Beating Mexico at the Azteca Is One of Soccer’s Toughest Tasks. Math Proves It

Four matches, four wins. Eight goals scored, none conceded. A coming-of-age for 17-year-old prodigy Gilberto Mora. The first half of Mexico’s World Cup has gone perfectly.  

El Tri have played three of those matches at the brutalist Estadio Azteca in Mexico City. The ground has a unique connection to the World Cup: It is the only place on the planet to have hosted matches in three different tournaments. 

It is also hallowed ground. In 1970, it witnessed the coronation of the Pelé-led Brazil side that is still considered the best ever. In 1986, it saw Diego Maradona’s goal of the century (and his infamous handball) against England. In 2026, the atmosphere during Mexico’s round-of-16 match against Ecuador was the most intense of this World Cup so far. 

Mexico’s preeminent soccer historian Juan Villoro describes it as the country’s “cathedral of football.” But the venue is not appreciated by everyone. 

For a soccer stadium, the Azteca is unusually high up, at 2,200m above sea level. For athletes not acclimatized, a high-energy sport like soccer at altitude puts a major strain on the body. Playing high up is different from playing in the heat: Heat-related fatigue is like a steady drain on the body, whereas altitude-driven fatigue is like suddenly hitting the wall. 

“[The] Azteca is the worst place to ever play a sporting event,” former USMNT striker Eric Wynalda said in 2016. “You can’t breathe.” 

The ability to cope with the demands of playing at altitude is not genetic—it is a product of physiological adaptation. If all of the Mexican squad played at sea level in Brazil, for example, they would also need time for their bodies to adjust to the lack of oxygen in the air. Fortunately for El Tri, the majority of the squad play in Mexico’s Liga MX.

Nevertheless, the team management left nothing to chance. To ensure that every member of the squad was fully acclimatized, it held a five-week pre-tournament camp in Mexico City in early May. As tournament hosts, Mexico had its group-stage games in the country. They also knew that if they excelled, they would be able to remain in Mexico for the first two knock-out rounds. (After the round-of-16 match against England on Sunday the tournament relocates entirely to the U.S., a fact most soccer purists lament.)

England has not had the same privilege. They have played in four different U.S. cities, none of which are at altitude. Following the team’s 2–1 victory against DR Congo on Wednesday,  England coach Thomas Tuchel conceded that it is “impossible” to adapt to the Azteca’s altitude in time for Sunday’s match.   

There is reason for the Three Lions’ concern. When playing teams from low-lying countries, Mexico scores a disproportionately high number of goals late in the game. This is one reason why El Tri has a staggering record at the Azteca. It has now played 89 competitive games at the stadium, and lost just twice. In World Cup finals, it has played nine, won seven, and drawn two. Mexico has not even conceded a goal at the ground for more than three years.

These numbers hint at a broader benefit that teams playing at home tend to enjoy. A recent, comprehensive study by Dutch professor Adriaan Kalwij examined more than 4,000 international matches played at the World Cup and six regional tournaments. He found that in a game between opponents of equal quality, factors such a supportive crowd, a familiar environment, and opponents’ travel meant that playing at home tilted the odds in favor of the home team by 21%.

This is a sufficiently large advantage to overcome a sizable variation in talent. It means, for example, that if Austria played at home against Brazil, each team would have an equal chance of winning: Austria’s home advantage would cancel out Brazil’s advantage of having better players. 

But here’s the thing: Kalwij’s finding reflected an average of 4,000 games, of which very few would have such a large altitude factor as the one facing England in the Azteca.

Another study, conducted in 2007 by British researcher Patrick McSharry tried to quantify the impact of altitude specifically. It looked at almost 1,500 matches in South American international soccer, comparing results at grounds that at sea level, such as the Maracana in Rio de Janeiro and the Bombonera in Buenos Aires, and others in the clouds, including El Alto in Bolivia (4,000m up) and Atahualpa in Quito, Ecuador (2,700m).

McSharry found that every 1,000m of difference in altitude was equivalent to half a goal in favor of the high-altitude team. This means that the Azteca’s location alone means Mexico will effectively start their round-of-16 tie against England up 1–0.  

The three variables at play when England walk out into Mexico’s cathedral are not in the visitors’ favour.

Yes, England will have a talent advantage, and if the game were played in a neutral venue, Kalwij tells Front Office Sports that he would expect the team to win two-thirds of the time. But this benefit is more than offset by Mexico’s home advantage. Throw in the Azteca’s altitude, and a win for the low-lying Europeans should be considered a shock.