The debate was always going to come along with the World Cup. Men's soccer famously refuses to play on anything but grass in Europe, with the biggest names using their leverage against artificial surfaces. FIFA made sure to cover the costs for grass at this year's men's World Cup, ensuring every side played on a naturally grown surface.
Could that ever happen in the NFL? And more importantly, should it?
If you ask the NFL Players Association, the answers to both are a resounding yes. The NFLPA keeps citing its surveys showing that 92 percent of players prefer playing on natural grass. And with advances in technology, it is possible to maintain grass even in harsh climates.
A great example comes from the Las Vegas Raiders. Allegiant Stadium uses both turf and grass, one for each of its two teams. UNLV plays on turf, and the grass field rolls in from outside when the Raiders play at home. But the Raiders are still not considered to have a quality field, even with natural grass in place.
So the debate isn’t quite as simple as it seems. Here are a few reasons why.
Grass Is Inconsistent
The NFLPA might want grass in every stadium. But the differences between teams in similar climates show that grass is not a perfect solution.
The Arizona Cardinals consistently get high marks for their field. They use a system similar to the Raiders, and the Valley of the Sun has a comparable climate to Las Vegas. Yet the Raiders do not get the same praise, largely because the Cardinals have kept their field in far better shape. Having the right crew in place makes a huge difference, and when a field is poorly cared for, it shows.
The Pittsburgh Steelers and the Washington Commanders have run into the same issue. Both Acrisure Stadium and Northwest Stadium have drawn criticism for their surfaces over the years. The Steelers had to replace their field this past season after it failed to meet NFL standards, and the Commanders have repeatedly struggled with theirs.
Turf, by comparison, is far more consistent. That is one reason Houston and Tennessee have switched from grass to turf over the past decade. Players might prefer how grass feels on their bodies, but that preference tends to disappear when footing becomes unreliable.
Grass Doesn't Work In Every Location
Several NFL stadiums see use from two or more teams each week. In Pennsylvania, both the Steelers and the Eagles share their stadiums with a college team, the University of Pittsburgh and Temple respectively. Both stadiums use grass, and the surface suffers as a result.
Grass tends to hold up best when a single team is the only one using a stadium. In European soccer, or at the World Cup, the event is the only thing being played on the field. The pitch has time to recover between matches rather than absorbing constant wear.
That is not the reality in a lot of NFL stadiums. Weather plays a role too. Even though Chicago no longer shares Soldier Field with high school teams, that change has not been enough to help the surface recover. The Bears' field remains one of the worst in the league because of the city's harsh climate.
Turf Is Easier and Cheaper to Maintain
Over the life of a field, turf wins out on cost. That is why colleges and even high schools have largely gone the turf route. A turf field usually only has to be installed once, and the ongoing expense is far below what grass requires.
To the NFL, the money spent on field upkeep is pocket change. But teams still do not want to absorb those costs when both football and non-football events take a toll on the surface. Unless players can show that the other issues will be solved alongside the extra spending, owners are not going to pay for natural grass in every stadium.
FIFA's World Cup Fields Are At Their Best
One reason FIFA's stadiums look so good is that the tournament only happens every four years. In qualifying matches, the fields are nowhere near this standard.
In 2018, the United States famously failed to qualify for the World Cup and pointed to field conditions, with the surface in Trinidad and Tobago left waterlogged. That same year, Belgium traveled to Sarajevo to play Bosnia and Herzegovina on a field that Taylor Twellman memorably called a cow pasture.
The NFL does not want that headache, and it should not have to deal with it. There is a real difference between a showcase tournament and an everyday event.
Will Grass Fields Ever Become a Requirement?
The NFLPA has had the chance to make this argument before. In 2020, when the collective bargaining agreement was renegotiated, the union did not prioritize grass. It had more pressing needs, and it chose to use its leverage on pushing back against a 17th game instead.
Moving to all-grass fields might require players to give something up in return, such as another schedule expansion, which would almost certainly take a heavier toll on their bodies than continuing to play on modern turf. NFL players might look longingly at the World Cup's grass, but for what it would cost them, it is probably not a fight worth having.
If this was your kind of read, you’ll like what’s next. Get The Sandman Ticket, our free, weekly newsletter with picks, insights, and a little bit of everything we love about sports.
