Jump to content

Players Retain Legal Counsel in Fight Against Artificial Turf at 2015 Women’s World Cup


Recommended Posts

Reading it through the guy's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Surprised someone with that much difficulty connecting the dots writes for the Globe.  But then again this is a paper with a sports section about the size of the comics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 363
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Did anyone read this load of garbage this morning? Never mind the dozens of practice fields which will be used for community use afterwards which wouldn't have been able to be maintainted if they were grass. Nevermind the fact that women play on turf in their leagues year round. Nevermind the fact that part of the U20 world cup was on turf.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/john-doyle-the-insult-of-artificial-turf-at-the-womens-world-cup/article24735739/

Thanks for posting this, great article.  Maybe now with Blatter gone, Fifa's discrimination against women will cease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard them talking about this on the bbc last night. Interviewed one of the England players from their hotel in Canada. She said a lot of the England squad practices or plays on 3G with their club side so it was not a big deal. They would just have to get used to the different stadiums because the turfs all play slightly different.

Also talked about how Nigeria won the African championship which was all played on fake grass. The Nigerians felt that would give then an advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this, great article.  Maybe now with Blatter gone, Fifa's discrimination against women will cease.

 

It was my impression that Blatter was one of the champions of Women's football at FIFA.  I'm interested in seeing if things _do_ get better for women, or if they get worse.  My cynical side wouldn't be surprised if the big-money UEFA/CONMEBOL factions weren't interested in such a "side-show".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moncton Stadium.  A Ripley's believe it or not....

 

"In order to host matches for the 2015 Fifa Women's World Cup, the stadium was required to remove the grass surface and replace it with artificial turf. The stadium paid $1.5 Million for the conversion to Field Turf and is paying an additional $500,000 to create a new grass surface adjacent to the stadium for use where the turf surface cannot be used due to safety concerns"

 

Reprinted from Wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moncton Stadium.  A Ripley's believe it or not....

 

"In order to host matches for the 2015 Fifa Women's World Cup, the stadium was required to remove the grass surface and replace it with artificial turf. The stadium paid $1.5 Million for the conversion to Field Turf and is paying an additional $500,000 to create a new grass surface adjacent to the stadium for use where the turf surface cannot be used due to safety concerns"

 

Reprinted from Wikipedia.

 

How is it a believe it or not? The same thing happened in Edmonton and most other grass pitches in Canada over the last 50 years. FIFA requires all pitches to be the same surface (grass or fieldturf). A Serie A team uses field turf, the Russian league uses it, as well as most Scandanavian leagues. All top european leagues practice on it. The u20 mens world cup final in Canada was played on it. It's not a travesty. And IMO i'd rather play on turf in Canada rather than grass in Zimbabwae, I think others would feel the same.

 

In the long run they will save money on maintenance costs and it will have increased community usage.

 

 With the tournament starting in 2 days the focus should be on celebrating the players participating and their accomplishments. Not the travesty that is they have to play on million dollar turf that pro athletes around the world play on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm very late to this conversation and I apologize if this has already been discussed but I heard this week that Scott's Turf Builder offered to install grass fields at all WC facilities for free but FIFA declined?! And when asked about why, the rep from Scott's said they were not given an explanation?! I'm guessing it has to do with the maintenance after the WC is over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARTIFICIAL TURF WAS A CONDITION OF CANADA'S BID!!!

 

Why is this so hard for people to understand? If FIFA had placed a condition that it must be on grass then Canada would not have bid. In which case it would presumably have been held in Zimbabwe on grass. Now you may call me biased, and I will admit to it, but I think a World Cup in Canada on turf is infinitely preferable for all concerned to a World Cup in Zimbabwe on grass.

 

Gender discrimination has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It is just a case of hosting the best possible World Cup, and this is it! Why is this so hard to understand?! Unless of course you are of a PC bent and are determined to grind your axe with disingenuous and flawed arguments.

 

This. This and only this. Walk it off.

 

/thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm very late to this conversation and I apologize if this has already been discussed but I heard this week that Scott's Turf Builder offered to install grass fields at all WC facilities for free but FIFA declined?! And when asked about why, the rep from Scott's said they were not given an explanation?! I'm guessing it has to do with the maintenance after the WC is over?

Yes, I read this somewhere but I was unable to remember where. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm very late to this conversation and I apologize if this has already been discussed but I heard this week that Scott's Turf Builder offered to install grass fields at all WC facilities for free but FIFA declined?! And when asked about why, the rep from Scott's said they were not given an explanation?! I'm guessing it has to do with the maintenance after the WC is over?

If Scott's had offered to build new stadiums suitable for grass three years ago, they might have had a shot. A last-minute offer made for promotional reasons that would never be taken up because of its literal impossibility is slightly different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo.  First reference I remember was an interview with Abby Wambach, so take it with a grain of salt.

Thanks for saying where I had read about that offer.  Surely you can understand that such an offer would have upset the women even further.  I know you don't give a darn about their quest, but I do and I have a profound respect for women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Scott's had offered to build new stadiums suitable for grass three years ago, they might have had a shot. A last-minute offer made for promotional reasons that would never be taken up because of its literal impossibility is slightly different.

That makes sense. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for saying where I had read about that offer.  Surely you can understand that such an offer would have upset the women even further.  I know you don't give a darn about their quest, but I do and I have a profound respect for women.

 

First of all, I'm not unconvinced it wasn't an attempt by the USSF to poach the hosting as alternates like they were in 2003.  And second, they played their hand about as badly as you can play it.  Sue FIFA and then ask them to work with you?  Does someone really expect that to work?  There is a process to doing things properly and respectfully, had they followed it, I would have supported them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC were still going on about this last night during the broadcast. They had an ex leeds player who said it wasn't fair that they were using the women to experimenting with turf. She also said there were plenty of grass facilities in Canada that could have used!

Agree. And when one considers some grass fields were converted to turf makes the whole thing a disgrace and discriminatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree. And when one considers some grass fields were converted to turf makes the whole thing a disgrace and discriminatory.

Which one(s)?.  Only one, Monkeytown, and it would have been converted eventually because of maintenance costs. 

 

And give it a rest with the discriminatory BS, if that were truly the case FIFA has discriminated against teenage girls and boys as well.  Ergo Wambat evidently thinks she's above teenagers thus discriminating against them.  She's guilty of ageism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which one(s)?.  Only one, Monkeytown, and it would have been converted eventually because of maintenance costs. 

 

And give it a rest with the discriminatory BS, if that were truly the case FIFA has discriminated against teenage girls and boys as well.  Ergo Wambat evidently thinks she's above teenagers thus discriminating against them.  She's guilty of ageism.

I agree that Fifa discriminates against girls and boys too.  Wambach was not the only player to sign the complaint, perhaps the most vocal, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, the exclamation was to point out the ridiculousness of the statement. Clearly there are no other options. In no way do I see this as an experiment. In 2015, we clearly know what it is like to play on fake grass.

Amen, funny how the players don't seem to be saying much, they seem to want to get on with the job.  It's the people on the periphery who seem to want to keep beating this dead horse.  I've been watching the BBC coverage as well and it seems like their Lucy Ward just has a hate on for a lot of things, artificial turf being among them.

 

Totally agree with you, it's no experiment.  Ward was trying to blame the surface for Sesselman's bad passes.  Sesselman would be one of the more experienced players on artificial turf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...