Swedish Footballplayers and Artificial Turf

Swedish Footballplayers and artificial turf

- a study about their attitudes regarding artificial turf and related injuries.

The study is done by Fredrik Johansson and Pascal Rotter Nilsson for SFS Svenska Fotbollspelare 2006-2007

Kontact information ………………………………………………………………………………………… SFS: Magnus Erlingmark [email protected] +46706989831

Information about the study: Fredrik Johansson Pascal Rotter Nilsson [email protected] [email protected] +46707767091 +46709925662

Table of Content 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 PURPOSE...... 2 3 STUDIES AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 3 3.1 EUROPEAN SURVEYS AMONG PLAYERS ...... 3 3.2 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES REGARDING ARTIFICIAL TURFS...... 4 4 METHOD ...... 5 4.1 DATA COLLECTION ...... 5 4.2 ANALYSIS...... 5 4.3 PRESENTATION ...... 5 5 RESULTS ...... 5 5.1 ATTITUDES TO ARTIFICIAL TURF...... 5 5.2 CHANGES IN THE GAME WITH ARTIFICIAL TURF TO PLAY ON ...... 9 5.3 INJURIES AN OTHER CONSEQUENCES WITH ARTIFICIAL TURF ...... 15 5.4 ARTIFICIAL TURF, FUTURE AND PLAYERS INFLUENCE ...... 21 6 DISCUSSION ...... 23 6.1 THE POSITIONS EFFECT ON EXPERIENCE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF ...... 23 6.2 ATTITUDE TO ARTIFICIAL TURF FROM A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE ...... 23 6.3 INJURIES DUE TO MANY CHANGES OF SURFACE...... 24 7 SOURCES...... 25 7.1 CONFERENCES ...... 25 7.2 WHITE PAPERS AND DISSERTATIONS ...... 25 7.3 PUBLICATIONS...... 25 7.4 INTERNET DOCUMENTS ...... 25

1 Introduction

The game of Football is a phenomenon that engages people all over the world. The rules of game have been intact for the last hundred years much due to a strong culture of traditions. Nevertheless, one of the major changes has been to allow substitutions during an ongoing game and the restrictions regarding passes from the team members to the goalkeeper (UEFA, 2001).

In all times, important games have been played on turf pitches. The quality of the pitches has been of a wide range due to climate and maintenance knowledge. In order to improve the consistency and establish fair conditions, UEFA and FIFA have encouraged manufacturers to develop the artificial turfs. The development has gone fast and it is very similar to grass (UEFA, 2005).

The previous President of UEFA, Lennart Johansson believes that within ten years most of the qualifications to the European Cup and the World Cup will be played on artificial turfs (Laul 2002). He further states that the maintenance costs will decrease for the clubs as well as for the UFEA.

UEFA and FIFA have declared their requirements regarding the appearance and behaviour of the artificial turf. FIFA decided in 2004 that the artificial turf was an appropriate alternative to grass. It was implemented in time to the WC qualifications (FIFA, 2004). UEFA awaited their medical analysis regarding injuries (UEFA, 2003; UEFA, 2004) before they approved new turfs to be used in European qualifications in November 2004 (Swedish Football Association, 2003).

The decision to use artificial turfs in competitions has developed to a controversial issue due to that some players and teams prefer natural pitches prior to the new artificial turfs. The players’ viewpoints that have been published in media highlights that they experiences that the game is different and that their fear for injuries is higher (Lindqvist, 2005). These experiences are also described in scientific reports (Johansson & Rotter Nilsson, 2005).

2 Purpose

The purpose of this survey is to see what Swedish professional football players’ opinion is about artificial turf. The survey is concentrated in four areas;

• Attitudes to artificial turf • Changes of the game caused of artificial turf • Consequences and injuries caused of artificial turf • Artificial turf, future and players influence

3 Studies and previous research

3.1 European surveys among players

The increased use of artificial turf in Sweden and Europe has created a debate within the football communities. The players unions in Europe have in several ways studied the players’ attitudes regarding games on the more and more common new turfs. The diagram below shows that the players are negative to the development (SFS, 2006). Negative attitude towards games on atrificial turf

90% 91%

74% 80% 68% 68% 84%

Germany Italy Austria Finland Holland Hungary Slovenia

Fig. 1: Percentage of European elite players that have a negative attitude towards games on artificial turf.

Amount of players that feel that the Players’ unions in four countries have risk for injuries is higer on artificial studied the risks for injuries. The turf diagram to the left shows these results (SFS, 2006).

80% 74% Some of the surveys have included if 47% the character of the game is different 34% on the artificial turfs. 88% of the Dutch players, 62% of the Slovenian players and 50% of the German Germany Italy Norway Slovenia players experiences that artificial turfs reduces the quality of the game (SFS, 2006). Fig. 2: Players (in percentage) feel a higher risk for injuries on artificial turf than on grass. In some of studies the players were asked if the would appreciate training sessions on artificial turf. 50% of the 3

German players, 47% of the Slovenian players, 20% of the Dutch players, 10% of the Austrian players and only 5% of the players in Italy would like these training sessions (SFS, 2006).

3.2 Scientific studies regarding artificial turfs

A Swedish study shows that players fear injuries more when they play on the artificial turfs. The experiences correlate to if the player is used to play on the new turf or not. Inexperienced players that are afraid of injuries can develop tensions and strained bodies especially if they alternate between natural and artificial pitches. This study shows that the players are negative to the new turfs. The players feel ignored and that other more powerful factors steer the development of football. (Johansson & Rotter Nilsson, 2005)

The same study shows that the artificial turf affects the game. The tempo is higher but the ball bounces differently and quicker which takes longer time to control and is more difficult to handle.

UEFA and Jan Ekstrand have performed a study regarding injuries during games and training sessions. A comparison with third generation of artificial turf and natural pitches shows that the risk for injuries is not increased. Nevertheless, the results sowed that there is an increased risk for ankle injuries on artificial turf. There were high varieties between the participating teams(Ekstrand, 2006).

4 Method 4.1 Data collection In order to collect data we developed a questionnaire and distributed it to the fourteen Swedish premier league clubs and to the sixteen first division clubs. The club each representative selected ten players from all positions to take part in the survey. The clubs that replied less than seven questionnaires by the due date had new forms sent out. The data collection process was supported by postage-free reply envelopes. In order to improve the reply rate an additional 84 forms were distributed as a reminder. In total 384 forms were sent out and 207 valid reply forms were collected. The survey aimed to reach 300 players, 209 players replied which gives a reply rate of 70%.

The survey had three phases. 1. Creation the questionnaire by the administration of the SFS who used a lot of the questions from a survey done in Norway by NISO, the Norwegian PFA. 2. Distribution and gathering of the forms also performed by the administration of the SFS 3. Coding, analysis and presentation of the results performed by Pascal Rotter Nilsson and Fredrik Johansson

4.2 Analysis

The collected data has been coded and analysed with the statistics software SPSS 12.0 The analysed attributes were age and position. The players were also divided in groups based on artificial home turf or not.

4.3 Presentation The result is presented in several numbered diagrams with references in the text. Some of the less important attributes are not summarised as results.

The more interesting results are highlighted and further discussed in the section Discussion were it is also compared with previous studies and scientific research within this field.

5 Results

5.1 Attitudes to artificial turf

Since the first generation of artificial turf was introduced as a surface to play football on involved parts have discussed and debated it. Football experts, producers, politicians, media, supporters, football associations and especially the players have had strong and different opinions about artificial turf and its development. (Lundin, 2004; Lundkvist, 2004; Olsson, 2004; Wolf, 2004; Återgård, 2004). This survey shows the present situation of the players’ attitudes to train, and play on artificial turf and what their interest of the debate regarding artificial turf.

When the professional football players were asked about their interest in the debate of artificial turf it showed that 3 of 4 players is interested and follows the debate. Those who

play on nature grass on their home ground were more interested than those who play on an artificial turf. It is interesting to study the diagram below that shows the variance in the different age groups’ attention to the debate. (see fig. 3)

Different age groups interest of the debate regarding artificial turf

100% 70% 72% 73% 87% 80% 60% 40% 40% 20% 0% 18 years 19-24 25-30 31-35 36 years and years years years and youger older

Fig. 3: Percentage of players in each age group that are interested in the debate of artificial turf

The diagram shows that the age group 31-35 years has most interest in the debate of artificial turf. The oldest group has less interest compared to all the others age categories. The reason to this can perhaps be that they are planning to end their football career sooner than the other categories.

The players were asked how they find their teammates’ attitudes to artificial turf. Of the whole survey group 72 % believes that the team members have a negative attitude to artificial turf, while only 11 % replies positively. 8 % has no opinion and the rest don’t know. This is not shown in any diagram. When we analyzed the replies and the player’s position, we found that goalkeepers/forwards are more negative than defenders/midfielders.

Another interesting finding is that players that have an artificial turf on their home ground find their team members more positive to the artificial turf than players that play their home games on natural grass, (see fig. 4): The diagram shows that six of ten players who has artificial turf at their home ground are negative to it.

Fig. 4: The distribution of respondents regarding the team mate’s attitudes to artificial turf

48 % of the players in the the survey group responded that they were positive and 39 % were negative to train on an artificial turf. When they were asked about what they thought about playing friendly games on artificial turf. 75 % were positive while only 16 % were negative. However, their viewpoint changed completely regarding more important and official games. 72 % of the players were positive regarding league or cup games on artificial turf meanwhile only 16 % were negative. This could mean that most players accept artificial turf as a surface to train and play friendly games on in the pre-season and not a surface to play on during league and cup season (see fig. 5). Fig. 5: The distribution regarding the players’ attitude to train and play games on artificial turf. The players attitude to train and play games on artificial turf

75% 72% Attitude to train on 48% artificial turf

39% Attitude to play friendly games on artificial turf 16% 16% 10% 9%

8% Attitude to play official 1% 0% 1% games on artificial turf

Positive Negative No opinion Don´t know

As we analyzed the players answer about training, play friendly games and play official 7

games on artificial turf, in point of view regarding the player’s position in the field, we found interesting connections. It shows that goalkeepers/forwards are more negative to train and play friendly and official games on artificial turf compared to defender/midfielder groups. Younger players are more positive to train and play official games on artificial turf if we compare to the other age categories. On other hands hade all age categories the same opinion about playing friendly games on artificial turf.

Fig. 6: The respondent’s attitude to train, play friendly and official games on artificial turf comparing the different groups based on type of home ground. The diagrams presented above (see fig. 6) show that the responses from the two turf groups are similar when it comes to the player’s attitude to train and play friendly games on artificial turf. On the contrary, there is a large difference in opinion regarding playing official games on artificial turf. On the other hand, it was a big difference in opinions about playing official games on artificial turf. In this case are “nature grass group” more negative than the “artificial turf group”. Interesting to note is that as much as 42% of the “artificial turf group” has a negative opinion to train on artificial turf. Furthermore are 51 % of those who train and play their home games on artificial turf negative to play official games on artificial turf.

The players answered how they experienced attitude changes after new and modern arenas have been built with artificial turf. 31% of the players in the survey were equal or more 8

positive and 52% were equal or more negative after the establishment of the new arenas. When we compare the groups based on their home turf, the “nature grass group” are more negative.

5.2 Changes in the game with artificial turf to play on

Prior to the introduction of artificial turf one important condition has been that the turf must be very similar to nature grass. When UEFA approved Euro – 2004 qualifications games on artificial turf they had proven the similarity to natural grass in tests. However, sport journalists and players had another opinion. This part of the survey shows what Swedish professional football players think about the artificial turfs.

The players answered different questions about playing on artificial turf. The questions were asked to find out in what extent the respondent agreed to a statement.

The player were asked to specify if he thought that artificial turf is an advantage because it always gives the opportunity to play on a good surface. The answers showed that 11 % fully agreed, 66 % partly agreed, 22 % did not agree at all and finally 1 % did not have an opinion. An interesting analysis was made based on the player’s position. 37 % of the goalkeepers/forwards did not agree at all compared to 18% of the defenders/midfielders.

The diagram (see fig. 7) shows differences between different age categories. Interesting to see is that younger players are negative as older players, which shows that the myth about that only the old players are negative to artificial turf is wrong.

Age breakdown of those who fully agrees that artificial turf are an advantage for footballplayers bacause it always offers the possibility to play on a good surface.

16% 20%

8% 4%

Up to 24 25-30 year 31-35 year 36 years and years up

Fig. 7: Respondents breakdown in age differences of those who fully agrees that artificial turf is an advantage for football players because it always offers a possibility to play on a good surface.

The diagrams below (see fig. 8) shows the variances between the two groups based on type of home ground regarding their opinion about the statement above. It is interesting to see that it is only 6% of the “artificial turf group” that fully agrees with the statement. That is remarkable because this group train and play on artificial turf on a regular basis.

Nature grass group breakdown Artificial turf group breakdown Don't Fully know agree 3% 11% Don't Fully know agree Don´t 2% 6% agree at Partly Don´t all agree agree at 15% 77% all 25%

Partly agree 61%

Fig. 8: The respondent’s breakdown on an “nature grass group” and an ”artificial turf group“ considering if artificial turf is an advantage to football players because of it always offers possibility to play on a good surface.

Is artificial turf an advantage to In the survey the players got the some players compared to chance to say what they thought about other artificial turf is an advantage to some Don' t players compared to other, (see fig. 9). know Fully Note that 12 % of the players do not 5% agree 26% agree at all about that artificial turf Don´t gives advantages or disadvantages. agree at all When we analyse the result there is no 12% difference regarding on what surface they play their home games on. The players also have the same opinion Partly irrespective of age or position. agree 57%

Fig. 9: The respondent’s breakdown considering if artificial turf is an advantage to some players compared to other.

If artificial turf is an advantage for more The players were asked if artificial turf is an advantage for more technical teams and/or tecnical football players. The result shows that 37% did not agree Don't Fully at all. (see fig. 10). know agree 16% 5% The survey also shows that 44% of the Partly goalkeepers/forwards did not agree at all while agree 35 % of defenders/midfielders had the same 42% opinion. The result also shows that there is no difference between the different age groups.

When we compared the groups based on home Don´t turf 39 % who plays on grass and 27 % who agree at plays on artificial turf did not agree at all. all 37%

Fig. 10: The respondent’s breakdown considering if artificial turf is an advantage for teams and/or layers that play more technical football.

Does artificial turf makes A majority of the players do not agree at all football less fysical with regarding that artificial turf makes football less physical with less tackles (see fig. 11). less tackles Don't However, we found interesting results when we know Fully 9% agree analysed the players’ opinion based on their Don´t 16% position. 61% of the defenders agree fully agree at whereas 24% of the midfielders, 3% of the all 47% goalkeepers and only 1 % of the forwards had the same opinion.

Partly agree 28%

The diagram below shows interesting differences among the different group of players (see fig. 12). A remarkable large part of the players that play their home games on artificial turf that considers the games less physical with less tackles.

Artificial turf makes football less physical with less tackles breakdown on "natural grass group" and "artificial turf goup"

49%

29% 28% 21% 38%

13% 10% 12%

Fully agree Partly agree Do not agree Unknowing at all

Nature grass group Artificial turf group

Fig. 12: The respondents breakdown considering if artificial turf makes football less physical with less tackles and difference between ”nature grass group” and ”artificial turf group”

A reason that artificial turfs are installed Is nature grass of such might be due to the Nordic climate early spring and late autumn. More than 25% good quality that artificial of the players did not agree that the grass turf is not needed during turfs are of good quality for these the season (April- periods of the official league season (see fig. 13). The responses did not differ due October)Don't know to the players age. When we then Don´t 2% Fully analysed the players’ positions it showed agree at agree that 40% of the goalkeepers and all 29% 27% forwards fully agreed that grass have a good quality all throughout the official league season. If we compared this to the defender/midfielder group 25% had the same opinion. Partly agree 42%

The players that play their games on grass pitches are more positive to the grass and the pitch quality during season witch is shown in the diagram below (see fig. 14).

Has nature grass so good qualityhat artificial turf is not needed during the footballseason (April-October)

44%

31% 33% 41%

21% 21%

4% 5%

Fully agree Partly agree Do not agree Don't know at all

Nature grass group Artificial turf group

Fig. 14: The respondent’s breakdown considering if nature grass have so good quality that artificial turf is not needed during the season (April-October).

Nature grass and artificial turf is different when it comes to sense and feeling. The players were asked if sense and feeling of nature grass is an important part of the charm with football. It showed that 94 % of the players fully or partly agreed about that this was an important issue. We found no big differences when we analyzed age, position or type of home arena.

5.3 Injuries an other consequences with artificial turf

Issues and risks regarding injuries is the most debated and researched topic of artificial turfs, (Johansson & Rotter Nilsson, 2005; Ekstrand, 2006). In this part, we present the players viewpoint regarding injuries and risks of artificial turfs. This report includes injuries related to artificial turf in a short-term perspective as well as its impact on their future health and career.

The players got were asked what surface they What surface do you think is thought were the source to most injuries. The the source to most injuries? majority of the players answered artificial turf (see fig. 15). There was no difference between the age groups but interesting differences in Nature the answers due to the players’ position. In the Don't grass know 2% goalkeeper/forward group, it is 77% who think that artificial turf is the source of most 18% Artificial turf injuries. In the defender/ midfielder group, the 63% number is 60%. An analysis and comparison of nature grass and artificial turf group shows that both groups are of the opinion that No artificial turf is the source to most injuries (see difference fig. 16). It is a much larger group of the 17% players in the nature grass group than in the artificial turf group that think that artificial turf are the source to most injuries.

Fig. 15: The respondents breakdown concerning of what surface is the source to most injuries.

Fig. 16: Respondenternas fördelning gällande om vilket underlag som ger upphov till flest What surfaceskador fördelat are på thenatur- sourceoch konstgräsgruppen. to most injuries?

70% 41% 35% 16% 21% 1% 3% 13%

Nature grass Artificial turf No difference Don't know

Nature grass group Artificial turf group

More clubs and communities build arenas or training grounds with artificial turf and more players change surface more often. The survey group got the chance to tell their opinion about 15

if they think many and fast changes between nature grass and artificial turf cause more or less injuries. 93 % of the players had the opinion that these changes gave more injuries. When analyzing this from age, position or nature grass/artificial turf point of view there were no differences in opinion.

The development of artificial turf has increased and become more equal to nature grass but still the players think that the surface has a large cause to injuries.

Injuries because of the The diagram to the left (see fig. 17) surface you play on shows that changes between different Injuries surfaces are a key factor to injuries. because Injuries because Don't of nature There is no differences when we look of know grass at the players’ position but when we 2% artificial Injuries 10% turf analyze age differences we can see that not 33% younger players have more experience related to of injuries because of artificial turf surface 22% than the older players. On the other hand, the older players are affected more negatively by the changes of Injuries surface than what the younger players because are. This could depend on that older or players’ are more vulnerable to these changes of surface changes, which also can become a 33% factor related to earlier retirement from football.

When analyzing this question from nature grass and artificial turf point of Fig. 17: The respondent’s breakdown concerning the view it becomes more interesting. The player’s injuries because of the surface diagram below (see fig. 18) shows interesting differences depending on injuries because of many changes of surfaces.

The diagram below shows that the nature grass group players have more injuries because of playing on artificial turf than the group of players tat play their home games on a ground with an artificial turf. On the other hand, the artificial turf group get injured more on artificial turf than on nature grass. This can be explained with that they train and play more on artificial turf compared to nature grass. After further analyzing what surface they play on most of the time, we see that the artificial turf group get more injuries playing on artificial turf than the nature grass group get from playing on nature grass. Note that the artificial turf group has a higher percentage responding Non surface related injuries.

Injuries depending of the surface

47% 39% 37% 31% 19% 9% 3% 0%

Injuries on Injuries on nature Injuries because Non surface artificial turf grass of changes of related injuries surface

Nature grass group Artificial turf group Fig. 18: The respondent’s breakdown concerning the players injuries depending on surface comparing nature grass and artificial turf group. It´s a bigger part of the players in the artificial turf group who choose Injuries because of changing surface compared to the nature grass group. This probably depends on that the players in the artificial turf group changes between the different surfaces more often during the season.

The players in the artificial turf group have perhaps noticed that the frequent changes of grounds gives most of the injuries and not the artificial turf it self. And the other group might believe that the artificial turf causes and increases the risk for the injuries and not so much the changes of surface.

What types of shoes are most adequate to use on an artificial turf? Most players choose to play in ordinary football shoes with studs. In this survey, 22% of the players answered that the type of shoe has a big impact on injuries that occurred on artificial turf and as many as 48% thought that it had small impact. 10 % thought that the choice of shoes did not have any impact at all and 20 % did not know. There were no differences in the age groups, but forwards thought that the choice of shoes had less impact than players in other positions.

When analyzing the question about the choice of shoes impact concerning if you belong to artificial turf or nature grass group we can see that the artificial turf group thinks that it has less impact than the nature grass group. Probably the artificial turf group has more experience of artificial turf, which we present in the diagram below (see fig. 19).

The choice of footballshoes effect on injuries

when playing on artificial turf

48% 45% 25% 27% 6% 8% 19% 22%

Big impact Small impact No impact Don´t know

Nature grass group Artificial turf group Fig. 19: The respondent’s breakdown concerning injuries who depending on surface breakdown on nature grass and artificial turf group.

We also asked the players if they were worried about injuries due to training and playing games on artificial turf that could shorten their football career. 45 % of the players are worried and 43 % are not worried. 12% answered don’t know. There were no differences between the age groups. Forwards were less worried compared to players in other positions.

The diagram below (see fig. 20) shows that the players in the artificial turf group are less worried than the nature grass group. Note that 27 % of the players who train and play their home games on artificial turf are worried for that the surface can cause them injuries that might force them to end their career earlier than planned.

Are the players wooried about if artificial turf will cause injuries and there by shorten their carrier?

65% 49%

27% 37% 14% 8%

Yes No Don´t know

Nature grass group Artificial turf group Fig. 20: The respondents breakdown concerning if the players are worried about that artificial turf will cause injuries and there by shorten there carrier

The rubber materials (re-used from old tires) in the artificial turf pitches have cancer-inducing organics that could affect the players health. We asked the players if they were worried of the increased cancer risk due to training and playing on the artificial turfs. It showed that 60 % were not worried, wile 24 % were worried and 16 % answered don’t know.

Goalkeepers bigger fear of The diagram to the left (see fig. 21) shows that goalkeepers worry more than other increased cancerrisk because players do. This is probably due to that of artificial turf goalkeepers are more exposed to the surface.

The diagram below (see fig. 22) shows the 48% differences between the nature grass 19% 25% group and the artificial turf group 17% regarding their concern for an increased risk for cancer. The players in the nature

Goalkeepers Defenders Midfielders Forwards grass group worry more which can be explained by that the artificial turf group Fig. 21: The respondents breakdown considering are more used to the surface. worrie of getting cancer because ofplaying on artificial turf breakdown in position.

Does playing on artificial turf all year around occurs more injuries and forces more players to stop playing football at younger age

57% 60% 48% 30% 39% 20% 15% 11% 9% 0%

Up to 18 years 19-24 years 25-30 years 31-35 years 36 years and old older Rather/very likely Rather/very unlikely

Fig. 22: The respondent’s breakdown considering increased cancer risk because of playing on artificial turf breakdown on nature grass and artificial turf group.

We asked if the players think that artificial turf causes more injuries and forces players to stop playing football at younger age because of playing on the surface all year around. It showed that 45 % of the survey group thought that this is a likely scenario. 13 % thought that it is much unlikely scenario. 32 % was neutral and 10 % answered don’t know. There was no difference between positions but the diagram below (see fig. 23) shows the differences related to the players age.

Will playing on artificial turf all year around give more injuries and force more players to stop playing football at a younger age

46% 35%

24%

Rather/very likely Rather/very unlikely Nature grass group Artificial turf group

Fig. 23: The respondents breakdown about playing on artificial turf all year around will give more injuries and force more players to stop playing football at younger age breakdown on age categories.

When we analyze the players opinion breakdown on nature grass group and artificial turf group (see fig. 24) we see that the artificial turf group are more positive to future games on artificial turf compared to the nature grass group. This is probably due to that the artificial turf group continuously train and play on the surface all year around and not yet seen such a scenario.

Will playing on artificial turf all year around give more injuries and force more players to stop playing football at a younger age

46% 35% 24%

Rather/very likely Rather/very unlikely Nature grass group Artificial turf group

Fig. 24: The respondents breakdown on if playing on artificial turf all year around will give more injuries and force more to stop playing football at a younger age breakdown on nature grass and artificial turf group. 20

5.4 Artificial turf, future and players influence

Development of artificial turf pitches has gone fast these last years. Furthermore the Swedish FA are supporting the development for those clubs who wants to construct artificial turf pitches, which will fasten up the speed of constructing new artificial turf pitches (Lundin, 2004; Lundkvist, 2004; Olsson, 2004; Wolf, 2004; Återgård, 2004). Because of this, it is interesting to investigate what players think of the future with artificial turf. It is even more interesting to illustrate the players’ thoughts about how artificial turf shall be used in the future. This report encourages clubs to listen to players and to let them take part in the process before the number of new pitches increases.

The diagram below (see fig. 25) shows that the majority of the players prefer to play on artificial turf 2-5 months a year and 9 out of 10 players prefer to play on nature grass 7-12 months a year. This shows that the players see artificial turf as a surface suitable for pre season. The result of the survey also shows that the age categories are homogenous; younger players don’t want to play more months on artificial turf than older players.

Months a year that the players wants to play on artificial turf

100% 61% 80%

60% 29% 40% 6% 3% 1% 20% 0%

1 month or 2-5 months 6-8 months 9-12 All year less months around

Fig. 25: Th respondents breakdown considering the number of months around the year that the players wants to play on artificial turf.

When analyzing this question it become even more interesting when it shows that 74 % of the artificial turf group wants to play on artificial turf 5 months or less. It is remarkable that 3 out of 4 of the players in the artificial turf group do not consider artificial turf as a surface to play on all year around. This can be compared with the 92 % of the nature grass group who wants to play on artificial turf in the same number of months. In the artificial turf group, only a small group of players (6%) wants to play on artificial turf all year around. No player in the nature grass group wants to play on this surface all year around.

We asked how likely/unlikely it was that the clubs would invest in new arenas with artificial 21

turf in order to earn money on other events than football. 67 % of the players answered that they thought that this was rather or much likely. While 5% thought it was rather or much unlikely. A relatively large group of 23 % were neutral and 5 % who answered don’t know. In this aspect, there were no differences between the nature grass and artificial turf groups. It was the oldest and the youngest age groups that thought that this was rather or much likely.

We asked the players if they thought that all big clubs and national teams over the world would play all their international games on artificial turfs in a ten-year period. The players were relatively united in their viewpoint, 86% thought that it was rather or much unlikely wile only 3% thought that it was rather or much likely. 7 % were neutral and 4 % answered don’t know. When we compared the artificial turf group and the nature grass group, we found it interesting that the players that play their home games on artificial turf find it more unlikely then the players that play their games on nature grass.

During the last years, many clubs have discussed the type of surface prior to renewing their home arenas. In these decisions, many interest groups as the club, the council, the fan clubs and the sponsors. The pitch is the players’ workplace therefore; it is interesting to see if they feel that they have been involved in these decisions.

The survey shows that 85 % of the players felt involved before the club management made the decision regarding type of turf. There are almost no difference in opinion between the artificial turf group and the nature grass group in this matter. 81 % of the players that have been involved in the decision feel that the management have taken their viewpoint seriously but 19 % feels neglected. 56% of the players were pleased with the management’s final choice of turf and 44% were not.

6 Discussion

6.1 The positions effect on experience of artificial turf The design of this survey enables analysis in new dimensions and it highlights new aspects of artificial turfs that have not been studied before. The survey has clearly shown that goalkeepers/forwards differs in opinions in many areas compared to defenders/midfielders.

In general, the goalkeepers/forwards have a more negative attitude to play on artificial turf than the defenders/midfielders. The goalkeepers/forwards are also less positive than defenders/midfielders to artificial turf provides a good alternative surface through out the season.

We found the same pattern regarding the players opinion about if artificial turf gives a more technical football. The goalkeepers/forwards think that an artificial turf doesn’t give a more technical football. The goalkeepers/forwards are also more pleased with the quality of nature grass pitches through out the season than players in other positions are.

Compared to other players, more goalkeepers/forwards find the artificial turf more risky regarding injuries. The job requirements for the different positions explain the variation in results. We believe that the artificial turf influence the different positions differently due to speed, time and patterns of movements. For example, the goalkeepers are more hurt by the harder artificial surface, which makes them change their game. (Johansson & Rotter Nilsson, 2005). This report also shows that this group is more concerned for their health due to the toxic rubber material. We understand this concern because the medical effect is poorly studied (Kemikalieinspektionen, 2006).

On artificial turf, it is harder for defenders to foresee the game due to the higher speed. The defenders as a group consider the game less tuff with less sliding tackles. They find the game on artificial turf less physical (Johansson & Rotter Nilsson, 2005. Artificial turf is probably of favour for the defenders due to their lower level of precision. This can explain why they are more positive to artificial turf than the other groups (Johansson & Rotter Nilsson, 2005).

We believe that the midfielders are less affected by the new turfs due to their central role and close collaboration with the other positions. Forwards find the game quicker due to that the ball bounces differently and at a higher speed. The find it harder to chip and dribble and that they need more time to handle the ball. Johansson & Rotter Nilsson, 2005).

6.2 Attitude to artificial turf from a European perspective

It is hard to compare the result from this report to other studies due to that we have asked the questions differently. Nevertheless, about the same rate of players are negative to play official games on artificial turfs in this study as in other European research (SFS, 2006). This and other reports have studied the players experienced risk for injuries on artificial turfs. The results varies a lot but Swedish and Norwegian research show similar results. The players own experience and time to adapt to the surface can be of great importance (SFS, 2006).

6.3 Injuries due to many changes of surface

This report shows a new aspect regarding the appearance of injuries. The players that play and train most of their time on artificial turfs consider the frequent changes between the two different surfaces to be the reason behind the increased risk for injuries. The negative physical impact on their bodies is higher the older the players are. In addition, this can affect them to end their careers earlier than planned.

Research has shown that teams do not change to the next game’s surface due to the increased pressure on the players (Johansson & Rotter Nilsson, 2005).

This new aspect regarding frequent changes of surfaces is interesting in relation to the Uefa study (Ekstrand 2006) because that study did not include the frequent changes of surface as a cause of injuries. We find this area worth more research. We suggest that an adequate study were the cause of injuries can be explored over time.

7 Sources

7.1 Conferences

Ekstrand, J. (2006, Maj, 12). Skaderisk vid fotbollsspel på konstgräs jämfört med naturgräs. Svensk idrottsmedicin vårmöte, Conventum i Örebro.

Olsson, L-C. (2004, November, 02). Fotboll – en världsport i ständig utveckling! Hur ser framtiden ut? Idrott- och anläggningsmässa, Svenska mässan i Göteborg.

Lundin, I. (2004, November, 03). Konstgräs – framtidens underlag? Idrott- och anläggningsmässa, Svenska mässan i Göteborg.

Lundqvist, R (2004, November, 03). Konstgräs – framtidens underlag? Idrott- och anläggningsmässa, Svenska mässan i Göteborg.

Wolf, D. (2004, November, 03). Konstgräs – framtidens underlag? Idrott- och anläggningsmässa, Svenska mässan i Göteborg.

Återgård, E. L. (2004, November, 03). Konstgräs – framtidens underlag? Idrott- och anläggningsmässa, Svenska mässan i Göteborg.

7.2 White papers and dissertations

Johansson, F., Rotter Nilsson, P. (2005). Tredje generationens konstgräs - En studie om perceptionella förändringar, psykologiska aspekter på skada och taktiska skillnader. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet, Instutionen för pedagogik och didaktik.

Kemikalieinspektionen [KEMI] (2006). Konstgräs ur ett kemikalieperspektiv – en lägesrapport. Stockholm: Kemikalieinspektionen.

7.3 Publications

Laul, R. (2002, mars, 12). Spelarna ratar nya 3:e generationens konstgräs – så fungerar det. Aftonbladet, s. 45. Tillgänglig: Mediearkivet [2004, maj, 02]

Lindqvist, S. (2005, september, 25). Spelarna totalsågar konstgräset – det är spelarna som kommer i kläm och vi i Sverige är lite av försöksobjekt. Helsingborgs dagblad, s. 34. Tillgänglig: Mediearkivet [2007, mars, 02]

7.4 Internet documents

Fédération Internationale de Football Association [FIFA] (2004). Artificial playing surfaces officially permitted from 1 July. [www dokument]. URL http://www.fifa.com/en/media/index/0,1369,101990,00.html?articleid=101990 25