Last week, Sportsnet published an opinion piece, written by Donnovan Bennett, about the highly controversial use of artificial turf at the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup being held in Canada.
Bennett’s argument is straightforward: while many high-profile athletes criticized the intended use of artificial turf—chief among them U.S. forward Abby Wambach, who has continued to criticize the turf now that the tournament is under way—the lack of natural grass at this year’s Women’s World Cup venues is “not an equal rights issue.”
It’s a provocative argument—maybe even an interesting one—but Bennett is wrong.
The basic case Bennett lays out is this: Wambach, who championed the discrimination lawsuit against FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association over the playing surface, is a poor choice of spokesperson for the anti–artificial turf campaign because, Bennett argues, she’s using the turf as an excuse for her inability to convert chances. Bennett also makes the case that the turf is a non-issue because it “isn’t having an adverse effect on play,” and because “men compete on it all the time.” And what’s more, he argues, it’s a simple matter of economics—“a level of play issue”—since the women’s tournament doesn’t attract the same attention as the men’s tournament, and therefore the women shouldn’t expect to receive the same treatment the men do.
Let’s look at each of these points. First, Wambach. The 35-year-old soccer legend—with 183 international goals, she leads both men and women in all-time international scoring—is within her rights to complain about the turf. Yes, she is a polarizing player with a knack for making controversial statements. But whether or not she thinks the turf has negatively impacted her play is beside the point, since the controversy over the playing surface has never been about individual play (never mind that this whole issue was initially raised long before this tournament started and her production was called into question).
The argument has always been about discrimination: on the World Cup stage, the men play on grass, so the women should be treated equally; to force the women to play on artificial turf is sexist. Whether an individual player—Wambach or anyone else—thinks the turf is making it harder to score at this year’s tournament is a separate issue.
Bennett’s second point—that the turf “isn’t having an adverse effect on play”—is also moot. Whether or not the athletes are finding ways to score is irrelevant to the issue of equal rights since, again, this whole debacle was never about athletes claiming they didn’t think they could score on artificial turf.
Bennett is keen to note that men play on artificial turf in Major League Soccer and elsewhere—a fact that has nothing to do with equal treatment by FIFA at World Cup events. The issue has never been about whether men or women have ever played on artificial surfaces. Yes, artificial turf is widely used in North America, as Bennett points out, in large part because soccer is less popular here than it is abroad—meaning most cities don’t have the resources for a dedicated soccer pitch and instead must make do with multipurpose stadiums.
The point is simply that artificial turf is an inferior playing surface. The women—and men—who’ve been outspoken critics of the use of artificial turf at this year’s Women’s World Cup aren’t arguing that women should never play on fake grass. The point is that the FIFA Women’s World Cup is the biggest tournament in women’s soccer, and as such it should be held to the same high standards as the equivalent men’s tournament. To allow the games to be played on inferior turf is discrimination, regardless of whether or not the women are accustomed to that playing surface.
Bennett highlights an interview with U.S. team member Megan Rapinoe to underscore his point. She says: “[I]f FIFA is really serious about arguing that it wasn’t a second-rate surface, well, then they would put other major championships or other major games around the world . . . I think they would put those all on turf.” Bennett’s response to Rapinoe? “Artificial surfaces aren’t readily used around the world so Rapinoe is making a straw man argument.”
Let’s set aside Bennett’s apparent misunderstanding of the term “straw man argument.” Rapinoe makes a valid point. That FIFA would not allow the men’s tournament to be played on artificial turf makes it clear that they have a lower standard for the women’s game. Having a lower standard for the women’s game means both tournaments aren’t being treated equally—hence, it’s an equal rights issue.
Finally, Bennett makes the case that the use of artificial turf comes down to a basic case of economics. He writes: “The gender issues we should be examining are why there was only one bid for the Women’s World Cup in the first place. . . . The fact that only one country that was willing to take the women’s tournament on was up front about its plans of playing on turf is not a gender issue. It’s a supply and demand issue.”
In fact, while it’s true that Canada was the last bidder remaining when the 2015 Women’s World Cup host country was announced in 2011, fans of the sport will recall that seven countries expressed an interest in hosting the 2015 tournament. Most of those countries eventually opted to bid for other FIFA events instead, because as the CSA’s general secretary, Peter Montopoli, recently made clear, Canada had put forth a strong bid for the tournament and had the clearest shot of winning. The reason for this? The 2011 tournament had come down to Germany and Canada (Germany, of course, won the right to play host that year).
“Everybody knew it was our second time [bidding] and we were very serious,” said Montopoli. In light of the recent FIFA corruption scandal, the CSA has tried to emphasize that Canada was the sole remaining bidder for this year’s tournament in order to distance the organization from any whiff of bribery, wrongdoing or general scandal—any implication, that is, that Canada won the tournament unfairly. The awarding of any FIFA tournament is always political. But to imply, as Bennett does, that the women’s tournament received so little interest that only gracious Canada would deign to scoop it up is both unfair and unequivocally false.
Yes, it’s objectively true that the Women’s World Cup receives less attention than the men’s tournament. Whole neighbourhoods don’t seem to shut down to watch the games the way they sometimes do during the men’s tournament, many news outlets pay only cursory attention to the matches, and even Google doesn’t seem to think it matters all that much. But whatever lack of seriousness and importance is attributed to the game starts with FIFA. Until FIFA decides to value the women’s game just as much as the men’s game—and to treat the players with the same level of respect—how can we expect others to do so?
On the rainy day in April when the Canadian roster was announced in Vancouver, captain Christine Sinclair spoke passionately at a press conference about her goals for the tournament. She recalled fondly having witnessed games at the 1999 Women’s World Cup, hosted by the United States. “That single tournament, I think, changed the sport of soccer within the States,” she said. “The young kids that were out today at Robson Square can now dream of representing their country, and it’s normal. People don’t think they’re crazy.”
Sinclair and her teammates have a lofty goal: “to change the sport of soccer in Canada.” The hope is that by showcasing the game on its biggest stage, these athletes will inspire future generations. Bettering the game for future generations is exactly what Wambach, Rapinoe and others have been trying to do. “I think we’ve come a long way,” Rapinoe pointed out in that same interview mentioned by Bennett. But, she argued, the use of second-class turf at the Women’s World Cup “says a lot about what FIFA thinks about the women’s game.”
The same might be said for Bennett’s column. In making his case, Bennett tells us what he really thinks: “Comparing the Women’s World Cup and the Men’s World Cup is a futile exercise because they aren’t like entities.” The implicit statement here is that the two tournaments aren’t equal, and therefore shouldn’t be treated equally—and this is precisely the problem. FIFA needs to treat the women’s game like it’s just as valuable as the men’s. Only when they do will others follow suit.