Were the US women’s soccer team right to boycott their own victory tour? – The Guardian (blog)

When the US women’s national team threatened to boycott a friendly in Hawaii on Sunday (the game was subsequently called off), it was not the first time the players had complained about playing conditions.

Tensions have been rising around the surfaces that the team have been forced to play on since the Women’s World Cup. Then, the players turned to litigation to argue against the disparity between the venues at the men’s and women’s World Cups, but ultimately played on.

But the last straw seemed to come on Saturday, when USA midfielder Megan Rapinoe, one of the stars of the World Cup, tore her ACL just eight months before the 2016 Olympics.

It wasn’t simply an artificial turf v grass issue. After all, Rapinoe’s injury occurred on a grass training field that the players also deemed substandard. Rather, they said, it was an issue of gender equality – they believe the US men’s team would never be asked to play on the same pitch.

Do they have a point?

A different approach

A look back at the venues chosen by US Soccer for their men’s and women’s teams over the past year suggests a difference in stadium selection. Although pitch safety is not as simple as grass v artificial turf, the former is widely considered the gold standard. Players prefer it because they believe it causes fewer injuries and allows the game to be played more naturally.

Of 15 matches the men played in the US this year, 10 had natural grass surfaces. Of 14 stateside matches on the women’s schedule, only six are on grass. But perhaps more glaring is that even when the US men and women play at similar venues, US Soccer treats the pitch differently.

For the five matches the men played on artificial turf, US Soccer installed temporary grass over the field. This was not the case for any of the women’s matches. That disparity stretches well beyond this year, but after this weekend’s trip to Hawaii, it appears the players have had enough.

“The team needs to be a little more vocal about whether this is good for our bodies and whether we should be playing on it if the men wouldn’t,” star forward Alex Morgan told reporters in Honolulu. “We’ve been told by US Soccer that the field’s condition and the size of the field are the first two talking points when they decide on a field, so I’m not sure why eight of our 10 victory tour games are on turf whereas the men haven’t played on turf this year.”

It’s debatable whether laying down temporary grass over artificial turf is any better than just playing directly on artificial turf. Mexico threatened to pull out of a match this year against the US men at the Alamodome over concerns about the quality of the temporary grass (the match went ahead without a hitch). But the last time the US women played at the Alamodome in 2013, they played directly on the artificial turf and Australia striker Kyah Simon suffered a non-contact ACL tear within 30 seconds of entering the match.

Rapinoe earlier this year recalled picking bolts off the field at a Victory Tour venue and joked that her “ankles could use some nice, soft grass for once”.

The breaking point

Aloha Stadium, the venue for Sunday’s cancelled friendly, also has artificial turf. The players say the reason for their boycott is not because the field wasn’t grass, but rather that it was unsafe and hadn’t been inspected ahead of time.

“There were sharp rocks ingrained all over the field,” the players said in an open letter signed by the team. “The artificial turf was actually pulling up out of the ground, and the turf itself was both low-grade and aging. This was a playing surface that looked like it hadn’t been replaced in years.”

Despite reports to the contrary, US Soccer denies that there is any difference in the vetting process for venues for the men’s and women’s teams. Rather, the venues that US Soccer selects for matches are always fully operational and in-use for sports, leading to the reasonable assumption that these venues would be equipped to host a soccer match. But that assumption is apparently what led to this weekend’s controversy.

“We were aware that Aloha Stadium hosts the NFL Pro Bowl and University of Hawaii football matches,” US Soccer spokesman Neil Buethe told the Guardian. “Due to that available information, we had every reason to believe the field quality would be up to the standard we require for international soccer and we did not do a formal inspection in advance of selecting the venue.

“Upon closer inspection on Saturday during the team’s training, concerns were raised about uneven seams and hard plastic pellets used as infill material on the turf’s surface,” he added. “While that may be acceptable or common for other events on the field, it was determined that the field was simply not suitable for a 90-minute soccer match.”

US Soccer agreed with the players and opted to cancel the match. Abby Wambach told Fox Sports 1: “We couldn’t step on that field in good conscience and know we’d come off the field 100%. Losing Megan the other day is in the back of our heads.”

Fostering change

An argument could be made that if US Soccer planned to cover over the artificial turf with grass, the field condition may have been noticed earlier, which goes back to the question of why the men’s and women’s teams appear to be asked to play on different surfaces.

From US Soccer’s perspective, there is surely an economic argument to make. For instance, the last time the men played at Seattle’s CenturyLink Field was on a weeknight in 2013 and they attracted 41,000 fans and played on a temporary grass field. Two months ago on a weeknight at the same venue, the women attracted nearly 27,000 fans and played on artificial turf. The cost of laying down grass cuts into US Soccer’s margins and larger crowds mean more money to make adjustments.

But the women, for their part, are drawing larger crowds than they ever have before and have more leverage than in the past. For instance, their World Cup send-off match this year at Red Bull Arena, which has natural grass, drew a sellout crowd of more than 26,000. Four years ago, they also hosted their World Cup send-off match at the same venue, but drew a paltry 5,800 fans. These days, endorsement deals continue to roll in for players and the team’s World Cup win this summer set TV viewing records.

With that kind of leverage, the women may opt to make field conditions a feature of their next collective bargaining agreement. According to US Soccer’s financial documents, the CBA for the women expired at the end of 2012 and they’ve been operating on a “memo of understanding” since, which runs through 2016 while the terms of the expired CBA still apply. A US Soccer spokesman was unable to provide the Guardian with an explanation as to why a new CBA has not been finalized but said negotiations remain ongoing.

In the end, from the players’ perspective, US Soccer did the right thing in stepping in and cancelling the match, for which nearly 16,000 tickets had been sold.

The issue isn’t over, though. The Guardian understands that US Soccer will be reviewing the venues for the rest of the tour’s matches in light of this weekend’s controversy and will be meeting with the players to discuss the issue. US Soccer has also set a goal to play the women’s games after the victory tour on grass leading up to the 2016 Olympics.

That appears to be a step in the direction that the players want – and it also seems the team aren’t going to be as quiet on the issue as they have been in the past.

“We have become so accustomed to playing on whatever surface is put in front of us. But we need to realize that our protection — our safety — is priority No1,” the team’s open letter reads. “At the end of the day, we expect to be treated equally as our male counterparts.”