Copa América pitches are a “disaster”

Your eyes aren’t deceiving you; something doesn’t look quite right at Copa América matches.

Between brown patches, “turf goblins,” players slipping left and right, and worse spacing than your 5-year-old niece’s team, the pitch conditions have been nothing short of a disaster at this year’s Copa América, sparking controversy among coaches and players, and raising questions about the United States’ ability to host the 2026 World Cup.

Here’s why everyone is so upset.

Smaller than normal fields

This year’s Copa América is being played on the smallest pitch size permitted for an international fixture: 100 meters long by 64 meters wide.

• That’s five meters shorter and four meters narrower than the standard 105m x 68m pitch size.

• The loss in playing area is 40m², which is roughly equivalent to the size of a penalty area.

The reason for the difference is that ten of the 14 stadiums hosting the tournament are home to American football teams, who play on fields that are 110 meters long but only 49 meters wide. CONMEBOL wanted every pitch to be the same size for the tournament, and 100m x 64m were the chosen dimensions in a one-size-fits-all approach – even if some stadiums were wide enough to accompany standard FIFA dimensions.

This size difference might not seem like much to the layperson, but it’s a huge deal to the players. To put it into context, an international tournament featuring some of the world’s top players is being played on the same dimensions used by U13 teams in England to transition from 9-a-side to 11-a-side for the first time. It’s no wonder players have been struggling to adjust.

“There wasn’t a lot of space,” said Rodrygo after Brazil’s pre-tournament friendly against the United States. “I like to find gaps between the lines, but there wasn’t any room; the opposition players were always close. It’s difficult, but we’re getting used to it.”

The reduced pitch size has rather obviously led to a more physical game where its more difficult to maintain control of the ball. This tends to benefit defensive-minded teams, who can more easily sit back and absorb pressure with less space in which the opposition can operate.

This inherent advantage makes it so that attacking-minded teams – like Brazil – must take the smaller pitch into account while preparing for a match.

“We have been talking a lot about it in training – how it will make it easy to get forward swiftly, but also how it will be more difficult to find a way past a deep defense,” said Brazil manager Dorival Junior. “The distance between where you regain possession and the opposition goal is a lot shorter than matches in our country.”

But the reduced size isn’t the only aspect of the pitch that has teams up in arms.

“Less than ideal” playing surfaces

The conditions of the playing surface at many stadiums appear suspect at best. Brown patches have been a common sight on many fields, as has players slipping all over the pitch, which appears uneven or “patchy” in many areas.

This is because the grass at these venues is not naturally occurring and has been brought in from elsewhere, which is not the case in Europe. Take Mercedes-Benz Stadium, for example. The home of the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons is normally an artificial turf surface, as was the case for Atlanta United’s match on June 15th. The turf was replaced with imported grass the very next day – just five days before the Copa América kicked off with a 2-0 Argentina victory over Canada.

Players and managers on both sides were critical of the playing surface after the match. Canadian defender Kamal Miller said the pitch felt “hollow,” while Argentina manager Lionel Scaloni pointed out that his team struggled to control the speed of their passes on a pitch he called “not apt for these players.”

His players agreed that the pitch was not up to snuff.

“The state of the pitch was a disaster,” said Argentina goalkeeper Emiliano Martínez. “Very bumpy. We must improve in this aspect; otherwise, Copa América will always appear at a lower level than the European Championship.”

This is not the first time Argentine players have criticized Copa América pitches.

Even American players agree. Weston McKinnie called the conditions of the playing surfaces “frustrating,” pointing out how his European counterparts have it better.

“If you look at the Euros, they’re all playing on great fields, great grass, football-specific stadiums, soccer-specific stadiums, and you see the quality of the football,” the USMNT midfielder said.

“You can play a one-two without wondering if the ball is gonna bounce up before you hit it. You can pass the ball back to the keeper not being afraid that it’s going to bounce over his foot. You see a different type of soccer.”

The Juventus star added that improvements in playing conditions need to be a priority in order for the United States to host the 2026 World Cup.

“I think for these tournaments to even grow here and be a sought-after tournaments to watch and follow, that’s one of the first steps that needs to be corrected for sure,” he said. “At the end of the day we need the best conditions to be able to do what we love and get the best out of us and the best results.”

Zoom out: CONMEBOL has defended pitches from criticism by players and managers alike, pointing out that all venues meet international standards in terms of size and passed all tests with flying colors. Yet, the reality remains that this tournament is very much a dry run for the sport’s biggest stage in two years, and early warning signs should be worrying to tournament organizers. Just think about the potential backlash if pitch conditions prevent Spain from playing tiki-taka at the World Cup. 😬