Advertisement

Report of Brazil pulling out of Pan Am Games and potentially Women's World Cup jumps the gun, but it may indicate there are more turf concerns

Brazilian Olympic executive Marcus Vinicius Friere said the country wouldn't send a men's soccer team to the Pan Am Games over turf, a report later denied by the CBF.
Brazilian Olympic executive Marcus Vinicius Friere said the country wouldn't send a men's soccer team to the Pan Am Games over turf, a report later denied by the CBF.

Canadian artificial turf soccer fields have sparked a lawsuitfrom international women's players ahead of the 2015 Women's World Cup, and they've apparently given pause to some men's teams too. Brazilian media outlet Globo reported late Wednesday night that the Brazilian Football Commission (CBF) and the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) had agreed not to send a men's soccer team to the 2015 Pan Am Games in Toronto, and would make a decision in March about whether to send a women's team to both the Women's World Cup and the Pan Am Games. That report was primarily based on quotes from Marcus Vinicius Freire, a former Olympic volleyball player who's currently the executive director of sport for the BOC.

The men's portion of it has since been denied by the CBF, so it looks like a Brazilian men's team could be coming to the Pan Am Games after all (providing they qualify). The CBF hasn't issued an official position on the women's team, though, so Brazilian participation in the Women's World Cup could still be threatened. Perhaps even more importantly, Friere's comments illustrate that powerful sports officials have serious concerns about Canadian turf fields, which could cause problems for both the Pan Am Games and the Women's World Cup.

A full Brazilian boycott of the Women's World Cup may be unlikely given this response from the CBF, but it's curious that they wouldn't deny that part of the report as well. Denials aside, it's apparent there's some significant opposition to playing soccer on turf from key Brazilian officials. Here's the key part of the Globo report that outlines their concerns, translated by Yahoo's Jonathan Rothman:

Brazil will not send a men's football team to the Pan Am 2015 in Toronto. The main reason behind the team's decision to desist from the tournament was that the football matches will be played out on synthetic grass fields. According to Reuters, the information was confirmed Wednesday by Marcus Vinicius Freire, executive director of sport for the Brazilian Olympic Committee.

"The men's football team decided not to play on synthetic grass and the coaching staff decided not to send any team at all; not the first-string team, nor the second- nor third-string team. I've already seen some ugly injuries and, as Brazilian players here and in Europe play on natural grass, it's not worth the risk," said Freire.

Also according to the exec, the agreement was recently sealed between the BOC and the Brazilian Football Commission (CBF), with the approval of the Brazilian team's coaching staff, comprised of head coach Dunga and coordinators Gilmar Rinaldi e Alexandre Gallo.

... According to Freire, CBF has not made the call on whether the women's football team will compete to Canada in 2015. In the last Pan Am Games in Mexico, that side lost the final to Canada.

"There's the Women's World Cup in Toronto before the Pan Am, and [the CBF] will decide by March," said Freire.

If the Brazilian women's team were to decline to compete in the Women's World Cup, as the Globo report suggests is still being considered (with a final decision to be made in March), that would be an incredible embarassment for both FIFA and Canada. (Note that Freire is wrong here; it's not actually in Toronto, but in six cities across Canada, with Brazil's group-stage matches taking place in Montreal and Moncton.) FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association have both stood by their plans to use high-quality artificial turf surfaces for that tournament despite the opposition and the lawsuit, saying that there's no evidence turf is inferior, unsafe or discriminatory, and even a boycott might not be enough to make them reconsider. Still, there would be incredily bad press for the Women's World Cup if the powerful Brazilian team (currently ranked sixth in the world and seeded first in a very winnable Group E) declined to compete over surface issues. It seems highly unlikely the CBF would pull its team from the high-profile Women's World Cup if they're not going to actually pull their men's team from the lower-profile Pan Am Games, a U22 tournament they haven't cared about much lately (they've won four golds in Pan Am men's soccer, but the most recent came in 1987, and they've mostly sent non-first choice teams since then, including the last edition in 2011 where they were eliminated in the first round), but the threat of them doing so is still out there.

As for the men's side, a potential boycott of the Pan Am soccer competition thanks to playing surface would be notable no matter who threatened it, but it's perhaps even more important coming from Brazil. Their men's team has won five World Cups, more than anyone else, and finished fourth when they hosted this year (albeit with an embarrassing 7-1 semifinal loss to Germany). Yes, they wouldn't have sent their top team to the Pan Am Games anyway, but having them potentially refuse to compete at all would have cast a shadow over the competition and raised questions about if other countries would follow suit. The Pan Am organizing group downplayed the concerns raised by this, though, with spokesperson Teddy Katz telling Yahoo "TO2015 is working closely with CONCACAF, FIFA’S continental governing body for soccer in this region.  And as far as we know,  they are planning  to sanction this tournament.  We also expect the Brazilian men’s team will participate in an upcoming qualifying tournament for our games in January."

The CBF's apparent reversal here and move away from an outright men's team boycott pours some water on what could have been a fiery story, one that definitely could have hurt the Pan Am Games and could also have strengthened the case of the women currently suing over turf. In particular, a boycott would boost the women's arguments that top men aren't forced to play on turf, making it a discriminatory decision. Backing away from an official boycott means this likely won't directly impact the lawsuit. However, it's still quite possible that the main Brazilian aims of a boycott (protecting their top up-and-coming men's players from the perceived injury risks of turf) could still be acheived without all the controversy an outright boycott would cause.

First off, Brazil might not qualify. Pan Am soccer qualification from South America is highly unusual; the participants will be determined by a U20 tournament held in Uruguay in January and February, but it's mostly a qualifier for the U20 World Cup (held in New Zealand from May 30 to June 20), with the top four teams making it to that competition. It's also a qualifier for the 2016 Summer Olympics (a U23 tournament with three overage players), which Brazil is already automatically in; the top non-Brazil team will qualify, and the second-top non-Brazil team will go into a playoff. The Pan Am qualification is almost an afterthought, and only the third-through-sixth countries will qualify (with #3 and #4 competing in the U20 World Cup the month before the Pan Am Games start July 10, so they may not send their top teams to Toronto). If Brazil either finishes first or second (quite possible) or below sixth (less likely) in Uruguay, they won't have to worry about the Pan Am's artificial field.

Beyond that, countries aren't forced to send their best players to the Pan Am Games, and with it being a tournament that Brazil hasn't particularly cared about for over a decade (their last men's medal, a silver, came in 2003), it would be quite conceivable for them to send out a team of second or third-stringers to avoid the perceived injury risks of turf for their top up-and-coming players. That becomes even more likely (and more defensible) if they place third or fourth in the U20 tournament and play in the U20 World Cup in June; they'd be unlikely to run out their top side again under those circumstances regardless of the surface. Even if Brazil finishes fifth or sixth, though, qualifying for the Pan Ams and not the U20 World Cup, they still may elect to send a weaker side if they're so worried about the turf. That's not great news for the Pan Am committee, which is doing their best to try and promote the quality of their competitions in a crowded sporting market.

There are a few other important points to note here. First off, the Pan Am soccer tournament will be held in Hamilton at the new (and still-under-construction) Tim Hortons Field. The Women's World Cup won't be played there, but at six other stadiums across the country; thus, the only common denominator between the two tournaments is that they'll be played on non-grass surfaces. It's not clear if the turf for the World Cup stadiums is any different from the Tim Hortons Field turf, but the World Cup turf has been endorsed by FIFA secretary-general Jerome Valcke; no one has particularly commented on the Tim Hortons Field turf. Thus, there could be a conceivable case for boycotting the Pan Ams but not the Women's World Cup if the Pan Am turf is believed to be worse. What's also interesting is that there is an all-grass soccer stadium in actual Pan Am host city Toronto, BMO Field; however, it's being used for rugby during the Games, which is what led the Pan Am group and the provincial government to build a new stadium in Hamilton in the first place (which turned into quite the construction disaster).

What's the overall takeaway from this news? Well, the CBF's reversal makes it seems unlikely we'll see a full boycott of either the Pan Am Games or the Women's World Cup from Brazil, so that should lead to some sighs of relief in Canada. However, having a highly-placed executive like Friere make these comments in the first place indicates there are significant concerns over turf surfaces from some powerful soccer and sports administrators, not just the group of women's players currently suing. In the end, that might even have more potential to force a change for the Women's World Cup than the lawsuit; top players' complaints are one thing, but there's been very little discussion of an outright boycott, and if that did happen, it would likely come from teams or federations, not individual players. A surface change still seems unlikely at this late date, but if powerful federations start putting pressure on the CSA and FIFA, it's not necessarily out of the question. Friere's comments suggest there are powerful soccer figures out there who are strongly anti-turf. If more of them start to step up publicly, the Women's World Cup and the Pan Am Games could both come under intense fire.