Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Keeping the match as scheduled can be defended as respecting a tournament timetable that affects teams, broadcasters, supporters and venue operations, while avoiding disruption based solely on a forecast that may not materialise. FIFA can reasonably rely on established in-match safety procedures, including pauses if lightning presents a genuine danger, rather than pre-emptively moving a major fixture; altitude and a hostile home atmosphere are also normal sporting challenges rather than grounds for intervention.

The case against

Rescheduling, or at least adopting a more precautionary contingency plan, can be defended as putting player, spectator and staff safety ahead of logistical convenience when thunderstorms are forecast around a high-profile match. Critics may argue that weather delays could create confusion and fatigue, especially alongside the physical demands of Mexico City's altitude, and that clear advance action would be fairer to both teams and travelling supporters than reacting only after conditions deteriorate.