|
|
Over 40 international women's soccer players have filed a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal over the use of artificial turf at the FIFA Women's World Cup 2015. Here's a breakdown of different narratives surrounding the turf debate.
The Equalizer has done a great job covering the complaint filed by over 40 international women's soccer players against FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA).
As has Duane Rollins in detailing some of the legal proceedings.
"Players have said that they will not boycott the World Cup." It would have been a powerful statement if they did, but why should they potentially risk missing out on the pinnacle of their sport?
Besides, FIFA hasn't exactly shown great judgement when it comes to important matters. Are they even a bit fazed by the thousands of migrant worker deaths as Qatar's preparing to host the 2022 Men's World Cup?
Among the list of missteps and embarrassments by folks of the governing body include Sepp Blatter mistaking Sarah Huffman for five-time World Player of the Year Marta. (How the eff is that even possible?!)
Those in the highest ranks at FIFA aren't exactly keen on sharing power with their female counterparts either. Sepp and co. are old(er) men who I wouldn't be surprised harbour thoughts like this: how women shouldn't take part in strenuous activities in "risk their femininity and reproductive health."
But I digress.
Perhaps I'm a little naive, but I'd like to think that the CSA's plans for hosting the Women's World Cup on turf stemmed from practical matters. I'd assume that they, too, would prefer grass, but factors like weather and, especially, the long-term needs of the teams who (will) inhabit those stadiums trumped other options. Why spend $ X amount for grass when you can spend a similar amount to upgrade the turf AND give the permanent tenants what they need?
FIFA rules stipulate that the Women's World Cup can be played on turf so long as it's the same surface in all stadiums; a mixture of both turf and grass can be used at Youth World Cups. The CSA met the standards to host, regardless of how (low to) moderate those standards may be. Besides, Canada was the only bid left after Zimbabwe pulled out of contention.
On the other hand, there have been some compelling arguments for laying sod over turf for the duration of the tournament.
Then again, some temporary grass surfaces have also been criticized.
And men's players regularly voice their displeasure for playing on turf.
Ball control, recovery times and turf burns are among the many concerns cited. (I was going to link pictures of turf burn that players like Sydney Leroux have tweeted, but the ones by Lotta Schelin made me want to puke, so that all got nixed.)
In the midst of this, the announcement of Kaylyn Kyle's endorsement deal with the company FieldTurf was met with much mockery, particularly given her public disdain for turf via a previous message on Twitter.
Kaylyn Kyle speaks with RedNation on the merits of artificial turf versus grass:
Still, others would argue that good quality turf now a days is no more dangerous to play on than grass.
Like The Equalizer and others have noted, every Men's World Cup has been played on grass since 1930. Why set different standards for the men and women, especially for such an important quadrennial event?
It's one thing to play on turf in the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) where budgets and options are tight, but the World Cup should be staged with the best of the best.
Other theories being tossed around suggest that FIFA won't truly care (beyond PR) about the women's game unless it brings in top dollars. Others surmise the women are being used to test the future of turf use in major tournaments knowing that the men would never put up with it; this extends into conspiracies that appeasing FIFA's turf experiments were part of a deal in potentially securing Canada the 2026 Men's World Cup.
From FIFA's perspective, there are little to no alternatives. Last month, Tatjana Haenni, "FIFA’s deputy director of the competitions division and head of women’s competitions," said, "We play on artificial turf and there’s no Plan B."
I'm also getting a sense that the turf debate is partly being affected by the new era of CanWNT/USWNT rivalry unleashed by their 2012 Olympic semi-final.
Coverage of the lawsuit often mentions key players like Abby Wambach and Alex Morgan (and to a lesser extent Marta, Nadine Angerer and Verónica Boquete) due to name recognition. But, the focus on Wambach and Morgan has seemingly fueled more trash talk. Some commentary on these matters are driven by the notion that Canadians hate being "told" what to do by Americans; the sometimes proposed solution of simply moving the tournament to the US is particularly rage-inducing.
Anyway, the Toronto Star is far from being a sensationalist newspaper, but could they have picked a more smug photo of Wambach?
In the complaint filed to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a number of potential solutions to the issue are suggested, such as temporary or permanent grass. However, if there's anything in the document that I find problematic due its unlikelihood, it's #81 to use BMO Field as a venue for its grass surface.
When Canada's bid was being made in late 2010, early 2011, Toronto already declined to host Women's World Cup matches due to commitments to the 2015 Pan American Games, July 10-26 and Parapan Am Games, August 7-15 (the Women's World Cup runs from June 6-July 5.) BMO Field, which will be known as Exhibition Stadium during the duration of the Games, will host rugby sevens; the surrounding Exhibition Place grounds (aka Exhibition Centre) will be the site of indoor volleyball, roller sports- figure skating, handball, squash and racquetball.
Not only that, MLSE announced renovations to BMO Field, including phase 1 slated to be completed May 2015 in time for the Pan Am Games.
With all that construction, branding and other preparations going on, how could that be a viable option? How deeply were those factors considered when making such suggestions?
Canada's bid clearly outlined intentions of using turf, so players were surely aware of it since 2011. Those speaking out against turf apparently felt "misled" by a survey commission by FIFA distributed at the 2013 Algarve Cup. They were under the impression that FIFA and the CSA would switch to grass given that 77% of survey participants preferred that playing surface. When it became evident that such changes weren't being made, counsel was obtained.
Perhaps the turf debate will help to progress standards for the sport and hosting the Women's World Cup, which are always welcome.
But, it would be a shame if narratives on turf eventually overshadow the fact that the 2015 Women's World Cup will be the largest single sporting event for women in the world; that Spain and other emerging soccer nations aren't given a chance to dazzle like France did in 2011; or that this World Cup and Olympic cycle is perhaps the last hurrah for Christine Sinclair.
I'd want this tournament to be something people are proud of, not embarrassed that Canada hosted.
|