TORONTO -- To begin, I would like to point out that my credibility as a soccer blogger went up exponentially on Thursday after me and a collection of other media members raised the Media Cup at BMO Field.
In the final we defeated a team that included Sportsnet's own Craig Forrest and some part-time player called Steve Nash.
In all seriousness, Nash is an unbelievable talent, but more so a great ambassador for the game in Canada. Commissioner Don Garber is keen to get the NBA player on board in some capacity, which hopefully means a franchise in Vancouver at some point.
The premise for the media game was really a clever way to assemble the local and traveling media in the city for a presentation of FieldTurf, the surface of choice at BMO Field.
Now, I understand their enthusiasm for the product, but during the entire 20-minute presentation I got the feeling the marketing reps were trying to convince the assembled group that FieldTurf is 'actually really good.'
Instead of just pointing out that the artificial surface is now used in 2,000 stadiums in Europe and over 150 in Canada, I felt like I was being forced to buy a set of encyclopedias I didn't need. To me, the surface is a viable way to play the game in our climate year round -- it is a business decision, and not so much a soccer decision. The experience I have playing on it was positive, with the only complaint being that the ball just does not react the same upon impact as it would with real grass. It tends to get away quickly, or an unnatural spin is created.
However, two interesting points came out of it all.
First: At the 2007 FIFA Youth Cup in Canada, 16 per cent of the total injuries were non-contact injuries -- meaning twisting knees, ankles, etc. Of those 16 per cent, 25 per cent occurred on the FieldTurf opposed to just 7.5 per cent on natural grass.
These numbers add credence to the ad naseum debate over whether or not it keeps players from signing in Toronto. Darren Huckerby openly admitted the dislike of the surface and went to San Jose. But, when a power-point slide came up in the presentation that showed how Norwich City uses the surface in their training facility, I had to wonder.
Second: Bob Hunter, Executive Vice President, Venues & Entertainment, for MLSE faced the music straight on when a reporter quizzed him about his knowledge of the protest planned for Thursday night and whether or not the Argos will be playing on the waterfront anytime soon.
Hunter acknowledged the planned protest, and proceeded to use a lot of 'ifs' after that.
He said 'if' the Argos end up playing at BMO, the intimacy will not be compromised. Then, he said that 'if' expansion is in the plans to accommodate two sports, it will occur on the south and east sides of BMO Field.
He concluded by saying that 'if' the lines on the field needed to change, a process of simply painting them then vacuuming them off with some sort of future vacuum cleaner would take place.
Read into the 'ifs' what you will. But he also said that any expansion to accommodate the CFL team would be an Argos' cost, and that alone may kill the plan.
Again, it will be a business decision, and if the intimacy of BMO Field for TFC games is not jeopardized, why should we care? There are 70,000-plus seats at Old traford in Manchester and the stadium houses various sporting events and concerts -- and I doubt you'll get the lack of intimacy argument from any who have been there. The influx of money is good for the soccer team.
I know MLS Commissioner Don Garber backed the idea to keep BMO a soccer-specific stadium (SSS) while in town, which I hope would put the supporters at ease and cancel the protest, because Thursday night should be about the good, and not the politics of 'ifs'.
