Two Seminal Moments

A lot has already been written about the Women's World Cup Final.  And there were many, many occasions worthy of reflection.

But, for me, the Final, and really the whole tournament, can be summed up in two stunning moments. Both took place in the first 16 minutes of the game in which the U.S. thrashed Japan 5-2 in the most comprehensive and mind boggling domination of any opponent in a World Cup Final.

The first was Carli Lloyd's first goal on a set piece in the third minute (I know, I probably don't have to tell you which goal was which). That goal was the final nail in the coffin of my and everyone else's criticisms of Jill Ellis as a coach. It was the perfect call at the perfect time and it worked to perfection as well.

It was also a little bit of deja vu for me, as it was very reminiscent of a corner that University High pulled off against my Charleston Catholic team several years back (immediately after which one of our defenders exclaimed: "Wow! That was sweet!"). That the University team was trained by the fellow coach that I most admired perhaps colors my appreciation for Ellis' decision. Or informs it.

For most of the pre-match hype commentators had been pointing to the superior height of the Americans and the importance of it capitalizing on that advantage on set pieces.

So what does Ellis do? Have the team spend a lot of time practicing set pieces played on the ground not in the air. On the corner Lloyd, the U.S.'s best offensive header of the ball, started her run at least 25 yards from goal, arriving in the 18 yard box as Megan Rapinoe took the kick, and steaming toward the penalty spot well ahead of her defender.

To be sure, the play needed the perfect ball by Rapinoe, a largely uncongested area in front of the keeper, and a deft touch (outside of the left foot) by Lloyd to succeed. But the area in which the ball was played was uncontested because of the attention being paid to Julie Johnston at the near post, because of Japan's overwhelming concern to guard against headers off of set pieces.

All credit to Ellis for seeing the possibilities in playing completely against form in making that call. Whether the other adjustments that she made during the tournament were fortuitous or planned (inserting Morgan Brian in the line-up due to Lauren Holiday's suspension, moving to a 4-5-1 formation -- stop insisting it's a 4-3-3 Tony DiCicco it's not! -- when Holiday was eligible again) really isn't important to me. What is that she was willing to adapt and learn. That's every bit as important for coaches as for players and the fact that she was willing to change and experiment on the biggest of stages is admirable.

And oh by the way, if you don't think that was the plan, the Americans' second set piece, won by Tobin Heath with some fine work down the right flank, resulted in a second free kick by Holiday (yeah, I was wrong about her too) played on the ground to Johnston, whose wonderful back-heel pass left Lloyd again in front of goal with the ball at her feet.

Random thought: did you notice the calls for a foul from Alex Morgan and Johnston on the second goal? I missed it while watching live, but it's clear that a Japanese player (number 19, Saori Ariyoshi) handled the ball after Johnston's flick on. If the referee saw it and didn't stop play, kudos to her. If she missed it, then it was a foreshadowing of a non-call in the second half when she missed almost the identical play.

The second seminal moment was Lloyd's third goal in 15 minutes, the one that secured the game, her hat trick, and her legacy. That audacious chip may some day be a more iconic moment in women's soccer than Brandi Chastain's penalty kick in 1999 (except for that whole Chastain taking off her shirt thing).

Everyone was still buzzing about Holiday's goal when Lloyd won the ball in midfield off of the Japanese kickoff and then suddenly it was, "Wait. What? Did that just happen?" for about 20 million people.

I saw this comment somewhere on-line after the Final, which is kind of tired but so appropriate here: "It's Carli Lloyd's world and we're just living in it."  She was a beast, she was in the zone, she put the team on her shoulders, choose whatever cliché you want. They all fit.

It took guts for Lloyd to step up and take the penalty kicks against Columbia and Germany. But it took great vision, presence, and a lot of chutzpah to even think to attempt that 60 yard chip. In the Final of the World Cup. The fact that she even thought to try it is astonishing -- particularly against a team that is renowned for its discipline. The fact that it actually went in? Inconceivable.

But it had to go in. Because really, her story, the team's story, our story, this story couldn't have ended any other way.

(photo from bbc.co.uk)

Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here

Yes, the U.S. dominated top ranked (for now) Germany in defeating it 2-0 in the World Cup semifinal.

Yes, Japan looked pedestrian, and more than a little lucky, in downing England 2-1 in the other semifinal.

Yes, the U.S. seems to be peaking, as coach Jill Ellis has repeatedly said was the goal, at the right time.

But don't forget 2011.

After Abby Wambach's goal at the death against Brazil in the quarterfinals in 2011 eventually led to an American win on penalty kicks, the U.S. cruised 3-1 over France in the semis. It appeared that the U.S. was truly a team of destiny.

But then it lost to Japan 3-1 in the Final in penalty kicks. After extra time ended with a dramatic Japanese goal by eventual Golden Boot winner Homare Sawa. And, perhaps even more egregious, it squandered a seemingly safe 1-0 lead with nine minutes left in regulation after some Keystone Cops defending that allowed Japan to equalize when it had barely threatened the entire game.

While the U.S. defense is much stouter this time around, surely 2011 was a lesson that the Japanese are every bit as tough and resilient as are the Americans. And Japan is not without skill - its players may be the most technically adept of any at the tournament.

I've witnessed some crazy talk on Fox Sports over the last few days. 3-0 U.S. seems to be a standard prediction. Is that within the realm of possibility? Yes. Is it likely given what we know about Japan and the way it's played the last five years? No. Is it likely given the Americans' continuing inability to score in the run-of-play (two goals in the three elimination matches in this tournament)? No.

A friend suggested after the Germany game that he and I needed to continue to trash-talk the U.S. (and particularly its coach) since it seemed to result in better and better performances. And while I'm certainly prepared to do whatever I can to help the cause, Jill Ellis says she doesn't read the papers or on-line articles so I'm not sure it will make any difference other than pure superstition (to which I am admittedly not immune).

It seems that every elimination game has had at least one penalty kick. And my fear is that, as technical as the Japanese are, they won't give one away.

But they did against England. 

And they just may again tomorrow.

Has she got one more in her? (photo from kansascity.com)

Mostly Right

Here's what I was wrong about in my last post:

1. The U.S. will inevitably lose to Germany.

The Yanks have a chance if they play as well, and play mostly the same players, as they did against China (sorry Kelley O'Hara, you were good, but you're the odd woman out as way has to be made for Megan Rapinoe). Not saying we'll win. Just no longer saying we're sure to lose.

2. Amy Rodriguez (her energy and defending from the front were exactly what the U.S. needed).

3. Assuming Canada had what it took to get past England.

Here's what I was right about in my last post:

1. Lauren Holiday.

2. Abby Wambach.

3. Carli Lloyd.

(photo from usatoday.com)

4. Germany (barely).

5. Japan.

6. Canada.

Things I meant to say and didn't:

1. In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. defense is really, really good. Can you win a World Cup with a great defense and a so-so offense? Undoubtedly. Since the first half against Australia, Hope Solo hasn't had to do much of anything in goal. That's how good Ali Krieger, Meghan Klingenberg (my personal favorite among the defenders), Julie Johnston, and Becky Sauerbrunn have been.

Yet to be determined:

1. Whether Jill Ellis has the guts to sit Wambach and Holiday against Germany. Remember my comment about how Michael Bradley is more at-ease in an attacking role when he knows Kyle Beckerman has his back? Same for Lloyd and Morgan Brian, who has improved by leaps-and-bounds since her first appearance in this Cup. And Wambach, a legendary competitor, simply hasn't got what it takes for 90 minutes of World Cup play.

This will be fun.

Survive and Advance

How many times have you read those words in the past two weeks? In a tournament it does not matter how you win, or how good you look while winning, only that you do, we keep hearing. Survive and advance.

That's exactly what the U.S. Women's National team has done so far in the World Cup. It's also about the nicest thing that anyone has to say about its performance to-date.

And it's also why it's taken me so long to finish this post. There's something about this team (and has been for a while) that leaves me unconvinced that it will end up with a third star.

There were those shaky moments against Sweden and Australia. If not for a saving header by the shortest player on the field (Meghan Klingenberg) the U.S. would have lost to Sweden and its former coach, Pia Sundhage. And Hope Solo, not weighed down by off-the-field baggage, kept the Yanks in the match with several first half saves against the Matildas that only Solo can make.

The match with Columbia took on an edge thanks mostly to perceived slights of the American players asserted by Colombian forward Lady Andrade. Andrade's comments were curious given that publicly the U.S. players said all the right things about respecting every opponent in the knock-out stage and Columbia's shocking 2-0 upset of France in group play, not to mention that one would think that she would not want to draw attention to herself given that the last time that the two teams met she punched Abby Wambach in the face and was suspended for two games as a result.

But whatever statement the Americans might have made on the field in response was buried under another avalanche of offensive mediocrity. No matter what combination of forwards coach Jill Ellis has tried between Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan, Kristen Press, Amy Rodriguez, and Sydney Leroux, the result has been depressingly consistent - few chances, fewer shots on goal, and, since the Australia match, three goals in three games.

As a coach it always frustrated me when the press and other coaches focused on who was scoring goals, not how they were put in the position to score them. And, while Morgan has been rusty, Wambach not one but two steps slow, and Press, Rodriguez and Leroux largely ineffective, I suspect that the real root of the problem is the service that they're receiving from the midfield, specifically center mids Carli Lloyd and Lauren Holiday.

I've expressed before my fondness for Lloyd's game and my frustration with Holiday's. We may see if the U.S. is better off with Lloyd playing the more offensive ("number 10") role for the women on Friday against China, a game for which both Holiday and Megan Rapinoe are suspended. It's easy to forget now, but Lloyd did score the game winning goals in both the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Gold Medal matches.

Lloyd celebrates one of her two goals against Japan in the
2012 Olympic Gold Medal match (photo from pennlive.com)

But the problem may not be of either Lloyd's or Holiday's making - they may simply be playing the way that Ellis has instructed them to. Long balls forward and depending on set pieces is not interesting to watch and definitely not the way to play if you're playing from behind, which the U.S. has yet to be in the World Cup, fortunately.

If you want to watch how the game should be played, play hooky or DVR the Friday afternoon match between Germany and France. Notwithstanding Les Bleues' inexplicable loss to Columbia, these two teams are not only the most exciting in this year's World Cup, but also clearly the best to this point. The way that they move without the ball and play give-and-goes is a thing of beauty, and sorely lacking in the Americans' play.

The winner of that match will play the U.S.-China victor in the semi-finals. And, while I expect that the U.S. will squeak past China, I don't hold out much hope for it against whichever team survives the Germany-France match (and, really, when Germany and France meet in any competition, can you ever bet against the Germans?).

On the other side of the bracket, if it's possible Canada has been even less impressive and more predictable than the U.S. It will likely have its first real test against Japan in the semis. And will lose.

So, an all-Axis power World Cup Final anyone? 2-0 Germany in the final over Japan. And perhaps a victory for those who play the game the way it's supposed to be played.

Then Again ...

Did I overreact to the result of a friendly?

Perhaps.

But examples of equal overreaction to the U.S. Women's win in the finals of the Algarve Cup abound as well.

Yes, the U.S. was missing Hope Solo and Megan Rapinoe and Sydney Leroux in its 2-0 loss in a friendly last month. But Rapinoe and Leroux made mere cameo appearance in its 2-0 win over France in the Algarve Cup final last week. Meanwhile, the French were missing five of their starters in the match in Portugal who had featured in the earlier game in Lorient (including both starting center backs, playmaker Louisa Nacib, and Elodie Thomis who torched the American defense repeatedly in their first meeting of the year).

What can we learn from the second match? First, as hard as it may be to admit, the team needs Solo. She is athletic and commanding in the box. She made a good save on the late penalty kick, but more importantly her presence seems to calm all of the U.S. defenders. And that unit also seems better equipped to handle fast, skilled players with Julie Johnston partnering with Becky Sauerbrunn in central defense.

Second, the team has a new star in Christen Press. While she may not have been able to shred France's Wendie Renard and Laura Georges the way she did their substitutes in the Final in Portugal, she is a dynamic player whose individual skill on the ball is going to be needed if Jill Ellis' team continues to play balls over the top to its forwards (whoever they will end up being between Alex Morgan, Amy Rodriquez, Abby Wambach, Sydney Leroux, and Press) rather than possession soccer.

Press at the Algarve Cup (photo from usatoday.com)

Which brings me to third, why I'm not sold on the team yet. It probably has more to do with the type of soccer that I like to watch than it does whether I believe the U.S. will win the Women's World Cup in Canada. It seems that Ellis is intent on playing with no true attacking wing midfielders, putting Press and Carli Lloyd out wide and letting Lauren Holiday (of whom everyone but me seems enamored as a playmaker) and Morgan Brian run the center of midfield.

Moving Press and Lloyd "out wide" means that they rarely play as out-and-out wingers, but more like additional center-mids, which is fine if you want to control possession and play a small-pass game. Which, puzzlingly, the U.S. has not done in any of the matches that it's played in that alignment. I've long expressed my admiration for the skills of Rapinoe and Tobin Heath, who excel at wing play (although Heath, like Press, is more adept at challenging players from the wing and cutting inside than Rapinoe, who sends in crosses with the best of them). If Ellis continues to use Press and Lloyd at outside mid, then the U.S. attack will be less varied, more predictable, and not nearly as entertaining as when Rapinoe and Heath play.

I don't expect that the exhibitions that the U.S. has scheduled over the next three months will tell us much about how the U.S. will fair in Canada. But they will very likely confirm what Ellis' plans are for the formation they will use and the players that she is counting to prove that Portugal, not Lorient, was the bell weather of what their chances of success are.

Rudderless

rud·der·less

ˈrədərləs/

adjective

adjective: rudderless

1. lacking a rudder.

   • lacking a clear sense of one's aims or principles.

     "today's leadership is rudderless"

Rudderless.

That's the one word that kept creeping into my mind, over and over again, as I watched another U.S. National Soccer team, this time the women, be outclassed and outworked.

Yes, we lost 2-0 to a very good French national team that has beaten Germany and Brazil in the past few months.

Yes, the U.S. was without some of its key players as Megan Rapinoe, Christine Rampone, Hope Solo, and Sydney Leroux didn't dress for the match and the first three didn't even make the trip for the friendlies with France and England.

Yes, the rest of the world is catching us along with the other members of the formerly exclusive club of countries that can contend for the women's World Cup.

All the more reason to need, to have to rely on and have confidence in, your coach. And in my opinion the game against the French demonstrated that the team appears to be a rudderless ship.

When, just seven months ago, U.S. Soccer decided to unceremoniously dump national team coach Tom Sermanni I wrote that the candidates to replace him were uninspiring and that, if the powers-that-be had concluded that they had made the wrong decision in hiring Sermanni, they did not have the luxury of making a second mistake in choosing his replacement with the World Cup a year away. 

One of those candidates, Jill Ellis, was chosen as the temporary and then permanent replacement for Sermanni. Ellis was born in England and her father John was a soccer coach as well. After playing for William & Mary, Ellis embarked on a coaching career in college that culminated at UCLA, where the program made eight NCAA Final Fours in her 12 years as coach. She then moved to U.S. Soccer on a full-time basis in 2011. Ellis was the temporary head coach for the team when Pia Sundhage departed in 2012 as well.

Ellis may be a fine coach. She may have the ear of her players. She may be a good organizer. She may be a good practice coach.

But she's never won anything. 

A couple of Nordic Cups, whatever that is. But no NCAA titles (in eight visits). No U-20 World Cups (the team that she coached in 2010 didn't make the semi-finals). 

When it mattered, when it came time to play the game that was the difference between finishing second or third or fourth best or hoisting the trophy in triumph, her teams always came up short. And, while sports are a perfect venue for second chances and new opportunities, nothing that has occurred since Ellis took permanent control of arguably the most prominent women's national sports team in the World indicates that things will be different this time around.

Strategically, the handling of the team, and its goalkeeper/diva Hope Solo in particular, has been troubling. While Ellis was quoted in the New York Times yesterday as saying "for every player, you have to have a Plan B" there was clearly no Plan B for the U.S. at the position that has always been one of the biggest strengths of its men's and women's teams (keeper, not diva). Julie Foudy pointed out as much in ESPNW the day before Ellis' comment was published, and I submit that I did the same over two years ago.

Tactically, the Americans were always "on the back foot," as Ian Darke likes to say, against the French. Second best in effort and ideas. Reduced by bad passes in the mid-field to booting it forward and hoping for the best. Unable, even, to take advantage of a huge potential break when the referee gifted them a penalty for a foul that both wasn't a foul and wasn't in the penalty box, only for Abby Wambach to hit a weak penalty kick that was easily saved. The midfield chased the game, with Lauren Holiday practically invisible unless she was passing to the team in the blue shirts (and, in case you didn't watch, the U.S. wore white).

I understand, and often state, that too much shouldn't be read into friendly matches. But this was one that the U.S. was apparently pointing to. Yes, Ellis wants to review her options in game situations for the World Cup. And it was encouraging to see Alex Morgan put in a full 90 minutes in her return from injury.

Morgan's presence (although not necessarily her play) was one
of the few bright spots against France. (photo from ussoccer.com)

But the lack of ideas and skill and just plain work (excepting the always solid Carli Lloyd and Tobin Heath) transcend the issue of whether this was "just a friendly." Foudy made the comment shortly after Wambach entered the game that you could sense a lift in the other U.S. players' emotions when she was on the field. But neither they, nor Ellis, should have to rely on a simple tactical change to inject energy or ingenuity into the game. And, even if it works, you can only go to that particular well so many times before it becomes routine and by definition unremarkable.

The U.S. plays England in that next friendly on Friday. After that comes the Algarve Cup, the tournament that was presumably Sermanni's undoing when the U.S. finished seventh out of eight teams a year ago. We'd better hope that Ellis has figured some things out between now and then. Because, much like Solo, I doubt that there's a "Plan B" when it comes to who will coach our national team at the World Cup in June.

Good is Dumb

"So Lone Starr, you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."

So says Dark Helmet to Lone Starr in the movie Spaceballs after he's tricked him for the umpteenth time.

But it could just as easily be FIFA czar Sepp Blatter speaking to Abby Wambach or Megan Rapinoe or Marta.  Because this week came the news that evil had indeed triumphed once again over good as the 84 women soccer players who had filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario over FIFA's insistence that this year's Women's World Cup be played exclusively on artificial turf had abandoned their lawsuit.

Basically, FIFA broke all the rules when it comes to conducting litigation, yet, in the end, it won. Again.

It refused to mediate with the players after being ordered to by the Tribunal. It refused to even meet with the players' counsel. It was accused of, and may well have, coerced the national teams of the players who filed the complaint into discriminating against those who participated in the lawsuit.

But in the end its tactics of stalling, blackmailing, and just bald-faced lying about turf and soccer and inequality among the sexes wore down the women and won the day for evil.

"I am hopeful that the players' willingness to contest the unequal playing fields -
and the tremendous pubic support we received during the effort - marks the start
of even greater activism to ensure fair treatment when it comes to women's sports."
Abby Wambach (photo from foxsports.com)

So much for the thought that the rule of law would prevail where reason, negotiation, investigation, and public ridicule had failed. The players' lawsuit, however well-founded, however compelling, again failed to bring FIFA to a public accounting. We were dumb to think that this time the result would be different.

Usually, when I write a post like this one, I try to include links to other articles and posts to demonstrate that I'm not just making this stuff up. But when it comes to FIFA, I've decided that's pointless. It makes stuff up all the time, doesn't play by the rules, and still wins. Every time.

Ultimately, the players say that they abandoned their complaint because they, unlike FIFA, were "putting soccer first" and realized that the lawsuit, at this late date, could have no positive effect. And they were correct. It became obvious that FIFA would have abandoned the tournament altogether rather than admit that a court of law has authority over it, and rather than making the simple accommodation that it had made before for men's World Cups by installing temporary grass fields.

No, it is clear that only one thing motivates FIFA, that it will bow to only one master not ensconced in its palaces in Geneva.

Money.

Lots of it.

Perhaps, completely apart from the plight of its women players, the tide may be turning. Not for the women in 2015, but for the men in 2018 or 2022.

This week came news that three "second-tier" sponsors of the 2014 Men's World Cup were not renewing their sponsorships for the next two World Cups. Presumably because of the rampant corruption that marked the bidding processes that allowed Russia and Qatar to steal the right to host the next two World Cups.

FIFA insists that this is business as usual and that there are other suitors lined up to replace Castrol, Johnson & Johnson, and Continental. Perhaps.

But we can only hope that this is the dawn of a new era. Clearly FIFA will continue to operate above the law as long as the bottom line is satisfied. But maybe, just maybe, there won't be new shills ponying up millions to replace those that have finally had enough.

A fat lot of good that will do the women who play on fake grass this summer in Canada, knowing that their male counterparts will not be required to do the same in Russia in 2018 or Qatar in 2022.

Plastic Grass and Level Playing Fields

While the U.S. Women's National team has qualified for the 2015 World Cup (and, if you remember, that was not a given four years ago), the question remains: on what surface will its members be playing?

You may have heard that FIFA, in its imperial wisdom, has sanctioned next summer's Women's World Cup in Canada to be held at six venues, all of which have artificial turf. Unlike in 1994, when U.S. Soccer was required to lay natural turf fields over the artificial surfaces of the Pontiac Silverdome and The Meadowlands (which, admittedly, were vastly inferior AstroTurf as opposed to today's FieldTurf), FIFA has not required the Canadian Soccer Association to alter the turf of the host stadia for the 2015 tournament to comply with what has been a consistent FIFA requirement: that World Cup matches take place only on natural grass.

In responding to concerns over requiring women to play on plastic grass next summer, FIFA czar Sepp Blatter has declared that "artificial pitches are the future." Well, for women anyway. While many clubs in the Russian professional leagues have fake grass due to the extreme winters, there hasn't been even the faintest whisper that any of the venues for the 2018 men's World Cup will be played on artificial turf. The same for Qatar and its 110F summers, which are seemingly not conducive to growing grass (it's a desert!) and the pitches for the 2022 tournament.

Blatter has also responded by cranking up the FIFA propaganda machine, with its Head of Women's Competitions Tatjana Haenni declaring that "we play on artificial turf and there is no Plan B" for the Canadian games and by directing that a Roger Goodell-esque "interview" be performed with "independent consultant Prof Eric Harrison" in which the virtues of plastic pitches are touted and the merits of installing temporary real grass fields are poo-pooed. 

The reaction of women players to FIFA' double-standard has been emphatic and increasingly militant. It appears that, left out of the inscrutable process that is decision-making in FIFA, they've decided that they've got nothing to lose by actually fighting back. Megan Rapinoe, never one to mince words, summed up her reaction to FIFA's inaction in response to unofficial entreaties from women asking to play on real grass like their male counterparts, this way: "Maybe you're not having a thousand times more injuries [on turf], but there's an aspect to the purity of the game and the quality of the game that is played on grass that is different on turf. They can say what they want, but it's all bullshit to me."

Tell it like it is Megan (photo from espn.com)

Instead of just engaging in what would likely be a losing war of words, the women decided to take action. Earlier this month they filed an application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario seeking a ruling that FIFA and the CSA be ordered to provide "proper, lawful playing surfaces [i.e., grass turf] for FIFA Women's World Cup Canada 2015."

The complaint contains a damning laundry list of past discrimination against women by FIFA and the CSA as well as an extensive analysis of the dangers and game-altering properties of fake grass. Amusingly, the players' counsel turns FIFA's words on itself, quoting from an article in the March 14, 2014 FIFA magazine "The Weekly" in which an English journalist examined the use of plastic pitches by four MLS teams and stated that "non-grass pitches are widely regarded as deeply problematic."

While in their complaint the players do refer to numerous studies that establish a possible link to increased lower extremity injuries to turf fields and the certainty that minor injuries (contusions and abrasions) occur with greater frequency on fake grass, the primary emphasis in the complaint is simply that FIFA and the CSA are clearly comfortable with requiring women to play on inferior surfaces as opposed to their male counterparts. This strikes me as a smart strategy -- arguing fundamental fairness is much less complicated than quibbling over whether or how much the risk of substantial injury is increased when playing on turf instead of grass.

In support of their assertion that there is a clear mandate that men's games be played on real grass, the players quote CSA officials who have declared in the past that play on turf for male World Cup qualifying matches is a "dealbreaker" and that the surface that that men's team plays on "has to be grass." They also cite FIFA's past and on-going requirement that World Cup matches take place on real grass, mentioning the Silverdome, The Meadowlands, and the future World Cups to be held in Russia and Qatar (seriously, Qatar). 

The players also note that FIFA "invited" female players to express whether they had a preference to play on grass or turf (the vast majority responded in favor of the former) and then promptly ignored their input. Finally, the players seek an expedited ruling on their application to allow FIFA and the CSA sufficient time to comply with the Tribunal's anticipated ruling before the games begin next June.

Having had Canadian courts described recently to me as "California on steroids" as far as their proclivity to find for litigants asserting discrimination, I find it difficult to believe that the Tribunal will find against the players. This seems rather clear-cut gender discrimination.

While undoubtedly FIFA and the CSA will oppose the players' application, it's difficult to conjure up many good arguments that they will have in response. The usual recourse followed by FIFA, to ignore or obfuscate issues, is not going to work this time around. The response that "there's no Plan B" won't either. And certainly, if it reads the same handwriting on the wall, it is not in either organization's interests to attempt to delay the proceedings since it will only make identifying alternative stadia or planning to overlay existing turf fields well in advance of the competition more problematic. 

My guess is that there are two different sets of conversations taking place in bowels of FIFA and the CSA right now: one in which FIFA, the CSA, and their lawyers are trying to figure out how to respond to the application without looking like bigger misogynists than it already depicts them to be; and the second between FIFA and the CSA to figure out who is going to foot the bill for the temporary surfaces. 

If we've learned anything about Blatter, it's that his only true concern is FIFA's bottom line. It would be completely consistent for him to be less concerned at this point with defending the "pitch of the future" and more worried about how he can strong-arm the CSA into paying for the renovations while holding on to every penny of proceeds that he can from the tournament.

Will the women play on grass next summer? There's a very good chance they will. Will it be FIFA that pays for the same playing surface that it demands for its male players? There's a better chance that the 2022 World Cup will be held in the middle of a desert in July.

Footnote: The only World Cup match I have seen in person was at the Silverdome in 1994. The U.S. men played Switzerland to a 1-1 draw thanks to a fantastic free kick by Eric Wynalda. What I remember most about the game was it was the most miserably hot I have ever been for an extended period of time (well, until I spent three days in a field in Southern Tennessee in July). The Silverdome wasn't air conditioned and since it was a true domed stadium, they had to keep it ridiculously humid to try to keep the grass alive, without sun, for as long as possible. The first step into the arena was like walking into a sauna.