Just because somebody is easy to lampoon, it does not mean their message isn’t worth heeding. In recent years, Diego Maradona has embraced every facet of the anticorporate South American left. It fits neatly into a “haves versus have-nots” narrative that dates back to the Hand of God and his storied diatribes against Fifa, its president Sepp Blatter and his predecessor, João Havelange. Indeed, if his right and left arms were not already covered by giant tattoos of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, he might probably immortalise Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales, two other renowned South American radical socialists.

All that said, one has to admit that Maradona – unlike so many former stars, bumbling their way between the golf course and punditry – has multiple causes in which he believes and is willing to get off his rear end for them. And, sometimes, he’s spot on.

This was the case last week when he joined forces with Morales, the Bolivian President, to protest against Fifa’s stance on matches played at altitude. On March 14, football’s world governing body upheld its ban on matches played at altitude, laying down new guidelines that, effectively, mean that neither Ecuador nor Bolivia will be allowed to play World Cup qualifying matches in their capital cities.

Fifa stipulated that for matches played at more than 2,750 metres above sea level, players and officials would have to submit to a mandatory, seven-day “acclimatisation period”.

And, when playing above 3,000 metres, as is the case with the Bolivian capital of La Paz, that period stretches to two weeks. Fair? Not really. It would have been more honest for Fifa to simply ban all games above 2,750 metres, given that clubs have to release players only five days before an international. Which, effectively, means that Fifa laid out criteria to play at altitude that it knew could never be met.

Bolivia were understandably incensed. Thus, Maradona and Morales decided to turn the charity match they had arranged to benefit victims of flooding in Bolivia into a statement against Fifa.

“We have shown Fifa that it is possible to play on this pitch,” Maradona said. “All of us have to play where we were born, my brothers and sisters. Not even God can ban that . . . much less Blatter.” Clever turns of phrase aside, they are right. Bolivia’s national stadium complies with Fifa’s pitch requirements. The fact that it’s 2¼ miles above sea level should not matter. If it’s a “World” Cup it should be played all over the world.

Fifa claims that its ban is to preserve the health of the players and to maintain a “level playing field”, because visiting teams who have not had time to acclimatise may suffer dizziness and shortness of breath at altitude. There is little or no medical evidence to support the first part of their argument. Every week clubs from other parts of Bolivia (most of whom are at altitudes of less than 500 metres) travel to La Paz to play football without incident.

The second bit is equally absurd. Yes, Bolivia have a good home record, but, then again, they hardly play in a fortress: in the last three South American qualifying tournaments, they have won 12 of 27 home matches. Playing at altitude is hardly the kind of edge that would distort something as important as World Cup qualifying (one World Cup appearance in the past 54 years tells its own story). Part of the reason for this - assuming playing at altitude offers massive advantages – may have to do with the reality that most Bolivian players do not, in fact, live at 3,600 metres above sea level and thus have to acclimatise themselves, just like their opponents.

So why is Fifa even raising this issue? Because, historically, South American football’s two biggest power-houses – Argentina and Brazil – have complained when they have played at altitude and things have not gone their way. Some Argentinians cite as evidence that between 1973 and 2005 – a period in which they won two World Cups – they failed to win away to Bolivia. But so what? It’s called “home advantage”.

Maradona – not to mention Morales – may not be to everyone’s liking, but this is a clear case in which, no matter the messenger, the message is worth heeding. Enough pandering to football’s aristocracy.

New era for strikers

The leading goalscorers in La Liga and Serie A are, respectively, LuÍs Fabiano, of Seville, and Marco Borriello, of Genoa. And they have something in common. The Brazil striker has scored 22 league goals (30 in all competitions), which is one fewer than he had managed in the previous three seasons. As for Borriello, who has 17, before this season, he had managed only 11 since June 2002.

It is the kind of sudden, mid-career jump in performance that, in other sports, would draw parallels to Florence Griffith-Joyner and Michelle de Bruin. But this is football and, thankfully, there are far simpler explanations. Both are talented strikers, who, for a variety of reasons, had lost their way over the past few years. And, more importantly, both have benefited from their club’s radical change in style.

After the departure of Juande Ramos as coach, Seville have become a much more direct side, an approach that has suited the pacy and powerful LuÍs Fabiano (not coincidentally, Frédéric Kanouté, his strike partner, whose goals have fallen away dramatically). And Borriello has thrived as the lone target in Genoa’s pinball-like 3-43.

Strikers will always be judged by the number of goals they score. But it is worth remembering that, when assessing centre forwards, context is just as important as raw statistics.