I’ve seen some good points made, and some points I don’t agree with on this debate. A few years ago when the FA announced a new blue print for mini soccer, I like a lot of people was encouraged by the plans and ideas. People involved within grassroots football, from mini soccer to semi pro standard were impressed that after decades of minimum funding, we would be part a promising future.

Design and print yours for FREE

The promise of higher standards of coaching, better facilities leading to more promising children coming through. I feel that what was set by the FA has made no improvement at all because the plans were flawed from the start. The FA chose to copy the Dutch way of coaching total football, which in my case was out dated and then tried to add tiki taka, which again I feel is becoming out dated.

The FA focused on getting coaches qualified to a minimum stage of level 1 and 2 coaching. My personal view on this is its a way for the FA to generate income and not in the best interests of the sport. For example in almost all walks of life there are more than 1 organisation to buy a service from in this case a coaching course, however to be involved in the sport the one recognised qualifications are FA ones, who set the prices!! If there were a few competing organisations the standard would increase and the price would decrease.

I think the FA should invest money into facilities and also were applicable subsidise the cheaper hiring costs of expensive facilities for teams and parents. The Parklike project in principle is great however it will only benefit a minority of the country.

What’s the point of teaching coaches to coach to a higher standard if the facilities are to a worsening standard?  Better facilities are too expensive and in winter months due to the British climate games a are constantly called off. If the FA and local professional clubs help to upgrade facilities, ie better maintained pitches and an outdoor 3G, all weather pitch for all kids teams, training wouldn’t get affected, children can train and experience playing football in different conditions and it would help motivate coaches and teams maintaining higher standards.

I’m not a fan of moving mini soccer away from the winter as football in this country has always been played at this time of the year at all levels. I really believe we can improve facilities, and give every club access to an all weather pitch. These are only my opinions I would like to know what other people think ……

 ANON

The parents of boys at the Ajax academy De Toekomst in Amsterdam received letters last week to reassure them that from now on, not only would their children not be playing on any of the club’s 3G pitches with rubber crumb infill, but those pitches were being removed.

It was a swift response to the findings of a documentary on the Dutch public broadcaster NPO which revealed serious shortcomings in the government-sponsored research in 2006 that had declared the rubber crumb to be safe, thus beginning a 3G boom.

From 300 3G pitches in Holland 10 years ago there are now more than 2,000 of them, in a country where artificial turf and the 120 metric tonnes of rubber crumb used on each one – equating to 20,000 shredded tyres – is big business.

Design an print yours for FREE

So much so that six Eredivisie teams – Heracles, Sparta Rotterdam, Excelsior, Roda JC, Zwolle and ADO Den Haag – have 3G pitches at their home stadiums. Now, for the first time in Holland, there are major doubts on health grounds.

What is the strongest allegation against rubber crumb, those little black pellets you find in boots, socks and on skin after a game on 3G? It is that carcinogens in the rubber could be responsible for cancer – with children the most vulnerable of all.

In Holland, the minister for health, Edith Schippers, has ordered a new study of rubber crumb, and its potential threat, after the Zembla documentary discovered that the 2006 study by the Dutch public health institute RIVM was grossly inadequate. The toxicologist in question used a sample of just seven adult footballers at his local club, in a 2½-day study that paved the way for that huge growth in 3G rubber crumb pitches all over Holland.

The attitudes uncovered in Holland by Zembla have been shocking, to say the least. Last year the Dutch government was lobbied successfully by the artificial pitch and tyre industries not to apply new EU standards for toy safety to rubber crumb. The fear in Holland is that the legacy of rubber crumb 3G pitches will only be known years from now.

On Friday, the Fifa president Gianni Infantino urged an investigation into the carcinogenic properties of rubber crumb and said that, on balance, he would rather Fifa invested the $4 billion set aside for football development over the next 10 years on natural surfaces.

What of England? At the end of this month, Martin Glenn, the Football Association chief executive, and Tracy Crouch, the minister for sport, will open in Sheffield the first of the much heralded “hubs” of 3G pitches that will be built in around 30 towns and cities. The initiative was launched by former FA chairman Greg Dyke to increase grassroots participation – but how safe are those grass roots?

The question relates to the kind of tyres or rubber products being recycled and the FA is unequivocal that its rubber crumb meets the European Union standards previously ignored in Holland. The Zembla investigation discovered that some of the rubber crumb used in pitches in Holland had come from rubber pipes used in the petrochemical industry. The question remains: how does anyone track the specific history of a mass recycled waste product?

Article credit The Telegraph Full story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/10/15/why-3g-pitches-are-being-ripped-up-in-holland-over-health-fears/amp/

This story refuses to go away, the concerns lie in the disagreement between experts. We hope for the benefit of everyone that a comprehensive review can be carried out to establish finally wether there is a link or not with cancer.