According to C. Martinoli, the phrase "partido molero" originated when: “…un municipio invita a jugar a las fuerzas básicas de un club profesional! Al final del juego se come mole con arroz” (Twitter, Oct. 14, 2014). Tuca Ferreti had previously made an allusion to this implying that these are meaningless games played to generate income for FEMEXFUT. But I’m curious about what constitutes a “partido molero.” Is it the opponent or the context in which the game is played? For example, a friendly against El Salvador (no offense to the Salvadorans) is a partido molero but if it's a World Cup qualifier it's not. But a friendly against Brazil is not, no matter the context. Or is it a molero if Brazil doesn’t bring its best players? I don’t mean to be obtuse, but my confusion stems from a quick perusal of the term as used on BSMX. In jest or not, the term “partido molero” has been bandied about in relation to the following opponents faced by Mexico in recent years: Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil (friendly in 2015), Chile (in 2014 and 2016), Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Honduras (in a World Cup qualifier), Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, Serbia, Spain (in 2010), the U.S., and Venezuela. Is this as easy as creating a list of teams that would make any game a partido molero or is it in fact situational? A friendly against Chile may have been a molero in 2014 but is it no longer the case?
It's basically a friendly in which the average fan sees no actual benefit for Mexico from a strictly sporting perspective. So a match in the US against Belarus would be a molero game but one in Belarus would not. Personally I think even those US friendlies let the team try ideas and variants, but you know what they are talking about.
I have no real issue with "partidos moleros" if they use it to useful shit, like giving playing time to youngsters with real upside (like Montes, Edson or a Gael Sandoval) or try veterans in their prime who have never been given a fair chance despite talent and/or productivity (like Cota or Madueña) or even veterans (still in their prime) who have worked in the past but you've not called for X or Y reason (like Vázquez). The problem is, none of the coaches we've had since I remember uses them for that. They mostly ignore the youngsters, bring already proven veterans and expose them to unnecessary injuries or bring players who are either proven underachievers (like Hugo Ayala) or way past their prime, hence, making the games an absolute waste.
Games that are made with no real benefit with the exception of making huge sums of money. Mexico vs Ecuador in San Jose type of games.