This afternoon I was watching a league match from Costa Rica (San Carlos-Herediano), and I couldn't help but notice the condition of the grass field at San Carlos' stadium. I think I've seen potato patches in better condition than the field in San Carlos. It looked absolutely awful on TV and probably played even worse. So when I read about teams such as Alajuelense, Saprissa, and four or five other sides in the top flight switching to artificial surfaces, I can understand why. This is especially true in a country like Costa Rica that receives a lot of rain throughout the year.
Even so, it is not enough to switch from natural to artificial turf; the latter type of field has to be maintained as well. Saprissa's turf is a perfect example of that, years of overuse have worn out the playing surface years before its projected date. The artificial surface in Haiti's national stadium also looked like it wasn't in a good condition, either. While the life cycle cost of an artificial surface is less than that of a natural surface, I am willing to guess that the cost is still quite high. A number of clubs and national associations still can't afford even that.
Now, I believe very strongly that soccer matches should be played on natural turf as best as practically possible. (And no, I'm not pleased that this year's MLS Cup final will be played on an artificial surface, no matter how good it supposedly is.) However, there are many regions of the world where a passable natural turf stadium is not practical, whether it be for reasons of climate or lack of finances. An artificial surface can address the first reason, but it may not be able to address the second completely. FIFA should keep that in mind when it is funding its various artificial field installation programs all over the world.
Comments