Players Should Refuse To Play If No Grass in WWC.

They needed the men to pull this off. If the men had joined them before Brazil and said FIFA had to commit to WC being on grass for say the next 20 years for both teams or no Brazil, FIFA would have caved. The women alone arent going to force FIFA to do anything.

 

I think they shouldn't have put that statement in the letter, as it took their biggest bargaining chip off the table. However, as a fan, I say I want a WWC with the first-choice players, even if its on turf!
More importantly, the women don't really have the power to do so. Right now, it's individual players who are involved, not federations. I doubt any federation, even the USSF, would want to become involved in this legal battle for the women's game. So an individual player could refuse to go, but then the federation would just take another player, or even a "B" team. (See the trip to Australia for the US WNT in 2000 when veterans were still engaged in CBA negotiations) No individual player on the women's side or even a small group of players (like this one) has the power yet to say "I'm not going" wherein the federations would back that with "ok, none of us are going."

 

FIFA has already approved the use of artificial fields for international play. There is a certification process for the fields: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/foo...allturf/01/59/48/60/iatsmanual2009edition.pdf

A couple of countries have played their men WC qualifiers on it already. So it's up to the local organizing committee (i.e. Canada) to provide grass fields. The 1994 experiment with natural grass over artificial and recent friendlies have shown that the grass needs to grow on pods that are installed over the field (USA 1994, Japan 2002). Just unrolling a carpet of natural grass makes the surface hardly playable and the grass dies in a couple of days. Question is: does Canada have the money to convert the fields to grass?

 

FIFA paid a reported $1.5 million to have turf installed in Muncton where there was a grass field this time last year. Let FIFA pay for it.

 

I have to wonder if the subject of turf was broached in Qatar. Ud think it would be hell maintaining grass fields at those stadiums they r building. Why wasnt turf explored there if it is considered a viable alternative?

 

Well, it's not a viable alternative for men. It is for women, because they aren't as fast as men and don't have the strength of men and therefore aren't as affected by the differences between grass and turf. Plus, it will be a good experiment to have the women to try it, in case we ever want the men to try it. It's sort of like trying drugs on mice before we try them on humans. And besides, Qatar doesn't have a budget limitation such as Canada has in terms of how much it will spend on its fields.

PS -- Lest anyone go ballistic towards me, I think my first four sentences above describe the reasoning of FIFA. That is what the women are objecting to. I'm 100% with the women.

 

One of the players (Morgan?) actually has a quote that the women are being used like guinea pigs, which is why I hate not seeing any of the men getting behind the women. Someone in one of the other threads on this topic made a good point this is a foot in the door for FIFA. If the experimentation goes well with the women, turf or at least the blended turf/grass for the men may come sooner, rather than later, and FIFA will have some precedence to point to when they start protesting.

 

By this point in the day there should already be at least one women's rights group protesting in front of ur house.

 

Where the FIFA thinking is at is evident by Qatar. While the women have no clue where they r playing in 2019, the men's sites have been accepted thru 2022. If turf is the future of WC as FIFA suggests why arent we seeing it in Qatar. It must be hell to maintain grass fields in the desert. Turf seems perfect. Also, most of the venues seem to be new construction...again perfect for turf. The only reason I can think of that they arent using turf in Qatar is it is considered unacceptable surface to stage a WC on. If that's true of 2022 turf, how can 2015 turf possibly be any more acceptable?

 

I liked how Ellis handled this question when it was put to her at half-time in KC. Basically came out supporting the appropriateness of the player's bringing forward their concerns. She did not full out endorse them, but felt like an endorsement, and a refreshing contrast from our duct-taped leadership at USSF.

 

The men already played on it. It's also only ~3% artificial turf... hardly comparable to a 100% artificial turf surface.

 

She handled the turf question pretty well but when it came scheduling questions she continued to pretend they brought her in from Planet 10 to take the job. She held a directors position in very same office all these scheduling decisions were made. To my knowledge Soccer House is not the Pentagon. If she had an opinion to offer about silly schedules Im sure she saw those people in the halls on a regular basis. Rather than dodging the question Id much rather have her just answer it.

 

At least they're not playing on blacktop.

 

I played in a volleyball tournament one time on a loose gravel courts so those things happen.

 

I played on original AstroTurf, which was like playing on Blacktop except that the carpet fibers were more abrassive than the blacktop it was layed over.

 

I had a similar experience at the Carrier Dome. It was basically the stuff from the miniature golf course back then.

 

As ud be the guy to ask, what does FIFA think about IVs at halftime. Is that covered in the rules?

 

For hydration?

Medical issue. No problem. England did it in the cup.

http://www1.skysports.com/FIFA-Worl...l-will-be-impacting-upon-england8217s-players

No problem in the NCAA either.

 

Thinking back to previous cups, a pretty famous USA case was Akers getting IV in the finals against China at halftime.

Didn't help enough, though.

 

RFK had that for a while.

 

Paying for one field so all are the same, I can see. I just don't see FIFA paying for 6 fields as Canada is a small nation and the profits small. If paying for the change meant higher profits or more votes, FIFA would do it instantly: it's in their statutes.

 

Posted on the CONCACAF WCQ thread:

Pour les fédérations: Suivre l'argent. The human beings running the federations wear golden handcuffs provided by FIFA and therefore do nothing. The players have the motivation, the top players can provide the resources, and the top players don't really risk much by filing lawsuits against FIFA - particularly as a large group. Regarding the consequences when an individual player fights the system - see Michelle Akers vs. USSF.

This is more important than many think. They are not whining. It is not a coincidence that the lawsuit can pursue gender discrimination to try and get what the "whiny" players want. Were it not for the gender discrimination in the first place, there would be no issue - the fields would be grass.

I believe the collective literature favors grass over artificial surfaces for soccer with respect to player safety, particularly with respect to wear and tear on the body. Also consensus says that the play of the game is different on fake grass than on the real grass. FIFA can afford to import fully grown real grass and plant it in the Canadian stadiums next spring and it will be ready for the WC. ( http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/06/surprise-fifa-movie-a-total-flop-cost-27-million-revenues-of-200k/ ). The players' home clubs do not have those resources and therefore many clubs have to play on artificial surfaces. The players are willing to play there so their peers can play professionally now and so their heirs can play professionally in the future. Different circumstances, different objectives, different strategies and tactics.

For our NWSL women, playing on fake grass is a concession, not a choice.

 

FIFA's willingness to shell out $27 million on a documentary about itself, at a time when its popularity has hit new lows (and when women's teams from poor countries are struggling to afford travel expenses) speaks volumes to their narcissism and hubris.