As with any argument relating to synthetic grass or artificial turf, people wonder about the advantages and disadvantages of using it in the sports world. Not everyone has access to it and knows how to run or play on it and knowing what to expect is a very big part of any sports competition. When it comes to playing important competitions there can be grave consequences if a team is inadequately prepared and cannot live up to their expectations. The 2010 World Cup is no exception to this worry, and in some cases since it is the largest sporting event in the world, maybe it even has higher importance.
As an example of a team that was not prepared, in the Euro 2008 qualifier, the mighty England soccer team had difficulty playing against Russia on an artificial turf and they lost 2-1. Many did not expect this outcome and many believe that it was the turf that changed the final.
As we all know, weather can change how often a field of grass can be used. If it’s dry maybe only once a week could the field be played on. If it’s particularly rainy the grass needs more maintenance because of the fast growing grass. Africa’s erratic rainy and dry seasons severely affect the quality of the fields. Sometimes the grass can be too high for players, or too sparse. In the 2010 World Cup FIFA is laying Artificial Turf on the its 53 members’ fields in Africa except in South Africa.
Many wonder if this will hurt the game of many countries who have not had the luxury of playing and practicing on turf before. The benefit of this move by FIFA is the scheduling and the lack of problems that can arise with a bad field. The only way that this can be evened, is if the teams that normally do not play on turf get extra playing time.
This move by FIFA is probably one of the most beneficial and will help to even the playing field for this world competition.