Turf war

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/12/2014 (3980 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

"To a greater goal": Witness the slogan for the 2015 Women’s World Cup in Canada, a message manicured to not only capture the Canadian women’s national team competitive spirit heading into its hosting duties next summer but one of a bigger scope.

The greater goal, the truly golden goal, is to celebrate women in sport. The world is watching, as they say, and having the best female soccer players on the planet will only help propel women’s sport forward in Canada and hopefully, around the globe.

Canada kicks things off versus China in Edmonton on June 5, 2015. The championship final goes a month later in Vancouver.

But as excitement for the tournament cranks up, as the anticipation for the historic event continues to build across the country, an issue simmers below the surface of smiles and enthusiasm. A number of players — including some of the biggest names in the game — are less than thrilled with the prospects of playing the showcase event on artificial turf, and not the preferred grass pitch.

No World Cup, men’s or women’s, has been played on artificial turf to date.

This surface reality, in the form of a human rights/discrimination complaint currently in front of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, may not be resolved by the time the Women’s World Cup gets going but that doesn’t make it any less significant. Big picture, the matter is about gender imbalance, discrimination, money and the true value of the women’s game inside the international soccer community.

For some, it’s an issue that can’t be swept under the rug.

* * *

Let’s start with some background.

Back in October, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario received an application complaint from law firms representing 40 women soccer players — a list that includes U.S. star Abby Wambach and Germany’s Nadine Angerer, the 2012 and 2013 FIFA players of the year respectively — regarding the artificial turf in the six stadiums designated as venues for the 2015 Women’s World Cup.

The players contend FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association are discriminating against women by forcing them to play on the artificial turf surface when the men were allowed to play on grass in last summer’s World Cup in Brazil.

The venues in question are BC Place (Vancouver), Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton), Olympic Stadium (Montreal), TD Place Stadium (Ottawa), Investors Group Field (Winnipeg), and Moncton Stadium.

Wambach has been vocal about the use of synthetic surfaces in the World Cup as far back as March 2013, telling Sports Illustrated the event would be a “travesty and a nightmare” for the players if artificial turf is used.

The anti-turf position is pretty clear: soccer is a different game when it’s not played on grass. The ball skids along the artificial surface and doesn’t allow for passes into open space. The ball bounces too much. Injuries are frequent, they feel.

Big picture, the player’s lawyers say, this is a complaint about equality and discrimination. Though men’s and women’s college and professional leagues have settled on artificial turf over the years, the instances of high-level international play on anything but grass in the men’s game have been few and far-between.

The CSA’s bid to host the event included play on artificial turf. Those were the ground rules, they say. They insist the turf is not a “second-class” playing surface and that only the highest quality of Field Turf (FIFA 2-Star recommended) will be used. It should be noted the Canadian bid to host the games was the only option for the 2015 event.

FIFA has refused to budge on the turf war, insisting there is no ‘plan-B’ for the stadiums to install temporary grass and that the men will see a move to artificial turf “sooner rather than later” for World Cup play — a proclamation from FIFA Secretary-General Jerome Valcke that’s been met with a healthy serving of skepticism.

Just FYI: the men are scheduled to play the next two World Cups (2018 and 2022) on grass.

The case has flown under the radar until recently (the group draw took place last weekend, with nary a peep of the complaint), but the legal posturing has continued. The tribunal refused a request to expedite the hearing, putting serious doubt that a resolution would be heard in time for any potential changes to the stadiums to make the switch to grass.

Then there’s the matter of authority; CSA lawyers have raised doubts an Ontario-based tribunal decision would have jurisdiction over venues in other provinces.

The CSA has refused to meet with the players in mediation, an offer put forward by the tribunal to work towards a compromise. Threats of intimidation towards those listed on the complaint have been alleged; accusations that FIFA is forcing national soccer organizations to lean on their athletes. It’s been reported that three players, Mexico’s Teresa Noyola, along with French players Camille Abily and Elise Bussaglia, have received pressure from national soccer organizations to back out of the suit.

Despite this suspected strong-arming, U.S.-based lawyers behind the complaint say the list of international players tied to the suit has actually grown, up to 60 names at last count.

As expected, FIFA isn’t saying much on the matter. The CSA would not comment to the Free Press, either, indicating they would not be granting any interviews with president Victor Montagliani or other officials on the subject.

 * * *

Donna Seale counts 19 years as a human rights lawyer in Winnipeg. She believes the players have a solid case.

Seale says the players’ strongest play is to argue discrimination on the basis of sex, given how the men just played their World Cup on grass. Introducing this new era of World Cups on artificial turf at the exact same time the women’s tournament is on deck is a convenient coincidence for FIFA, she says.

Practically, the debate on artificial turf being an inferior surface exists, Seale says, citing the numerous complaints about how game play changes, how the ball responds differently on the synthetic grass and the frequency of injury — minor or otherwise — increases.

“They’re also going to argue from a systemic perspective: what the message that FIFA and the CSA are saying is that ‘you guys are good, but you’re not good enough. You’re not as good as the men are; the artificial surface is good enough for you.’ And that’s an affront to their dignity as women, as elite female athletes,” Seale says.

“Making those two arguments, I think they would quite easily make a prima facie case for discrimination.”

With that position set on one side, Canadian human rights law puts the burden on FIFA and the CSA to counter the artificial turf used for the Women’s World Cup is equal to grass on the basis of play/health, and that no bigotry is taking place. Seale labels this difference in opinion “the live issue” and the outcome of the hearing (if the complaint actually gets that far) will likely be determined on which side can present a more compelling case.

The soccer organizations could also argue the price tag of turning over the turf for grass in the six venues would be too great and that it couldn’t be done in time for the event. Seale figures FIFA and the CSA will hedge their bets on this issue alongside the discrimination argument, pointing out that there is sufficient justification for the use of artificial surfaces for this tournament. The cost of installing grass in the turf stadiums — estimates fall in the $3 million range total for all six venues — is a counterpoint made by the CSA, as is unpredictable climate and the overall general soccer facility infrastructure in Canada.

Changing the fields to grass would come at a significant cost to the cash-strapped CSA, which has an approximate budget of $90-million for the event.

For a global moneymaking monster like FIFA, though, the cost to lay some temporary sod down would be a little easier to swallow. It’s been reported FIFA turned a $2-billion profit from the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. One can understand why the players would feel short-changed here.

“Everything from stadiums to the quality of practice fields would come into this financial argument,” Seale says. “Consistency of surfaces for the players in the tournament is something that could be argued in the case for artificial turf.”

Officials actually replaced the grass at Moncton Stadium with artificial turf for the World Cup, citing a consistent surface across the country for the players to play on.

Another element to the case is the fact those players listed on the complaint are not planning to boycott the tournament. While some observers scoff at the player’s lacklustre resolve — if they don’t care enough to boycott, why should anyone else? — Seale says, from a legal perspective, the players choosing to play should not hurt their case.

“The women may say, ‘We’ll go through it this time but we want this dealt with for the future, because we don’t want to have this set as a precedent,’” she says. “Playing in the tournament won’t undermine their discrimination argument.”

With a hearing unlikely to happen before the event, or in time to make significant alterations to the stadium pitch plan, Seale wonders if there’s an opportunity for a show of good faith from both sides in this dispute.

“The hope is in a case like this is that there might be some time taken for reflection, and that some minds or positions might soften. That’s how a resolution will come about before the tournament.”

 * * *

Carrie Serwetnyk’s position on the 2015 Women’s World Cup was cemented four years ago on another continent, halfway around the world.

In South Africa for the men’s 2010 World Cup, the former women’s national team player took a day trip for a tour of the Robben Island prison, where human rights leader Nelson Mandela spent 19 years in captivity. Her tour guide was a former prisoner on the island, and a conversation about the current World Cup, the hope it brought to the region, moved Serwetnyk to consider how the women’s event, then rumoured to be awarded to Canada, might make a social impact back home.

“He mentioned that what took place during the World Cup was how black and whites, brothers and sisters, came together, and how this was something that would have taken generations to accomplish,” says Serwetnyk, who from that experience started a program called Why the World Cup Matters in 2012. She now heads up an organization called Equal Play FC, which hopes to promote a legacy of gender equality in all levels of soccer in Canada.

“That stuck in my head: the Women’s World Cup could be used as a springboard to promote equity change in this country.”

There are approximately 900,000 registered soccer players in Canada, with women and girls making up over 40 per cent. Despite that number, Serwetnyk says, women have not made much headway into leadership positions — be it front office or on the sidelines as a head coach — within the national soccer program stream.

“The leaders of the women’s game are still men,” she says.

Regionally, a similar picture is painted. A quick search of provincial soccer associations reveals male domination in technical director and decision-maker positions. At the Canadian university level, a quality of competition that for some could be an important step towards the national program, nine of the 10 coaches leading the Top 10-ranked programs are men.

These aren’t just optics, Serwetnyk says. This is the inequality truth.

“For example: at a Vancouver Whitecaps game you see the players come out with little boys and girls and it’s all cute, and everyone thinks things are fine,” she says. “Well, it’s not like that at all. The Whitecaps cut its women’s program a couple years ago. How is that promoting an equal playing field when there’s no opportunity for young women to develop and actually be a part of things?

”I have no doubt you’ll see the same thing before the (Women’s) World Cup games, too. The message from FIFA and the CSA to those little girls is pretty disappointing.”

The first woman inducted into the Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame (2001), Serwetnyk also questions the CSA financial support system. She asserts the women’s program, which is ranked No. 8 in the world and still riding a wave of public profile following a bronze medal at the 2012 Olympic Games, only sees a fraction of funding that the under-whelming (and once again rebuilding) men’s program receives.

That claim has been rebuffed by the CSA, citing additional funding for the women’s program through the support and placement of a number of players on professional teams in National Women’s Soccer League and internationally over the last two years.

 * * *

In April 2013, following a match on artificial turf, U.S. player Sydney Leroux posted a photo of her legs on Twitter with the caption ‘This is why soccer should be played on grass!’

The gruesome image, which shows huge patches of turf burn on her outer shins and wounds to scraped knees that look to have been re-opened, grabbed the attention of NBA stars Kobe Bryant and Kevin Durant, who re-posted the picture to their millions of social media followers in a show of support.

Soccer players from across the globe have weighed in on the issue, as have other athletes from other sports. A vote for the anti-turf group is a vote for equality, and support is strong. Even actor Tom Hanks had something to say on social media about it.

The notion artificial turf causes more injuries is a popular one, though it’s difficult to find evidence beyond the anecdotal. “The achiness, taking longer to recover than on natural grass, the tendons and ligaments are, for me at least, I feel more sore after turf. It takes longer to recover from a turf field than natural grass,” U.S. forward Alex Morgan told the USA Today in October.

Morgan’s position is common inside the women’s game, which spends a lot of time on turf at the professional and collegiate level. Grass is a lot more forgiving, they say.

Jan Ekstrand is the director of the Football Research Group in Sweden and as such, has carried out a series of studies examining the risk of injury on artificial turf. In an interview with FIFA.com in November, he indicated there was no difference in frequency of serious injuries on artificial turf or grass and that there is no substantial evidence that recovery time increases for those playing on turf.

And about that burn on Leroux’s legs?

“To our surprise, there was no difference (between artificial turf and grass) either. This was the most common injury in the ’70s with the first artificial turf, which was basically a plastic carpet, but it is not the case today. In fact, we saw more instances of leg burn on natural grass.”

Clearly Ekstrand isn’t on Twitter.

Even members of the Manitoba Bisons football team, who play on the artificial surface at Investors Group Field and know a thing or two about playing on the different surfaces, have a hard time digesting Ekstrand’s burn assertion.

“Getting slammed down to the turf, I find it to be a little harder — and we are on some of the best turf out there,” offered receiver Nic Demski. “But turf burn, yeah, it sucks.”

Running back Kienan LaFrance called the burn “part of the business of playing now” and said he understands why soccer players prefer the grass.

“I’ve never had a bad burn on grass before, not like I have on turf. There’s no real way to treat it, other than just giving it a chance to heal. It burns in the shower the first day, and when you sweat sometimes it stings, but I look at it this way: be thankful you don’t have a major injury.”

 * * *

With opinions on the subject seemingly everywhere, conspicuously absent from the turf/grass discussion are members of the Canadian Women’s National team.

The players have stayed out of it, either by choice or through instruction. The only comments came in October, and they read like a well-manicured statement prepared by a team of public relations professionals and seasoned lawyers.

“Everyone would love to play on grass, but it’s not our focus,” Canadian captain Christine Sinclair told the Canadian Press. “We’ll let other people worry about the surface, and we’ll prepare for the tournament. As a Canadian, it’s an honour to have the World Cup in Canada and we want to do well in it.”

Understandably, the players are in a tough spot, stuck between the rock of personal preference of surface tied to a bigger idea of equality in sport and the hard place of speaking out against the organization that can help pave the way for national and international dreams on the pitch.

The CSA, which is moonlighting as the tournament organizing committee, denied a Free Press request to interview members on the women’s national team roster on this issue. No surprise there. These are tricky waters and many of the players are not guaranteed spots on the Canadian roster for the World Cup.

Welcome to a no-win situation. Speak out against turf, and put your spot in peril. Say nothing, and deal with criticism of selling out your gender through silence. For a sport that celebrates its commitment to race and gender equality, this all seems a little backwards.

“No question they are caught in the middle,” says Tracy David, a former national squad member and longtime head coach of the University of Victoria women’s soccer team. “You can’t expect them to come out guns-a-blazing against the CSA. For someone like Christine Sinclair to come out against her national team at such an important time, that’s a lot to ask.”

David, who helped establish university varsity women’s soccer in Canada, believes only roster locks — the Sinclairs, the Erin McLeods, the Desiree Scotts — would be able to voice an opinion on the matter without facing program repercussions.

Sandra Kirby, a gender equity expert at the University of Winnipeg, agrees.

“Athletes who are near retirement would be more likely to speak out, but typically athletes involved in high-performance sport are not typically people who are out-spoken,” says Kirby, a former Olympic rower. “Part of staying on the path to the Olympics and World Cup means towing the line and being uniform. It’s discouraging, but I’m not surprised.”

Part of the reason for the silence can be traced back to previous dust-ups between the women’s national team and the CSA. Charmaine Hooper, the marquee player in Canadian women’s soccer before Sinclair came along, famously butted heads with the CSA in 1999 over funding and preparation. In 2006, Hooper and two others were suspended by the CSA after failing to suit up in a pair of exhibition matches against China. The three players argued they were pressured to join the Vancouver Whitecaps women’s program, and locked horns with the CSA and former coach Evan Pellerud in a Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada hearing where players had to testify against other players.

“(Hooper) paid dearly for some of the things she stood up for, but she felt strongly about her position,” David says. “She wanted things to be equal to the men. She wanted the program to be a positive example. You can’t fault her for that.”

Serwetnyk is also sympathetic to the player’s current situation, and figures the CSA and those close to the organization are simply crossing their fingers in hopes the complaint goes away. She’s disappointed the bigger issues of discrimination and equality haven’t found more of a voice.

“Everybody wants to be in the sushi party,” she says. “People want to enjoy the party without any personal sacrifice. You can bet there will be a lot of people in front of the cameras talking about how wonderful everything is leading up to the event.

“Ten years from now, though, I worry we will look back at this with regret.”

Seale, who coaches girls youth soccer, also wonders about the ramifications of the turf/grass issue, and how the positions from the CSA and FIFA will be perceived when pre-teen female players mature and better understand the gender equality debate.

The greater goal, the true celebration of women in sport, won’t be realized if the artificial turf remains.

“What does that message say to those young girls?” Seale asks. “That they can work hard and they can get to that level, only to have the system tell them that they’re not quite good enough or equal to men.

“That to me is quite disappointing. I hope there can be a positive outcome from this.”

 

adam.wazny@freepress.mb.ca