WASHINGTON — A controversy is brewing in advance of next summer’s
Women’s World Cup, and it’s fundamentally rooted in some the most glaring
inequalities of the sport.
But on its surface, it’s all about — well, the surface.
The debate over whether football turf is a suitable alternative for grass has taken center stage as something of a physical signifier to the larger issues regarding funding and attention for the female game within soccer’s international power structure.
Canada will host the World Cup after winning an unopposed bid through FIFA, soccer’s governing world body. From an operations standpoint, the most suitable venues available to host the event are a half-dozen Canadian Football League stadiums: Olympic Stadium, in Montreal; Commonwealth Stadium, in Edmonton; BC Place, in Vancouver; Investors Group Field, in Winnipeg; TD Place Stadium, in Ottawa; and Moncton Stadium, in Moncton, New Brunswick. Each uses an artificial football turf rather than natural grass, because of the harsh Canadian winters.
This has become a point of contention among the top female athletes in the world — every men’s World Cup since 1930 has been played on a natural grass surface.
More than 40 of the top female players in the world, including American stars Alex Morgan and Abby Wambach, have filed suit against FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association, citing gender discrimination, illegal under Canadian law.
The players contend that the surfaces are simply not equal from a gameplay standpoint or regarding injury concerns. From a draft of the lawsuit obtained by ESPN, the players address three primary
complaints:
CSA and FIFA’s decision to hold the tournament on artificial turf is inherently discriminatory and injures an elite group of female athletes in three significant ways: (1) by forcing them to compete on a surface that fundamentally alters the way the
game is played, (2) by subjecting them to unique and serious risks of injury, and (3) by devaluing their dignity, state of mind and self-respect as a result of requiring them to play on a second-class surface before tens of thousands of stadium specators (sic) and a global broadcast audience.
FIFA has begun a public relations campaign to rebut these claims, specifically the first two.
FIFA then spoke with former Swedish national team doctor Jan Ekstrand, a professor in sports medicine and vice chairman of the UEFA Medical Committee. He said that “the total risk of injury is the same on football turf as it is on natural grass. We see the same result in all studies; there is no increase in injuries when playing on FIFA-certified football turf.”
However, Ekstrand conceded that there “might have been sore muscle or back-pain issues that were not part of the studies but that some players and teams have reported.”
Former US Women’s National Team player and current ESPN analyst Julie Foudy contends that those differences are not trivial. While the studies show roughly equivalent injury rates on both surfaces, they do not take into account more minor injuries and wear and tear on the athletes.
“Recovery is different, in terms of how long it takes you; your body, knees, joints hurt,” she says. “I read the Dr. Ekstrand interview. He says there’s no difference in the two surfaces. I don’t know about ACLs, but I know when you have top players in the game who refuse to play on turf. Thierry Henry won’t play on turf in the regular season, because of the wear and tear on his body.”
Then there’s the more intricate issue of gameplay. It’s not as readily apparent to the casual fan, but Foudy and her current counterparts believe it deserves the same attention as the men’s game, especially in the sport’s showcase event.
“With grass, you can usually tell which way a ball is going to bounce; you can get a feel for it in the first five minutes,” she explains. “Turf is so unpredictable. On the long pass, sometimes the ball skips off like a basketball court, and sometimes it checks up.”
Football turf has become increasingly popular over the past decade, especially as the technology has improved. FIFA is quick to point out that all of the fields in question meet their two-star level of quality, the highest mark they give.
“We’re seeing turf widely accepted,” says Darren Gill, with Field Turf, supplier of the surface for four of the six fields designated for the 2015 World Cup. “FC Barcelona has four Field Turf training pitches. Ajax has seven. In MLS, three teams (New England Revolution, Portland Timbers and Seattle Sounders) play on our product.”
District of Columbia Public Schools has installed Field Turf at 11 of its 15 high schools. The fields traditionally last 8 to 10 years, in comparison to the 3- to 5-year lifespan of sod. While initial costs are higher with turf, maintenance costs over the life of the surface are lower. Turf has also been shown to reduce serious injuries in American football, where contact with the surface is more severe.
At the prep level, it seems to make a lot of sense both financially and functionally. But at the level of international competition, specifically for soccer, even turf proponents understand the appeal of the natural surface.
“Who wouldn’t rather play on grass?” Gill asks. “When it comes to what Canada can offer, that’s what it comes down to. Those stadiums moved from grass to turf for a reason.”
A proposal has been floated floated to lay down sod on top of the existing fields just for the World Cup, to provide a more player-friendly surface without needing a change of venue. According to ESPNW’s Doug McIntyre, the cost of installing grass at all six sites is estimated between $3 million and $6 million.
But FIFA has not considered this alternative seriously. And while several million dollars may seem like a lot of money, Foudy doubts it is the real motivating factor.
“I don’t think it’s money,” she says. “They’ve got billions in the bank. It’s a drop in the bucket for them. It’s more about, ‘How dare you women challenge FIFA?'”
Even Gill understands that there are larger issues in play here, manifesting themselves through the grass vs. turf controversy.
“We’re caught in the middle of this debate, which is gender equity,” he says. “Turf right now is being used as that item, that discussion point.”
While women’s soccer has made great inroads domestically, it still has a long way to go around the world. If there is a positive already from the grass vs. turf dispute, it is that it has helped shed some light on the larger issue.
“I think what it does is it obviously highlights the inequities,” says Foudy. “It highlights the apathy towards women’s soccer. For people in America, who have grown up watching the women’s team play and think of it as equal, it is here, but it’s not globally.”
She cites an incident from earlier this year, in which the Trinidad and Tobago women’s team did not
have enough money for meals during World Cup qualifying. Of all countries, Haiti helped pitch in, only to find themselves out of funding.
Until there is fundamental shift in the leadership of FIFA, Foudy doesn’t know that substantive change will occur. With issues such the Canadian turf war, there are governing bodies that can make rulings under preexisting Canada law. But for the larger issues of public accountability, true change can only come from the inside.
“As we saw with the NFL, as every emerging company understands in business, you have to have a diversified group on your board,” says Foudy. “That’s the way the world works. You’re going to be more successful if you can do that.”
It will take a sea change in the way such issues have been dealt with, though, for that process to begin. Foudy wonders who the person will be to begin that process.
“Who’s in the leadership within FIFA who is going to say enough is enough?”
Correction: An earlier version of this article had the incident with the Trinidad and Tobago team occurring last year, rather than this year.
