Winter Sports - Football
The recent Women’s World Cup, hosted by Canada, will be seen as a watershed event for the game. Yet FIFA attracted much criticism for its insistence that the tournament be played on 3G synthetic turf. But what exactly were the issues surrounding its use and have any lessons been learned? Keen sportswoman Alice Northrop, and Pitchcare’s latest editorial recruit, looks at all sides of the debate
FIFA Women’s World Cup
A synthetic debate? T
he FIFA Women’s World Cup 2015 has been surrounded by controversy concerning the use of synthetic pitches in the tournament. The host nation,
Canada, was the only country actually willing to stage the tournament, in stark contrast to the bribery allegations, scandals and subsequent arrests involving the allocation of host countries for recent and up and coming men’s World Cups. Having decided on the venues, FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA) announced their controversial decision to use synthetic pitches. This resulted in 84 players representing 13 countries filing a lawsuit against FIFA in Canada’s Court of Human Rights, citing risk of injury and gender discrimination. Players from the United States, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Columbia, France and Costa Rica, including stars like Abby Wambach and Nadine Angerer, all got involved. It has been observed that, if these football players had been men, the lawsuit would most definitely have been featured on every news broadcast and website around
the world but, as those affected and involved were sportswomen, the lawsuit received a significant lack of media coverage. Not only this, but the players made it clear from the beginning that they had no intention of boycotting the tournament, meaning that FIFA didn’t feel threatened enough to do anything on their behalf.
The governing body delayed the case several times, slowing down the decision on the merits of the case. Hampton Dellinger, the lawyer representing the players, stated that, despite the players proposing compromises and being willing to do a deal, FIFA were having none of it. “They just would not engage.” he recalls. “They said repeatedly there is no plan B, this World Cup won’t take place on grass.” Additionally, at least three Football Federations intimidated players into withdrawing from the lawsuit. Teresa Noyale from the Mexican National Team, as well as French internationals Camille Abily and Elise Bussaglia, all withdrew from the lawsuit after threats about being suspended or dropped from their teams. Diana Saenz and Katherine Alvarado of Costa Rica also received threats, but opted to continue with the lawsuit. As a response to the withdrawal of these players, almost the entire German National Team signed on to the lawsuit, showing a solidarity and banding together in a way that
professional athletes rarely do. The lawsuit was dropped in January this year, after it became clear that FIFA had no intention of changing their decision in time for the tournament. With the World Cup fast approaching, the players needed to be certain of what surface they would be playing on. Dellinger stated, “In a world where you have two responsible parties, agreements can be reached. We certainly hoped that would have been the case here... Certainly we’re disappointed, but I think it was an important effort.” England’s Anita Asante said of the decision to drop the lawsuit: “Regardless of the outcome of the competition, it’s important that the discussions continue, and that it’s not just a forgotten thing. As much as it might affect players in the competition now, it’s also a question to think about for the future, for generations to come.”
Feminist issues aside, but certainly not forgotten, we are all left wondering what the potential risks to injury are, and whether synthetic pitches really do alter the way the game is played.
FIFA would argue that they don’t, and commissioned Prozone statistics and UEFA medical expertise to argue this for them. The governing body also have a Quality Concept for Football Turf, to ensure that there is a “recognised standard for football turf
PC AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2015 I 79
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164