Jump to content

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

Joe MacCarthy

By Joe MacCarthy
in Women's National Teams

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 363
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Joe MacCarthy Grand Master

Joe MacCarthy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Tom Hanks should be a Voyageur.

Why?  It seems most Vs are saying although they may prefer turf, they see this legal action as frivolous and disingenuous and that artificial turf was decided upon long ago, so why bitch so late.

 

And Hanks should have been a Roughrider

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trillium Newbie

Trillium

Posted
Posted

The claim against FIFA has some merit as no senior mens WC would ever be played on grass.

 

The claim against the CSA has no merit as various games across all age groups and genders have been played on turf in Canada.

 

Even if it could be proven that turf leads to more injuries than grass, I don't believe the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the body where the Application is to be filed according to the draft) has jurisdiction to address a national issue, much less an international issue, such as this.     

Your right ...on the jurisdiction issue, amazing error by the lawyers...or a calculated one. The WWC is a cross border event ( the borders being provinces ) thus a federal jurisdiction, CSA is under federal jurisdiction, the action should have been brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission,

 

The Ontario HRC will toss it out on jurisdictional basis, and the complaint will need to be sent to the Canadian HRC by the lawyers, they should do it fast or they will look dumber then they currently have proved they are.

 

A complaint to the CHRC is a slam dunk win....

 

"Providing someone goods, services, facilities or accommodation in a way that treats them adversely and differently."

 

The adversely argument will need to be be proved, i.e. injury rate, form of the game, etc. once done the differently on the basis of sex is proven as MWC's run on grass.

 

The only defence the CSA and FIFA organising ctte have is if they sought permisssion in advance from the CHRC to use turf, pretty sure they did not.

 

ad·verse  (abreve.gifd-vûrsprime.gif, abreve.gifdprime.gifvûrslprime.gif)

adj.
1. Acting or serving to oppose; antagonistic: adverse criticism.
2. Contrary to one's interests or welfare; harmful or unfavorable: adverse circumstances.
3. Moving in an opposite or opposing direction: adverse currents.
4. Archaic Placed opposite.

 

2. Contrary to one's interests or welfare; harmful or unfavorable: adverse circumstances.

 

 

I think most soccer "experts" who could be called to present to a Tribunal would answer the following question:

 

Is it preferable to play on natural grass fields versus on artificial turf fields for the Men's World Cup ?

 

With a .. Yes answer.

 

So is it unfavorable to play on artificial turf at the highest levels of the game ?

 

With a .. Yes answer.

 

Given questions as above and answers as above there is a high possibility of a successfull action.

 

Once you have considered these questions, decide if changes can be made to the policy, practice or physical structure that caused the complaint, to make it less discriminatory. As an employer and/or service provider it is your responsibility to provide alternative arrangements for people whenever possible.

 

If changes would cost too much, or create risks to health or safety, your organization may be able to claim undue hardship. However, it is not enough to claim undue hardship based on an assumption or opinion, or by simply saying there is some cost. To prove undue hardship, evidence must be provided as to the nature and extent of the hardship.

 

What undue hardship can FIFA argue when it has multi-milliions of dollars in its bank accounts, and the cost of natural grass would indeed be covered by sales of tickets ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rob.notenboom Community Regular

rob.notenboom

Posted
Posted

Honest question (in response to part of what Trillium posted above) - If the turf complaint were taken to the CHRC and won, would a complaint made about number of teams in the tournament also win? I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to also take legal action to get the tournament increased to 32 teams like the men's. An argument could certainly be made that women are disadvantaged ... 8 teams don't even get to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rob.notenboom Community Regular

rob.notenboom

Posted
Posted

In the adult side there are 209 countries with men teams registered in FIFA and 178 countries with women in FIFA.

More than enough to support a 32 team draw for women, no?

I fully realize the significant drop off in quality once you get out of the upper rankings of the women's teams, but maybe the fact that more teams had a chance to go to the WWC would spur more federations into better supporting their women's programs both financially and otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Admin Veteran

Admin

Posted
Posted

I can attest to older turf being horrible for turf burn ... like sliding on a cheese grater. As a consequence, you simply don't slide ever.

Otoh, we got new indoor turf last year and the amt of turf burn you get is not much different than grass. I'm not sure what kind of turf it is tbh.

 

Turf burn is not the issue.

 

There are differences between Turf and Grass.

 

The studies on injuries are missing a rather important but difficult to include bit of information.  How people play.

 

Turf is amazing, it really feels like a good grass field, but it's not.  And initially, I suspect, people did have a higher injury rate when the played on it like it was grass, because turf is not grass and it doesn't deform the way a grass field would.  So people who went out and played on it like grass because they hadn't adjusted their game were susceptible to certain kinds of injuries. Which is why you have people on one hand that swear it's true, and others that quote the studies. The studies were all done after people already adjusted how they play.

 

So sure, the injury rates may be the same now as everyone has played on it, or in some cases grown up playing on it.  Subtle or not, you don't play the same game on both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrennanFan Community Regular

BrennanFan

Posted
Posted

 

"Montagliani says the CSA spends a little over $4 million a year on the women's program—about twice the amount spent on the men's program."

 

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

 

They wouldnt provide us with an answer to this question at the Town Hall.  Now we know why.  Perhaps I can start a Human Rights Claim on behalf of the Men's Team over this sexist use of funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rob.notenboom Community Regular

rob.notenboom

Posted
Posted

Turf burn is not the issue.

There are differences between Turf and Grass.

The studies on injuries are missing a rather important but difficult to include bit of information. How people play.

Turf is amazing, it really feels like a good grass field, but it's not. And initially, I suspect, people did have a higher injury rate when the played on it like it was grass, because turf is not grass and it doesn't deform the way a grass field would. So people who went out and played on it like grass because they hadn't adjusted their game were susceptible to certain kinds of injuries. Which is why you have people on one hand that swear it's true, and others that quote the studies. The studies were all done after people already adjusted how they play.

So sure, the injury rates may be the same now as everyone has played on it, or in some cases grown up playing on it. Subtle or not, you don't play the same game on both.

Yes agreed and realize that. Only addressing the discussion about posted pics showing players turf burn with the above comment.

Then again, if players are sending out pics of their turf burn, they are kind of saying that it is the issue (or part of the issue) aren't they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Admin Veteran

Admin

Posted
Posted

"Montagliani says the CSA spends a little over $4 million a year on the women's program—about twice the amount spent on the men's program."

 

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

 

They wouldnt provide us with an answer to this question at the Town Hall.  Now we know why.  Perhaps I can start a Human Rights Claim on behalf of the Men's Team over this sexist use of funds.

 

Actually they did.

 

The women get more from Own The Podium, and both camps are in a cycle.  More money will shift back to the men's operations as WCQ begins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Admin Veteran

Admin

Posted
Posted

Yes agreed and realize that. Only addressing the discussion about posted pics showing players turf burn with the above comment.

Then again, if players are sending out pics of their turf burn, they are kind of saying that it is the issue (or part of the issue) aren't they.

 

No, not really.  The photos look good. That is why they are used.

 

If someone leaked an email that this is all set up by the USSF as a first salvo against even the chance we might get 22 or 26, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

That is not to say the concerns are not real.  I would like to see the games on grass, but we aren't there yet.  And I say we as a supporter of the game period.

 

I would love it if the Women's World Cup were sought after, bid on and financially as lucrative as the other. It's not there yet, but it certainly could be one day.

 

In this particular situation, where no one is kicking down the door to host this and neither the CSA or us for that matter are guilty of what is being accused, these accusations are a bad move.

 

I would rather see the millions it would cost to put grass in used to bolster the women's game in the very places were misogyny and shitty attitudes towards women run more rampant and deserve a kick in the teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trillium Newbie

Trillium

Posted
Posted

Honest question (in response to part of what Trillium posted above) - If the turf complaint were taken to the CHRC and won, would a complaint made about number of teams in the tournament also win? I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to also take legal action to get the tournament increased to 32 teams like the men's. An argument could certainly be made that women are disadvantaged ... 8 teams don't even get to play.

You can make honest arguments that 24 teams is appropriate, the comparison of women vs women, 24 teams vs 32 teams would not be based on a grounds of discrimination. Saying a women's tournament of 24 when men have a tournament of 32 could be an argument, and Human Rights Commissions have been known to make interesting decisions, but on this one I think any organizer of a tournament could argue having 32 teams is not viable for competitive reasons which would be a valid excuse for the difference.

 

To put it in another way... the qualification rounds for women, just winnow down the pool by eight more teams versus bringing them to the finals, the men bring that last group to the finals, both men and women declare a world champion, both men and women allow all federations to enter the qualifications leading to the World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rob.notenboom Community Regular

rob.notenboom

Posted
Posted

To put it in another way... the qualification rounds for women, just winnow down the pool by eight more teams versus bringing them to the finals.

Yes this is a good point. All teams can still qualify and therefore aren't excluded per se. And on a percentage if federations with teams basis 24/32 isn't that far off.

178/208 is 0.85 vs 0.67 ... Well not exactly that close either I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Admin Veteran

Admin

Posted
Posted

THEY PLAY ON TURF ALL THE FUCKING TIME! WITH THEIR CLUB TEAMS. THE USA AND CANADIAN PLAYERS IN WINNIPEG RECENTLY.

 

OTHER FIFA TOURNAMENTS ARE PLAYED ON TURF. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TURF! THAT IS THE ISSUE!

 

Slow down and read what I am talking about.

 

I am addressing the idea that turf causes more injuries. I am offering an explanation why both sides in this issue are actually correct. 

 

I am actually saying that turf is so good, it's so close to grass that those who are new to it, and played on grass all their life forget they are playing on turf. Hence this is where the initial spike in injuries came from.  Once people adjusted that difference, at least statistically seemed to go away.

 

I am not suggesting you can't play on turf.  I am suggesting that the required adjustment to bring the injuries back down to normal has a price in that the game is subtly changed. They are different, but not irreconcilably so.  There is no sense in claiming they are the same when they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...