Magazine - It's football Jim, but not as we know it
SEARCH
POPULAR ARTICLES
NEWS ALERTS
Want to get news alerts delivered direct to your inbox?
Edit your email preferences.
RECENT COMMENTS
By Dave Saltman in Football on 19th Nov 2004 17:00
It's football Jim, but not as we know it
By Dave Saltman
On the 11th November 2004 UEFA made a landmark decision allowing football clubs to install the latest approved artificial pitches in their stadiums. With it, the rulebook changed, to permit major competitive games to also be played on these surfaces.
Over the coming years, football supporters will see the game, that we all know and love, change beyond recognition because of decisions based on ill informed and incomplete research as well as naivety and greed.
For many years FIFA and UEFA have been asked to look at the improvements made by the synthetic manufacturers in carpet production. In fact since the days of QPR, Preston and Luton these manufacturers have invested heavily with research and development to provide the 3rd generation systems that are now being approved by footballs governing bodies.
The criteria set down by FIFA and UEFA is that these artificial surfaces should emulate the playing qualities of natural grass. Approval is based on artificial surfaces meeting a number of tests that demonstrate similar characteristics to natural turf in terms of 'ball roll', traction and speed. The current testing methods will allow the widespread integration of these surfaces into the game.
What the manufacturers and footballing bodies seem to disregard, is the fact that these artificial surfaces still provide burn injuries when players enter tackles. Players are uncomfortable playing on a synthetic surface and will not play their natural game. There is less contact and players are far less likely to commit themselves to tackling an opposing player because of fear of injury.
On natural grass pitches, even on bare and worn surfaces, players don't think about the tackle. They play their normal game and when they take a fall they have a confidence that the natural pitch will not hurt them. This does not happen when playing on a synthetic pitch. The players tense up to protect themselves and inevitably the game will become a non contact sport.
FIFA and UEFA state that they want football to remain the global No1 sport, but it became the top sport because of its diversity, on a standard synthetic surface, the best teams will always come out on top, making giant killing acts a thing of the past. Home advantage will be all but negated and the opportunity for smaller clubs to progress in cup competitions or even up the leagues will become even harder. The FA Cup will no longer hold its sparkle and will be dominated by the top clubs entering each round.
Not only are FIFA and UEFA approving the new surfaces but they are also providing hundreds of millions of pounds in grants to enable venues the world over to install them. Neither FIFA nor UEFA seem interested in providing equally vast sums of money to improve existing natural turf surfaces across the world. Surely as we move forward in this eco-friendly age, priorities should be to retain and further improve all things naturally green.
The rolling, synthetic industries band wagon, proclaims all day long play, low running costs and a standardised surface, all welcome news indeed to cash starved clubs. However these statements should be regarded as ambiguous when the options are weighed up equally.
FIFA's own quality concept for artificial turf states the benefits of these surfaces. They claim that they are unaffected by weather, ideal for covered stadia, offer easy maintenance and low maintenance costs, can be used for a variety of potential uses, an improvement in constant all year round playing conditions and that fewer playing fields will be required because of the ability to play on one artificial surface 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
However synthetic surfaces are affected by weather, and in cold conditions will freeze quicker than natural turf. To retain perfect playing conditions, synthetic surfaces still require an underground heating system and contrary to the synthetic manufacturers claims irrigation also needs to be installed. Water is needed to cool down the surface that in hot weather can register temperatures twice that of a natural turf counterpart. Water is also required to keep the dust particles down in the turf pile. Some of these dust particles are from the rubber infill or to be exact processed car tyres. Where else are we going to put the car tyre mountain? Land fill sites reject tyres for dumping and incineration costs are expensive, what better way to use them up than chop them into a fine crumb and introduce them into playing surfaces for the children!
On this planet there are literally a handful of covered stadia that are inhospitable to growing natural grass. The vast majority of venues are more than capable of sustaining grass growth and recovery between games. The venue that FIFA and UEFA repeatedly put forward as a good reason for artificial turf is the Amsterdam Arena in Holland, the home of Ajax. The Arena was originally built as a venue for concerts and other non-football events and even now hosts twice as many non-sports events as football. Their hope is to increase the use of the stadium to around 125 events a year, only 27 of which would be football matches. In similar stadia such as the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff and the Parken stadium in Copenhagen, good pitch management has removed the reasons for switching to artificial surfaces. Where there are poor surfaces around the world, FIFA and UEFA would be better employing the talents of British Groundsmen and Agronomists to improve the quality of these natural surfaces.
FIFA want Africa to host the 2010 World cup Finals and cited the hot climate as too harsh to grow and maintain grass. Recently an English Premier League Head Groundsman was invited by the Football Association in equatorial Ghana to offer some advice on improving the dust bowl surfaces they had at their main stadia. Within three months, the pitches looked magnificent, with good healthy grass born out of a little educated advice, some fertiliser, water and regular mowing. In fact the warm season grasses that were planted are positively thriving in the environment. It just needed some expert advice to improve the situation.
In the UK the difference between natural surfaces from the seventies and eighties to the modern day do not compare. Advancements in machinery, techniques and products as well as an excellent educational system have improved the quality of natural grass surfaces to those we know today. Unfortunately, with the exception of the USA and Australia these advances haven't been universally shared, hence the current problems.
The construction of an artificial surface costs in the region of £350-£400,000, a similar sum to a state of the art natural surface. It is able to host far more playing hours than a natural surface, but who is going to play on the surface for all these hours. There is a limit on players within any specific catchment area. In the darker months and evenings, floodlighting is required and local residents may well complain about additional light pollution as well as the noise from all day long facility use. Local authorities may well respond to local opinion by refusing licences for the extra stadium usage.
The requirements set out by UEFA and FIFA for an artificial surface to be approved are based on tests carried out at the start of its life. Without regular maintenance, these surfaces soon degenerate and the likelihood is that after a short period of time the surface will no longer meet the recommended standards. Therefore a reasonable level of maintenance is needed to provide the longevity of the surface. This includes daily litter picking and brushing not forgetting weed control, irrigation and the disinfecting of the surface. For surfaces used daily, a rejuvenation of the infill is now recommended annually as well. The costs of the annual maintenance operations including the labour may well top £45,000 per season.
Add to this the guesstimated lifespan of the artificial surface. Manufacturers are suggesting 10 years, although the more astute believe that a high usage surface may last 5-6 years only.
Based on a ten-year life span, it is prudent to budget approximately 10% of the initial build costs each year for the replacement of the surface at the end of its natural life (so to speak). Once installed, the maintenance costs of the surface will rise to around £80,000 per annum to maintain and renew, a significantly higher cost than the maintenance of a natural turf pitch.
Not included in these figures is the cost of dumping the spent 'carpet' at the end of its life. As stated earlier the rubber infill is an unwelcome visitor at landfill sites. So what do you do with 9000 square metres of woven polypropylene?
Supporters of these pitches seem to forget that the replacement of natural turf with synthetic turf will have an effect on the environment. After all grass lives and breaths. It takes approximately 11 tons of plastic fibre and 80 tons of rubber to make one artificial pitch.
There is also an environmental argument, which may not appeal to accountants worried about the bottom line.
Grass is one of the largest producers of oxygen and an important fixer of carbon dioxide in the soil. One grass pitch provides more oxygen than two acres of forest.
Each acre of natural grass fixes between 3.0-4.5 tons of CO2. This process is very important for limiting global warming. In opposition to this, a lot of energy is required for the production of artificial turf fibres, resulting in an increase of CO2 in the air.
A grass pitch harbours beneficial bacteria and organisms that naturally break down and remove bodily fluids such as blood, sweat and saliva. These bodily fluids on an inert, irregularly disinfected surface will help to spread diseases, particularly into grazes and cuts caused from sliding tackles.
A natural grass pitch helps to cool the environment on hot days, research in the USA shows that an artificial surface measured a temperature of 180 degrees Fahrenheit on a day when air temperatures reached 90 degrees. Are FIFA and UEFA suggesting that players will be able to perform to the best of their abilities for 90 minutes on what is effectively a sauna. Indeed, as the Kenyan FA's president recently stated, 'hot temperatures do not make playing on artificial turf welcoming.' So in hot weather and for professional games the surface requires watering just like a natural pitch. The problem is that the water evaporates and is wasted on a synthetic surface, whereas it is utilised and benefits the plant on a natural turf pitch.
In cold climates, particularly clubs in countries above the Arctic Circle, maintaining grass proves difficult when there is no light for six months of the year. However there is proven technology in the form of UV lighting rigs that enables the growth, establishment and recovery of grass species, even in sub zero temperatures.
Artificial turf manufacturers claim the synthetic surfaces can be used between -20 °C and +50°C making it suitable for use in cold climates and hot climates, but what do they recommend you do with snow? Cleaning the pitch each time is probably not an option, so an undersoil heating system would need to be installed. In times of heavy snow, heating systems are unlikely to be effective.
Synthetic surfaces are also just as liable to freeze as natural grass. Certainly synthetic pitches used at various football academy facilities have banned players from using icy surfaces.
Stadia are looking to maximise profits with the introduction of concerts and other non-sport events. Usually good liaison between the Groundsman and event organisers ensures a natural grass pitch will survive admirably after being covered for a number of days. Heavy vehicles, flooring and staging can leave indentations that can be relieved with standard aeration. What happens to a synthetic surface if the surface is depressed following a non-football event? What happens if there was a spillage of hydraulic oil, fuel or other toxic liquid? Quality repairs to a large area become costly and cannot be undertaken in a few hours, days or maybe even weeks.
Natural grass is the professional's preferred choice. It is the product that UEFA and FIFA have asked the synthetic companies to emulate. Why haven't they just invested their money into improving the product that everyone knows and loves? It is a cop out driven by greed.
If stadia are losing money, then why are there not other areas where they can make savings? If FIFA/UEFA are looking at ways to keep the game number one, then surely they should be tackling far more important issues that cost the game so much.
Football has been the number one global sport because of its diversity, its skill, athleticism and bravery. If the game is played on synthetic turf, it will become non-competitive and as sterile as the field of play.
Perhaps FIFA and UEFA want our soccer players dressed like American footballers playing a very different game.
Read more articles in Football,
by Dave Saltman
or from November 2004.
There are 19 comments on this article
20 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
Great article Dave.. so now what ?
22 Nov 2004 by Peter Craig
How about a live TV debate between David Saltman and Septic Bladder.
I still think that the people who can really make themselves heard and head off this revolution in artificiality are the players themselves. Every Groundsman who has ever worked at the highest level knows that the player's word is second only to god ( god being the chairman of course). The players don't want plastic, and if we could get some high profile players to say so in public, often, and to the right people it just might make a difference.
22 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
Yes, I can see it now. Sepp, Dave, Beckham, Rooney, Pele, Ferguson all sitting around the table discussing synthetic surfaces.
Perhaps the campaign could begin somewhere less high profile than Sky or Fox tv ?
A meeting with the grounds people from the FA (Football Association) in England and some representatives of the natural sports turf industry ?
On the agenda perhaps one or two questions such as :
Why was approval given by FIFA and UEFA for the use of artifical turf at the professional level of the sport of soccer (football) ?
Which independant research facility reported that such artifical surfaces are safe for the players and spectators ?
Is the aim of professional football administration world wide to move all future professional fixtures to artificial surfaces ? If so, then why ? If not, then why not ?
There are possibly other little questions to be raised ?
22 Nov 2004 by Peter Craig
I think we'd need more articulate people than those you suggest Peter. With the exception of Dave (of course!)
22 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
ok so you have a point there Peter.
To date there are obviously professional grounds managers who are willing to discuss, I wonder if there are professional footballers willing to discuss ?
Not knowing just how players are represented in the sport of football in England and Europe may I suggest that if there is such a body that contact be made with the professional players association ?
I would be most interested in just what the players do have to say, even if not publicly at present.
Hearing rumour and via third party perhaps opens some doors but discussion from the source is often more advantageous
22 Nov 2004 by Peter Craig
Perhaps Dave might make some approaches to his "contacts". Peter, are you going ot the NTF Conference next week?
22 Nov 2004 by Dave
Can I join this conversation or is a private chat?
We have already written to Gordon Taylor at the PFA and are awaiting a response.
Some of the Groundsmen are talking to their managers and senior players in the hope that we can gain support from the playing staff at the clubs.
We have been corellating all the information sent through to us from various interested (concerned) parties and these will form further articles.
This article has been widely distributed to the trade, national and international press. The governing bodies of football have also been sent these details.
We will continue to lobby the above and welcome any further factual evidence from any member on the benefits of natural grass.
More importantly, please don't ever ask me to have to sit and have a 'discussion' with David beckham!
22 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
NTF Conference ? Now this will teach me to read more articles on Pitchcare
22 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
Could someone post a list of the major manufacturers of synthetic sports surfaces suitable for football, please ?
I know of :
Fieldturf (Canadian company)
Monsanto (US company)
Polygras (used to be called)
22 Nov 2004 by Laurence
Hi Peter , I will email you some contacts tomorrow regards Laurence
24 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
Thank you to Laurence for the information.
Knowing just who are the manufacturers, and then the suppliers, assists in identifying those who may wish to take part in future discussions.
27 Nov 2004 by Hipper
I'm not pro artificial pitches and am concerned about their effects, both on my career and on the environment. But I think some of the points you make in your article, Dave, seem to be stretching things a bit.
'Synthetic pitches will remove diversity from soccer so that smaller clubs cannot progress past bigger clubs'. This has been happening anyway as natural pitches have been maintained to higher standards. Surely you're not suggesting going back to the 60's mudbaths for 'added diversity'?
The spread of diseases on artificial turf; has this happened? It has on natural grass - toxico canaris (or whatever it's called)/dog worms.
The stuff about weather is a bit one sided. I'm sure what you say is not wrong but it seems obvious to me that an artificial pitch can tolerate greater extremes than a grass pitch, even though the BEST grass pitches aren't so far away.
Maintainance costs: what we need is to compare the costs of maintence, not just state those of one side. It is hard to believe that the cost of maintaining a top class artificial pitch will not be substantially less than a top class natural pitch. Sure, add on replacement costs, but surely (excluding inflation) this won't be the same as its installation cost; it should be a lot less. But maybe I'm wrong; we, and the recepients of your article, need comparisons.
As Peter says, chairman are gods, but despite that, some of them are also intelligent, and reading an article like this they will just see a rant from a groundsman concerned about his job.
It seems to me that the financial argument is the one they will look at above all others, and that is where, if we can, we should try to win them over.
For players, I don't know. I don't know what the players response is to the experiment at Dunfermiline; has there been one? What I have heard is from a couple of people who have used one of these third generation artificial pitches in the U.S.. They coached football (soccer) at a college and said they were most impressed with it and preferred it to grass.
I see the biggest problem as environmental along the lines you made. Environmental is a bit more difficult though as we groundsman are no saints. You may be right to say that 1 pitch produces as much oxygen as 2 acres of forest (where did you find this info?), but the life in a forest is much more diversified than a monoculture like a football pitch (which in turn is of course infinately more diversified than plastic!). And yes, disposing of an old artificial pitch is a major problem, but we put rubber crumb, bits of fibre and plastic in our pitches; how do we dispose of this? I agree it's not on the same scale but.... This is, however, an area that we can highlight. The trouble is, does anyone REALLY care enough to do something major differently.
So, if you'll please excuse my conceit, I consider your article a worthy attempt at presenting the groundsman's view, but on here you are preaching to the converted. If you want to send this article to chairman etc., you ought, I think, to offer more balance with real facts from both camps so that the argument is persuasive. That is assuming the argument IS persuasive and you're not just concerned about groundsmans' jobs.
By the way, one plus for artificial pitches, according to you, is that players will be scared to fall. That could mean there will be less diving!!!
28 Nov 2004 by Peter Craig
Touche!!
An excellent article that needed to be written Hipper, and one that puts across a very important message.
29 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
And according to manufacturers, suplliers and some installation company people, the artificial product has the added benefit of no or almost no maintenance.
Oh so it doesn't huh ?
Firstly lets go and do some reading on MRSA .
Never heard of it ?
Well read here http://www.link.med.ed.ac.uk/RIDU/Mrsa.htm and by golly gum, it is at a site in the UK.
Now that you are back here let's add word such as Artificial Turf to MRSA and so off you now go to read, we will wait.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/103996.htm?action=related_link
And for those readers who want up to date facts take note of the date, it reads Nov. 12, 2004.
And just incase we require further more up to date information
http://chealth.canoe.ca/health_news_detail.asp?channel_id=53&news_id=12260
The point being that there are several credible sources of information which describe the risk involved if such artificial surface are not maintained, and maintained to a high degree, much higher than the manufacturers would want the customer to believe.
MRSA is a bacterium that has the potential to kill people.
It is one of the new highly resistant "bugs" commonly found but normally not of great harm unless you have a cut or suffer a cut.
Now unless you play the sport of American football, where players are almost completely covered when playing or synthetic sports fields, the risks of becoming infected are much higher than the seven times higher that is mentioned in one article. (see above URL)
A law suit has been underway in Santa Cruz, California, USA for the last few months (it is currently postponed until spring 2005).
The case is parents versus a school board.
Why ?
The school board seeks to remove a natural grass field and replace it with an artificial field.
(Documentation is available)
".....Synthetic Grass Potentially Lethal to Players:
Recent media reports indicate that synthetic turf systems are associated with the potentially lethal antibiotic-resistant MRSA staph infection. This strain of staph infection has killed and seriously injured numerous children country-wide. Colleges are routinely spraying their synthetic fields with disinfectant to reduce the spread of MRSA to players who acquire the infection through cuts after playing on synthetic turf.. The CDC sent out a nationwide warning in August of 2003 about the risk of MRSA, targeting college and professional sports teams as well as health departments and state high school sports associations.."
(CDC = Center for Disease Control a US Gov Agency)
Now it is often the case that for whatever reason, litigation has become an artform in the U.S. and the state of California seems to lead the way at times.
However, the legal profession has taken the case on-board and the outcome should be of some interest to both sides of this debate here on Pitchcare.
NB..It seems to be the modern version of the old NFL Players Association versus stadium owners case when artificial surfaces were first invented by Monsanto. Litigation went of for years in the U.S. and is well documented.
A question that comes to my mind runs along the lines of :-
David Beckham falls and in doing so injures his exposed skin, say knee or hand on a synthetic field that has for whatever the reason not been adequately disinfected or maintained.
For those who don't appreciate David Beckham please use whatever gabillion pound player you can think of.
The point being....
If an owner of a club makes the decision to have an artificial field installed due to a cost saving benefit to the club as described by the sales pitch of a manufacturer of the synthetic surface or their suppliers and that field is the cause of a life threatening or career ending infection of MRSA, just who gets sued ?
FIFA for condoning the use, UEFA for following FIFA, the FA for supporting the above, the club owner, the venue owner.. or is to be the Groundsman for failing to perform his duty.
Now that you do have some credible, if only a small amount of, information, based soley on the issue of health and the synthetic field.. are Groundsmen going to sit on their collective hands and do the "oh yes, but what can I do?"
OR
Will the professional groundsman have something to say and damned well whisper it, in what is a wonderful website, which is to the converted or be out and about as well ?
Go to your member of parliment, the media ..stand in Hyde Park if you must.
Yes, I am passionate about the issue. I am not however blind to the potential of such synthetic sports surfaces. I am passionate about far greater research being carried out prior to a respected world sporting authority giving approval to a product that could kill me if I was a player.
As an aside... on the environmental approach.. before we go too far on the chemical properties of the crumbed rubber commonly used in 3rd Generation in fill surfaces. There is some information from testing in Canada that it may not be as harmful as first thought. Caveat meptor on that one folks.
Now then.. are there cost benefits to replacing the natural field with a synthetic surface ?
Anyone care to post factual information for the removal of an existing football pitch, dont forget taking out irrigation, heating, goal-post sockets, fencing, etc. etc. and replacing with the highest standard synthetic field available. One should compare the highest standard of natural field with a similar professed synthetic , don't you think ?
Now then.. How much did it cost over the life of the synthetic field , let's say 10 years and then 15. As compared to the costs of our high standard natural field ?
Here are some hints when it comes to your costings... Have you ever look at the wear patterns for various sports ? When you over seed or replace sections of a natural field what does the rest of the field look and play like afterward ?
Assume that the penalty areas become worn and perhaps the centre field of a synthetic field. Why replacement of course comes the answer.
Oh?
And just how many times does a groundsman replace or re-seed the same area on a natural surface ?
So perhaps there is a cost yet not associated with the synthetic ?
Replacement of worn areas ?
This is a field that many say does not require replacement for 10 or 15 years ?
Of course you don't have to replace the entire field for 10 years, but are the manufacturers telling us that the penalty areas, centre field will last 10 years ?
Some things to ponder ?
29 Nov 2004 by Hipper
Peter, whilst your research efforts concerning MRSA are to be applauded, they prompted me to do my own button pressing, and the picture I find is not quite as you present it.
Using Jeeves, I found the following amongst others:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5233a4.htm
From this, I gathered the following notes.
The strain of MRSA we are discussing has been a problem in sport for a while. It is known as Community Associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) and infections have been found in various sports including fencing, wrestling, football and rugby, both at the highest and lowest levels.
The bacteria is carried on people and materials. Example of materials includes clothing, towels and equipment (rugby scrum machines, whirlpools). It is transferred to other people and materials by contact. People can carry the bacteria without being infected. Infections occur when there is skin damage and this damage can arise, for example, by contact with other people, chafing of clothing, shaving (including cosmetic shaving - meaning other body parts), and turf burns (one of your articles said that turf burns were seven times more likely to lead to infections, but it added that shaving was six times more likely).
From this it can be seen that in order to get an infection, the bacteria must be present AND skin damage must occur. It is true that skin damage can occur from abrasions from artificial turf. BUT, it can also occur from any number of other reasons that have nothing to do with artificial pitches. And the amount of bacteria present can be reduced by good hygiene: not sharing towels, clothing for example.
Whilst I had never heard of MRSA in this context before, your article gave me the impression that artificial pitches were a major cause of the problem. Well, that's not true. They may increase the problem by an amount that no-one has calculated yet, but if you took away all artificial pitches, the CA-MRSA problem in sport would still be a concern.
Again I would like to repeat that I am not pro artificial pitches. I would just like to see balanced articles on the subject. I think you, Peter, have taken what you wanted from the MRSA situation to present a quite frightening picture for would-be artificial pitch owners which is not justified by the facts that I have seen.
By the way, has anyone any first hand knowledge of MRSA or any other infections contracted on artificial pitches?
29 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
Hipper makes a valid point. And I for one applaud anyone who takes the time to do some preliminary research, be it pro and against.
Perhaps the information that I have highlighted is from the extreme side and so it perhaps balances any potential comment from the extreme pro side.
I believe quite strongly that there is indeed a place for the synthetic sports field. Hockey for instance. And perhaps too for football and many other codes.
I have great difficulty with such fields being installed as a "done deal" in the Occupational Health and Research area.
It would be very helpful to the debate if some or all of the manufacturers were able or willing to post their comments with regard to the maintenance requirements for these new field surfaces.
It has been mentioned by subscribers that there is a "fear" of becoming redundant due to the use of synthetic surfaces in sport. Several responses point out that the idea of these surfaces being maintenance free is incorrect.
The notion of maintenance free, I believe, needs to be explained further and I for one, would appreciate comments from anyone from either the synthetic surface manufacturing side or perhaps someone who has first hand knowledge as to the requirements for maintenance.
As to first hand knowledge of MRSA. I believe that may be found in the American Journal of Medicine or perhaps the British Journal of Medicine.
There is far more to this debate yet to come. And I too strongly believe that factual information rather than hearsay is required so as to offer a balanced view.
With some 900 or more 3rd generation fields installed or about to be installed. It is not something that is going to be stopped.
I believe that it is in the interest of the sports turf (natural) industry to become aware of all the ramifications. And then discover a way to continue the enhancement of the natural field as well as the learning institutions begin to teach the correct maintenance procedures for the synthetic fields. That teaching can only be guided by science and not the recommendations of the manufactuer who has share holders to answer to rather than product safety.
The debate continues. It has done for nearly 30 years.
29 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
By the way.. this is not a private conversation folks.. opinion.. pro or con is welcome
29 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
I offer the following post without comment as I believe the writer does offer many thoughts and answers.
Infection poses tough new foe for Oregon teams
A Pendleton coach and two Oregon State athletes are the latest to suffer from MRSA, which may prey on turf burns
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
RACHEL BACHMAN
The infection appeared in the mid-1990s among high school wrestlers, causing painful boils and confounding doctors. Last year, it sent four University of Southern California football players and Miami Dolphins linebacker Junior Seau to the hospital.
In January, it ravaged the leg of an assistant wrestling coach at Pendleton High School, requiring three surgeries.
Last month, it hit two football players at Oregon State University.
The offending bacterium is called methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA ("mersa"). It is resistant to common antibiotics, and infections can be serious if not treated properly. A few MRSA sufferers have died.
For decades, it mostly attacked hospital patients. But new strains of MRSA have appeared in healthy people, including young athletes. The cases at Pendleton and Oregon State show that MRSA has arrived among the state's sports teams and that football players with turf burns could be particularly vulnerable.
"Some places are seeing a considerable amount, and some are seeing none at all," said Dr. Dan Jernigan, an epidemiologist with the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. "But the football teams are often sort of the sentinel event, where somebody finally recognizes that it's occurring in their community."
MRSA bacteria live in the nose and on skin. They spread through skin-to-skin contact, often entering through cuts or scratches, and by touching objects contaminated by an infected person.
MRSA infections usually are mild. They can produce what look like spider bites, which expand into boils or pus-filled abscesses. Doctors do not always recognize MRSA infections, but once they are identified, they usually can be wiped out with the right antibiotics.
Because "community-acquired" MRSA -- cases occurring outside hospitals -- is relatively new, doctors are not sure how prevalent it is. But this kind of MRSA is growing, said Dr. Mel Kohn, Oregon's state epidemiologist.
MRSA is appearing in contact sports such as football and wrestling because many of those athletes carry one or more of the Centers for Disease Control's risk factors. Those factors include crowding, contact, compromised skin (cuts or scrapes), contaminated surfaces and shared items, and lack of cleanliness.
It is not known how Chris Bettineski, the Pendleton assistant coach, contracted MRSA. But wrestling, with its sustained skin-to-skin contact, always has battled the spread of bacteria.
Other risks in football
Football features skin-to-skin contact, too, and players face other risks.
CDC investigations have identified turf burns, common among football players, as a significant factor for getting MRSA. Such burns are most prevalent among athletes who play on the shortest, roughest artificial turfs -- such as the surfaces found at Oregon State's Reser Stadium and the University of Oregon's Moshofsky Center.
Barney Graff, Oregon State's head athletic trainer for football, said he did not know how the Beavers' two players contracted MRSA. But both infections appeared near turf burns on the players' bodies, Graff said. Both players have been successfully treated, he said.
The current issue of the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases details a 2003 MRSA outbreak on a college football team. That study concluded that players with turf burns had a risk of infection seven times higher than players without turf burns.
The problem does not appear to be the turf itself. The CDC has not found MRSA bacteria living on artificial turf, Jernigan said. But turf can cause burns, which can facilitate the spread of bacteria.
"What's really happening is that these big, large men are grabbing each other on skin-exposed surfaces where they have turf burns," Jernigan said. "So the turf is instrumental in providing the abrasion. But we don't have any evidence that it's important as a vehicle of transmission."
Alerts from sports associations
Last year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the National Federation of High School Associations issued health alerts about MRSA. But MaryAnn Custer, a Portland-area registered nurse who has consulted the NCAA and Oregon School Activities Association on infection control, said many teams have a long way to go.
"In athletics, there is a very small awareness of MRSA," Custer said.
Some teams are taking extraordinary measures to prevent MRSA. Others are reinforcing routines already in place.
The University of Washington's head athletic trainer, Kevin Messick, declined to say whether the Huskies have had cases of MRSA. But workers wipe down football equipment daily with an antibacterial rinse, and the routine disinfection of Husky Stadium's artificial surface field recently was increased to twice a month, Messick said.
At Oregon State, football trainers inspect players' turf burns daily, clean them and cover them with fresh bandages -- as they have done for years.
At Oregon, trainers and medical workers have emphasized good hygiene, and so far no athlete has had a MRSA infection.
No outbreaks in fitness centers
For recreational athletes, the CDC has good news: It has found no outbreaks in fitness centers. That fact suggests that infection is more likely through person-to-person contact than by touching an exercise machine.
Preventing MRSA is mostly common sense: keeping wounds clean and covered, and not sharing personal items such as towels or equipment. Yet the simplest way to prevent MRSA is to keep your hands clean.
Said Jernigan: "Resistant bacteria do not resist hand-washing."
Rachel Bachman: 503-221-4373; rachelbachman@news.oregonian.com
29 Nov 2004 by Bob Copeman
May I humbly suggest that it is none of FIFA, UEFA, the FA or the SFA that you really need to convince ? Just look at the Companies who sponsor World Cups, European Championships, Champions League, England or Scotland, How many of them have products relevant to creating a safer, more televisually entertaining and more skillful Football ? Some are actually being threatened by the UK Government to be unable to advertise on Television before the 21.00 Hour watershed because of their contribution to Child [and Adult] Obesity.
Carlsberg is currently running an advert that "if Carlsberg did take aways they would probably be the best in the World", they sponsor England, Liverpool and other Clubs. For a fraction of their expenditure around British Football, Dave Saltman and others could probably guarantee "British as probably the best prepared and maintained Football pitches in the World".
Thirty Years ago the Sports Council collected data on every Synthetic Sports Surface in the UK. I still have the relevant publications somewhere and the area controlled by Birmingham City Council is dotted with them whilst the grass pitches next door to our office and throughout their domain lost out on money, love and care.
So why should FIFA, UEFA or the British Associations do the job properly ? Are the Balls used by each European Premier League the most suitable for the local conditions ? Are the largest Football Stadia still the most Grass friendly or have they grown so high and the workload so onerous that their groundsmen have an almost impossible job ? Yet do any of them not now have the funds to relay the pitch if things get untenable ?
So who might pay ? Emirates Airways are seemingly prepared to commit £100 Million to renaming Arsenal's Ashburton Grove but should they be concerned that the new pitch is at least up to the high standards set by Highbury ? If the average pitch releases more Oxyen than 2 Acres of Forest and fixes Three to 4.5 Tons of Carbon Dioxide then Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, GSK and British Oxygen imemdiately spring to mind. The first three because their fizzy drinks release how much of that Carbon Dixoide in the first place and wasn't it a Brit who commercialised Oxygen if not actually discovering it ?
The European Space Agency have an ongoing project for growing and preserving Food and providing enough Oxygen not just during the Months or Years needed to get to Mars etc but making these Carbon Dioxide saturated planets habitable once human life lands there ? Perhaps Natural Turf is one of the most efficient answers as I am sure we could eat some varieties ?
We've all seen pictures of those "Fridge Mountains" and soon Mobile Phones and Videorecorders are going to join them. Aston Villa and others are already having plastic sewn into their turf but is this ultimately any more biodegradeable than Vieotape and would the latter help taper nutrients to the Root Zones ?
So let's be thoroughly selfish and admit that we don't really care about finding Natural Turf that the Saudis or the Lapps or the inhabitants of Rain Forests can play on usually under conditions when Soccer should be contraindicated. Manchester United are having enough trouble fending off the unwelcome attentions of an owner of an American Football Team surely to worry that theAFC and the NFL have already gone expensively through the Synthetic v Natural Turf debate and won't take kindly to UEFA or FIFA repeating it all suppoedly for their own benefit ?
Let British Football sort this out specifically for themselves. After all there is little point in Arsenal playing on the best pitch when at home but suffering turf related injuries when playing away is there ? Managers may be kidding themselves that they can get a competitive advantage by over watering or low cutting of their surface but are they actually measuring the Performances of each player on a fair and repeatable basis and against Perfection rather han on the few positive [or negative] incidents they can remember ? Any of you who think that Turf Horticulture is "in the dark ages" in British Football should look at most other areas of its Management.
Let's sort out why several years back many of the UK farmers who were prepared to turn land over to growing grass to be cut as immediately installable Turf were willing to include sufficient of the top soil that another crop could not or would not be available within the commercial timetables of the multi purpose facilities that wanted them. But not today just when surely a Premium Price is available ?
Last Season Sky was paying £5.79 Million for the UK TV Rights to each of its 66 televised FA Premier League matches. This Season is no longer comparable as those willing to subscribe can watch at least adequate highlights from all 380 FAPL games but seldom does the pooer state of the Pitch present a measurable problem ? The Press Association for the BBC is providing "Live Text Commentaries" for even Conference Football. So what if the Industry laid down a Minimum Standard to justify being shown on UK TV and even 1% of the Fees were specifically allocated to a fund to both enforce and ameliorate this ?
So let's get Sports Turf in the UK a global reputation as clearly the best in the World before we promote its usage worldwide. And let's get those companies willing to pay to associate their Brand Names with the popularity of British Football worldwide to finance this initiative.
Want to post a comment in response to this article?
Login now, or register if you are not a Pitchcare member.
