VICE Sports Debate: Did The Turf Impact The Women's World Cup?

Now that the 2015 Women's World Cup is in the history books, we look back on the biggest issue leading into the tournament: the turf. VICE Sports staff writers Brian Blickenstaff and Aaron Gordon debate whether the turf had a noticeable impact on the games.

Aaron Gordon: Remember how before all the migrant laborers started dying the biggest controversy over the Qatar 2022 World Cup was about the temperature? How everyone was fearful over the prospect of our best soccer players toiling in triple-digit heat under a bright, desert sun? Well, we didn't have to wait until 2022.

For the June 6 match between Canada and China in Edmonton, the on-field temperature reached 120 degrees, a dangerously high temperature for athletic activity. The high temperature that day in Doha? 115.

Edmonton's recorded high temperature that day was actually a beautiful 73 degrees, far cooler than Doha. Except what happened was that the rubber particles on the synthetic turf heated to triple digits, which created dangerous playing conditions.

Australian striker Michelle Heyman described the horrible experience: "[The player's feet] just turn white, your skin is all ripped off. It's like walking on hot coal with your skin blistering and cracking…your feet will burn."

Heyman also reported that sweat soaked socks and cleats resulted in additional slipping and mishits.

If you don't think that hot conditions in Doha in the middle of summer can affect the quality of play, then you probably don't think turf affects it either then.

Brian Blickenstaff: Hot feet sound uncomfortable, but comparing the heat on the field to the air temperature is apples and oranges. In direct sunlight, surface temperatures are always hotter. And anyway, this was supposed to be so much worse. The pre-tournament chatter was enough to make you think the sidelines would look like a triage unit: bodies everywhere. There was some discomfort—hot feet and road rash—but nothing catastrophic happened.

The turf issue wasn't just about the injuries. The surface was supposed to prevent the athletes from performing to the best of their abilities. It was supposed to cheapen the whole thing, turning it from a showpiece into a spectacle. Did the ball do strange things? It bounced different than it would have on grass, and medium-distance passes occasionally seemed undercooked because the ball doesn't skid on turf like it would have on grass. Did any of that make the tournament unwatchable? Hell no. It was the most viewed Women's World Cup of all time, and it wasn't even close.

Executives at FOX are probably still high-fiving over the unexpectedly brilliant TV ratings. Group stage matches saw a 56 percent increase in viewership across the board as compared to 2011. And U.S. television figures from last night's final were 77 percent above the 2011 final ratings—and that's with the exact same teams on the field.

The ratings are clear. The tournament was a massive success. It's unfortunate FIFA didn't give the athletes a choice on what surface to play on. They clearly would have prefered to play on grass. But the turf didn't destroy the World Cup. The athletes, as people do around the world when they play on different surfaces, adapted. And that would have been the case had they played on the moon.

AG: True, a World Cup on the moon would be pretty rad and I would watch the hell out of that. But not to see athletes adapt. I would watch to see humans hilariously struggle with the conditions. The turf created an analogous situation, replacing the comedic effect with foot burns and hellscape heat.

Indeed, viewership numbers were fantastic and an incredibly encouraging sign for women's soccer in general. But just because people watched doesn't mean the turf didn't have a negative impact. Did we miss out on a golazo because someone's foot slipped at the critical moment? Did a keeper fail to make a great save because she was unable to leap as far as she might have on grass?

As with any counterfactual, I don't know the answer. My guess is that fans would watch regardless of the surface, and the Andy Benoits of the world couldn't be bothered either way. Maybe, in some metaphysical sense, that renders the surface irrelevant. But that introduces a level of nihilism I'm not prepared to grapple with.

BB: Okay, you're right. Playing on the moon is absurd. And so is speculating about whether we missed golazos because the tournament wasn't on grass. That's unknowable. Here's something that's not unknowable: We saw a shit load of golazos in Canada.

And far from an alien hellscape, playing on turf is a pretty relatable experience for just about anyone who's kicked a soccer ball in the last 15 years. Nationwide, high school matches increasingly take place on turf, which is less expensive in the long term, because it requires less maintenance and resists wear and tear better than grass. In Europe, it's not much different. Soccer clubs are looking to save money just like American high schools. An educated audience knows what turf is like to play on and how it differs from grass. Fundamentally, it's the same game.

It's the skill that matters, not the surface. If one team is better than another on grass, then that team is also better on turf, in the parking lot, on a dirt field. Wherever. Spectators appreciate skill and athleticism, and turf doesn't take that away.