Women’s World Cup TurfGate: An expert legal analysis of the players’ strategy
\r\n\r\nThe players allege that the decision to hold the tournament on artificial turf is \u2018inherently discriminatory\u2019 and constitutes \u2018differential treatment based on sex\u2019 \u2013 that said decision amounts to \u2018singling out the women\u2019s event for adverse treatment.\u2019However, the bulk of the players\u2019 complaint is devoted to decrying the evils of turf, with less than a page dedicated to the actual legal violations of the parties involved. This deficiency in the complaint, more than any other of the problems already articulated, could very well lead the Tribunal to show the players the proverbial red card and boot them out of court.\r\n\r\n![\"Canadian](\"https:\/\/www.soccerwire.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/CSA.gif\")
<\/a>While it unfortunately reads like one, the players\u2019 complaint is not a scholarly article about the scientifically proven disadvantages and dangers of turf. It is, or it should be, a legal pleading. Legal pleadings must establish, clearly and concisely, the legally defined rights at issue, the specific manner in which they have been infringed, and causal nexus of the party complained of. The players\u2019 complaint fails spectacularly on each of these fronts.\r\n\r\n+READ: Does artificial turf cause cancer? NBC News\u2019 alarming report<\/a><\/strong>\r\n\r\nAn appeal to the moral high ground may sway a juror, but will not guarantee a would-be litigant their day in court. The players argue that the Canadian Soccer Association is violating Ontario\u2019s Human Rights Code \u2018by attempting to force women to play on a surface that similarly situated men would be asked to play upon.\u2019\r\n\r\nThe language used is telling \u2013 it is hypothetical. It is speculative. The violation alleged is premised upon the assertion that men would never be subjected to the horrors and indignity of a match played on turf. However, speculation as to what may or may not happen in the indeterminable future is shaky grounds upon which to build a legal case, because speculation is not subject to objective verification by a trier of fact.\r\n\r\nAs the CSA elaborates in its response, FIFA has provided for the use of turf in all competitions, including the World Cup, since 2004, and has established and implemented an extensive program to ensure the quality of any turf used. FIFA, in writing at least, does not distinguish between men\u2019s and women\u2019s tournaments in the application of the stringent standards involved. Just last week, FIFA\u2019s Secretary-General, J\u00e9r\u00f4me Valcke, went on the record and intimated that a men\u2019s World Cup could be played on artificial turf \u2018sooner rather than later.\u2019\r\n\r\nReferring specifically to the ongoing dispute, Valcke claimed that turf would be used for the Women’s World Cup because most sporting infrastructure in\u00a0Canada\u00a0is on artificial turf, primarily due to its extreme climate, and that it would be very difficult to ensure solid natural-grass pitches at all venues.\r\n\r\n+READ: Turf Woes: Wambach, others not thrilled about 2015 Women\u2019s World Cup being played on turf<\/strong><\/a>\r\n\r\nThe decision, he explained, was motivated by the desire to provide consistent top-level playing conditions for all 24 teams during the event. His comments, many feel, gave credence to the theory that the use of turf in Canada next year is a means of legitimizing the use of turf for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, another country with an extreme climate.\r\n\r\nThe majority of the players\u2019 brief is devoted to allegations that turf is a substandard playing surface, which, even if taken as true, does not necessarily establish a prima facie case of discrimination. As the CSA argues, the players\u2019 \u2018real concern\u2019 is \u2018not with any conduct by the Canadian Soccer Association,\u2019 but rather, \u2018the decision of FIFA to permit the Competition to be held in a country where turf is a common playing surface.\u2019\r\n\r\n![\"Sunny](\"https:\/\/www.soccerwire.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/Sunny-turf-field-525x295.jpg\")
<\/a>The use of turf for this tournament while previous tournaments in the past have been played on natural grass does not, in legal terms, give rise to a legitimate claim of discrimination. Nor does conjecture that male footballers would not ever have to play a World Cup on artificial turf.\r\n\r\nThe simple fact of the matter is the players do not have viable cause of action, and even if they did, there is no tangible evidence at their disposal with which to prove it.\r\n\r\nIndeed, many have very cynically dismissed the players\u2019 legal strategy as an ill-conceived and poorly-executed publicity stunt. The Canadian Soccer association succinctly summarized the many deficiencies in the players\u2019 complaint in its response, when it stated, in scathing terms, that \u2018the way the complaint has been assembled, including…the lack of evidentiary or documentary support…suggests that the applicants are seeking a symbolic victory, not a practical outcome.\u2019\r\n\r\nIt remains to be seen what this symbolic victory will be \u2013 or if there will be any at all.”},”name”:”acf\/wysiwyg”,”mode”:”edit”} /–>
