Excuse the cliché — but this was definitely a “glittering occasion.” Meaning that it oozed money. Of course, FIFA is a very rich organization, so the ceremonial opening of its new headquarters in Zurich last month was bound to be an opulent occasion.

For a start, the building cost $200 million. Evidently, FIFA President Sepp Blatter felt the need to justify spending such a vast sum. He welcomed soccer delegates from all over the world by telling them that the glass palace that is the new FIFA House “is your home, allowing light to shine through the building to create the transparency we all stand for.”

The atmosphere of brotherly love was underlined by the knowledge that, buried in the foundations are samples of soil from all 208 FIFA member nations.

And to show that it cared not only about its rich members, but about the poor ones too, FIFA staged a youth soccer tournament as part of the ceremonies and made sure that one of the invited teams was from Bolivia, South America’s poorest country.

It took just two weeks for the goodwill to evaporate, and it was from Bolivia that the loudest anti-FIFA complaints were heard. The Bolivians were greatly upset by a FIFA ruling — issued in Blatter’s name — that international soccer games would no longer be permitted at high-altitude venues. The upper limit was set at 2,500 meters (8,200 feet), which would ban games in the Bolivian capital, La Paz (11,811 feet).

The Hernando Siles stadium in La Paz is also known as the Condor’s Nest. Since 1957 it has been the site for most of Bolivia’s national team games during World Cup qualifying, and has seen some notable Bolivian victories. In 1993, Bolivia beat Brazil 2–0 there — the first time that Brazil had ever lost a qualifying game.

True, no opponent likes playing in La Paz, and the Bolivians are regularly accused of unfairly scheduling their games there — after all, they could play them in Santa Cruz, which has a 38,000 capacity stadium and an altitude of only 1,365 feet.

Matters came to a head back in February when the Brazilian club Flamengo had to play a Libertadores Cup game at another lofty Bolivian city, Potosi (13,120 feet). On this occasion freezing rain added to the altitude woes. Flamengo — despite its players needing frequent sideline trips for an oxygen boost — tied the game 2–2, but vowed never to play again under such “unsporting and inhumane” conditions.

An official protest was sent to FIFA, which responded with unusual alacrity, taking only three months for the FIFA medical committee to recommend the 8,200 foot limit.

While the ban also affects venues in Peru (Cuzco at 10,827 feet), Ecuador (Quito, 9,186 feet), Colombia (Bogota, 8,660 feet) and Mexico (Toluca, 8,750 feet), it is Bolivia’s charismatic president, Evo Morales, who is leading the charge to get the FIFA ruling reversed.

Morales, a fervent soccer fan, staged a glittering occasion of his own on June 12. The glitter this time came from the shining white snow on the slopes of Bolivia’s highest Andean peak, Sajama, where Morales played in a 15-minute soccer game with local mountaineers — at an altitude of 19,700 feet. After scoring the winning goal, Morales proclaimed that “wherever you can make love, you can play sports.”

While FIFA may not be swayed by such a basic argument, it is sensitive to two other points raised by Morales. First, the accusation that FIFA is siding with a powerful soccer country, Brazil, at the expense of poorer nations like Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia. Second, the question as to why FIFA is singling out altitude, when playing in high temperatures or high humidity may be more dangerous.

On that second point, FIFA has real cause to feel uncomfortable. In 2003, during the FIFA-organized Confederations Cup tournament, the Cameroonian player Marc-Vivien Foe collapsed on the field and died soon afterward. The game, in Lyon, France, was played in sweltering heat.

Foe was later adjudged to have a heart defect, but the heat was widely seen as contributing to Foe’s death. Another possible factor was exhaustion: The Confederations Cup had already come under considerable criticism as an unnecessary tournament, one that was played in the summer when players should be on vacation, recovering from their grueling club seasons.

There have been no recorded deaths from playing at altitude. Anyway, where is the evidence on which the FIFA medical committee is basing its recommendation? So far, it has not been produced.

In fact, a look at the history of the World Cup — FIFA’s major tournament — suggests that altitude has not hitherto been considered a problem. In 1970, the World Cup was played in Mexico and included four games in Toluca. FIFA’s posttournament report was more worried about the temperature and the concentration of games — “Three matches in nine days … played in hot weather, is too much.” It paid scant attention to altitude, starting its lone reference with a tentative “If there are problems of altitude …”

The World Cup returned to Mexico in 1986, and games were again played in Toluca. This time the FIFA report stated that play was “minimally affected by the high altitude and the heat.”

Under the new FIFA limit, Toluca would be ruled out as a World Cup venue, whereas the huge Azteca Stadium in Mexico City (7,349 feet) — the site of two of the greatest World Cup finals in 1970 and 1986 — would be conveniently okay.

Morales has skillfully mobilized considerable support for his war on the FIFA ban. At the end of last week, all the members of the South American soccer confederation (Conmebol) — including Brazil — agreed to petition. “We will be asking FIFA to provisionally suspend the application of this measure until studies on the medical effects are concluded,” Conmebol’s secretary general, Eduardo Deluca, said.

A curious statement, obviously throwing doubt on whatever evidence the FIFA medical committee may have relied on when making its recommendation in favor of an 8,200-foot altitude ban.

pgardner@nysun.com