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

[Joe MacCarthy]

Ekstrand: The total risk of injury is the same on football turf as it is on natural grass
FIFA.com 07 Nov 2014

With the use of artificial turf in football the subject of much debate, FIFA.com spoke to Jan Ekstrand, Professor in Sports Medicine, team doctor of the Swedish national team in the eighties and nineties and currently vice-chairman of the UEFA Medical Committee. As director of the Football Research Group in Sweden, Ekstrand has carried out a series of studies on the risk of injury on artificial turf, which provide useful scientific data for this discussion.

FIFA.com: What kind of research have you done concerning artificial turf?
Dr. Jan Ekstrand: Some ten years ago, FIFA and UEFA decided to conduct joint research into the issue of injuries on artificial turf. UEFA, actually my research group, was tasked with performing research into elite football in Europe. We carried out a study on top teams that played all of their home matches on artificial turf and their away matches on natural grass in order to compare the incidence of injury on both surfaces. The study was conducted mainly in Scandinavia, but also in the Netherlands and Switzerland. I would like to point out that when we talk about artificial turf, we mean FIFA-certified football turf, what we call football turf or third-generation artificial turf.

Would you conclude that there are more injuries on artificial turf than on natural grass?
The results of all of the studies – the ones we carried out on elite football but also other studies on amateur and youth football as well as in other regions, such as America – are all entirely consistent: the total risk of injury is the same on football turf as it is on natural grass. We see the same result in all studies, there is no increase in injuries when playing on FIFA-certified football turf. Some studies show a small difference in the injury pattern, with an increase in ankle ligament injuries on football turf but a decrease in muscle injuries. I have to say that our studies only focused on injuries that caused absence from either training or matches. There might have been sore muscle or back pain issues that were not part of the studies but that some players and teams have reported.

Are there long-term studies for players who have played regularly on artificial turf?
Our studies focused on short-term injuries causing absence. There are no studies on the long-term effect of playing football in general, whether on artificial turf or on natural grass. This is because it’s extremely difficult to ensure a proper follow-up after 20 or 30 years.

What about leg burn after tackles made on artificial turf? Do you agree that we would not see such injuries on natural grass?
To our surprise, there was no difference there either. This was the most common injury in the seventies with the first artificial turf, which was basically a plastic carpet, but it is not the case today. In fact, we saw more instances of leg burn on natural grass. I think this is a myth which comes from the seventies, when artificial turf was first introduced.

What about the recovery time after injury? It seems to be longer on turf than on natural grass.
There again, there is no difference. All studies have reached the same conclusion.

Does the quality of turf make a big difference?
Well, we don’t know, because there are so many different types of artificial turf and so far there have not been any studies that take into account all of the different parameters. Maintenance is also a very important aspect that hasn’t been studied so far. The studies we have carried out give us a general result: injuries are similar on both surfaces, in general the rate is not higher on football turf. But some questions remain open: for instance, the effect of maintenance or the type of construction of the pitch.

And what about the quality of natural grass?
That’s a good question. We usually make a comparison between artificial turf and good-quality grass. But the reality is different; in many cases, natural grass pitches are of poor quality. I actually suggested at one point to test all pitches as we do for the FIFA-certified football turf, but economically this idea would be very difficult to put in place. But I know from experience in Scandinavia that almost half of all elite matches are played on turf because it allows for a longer season, maintenance is easier and the alternative would be a bad grass pitch because of the weather conditions.

What about the perception of some players who say that the game is different? Does it impact on the body?
The reality is that artificial turf is not very popular among elite coaches and players. This is based on the bad experience in the early days of artificial turf, but there is no scientific substance behind it. The potential impact on the game has been included in different tests and there’s no difference. Perception is one thing and reality is another thing. I visited most of the top clubs in Europe and almost all of them have excellent football turf pitches. Usually the senior squad doesn’t use the turf for training but the academy very often does. So I think it’s a generational issue; the new generation coming from the academies will be used to playing on football turf.

It is sometimes said that it is harder or more demanding to play on artificial turf for “older” players. Can you comment on that?
There’s no study that backs this idea. I think it is more a problem that these players are older and we know, for instance, that muscle injuries increase with age. And actually artificial turf could be potentially better for older players since, as I mentioned before, the risk of muscle injuries decreases on turf.

After all your research, would you say that artificial turf is a safe surface?
Yes, definitely, provided it’s a football turf with a certain quality.

Does the surface have a different impact on male and female players?
No, it’s similar. We have studied this question and there are no differences. But it’s difficult because people have this cliché. I can see it in Sweden, for instance: each time a woman suffers a severe knee injury for instance, people start to blame the turf pitch, but it’s absolutely wrong, there’s no scientific evidence for this.

[xcalibre]

I generally think their argument is weak, but it might be worth noting that the CSA bowed to De Ro and co.'s wishes to have every game played on the BMO grass

[The Ref]

That study quoted on a previous post was done only with men players, no women.

[Trillium]

That study quoted on a previous post was done only with men players, no women.

So Dr. Jan Ekstrand, did not answer fully when he was asked.... "Does the surface have a different impact on male and female players?"  And we do know that in medical studies... there are significant gender based differences.. for example reaction to drugs etc.  by the way Jan Ekstrand you can find out more about him at this link http://www.uefa.org/protecting-the-game/medical/news/newsid=841262.html .

 

 

[Joe MacCarthy]

Many of the women players in the World Cup currently choose to play regularly on turf for their club teams, so the HYPOCRISY in citing that as a reason to not have the World Cup on artificial turf is incredible!

Amen, there is a whole bunch of hypocrisy around the allegations.  Saw and agree with this post at BigSoccer. 

 

"I am amongst the people who definitely think that Football must be played on grass. But I am convinced, from the beginning, that this anti-artificial turf movement (only in the WC, but nowhere else) is hiding something. I don't know what, but I think it's not as "innocent and pure" as it looks. Even if the cause in itself is very respectable."

[rob.notenboom]

http://ow.ly/FenyS

More news.

[Ruud]

Amen, there is a whole bunch of hypocrisy around the allegations.  Saw and agree with this post at BigSoccer. 

 

"I am amongst the people who definitely think that Football must be played on grass. But I am convinced, from the beginning, that this anti-artificial turf movement (only in the WC, but nowhere else) is hiding something. I don't know what, but I think it's not as "innocent and pure" as it looks. Even if the cause in itself is very respectable."

 

Hypocrisy for sure - but what did you have in mind?  There are clearly some major interests who are lobbying in favour of the major turf manufacturers?  Turf wars are growing, as we saw in English Championship, and likely elsewhere.  Clearly, there is no money to be made by those promoting regular grass fields (greenskeepers associations don't sound like a major lobby group). 

 

What else could it be?  Turf fields are gaining traction everywhere - and a WC on Turf would simply cement this 'technology' into future tournaments....perhaps even in Russia (Putin is someone who I would say could actually stand up to FIFA and throw a big FU to anyone)

 

So, is this a Russian conspiracy?  If so, I can't wait for the report from Declan Hill on this one.

[Joe MacCarthy]

Women's World Cup turf opponents want audience with FIFA exec
Players challenging use of artificial grass at tournament in Canada
The Canadian Press Dec 02, 2014

 

"In addition to discussing playing surfaces and goal-line technology, FIFA and CSA [Canadian Soccer Association] can also address any questions the players have about the prize money available for the women's tournament," lawyer Hampton Dellinger wrote in a letter Monday.

 

"It is the players' hope that these issues can be satisfactorily addressed so that legal action is no longer necessary."

 

So is it, "give us more prize money and we'll shut up about the artificial turf"

[The Ref]

The above article also says "However, should the pending case need to go forward, the entire Australian women's team is prepared to join the over 60 players already participating."

[rob.notenboom]

I actually think that criticizing the amount of prize money (as well as many other things ... Number of teams in the tournament for example) is perfectly consistent with their position on artificial turf. It is a difference from the men's WC and therefore a potential target for accusations of discrimination.

I'm not saying I agree with their position, only that this statement makes sense from them.

[Vic]

It cost the Canadian government 15 million to host the Women's U20 AND WC, while it cost Brazil 14 billion dollars to host the Men's WC.  That's a 1000 multiple.  The winner in Germany in 2011 got a million.  The winner in Brazil got 35 million, at a 1000 multiple that means the winner in Canada would split 35 thousand, or 1/30th of the million the winner actually receives.

 

I'm sick and tired of hearing about bullshit lawyers and their demands du jour.  There are no lawyers, grandstanders, hijackers or blackmailers in the beautiful game.  Someone needs to lay down the law hard and I hope it's Valcke.

 

There are women in many countries in the world who are not allowed to play the game.  It would be nice if there were 15 players and an Australian team willing to stand up for them.

[The Ref]

There are women in many countries in the world who are not allowed to play the game.  It would be nice if there were 15 players and an Australian team willing to stand up for them.

Maybe FIFA should have a ruling that for a country to have a men's pro league they must also have a women's league.

[Admin]

 

There are women in many countries in the world who are not allowed to play the game.  It would be nice if there were 15 players and an Australian team willing to stand up for them.

 

This might be one of the best things said on the board all year.

 

[Trillium]

Actually ... I have been wondering if CAAWS... http://www.caaws.ca/about-caaws/board-of-directors/ has a position on the gender equity issues in this case, they appear to have very silent ... the question is why ?

[Vic]

Yes, FIFA should definitely tell Iran that. In fact, Blatter should fly out there and deliver the message in person. And while he is out there he should also give them more details on his "shorter shorts for the women players" idea.

 

He also said the future of football is feminine, which although poetic is not as sexy a soundbite so it's rarely quoted.

[Admin]

Yes, FIFA should definitely tell Iran that. In fact, Blatter should fly out there and deliver the message in person. And while he is out there he should also give them more details on his "shorter shorts for the women players" idea.

 

I think Iran had a women's team before we did, and their current women's team I think finished second in Asia last time around.

 

I remember a long time ago, when Alie Daie was a big deal, women were not allowed in the stadium. A bunch of women protested and it was sort of like Oh, you want to go? And they change the rule. No real fuss or anything as far as I remember.  So women have been going to games in Iran and playing for a long time.

[Sport Shaman]

So the Iranian WNT finished #2 in Asia against Japan, China, both Koreas, Australia, etc?

 

I was too lazy to look this up but if they did, then I am gobsmacked!

[Cheeta]

This might be one of the best things said on the board all year.

 

 

Echo that.

[elmateo]

I think Iran had a women's team before we did, and their current women's team I think finished second in Asia last time around.

 

I remember a long time ago, when Alie Daie was a big deal, women were not allowed in the stadium. A bunch of women protested and it was sort of like Oh, you want to go? And they change the rule. No real fuss or anything as far as I remember.  So women have been going to games in Iran and playing for a long time.

Women still are banned from attending major sporting events in Iran as spectators:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/verdict-due-british-iranian-woman-volleyball-sports-event

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/11/iran-urged-end-ban-female-football-fans-20131171494737790.html

According to this article, women have only been allowed into the stadium for the men's national team once in the past ten years:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/iran-womens-volleyball-barred-entry.html#

 

Their women's team has never done very well (they lost bit time to Thailand and the Philippines in qualifying) but they do have one and they do compete, after briefly being banned for requiring players to wear hijabs.

[elmateo]

I think it is unfortunate that the grounds for a discrimination case is being waged over the turf; in one sense it does work symbolically because they are attacking the unequal field of play but on the other hand, many people realize the inequality but are trying to take positive strides to ending the discrimination between men and women soccer players. That position is not being recognized by this type of action and is creating a lot of friction. That the CSA, and other national federations, does not have any clear plan to expanding semi-professional and professional women's soccer in this country (paying for a few players in the NWSL is okay but needs to be a stepping stone not a end-point solution) should be more central criticism. Women have a very hard time reaching professional levels and that is, in large part, because of structural discrimination.

[The Ref]

I felt Valcke's general tone to be condescending towards women.  At one point he referred to women players as "girls".  He opened his remarks saying he would not discuss turf fields, but then he went on talking almost exclusively about turf.  I feel Valcke misses the point in that there is no question about the power of FIFA to approve turf fields which he repeatedly was trying to emphasize.  To me the question is the women players prefer to play the World Cup on grass fields for all or any of the reasons they bring forth. 

[rkomar]

So, what's the solution that grass people are looking for?  The CFL is the primary occupant of four of the stadiums.  It's hard to imagine that half of the CFL can play away games for the whole month the WWC is on.  Do the CFL teams want to play on grass?  Would it be okay for both sets of games to be simultaneously played on the temporary grass?  Or do we move the WWC to small, grass stadiums that can only hold a small fraction of the spectators that the big ones hold?

 

I remember thinking that the grass in some of the South African stadia was really crappy.  Players making hard cuts ripped out big divots in the turf, leaving holes all over the field.  Add in the fact that CFL teams will likely be playing on them, and I'm not sure that temporary sod fields would be an improvement over artificial turf.

[Admin]

Women still are banned from attending major sporting events in Iran as spectators:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/verdict-due-british-iranian-woman-volleyball-sports-event

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/11/iran-urged-end-ban-female-football-fans-20131171494737790.html

According to this article, women have only been allowed into the stadium for the men's national team once in the past ten years:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/iran-womens-volleyball-barred-entry.html#

 

Their women's team has never done very well (they lost bit time to Thailand and the Philippines in qualifying) but they do have one and they do compete, after briefly being banned for requiring players to wear hijabs.

 

So it was a one time thing then? 

 

It looks like they finished 2nd in a regional Asian something, not Asia.

 

Still, at least there is a team.  It's a start.

[The Ref]

Without prejudice.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/world-cup-women-gain-ground-in-turf-war-1.2866533

[Joe MacCarthy]

The case, known as Wambach et. al. v. Canadian Soccer Association after American star player Abby Wambach, continues.

 

That says it all.