No Field Turf for FIFA (Costa Rica pitch rejected)

[Guest Jeffery S.]

In spite of their promotion of the surface FIFA has rejected Costa Rica's request to play WCQs on the artificial turf at Saprissa. This confirms that we are long way from getting such surfaces accepted for official matches in Canada: TO stadium planners take note (though indeed the World u-17 was played on such plastic in Finland, and maybe FIFA would allow it at an U-20 tournament as a process of phasing in both its employ and players being used to it).

Article:

FIFA turns down request to play World Cup qualifiers on artificial turf in Costa Rica

May 26, 2004

SAN JOSE, Costa Rica (AP) -- Soccer's governing body told Costa Rican officials they cannot use Saprissa Stadium for a World Cup qualifier because artificial turf has been installed.

Costa Rican officials, who announced the rejection Wednesday, said FIFA rules state a team must play on a grass field if it has one. Games on artificial turf are allowed only under special circumstances.

Artificial turf was installed at Saprissa Stadium in March. Morera Soto Stadium has grass.

Costa Rica hosts Cuba in the second leg of their second-round series on June 20, eight days after the first leg in Havana.

[ray]

Well this could indeed be good for the proposed TO stadium. But of course very bad news for Ottawa and Montreal fans hoping to see some WCQ action.

FIFA really needs to stop sending mixed signals about artificial surfaces. Playing some official tournaments on FieldTurf (U17 men & U19 women) but not others is not helpful.

Well, at least we know.

[Gian-Luca]

Hang on a minute, the title of the post says "Fieldturf" but the article itself says "Artificial Turf" - do we know what kind of surface the stadium in Saprissa has? Perhaps it is the same type that Ivor Wynne in Hamilton has (which has not been deemed suitable to play soccer on) rather than the Fieldturf which Montreal & Ottawa has (which has been).

[G-Man]

Does it matter if FIFA never allows a 2 week, U-20 tournament to be played in Canada because of Feildturf not being accepted.

What matters is that OUR game get decent pitches. I'd rather have a strong 7 team Canadian League or 7 strong Canadian teams playing A-league or PDl (all with SYL teams) with 7- 5000 seat soccer specific stadiums with feild turf than a chance at hosting a few interantionals a year on grass.

Like I give a crap if Malta or North Korea ever plays in the new varsity. And you know England or Germany would only ever play in TO. Maybe, and a big if, the US hosts the World Cup again and they need a few pre tournament games as what happened in 94.

Anyway...we need to build our pro leagues first and then we can dream about cracking the top 70.

[G-Man]

Does it matter if FIFA never allows a 2 week, U-20 tournament to be played in Canada because of Feildturf not being accepted.

What matters is that OUR game get decent pitches. I'd rather have a strong 7 team Canadian League or 7 strong Canadian teams playing A-league or PDl (all with SYL teams) with 7- 5000 seat soccer specific stadiums with feild turf than a chance at hosting a few interantionals a year on grass.

Like I give a crap if Malta or North Korea ever plays in the new varsity. And you know England or Germany would only ever play in TO. Maybe, and a big if, the US hosts the World Cup again and they need a few pre tournament games as what happened in 94.

Anyway...we need to build our pro leagues first and then we can dream about cracking the top 70.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

This article from January in Spanish says the machinery for the drainage had to come from Canada but was delayed. At the end the comments about the grass moving like the real stuff in the wind and reducing injuries found in other artificial surfaces would imply field turf, assuming there are no other Canadian manufacturers doing something similar.

So this is a negative sign for our new generation surfaces.

http://www.diarioextra.com/2004/enero/06/deportes03.shtml

[Guest Jeffery S.]

This article from January in Spanish says the machinery for the drainage had to come from Canada but was delayed. At the end the comments about the grass moving like the real stuff in the wind and reducing injuries found in other artificial surfaces would imply field turf, assuming there are no other Canadian manufacturers doing something similar.

So this is a negative sign for our new generation surfaces.

http://www.diarioextra.com/2004/enero/06/deportes03.shtml

[Jarrek]

quote:Like I give a crap if Malta or North Korea ever plays in the new varsity. And you know England or Germany would only ever play in TO. Maybe, and a big if, the US hosts the World Cup again and they need a few pre tournament games as what happened in 94.

That's just the wrong way of going about things. I'm sure England and Germany would play in Toronto IF there was a decent stadium to play in. The Netherlands nearly did a couple of years ago.

Why should we as fans suffer ? Your argument is flawed because it assumes a call for the construction of soccer specific stadiums. One of the key reasons that large Canadian stadia have accepted the installation of fieldturf is because all of them host Canadian Football matches which wreaks a havoc on the pitch. Without the CFL in a soccer specific stadium, there would be really no need to install fieldturf.

But this decision by FIFA raises my greatest fear, that we will end up with another useless stadium that the Canadian Nats won't be able to utilize.

[Jarrek]

quote:Like I give a crap if Malta or North Korea ever plays in the new varsity. And you know England or Germany would only ever play in TO. Maybe, and a big if, the US hosts the World Cup again and they need a few pre tournament games as what happened in 94.

That's just the wrong way of going about things. I'm sure England and Germany would play in Toronto IF there was a decent stadium to play in. The Netherlands nearly did a couple of years ago.

Why should we as fans suffer ? Your argument is flawed because it assumes a call for the construction of soccer specific stadiums. One of the key reasons that large Canadian stadia have accepted the installation of fieldturf is because all of them host Canadian Football matches which wreaks a havoc on the pitch. Without the CFL in a soccer specific stadium, there would be really no need to install fieldturf.

But this decision by FIFA raises my greatest fear, that we will end up with another useless stadium that the Canadian Nats won't be able to utilize.

[massimo]

You guys need to know the fine print before judging what this all means.

As Gian-Luca states is it 'artificial' or field 'turf'

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE!!

Massimo

[Jarrek]

It's a Fieldturf installation. It doesn't really matter anyways. Both AstroPlay and Fieldturf are FIFA "Recommended" (whatever that means now), and I toubt that they would replace a grass pitch with carpet.

C'mon guys!

http://www.fieldturf.com/index.cfm?sportPage=main&pageView=installs

[beachesl]

The trouble with FIFA is that it will shy away from sticking to its "principles" if it is politically expedient. No oppositon other than Canada would agree to play on FieldTurf in Saprissa. Pipe's plans to play a WCQ semis match in both Ottawa and Montreal were doomed from the start.

[Jarrek]

Exactly. Why aren't we playing the World Cup qualifying game against Belize in Ottawa or Montreal? Both have bigger stadiums then the one in Kingston. Maybe this is a one off decision, but the next qualifier in September is also on a natural grass surface.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by Jarrek

It's a Fieldturf installation. It doesn't really matter anyways. Both AstroPlay and Fieldturf are FIFA "Approved" (whatever that means now), and I toubt that they would replace a grass pitch with carpet.

C'mon guys!

http://www.fieldturf.com/index.cfm?sportPage=main&pageView=installs

They weren't referring to 'carpet' (aka. AstroTurf) as you implied.

There are many different types of artificial turf, and as Gian-Luca pointed out, the turf at Ivor Wynne has been deemed not suitable for soccer, despite it not being AstroTurf (I'm not sure exactly what brand of turf it is).

Either way, this is ridiculous as apparently FIFA Approved means absolutely nothing in terms of getting the matches for WCQ. On one hand I feel sorry for the Costa Ricans who have just paid a handsome sum to install FieldTurf into their main stadium on the assumption that it would be approved for qualifiers, on the other I'm happy in that it eliminates a HUGE advantage for the Ticos, as Saprissa is a very intimidating place to play. I'm not sure how intimidating Morera Soto Stadium is though.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Jarrek

That's just the wrong way of going about things. I'm sure England and Germany would play in Toronto IF there was a decent stadium to play in. The Netherlands nearly did a couple of years ago.

Why should we as fans suffer ? Your argument is flawed because it assumes a call for the construction of soccer specific stadiums. One of the key reasons that large Canadian stadia have accepted the installation of fieldturf is because all of them host Canadian Football matches which wreaks a havoc on the pitch. Without the CFL in a soccer specific stadium, there would be really no need to install fieldturf.

But this decision by FIFA raises my greatest feat, that we will end up with another useless stadium that the Canadian Nats won't be able to utilize.

Another question to ask that would prove that that statement is flawed is, Who draws the largest crowds for soccer in Canada these days? the current clubs or the national teams? Just look at the attendances for the last WCQ's that canada played or that friendly versus T&T at Varsity, when have the clubs approached this level of support? Also, why should public funds ( ie.: Gov't $$$) be used to support a venture that will only benefit the private clubs but not Canada as a whole ( ie.: The national teams). That would make it a business subsidy and why should soccer get that over any other sport. Plus the gov't has already shot down that idea when they nix the tax relief package for NHL teams a few years ago.

To say that this facility should be constructed for the benefit of the clubs ( ie.: to hell with the National team) doesn't make sense given that there is no way that that the A-league will even draw close to 25K for a game in TO unless the MLS comes in. If the Lynx use it, fine but if its an A-league facility your looking for, then 10K facilty would be more suitable. Therefore natural grass is the only option otherwise the Gov't money will only benefit the argos.

[Jarrek]

quote:They weren't referring to 'carpet' (aka. AstroTurf) as you implied.

There are many different types of artificial turf, and as Gian-Luca pointed out, the turf at Ivor Wynne has been deemed not suitable for soccer, despite it not being AstroTurf (I'm not sure exactly what brand of turf it is).

It's a moot point as I was aware that the installation was Fieldturf anyways. Would Costa Ricans approve of something that wasn't approved by FIFA? The point that I'm trying to get to is that I'm sure the Costa Ricans did their research before installing this artificial surface.

The field at Ivor Wynne is AstroPlay, which by the way is FIFA Approved as well. The problem isn't the AstroPlay turf itself, it's the installation type. It comes with the Canadian football lines stiched in, meaning that they can't be removed. McGill Molson stadium in Montreal has stiched in lines as well, but it has a Fieldturf surface and the company that makes Fieldturf has a way of covering them up.

[G-Man]

The largest crowds in the game in Canada come for our Women. Canada plays Brazil and England on feildturf and 20,000 come out for each game. The U-19 CONCACAF qualifiers are being played on feildturf as well.

Our Men's team is a joke. And until we get the pro's producing the talent from u-14 and up, instead of the mom and dad youth clubs, we'll always trail Cuba.

So getting decent pitches for all should be a priority, and allowing the National program to develop out best has been a waste as well.

So we have a National Hockey team arena?

And when was the last time England played Wales in an exhibition? And they have Cardiff! Grass would never get them here. Canada would have to play them in England. Period. And for that to happen we’d have to move into the top 30.

[Jarrek]

quote:And when was the last time England played Wales in an exhibition? And they have Cardiff!

They haven't played England, but since 2000 they have hosted the likes of Brazil, Germany, Finland, Argentina, Czech Republic, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Scotland.

Since 2000, we have hosted ... umm ... T&T, and even that game was a sell out (10,000).

If the men played versus some recognizable opposition they would get twice the attendance the women get.

[CanadianSoccerFan]

quote:Originally posted by G-Man

The largest crowds in the game in Canada come for our Women. Canada plays Brazil and England on feildturf and 20,000 come out for each game. The U-19 CONCACAF qualifiers are being played on feildturf as well.

That's just cuz' this country jumps on the bandwagon... It's just the fact they win and the men just don't! Honestly, why would 50,000 people show up to watch Under 19 girls soccer in Edmonton????

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by G-Man

The largest crowds in the game in Canada come for our Women. Canada plays Brazil and England on feildturf and 20,000 come out for each game.

Nowadays the only crowds in Canada come for our women - we haven't had a proper men's match in Canada in 4 years and even the ones in Kingston in June will not be held in a venue large enough to get more than 10,000 fans - not due to a lack of popularity but a lack of grass elsewhere, as you point out. I think we might want to at least give the men's team a chance under their new coach first before labelling them a joke.

[Gian-Luca]

If the Costa Rican field is indeed Fieldturf I just wonder if its Jack Warner putting the screws on Costa Rica, a team that loves to play in Saprissa. Hey, stranger things have been known to happen. As others have mentioned, there's no consistency here from FIFA at all, regardless of the gender.

Hopefully they will make the Toronto field grass and render the point moot. This might actually help in the decision to go with grass or fieldturf for the new stadium, since it hasn't been decided yet.

[G-Man]

Maybe we should look at the U of T perspective?

They’d want their students to be able to access the facility on a regular basis. To them, student needs would probably be more important than Soccer Internationals.

They’d need to allow the East Indian Student Association to play its regular season intramural field hockey games at Varisty, and also allow the Gay and Lesbian Ultimate Sunday Morning League to have access. And the Student Conservative Party would also probably want to hold it's weekly anti-immigration and Kneel to America festivals there on Friday nights.

I think no matter how hard Kevin Pipe blows, it’ll be field turf.

[Grizzly]

I think it will take a request from a major nation with pull in FIFA and politically in general before any official men's matches will be held on artificial turf. At the moment Russia would be the best candidate since their national team stadium Luzhniki (cap 80840) in Moscow has been converted to Field Turf. However, they played their recent Euro qualifiers and friendlies at the much smaller but natural grass Lokomotive stadium (cap. 24000). Luzhniki is used, however, for Russian League games. There does slowly seem to be more and more acceptance of artificial turf in northern Europe. I was recently in the new Leipzig stadium which will be used for the World Cup 2006 and is quite impressive. The stadium president stated in an interview that had they received approval from FIFA and the German Soccer Association they would have preferred to use artificial turf instead of grass. Although I think everyone would prefer a natural grass surface in good condition to artificial turf, I have seen many matches including Bundesliga matches and certainly a large number of WCQ matches on natural grass fields far inferior to Field Turf. Regardless of the amount of care spent on maintaining fields, certain weather conditions and soil conditions make it very difficult in many locations to consistently maintain a decent grass pitch. Considering some of the horrendous surfaces that our men's team has played on in WCQ that were FIFA approved it is disgraceful that FIFA is not allowing matches on Field Turf which while not the best possible pitch is certainly well above acceptable. It is particularly bad considering that Costa Rica is the nation whose request was denied. Remember the pitch that our women's team recently played on in this country where ball bounced like a basketball. If FIFA can approve this surface how can they not approve the Field Turf surface which is far superior?

[Jarrek]

quote:natural grass Lokomotive stadium (cap. 24000).

Actually the capacity at Lokomotiv is 30,000 and not 24,000.

[Grizzly]

I got that attendance number from the Russian soccer association site but since I just checked the Russia-Georgia match stats played at the stadium where the attendance is listed as 30 000 you must be right. Dinamo stadium is a bit larger but also less than half of Luzhniki and much older than the other two stadiums. Were Russia to host a major tournament or be in a qualifying group with a major country like England or Germany playing in Luzhniki could become a big issue. For example, Moscow has applied for the 2012 Olympics and have made the final list although are not a favourite to win.