COMMENT
At a time when plastic is the number one topic of
”
conservation conversation, the continued installation of high numbers of plastic pitches borders on being immoral, doesn’t it?
because it represents a transformative opportunity” to change “the poor state of community football facilities”.
Amongst those taking part in the DCMS hearing were Sports Minister Tracey Crouch and FA chief executive Martin Glenn. Clearly, the majority of any monies raised from the sale of the national stadium is destined to be spent on yet more artificial surfaces. Given that Wembley is ‘valued’ at £600m, that’s a further 1,200 pitches worth. However, the FA’s vision, back in 2015, was for 500 new artificial pitches. Has there been a strategic review of the required number or is this just FA flannel? The FA say there are 21,000 grassroots clubs, 50 county FAs, 25,000 schools and 330 local authorities which are catered for by the FA and, along with the finding that only one in three grassroots pitches are of adequate quality, the FA's written evidence also highlighted that:
• 150,000 matches were called off last season due to poor facilities
• One in six matches are called off due to poor pitch quality
• 33 of 50 county FAs are without their own 3G pitch
• Cancelled matches account for the equivalent of 5,000,000 playing opportunities lost this year because of poor facilities
• There are half the number of 3G pitches in England than there are in Germany
Poor facilities, poor pitch quality, yet no mention of the harshest winter in recent years, which surely was a contributory factor. And, whilst on the subject, no ‘all-weather’ pitch could have coped with the sort of weather thrown at it last winter. Some would say that 33 county FAs without a 3G is actually a good thing! And why does a comparison with Germany need to be made?
The debate surrounding the sale of England’s national stadium aside, Pitchcare has already highlighted how, with sensible
and ongoing investment into natural turf pitches across the country could be improved at a fraction of the cost (see Save our Spaces), but no one from the FA or Government seems to want to listen or even discuss the figures.
And there’s more...
3G grass is made from plastic, i.e. polypropylene, a substance that some claim will biodegrade within ten years and others say will not biodegrade at all. Chuck in latex and various chemicals and glues used in its manufacture, as well as in pitch construction, and a 3G pitch surely has to be one of the most environmentally unfriendly products on the planet?
The lifespan of a 3G pitch is reckoned to
be, with the correct maintenance, around ten years. Some recent high-profile installations have failed in under four years, having failed to meet FIFA’s criteria for playability. Some will last beyond ten years with exceptional maintenance practices. So, in around eight to ten years, there will be hundreds of plastic pitches that will need to be ripped up and a new surface laid. Where will these old pitches end up, I wonder?
There are already huge concerns about the amount of plastic in our environment
So, where are we now?
At the time of writing, the results of research into rubber crumb being undertaken by the EPA in the United States are eagerly awaited. Its findings were due to be published in ‘late spring’, but the silence, so far, has been deafening.
Neither is there any indication of when the report might be published, so the wait goes on whilst, all the while, more and more 3G pitches with rubber crumb infill continue to be installed in the UK; the majority at schools and youth sports clubs! Given that there is no definitive conclusion, and yet further concerns are being raised, surely it makes sense, as Nigel Maguire suggests, to put a temporary halt
on any further constructions that incorporate rubber crumb, or is that a step too far for interested stakeholders to grasp?
And finally ...
At a time when plastic is the number one topic of conservation conversation, the continued installation of high numbers of plastic pitches borders on being immoral, doesn’t it?
That is regardless of whether the rubber crumb infill is deemed to be safe by the EPA and, if it isn’t, what the hell are all these new installations going to do? And at what cost; both financially and environmentally? And, with each pitch installed in a commercial, chargeable environment, behind fences that would restrain the Hatton Garden bank robbers, soon will be gone the days when a bunch of enthusiastic kids could rock up at their local patch of green grass, throw down a couple of jumpers - or probably hoodies these days - and have an impromptu kick-about. We have already shown that, given the financial input - which is clearly available, Wembley sale or not - natural turf pitches offer a far more sustainable alternative. And that’s without discussing the injury concerns and the players dislike of plastic pitches. But that’s for another time!
Pitchcare has always stated that there is a requirement for artificial surfaces within our industry, but not at the risk to our children’s health and the wider environment. All we are asking is for a modicum of common sense until such times as there’s a definitive statement from the experts on the safety of rubber crumb infills.
The article’s author, Peter Britton, has been closely following developments in recent years and welcomes the support of other industry publications.
Articles you may find interesting on the Pitchcare website:
The New Asbestos? Don’t Swallow Is anyone listening? Or search ‘rubber crumb’ Save Our Spaces
PC August/September 2018 13
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
