymar is injured again, and I think the chances of him playing in the World Cup are very slim, so it's best to get used to playing without him 

Asian teams have improved a lot in recent years, and it could be a good opportunity to test the team against opponents other than those from South America
I'm curious, but not that excited.

What about you guys?

[Pumared]

The squad list for the national team's upcoming friendlies has been released. What do you think of these Brazilian reinforcements? We're still without Neymar, and goalkeeper Alisson was injured yesterday and is out.

Brazil will face South Korea on October 10 and Japan on October 14

Neymar is injured again, and I think the chances of him playing in the World Cup are very slim, so it's best to get used to playing without him 

Asian teams have improved a lot in recent years, and it could be a good opportunity to test the team against opponents other than those from South America
I'm curious, but not that excited.

What about you guys?

I feel the same way, and it's good to do these tests. But I wanted to see how the players would fare against European teams to get a rough idea of ​​what level the Brazilian team is playing at. The Asians have improved significantly, but I believe Brazil can win by a narrow margin, and depending on how the team performs, they could even draw.

[Ale88]

3,582 meters above sea level seems very extreme to me

Perhaps a stadium in an intermediate city would be ideal for both teams

Just asking.

What is the different between that and hosting a match in an area where climate does not favor other players from other regions?

For example, a place where there is extreme heat/high temperatures hosting a tournament which will involve players from countries as cold as Iceland, Denmark, or Finland or vice versa?
Should stadia in such places be banned too because the conditions are extreme for an average player?

It's a complicated subject, and the answer isn't easy
However, I believe common sense should be used
Bolivia uses this stadium to gain a significant advantage over its opponents; it's not as if they only have this stadium available

I don't see any other notable cases of teams taking advantage of a situation like this

We had the case of Qatar in the World Cup, with its very high temperatures, where the stadiums had different air conditioning and there were breaks during the games

In this situation with Bolivia, as I said, common sense could be used and the games could be played at a slightly lower altitude, using common sense
I don't believe that high altitude is the same as the temperature of a country, for example

What's your opinion?

I don't think it's possible to compare Bolivia and the World Cup hosted by Qatar: in the first case we're talking about home and away games, so I think it's fair that the home team tries to get some advantage; for the World Cup everybody is playing single matches so everybody should be able to play in the best possible conditions, and Qatar's weather is simply not suited to play a football match at noon.

I also think that is part of the game to be able to adapt (and suffer) different conditions: let's say every single football match would be played on the same type of field, same type of stadium, same weather, same altitude, same temperature, I don't know, for me it would be extremely boring.

[Pumared]

Today the Brazilian national team played, and what we all expected happened. It was a calm, goal-laden game with a 5-0 score. Did anyone bet on this match? Did they know they were playing today? I feel like the marketing for the friendly matches isn't reaching me. Is anyone else experiencing this?

[criptoevangelista]

Today the Brazilian national team played, and what we all expected happened. It was a calm, goal-laden game with a 5-0 score. Did anyone bet on this match? Did they know they were playing today? I feel like the marketing for the friendly matches isn't reaching me. Is anyone else experiencing this?

To be honest, I didn’t even know Brazil was playing today. If I had known, I probably would’ve bet at least a little money, after all, South Korea is pretty much a punching bag in world football. Actually, it seems like the national team has taken a back seat; all you see in the news is about Virgínia Fonseca and Vinícius Júnior 

[Pumared]

Today the Brazilian national team played, and what we all expected happened. It was a calm, goal-laden game with a 5-0 score. Did anyone bet on this match? Did they know they were playing today? I feel like the marketing for the friendly matches isn't reaching me. Is anyone else experiencing this?

To be honest, I didn’t even know Brazil was playing today. If I had known, I probably would’ve bet at least a little money, after all, South Korea is pretty much a punching bag in world football. Actually, it seems like the national team has taken a back seat; all you see in the news is about Virgínia Fonseca and Vinícius Júnior 

Well, this whole thing about not knowing when the national team is playing is really puzzling me. It seems like there's no strong marketing behind this promotion. Only those who follow the crowd know; outside of this bubble, there's no news coming. They need to reconsider.

[criptoevangelista]

Today the Brazilian national team played, and what we all expected happened. It was a calm, goal-laden game with a 5-0 score. Did anyone bet on this match? Did they know they were playing today? I feel like the marketing for the friendly matches isn't reaching me. Is anyone else experiencing this?

To be honest, I didn’t even know Brazil was playing today. If I had known, I probably would’ve bet at least a little money, after all, South Korea is pretty much a punching bag in world football. Actually, it seems like the national team has taken a back seat; all you see in the news is about Virgínia Fonseca and Vinícius Júnior 

Well, this whole thing about not knowing when the national team is playing is really puzzling me. It seems like there's no strong marketing behind this promotion. Only those who follow the crowd know; outside of this bubble, there's no news coming. They need to reconsider.

For many, many years the Brazilian national team has been distant from its fans. There are people who don’t even know the team’s lineup, and that’s entirely the CBF’s fault. Instead of strengthening its bond with the public, it allowed the national team to lose its importance to the Brazilian people. In the 90s and 2000s it was a pleasure to watch, it was something to cheer for… but today, a national team match is just another game. People prefer to follow their clubs rather than watch the national team play.

[Pumared]

Today the Brazilian national team played, and what we all expected happened. It was a calm, goal-laden game with a 5-0 score. Did anyone bet on this match? Did they know they were playing today? I feel like the marketing for the friendly matches isn't reaching me. Is anyone else experiencing this?

To be honest, I didn’t even know Brazil was playing today. If I had known, I probably would’ve bet at least a little money, after all, South Korea is pretty much a punching bag in world football. Actually, it seems like the national team has taken a back seat; all you see in the news is about Virgínia Fonseca and Vinícius Júnior 

Well, this whole thing about not knowing when the national team is playing is really puzzling me. It seems like there's no strong marketing behind this promotion. Only those who follow the crowd know; outside of this bubble, there's no news coming. They need to reconsider.

For many, many years the Brazilian national team has been distant from its fans. There are people who don’t even know the team’s lineup, and that’s entirely the CBF’s fault. Instead of strengthening its bond with the public, it allowed the national team to lose its importance to the Brazilian people. In the 90s and 2000s it was a pleasure to watch, it was something to cheer for… but today, a national team match is just another game. People prefer to follow their clubs rather than watch the national team play.

I agree. And even if a player from a Brazilian team is playing, it doesn't change much. He could be a great star, but it usually doesn't affect much. And in this new lineup, there are few players from Brazilian teams, if I remember correctly. And that helps widen the gap. In these last few friendlies, have you been following anything other than the Brazilian national team?