The second account in Sportico’s Turf Wars series examines the rationale behind choosing natural or artificial turf for an NFL facility.
The time 2024 brings a new dynamic to the “natural lawn versus synthetic carpet” conversation in NFL stadiums: the possibility of a position banning turf in NFL stadiums and therefore taking the choice of playing surface apart from NFL teams.
The underlying argument is no brand-new. Playing on synthetic turf has resulted in a number of clinical research investigating the possible injuries that NFL players and other athletes experience when playing on the various field areas, with the exception of occasionally, but not always, leading to higher injury rates and more wear and tear on gamers. The discussion also tends to rise in fame when an NFL superstar suffers an injury perhaps because of the floor, like when Jets QB Aaron Rodgers tore his Achilles tendon last year while playing on FieldTurf CORE used at MetLife Stadium.

The NFLPA has referred to artificial carpet as an uncomfortable working environment, which the union claims is supported by studies showing that turf is linked to higher injury rates. NFLPA Executive Director Lloyd Howell shared survey results earlier this year, revealing that 92 % of NFL players want to play on grass. NFL people have said that playing on carpet leads to more pain and stiffness, including to quadriceps.
However, what has typically been a legitimate argument between the NFL and its people ‘ relationship has now started to become one.
Take the Ohio legislature, for instance, which is considering House Bill ( H.B. ). B. ) … If it becomes a rules, H. B. 605 may require that the playing surface of all professional sports stadiums in Ohio been composed of not less than 90 % natural vegetation. The Cincinnati Bengals, who play on a synthetic carpet industry at Paycor Stadium, would have to make significant changes, even though the costs would n’t have an impact on the Cleveland Browns, who play on a lawn area in Cleveland Browns Stadium.
H. B. 605 is predicated on a widely shared belief that sports ( and other sports ) played on natural grass surfaces “result in fewer non-contact lower extremities injuries”. According to the bill, “natural lawn provides the safest accessible work environment for players who compete on either healthy grass, artificial turf, or a mix.”
The statistics on NFL player wounds and playing conditions are combined. Some of the information suggests that playing on artificial turf is associated with a higher occurrence of injuries than playing on grass. However, other sources of information provide a less reliable image, including some indication that grass may be a more hazardous surface for some athletic movements.
Foot and calf injuries that occurred during NFL game between 2012 and 2016 were examined in a research published five years ago in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. It concluded there was a 16 % increase in lower extremity injuries per play on turf than on grass, along with a 27 % higher rate for non-contact lower extremity injuries. Similar issues with ground were discovered in a 2012 study that was published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. Although the likelihood of MCL sprains and inversion ankle sprains was not found to be higher by surface type, NFL players who received knee and ankle sprains were 22 % more likely on FieldTurf.

Earlier this year, a combined NFL-NFLPA research found that noncontact lower-extremity accidents per enjoy were basically the same on carpet and grass in both 2023 and 2021, though injury occurred at a higher rate on ground in 2022.
There have been a lot of studies on sports and playing surfaces, and they have produced a similar conflicting picture. A 2020 study, published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, found that “regardless of sex or NCAA division of play,” players who practice on natural grass “have an increased risk of ACL injury compared to those who practice on an artificial surface.” A 2022 study published in the same journal concluded that ACL injuries for high school soccer players were more likely to occur on artificial turf, but the data did n’t find surface type as meaningful for high school football players.
In general, well-maintained grass in an NFL stadium is safer than using a turf field there, but the difference, especially when looking at contemporary forms of turf, is less than what many people think, according to Dr. David J. Chao, an internationally renowned orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine specialist, in a phone interview.
Chao, who spent 17 years as the Chargers ‘ head team physician, has done extensive research on the subject and maintains and analyzes injuries at Sports Injury Central. He stressed that “each kind of surface has pros and cons in terms of types of injuries that are more likely to occur”, with grass posing a higher risk for certain types of injuries.
There are many factors that need to be considered, Chao observed, noting that “grass vs. turf is a topic that typically gets simplified too much for its own good.”
Chao then emphasized that the” type of cleat a player uses and how that cleat interfaces with a given surface” is a crucial safety consideration that frequently gets overlooked. He also noted that “weather concerns” for NFL games played in wintery, cold-weather climates further complicates the analysis further.
Soccer players who weigh 160 pounds can be put on grass in one place, Chao said, but it’s also important for stadiums to keep those who weigh two things in mind.
Dr. Dwight Lin, a specialist in non-surgical treatment of knees, hips, and backs and an expert on regenerative orthopedic sports medicine, acknowledges that athlete injuries are caused by cleats and how they interact with surfaces and how individual athletes have unique physical characteristics.
But Lin, who treats athletes and other patients at Regenerative Medicine &amp, Rehabilitation of Hawaii, views grass as typically better all things considered.
Our bodies evolved as a result of hunting and gathering, Lin said. ” As much as I enjoy science and technology, the data is currently leaning toward a grassy playing field being healthier for the joints.”
To date, the league and NFLPA have seen playing surfaces as a topic of discussion and negotiation—and not one of government intervention.
That might alter.
A federal agency under the auspices of the Occupational Safety and Health Agency ( OSHA ) is responsible for making sure American employees are “free from recognized hazards” that can lead to” serious physical harm” at work. Such a mission suggests OSHA could potentially weigh in on playing surfaces and perhaps find synthetic turf is unsafe. An investigation and potential fines are brought about by an OSHA complaint.
OSHA has n’t played a significant role in policing NFL games or in how the league weighs safety when making business decisions, despite the fact that many injuries are involved in NFL games, including concussions and their association with CTE and long-term neurological problems.
There is one notable exception. OSHA conducted an investigation into the 2001 death of Minnesota Vikings offensive lineman Korey Stringer after he collapsed and died from heat stroke during training camp. After the investigation, OSHA held the team accountable. Stringer’s death led to litigation. His widow, Kelci Stringer, brought a lawsuit against the NFL and Riddell, alleging the helmet had caused Stringer’s body temperature to rise dangerously. Through out-of-court settlements, the dispute was resolved.
The role of playing surfaces has occasionally spawned litigation. Reggie Bush received a$ 12.5 million award from a St. Louis jury six years ago for an ACL tear sustained while playing in the Edward Jones Dome. Bush, who was a member of the San Francisco 49ers at the time, could n’t stop moving as he ran onto the surface, which surrounded the turf playing field. The jury found the use of the surface to constitute negligence.
However, player lawsuits are uncommon. That is at least partially due to the CBA of the league’s contract and arbitration procedures, which preempt many different types of potential legal claims.
The NFL maintains that its policies toward field surfaces follow the advice of scientific experts, reflect collaboration with the NFLPA and direct input from NFL players and are consistent with the game becoming noticeably safer in recent years.
In order to achieve this, the league reported that players missed 700 more games than they did the previous year’s regular season. Knee and ACL tears, for example, saw a four-year low in lower-extremity injuries, which were particularly pronounced. The league has also promoted research on new surface technologies including through the HealthTECH Challenge, an initiative with Football Research Inc. and Duke Biomedical Engineering intended to accelerate research on more consistent and safe surfaces. The league recently provided funding for a hybrid surface playing design that incorporates liquid surface modifiers to enhance turf and uses synthetic carpeting and natural grass.
Players ‘ rights to medical care and treatment are governed by Article 29 of the CBA. It contains details on the field surface safety and performance committee, which is a joint committee consisting of representatives for the league and players ‘ association as well as subject matter experts. The committee is tasked with advising the NFL and the NFLPA on strategies for, among other things, preventing injuries and developing improved field surface testing techniques. The committee also takes into account players ‘ opinions regarding how they feel after playing on a surface and what can be done to make it better.
One related area where innovation has been lacking is cleats. While new helmet designs have been credited with reducing player concussions by up to 25 % over the last few NFL seasons, cleats, their lengths, insoles, and sizing have not significantly changed. The NFL tests cleats, and it hopes that more accurate data will enable cleat manufacturers to develop more dynamic products and create more lucrative incentives for them to make better shoes for impact sports.
While the NFL contends turf is safe, H. B. Rep. Rodney Creech ( R ) and Terrence Upchurch ( D), who co-sponsor the 605 bill, contend that their bill is intended to promote player safety. Createech owns and runs Lawn Plus, a business that “provids professional athletic field design” that can “turn grass into a major-league-ready field.” Creech has said his company would not bid on potential jobs should H. B. 605 become a law that requires stadiums to convert to grass.
H. B. 605 has a long way to go before it would become a law. The Ohio House’s Economic and Workforce Development committee is currently hearing about it, which was introduced in May. whether it passes both chambers of the Ohio legislature, is approved by the governor of Ohio, or is passed by the governor. Mike DeWine ( R ) all remains to be seen.
a H. B. opponent. Reggie Stoltzfus ( R ) of Ohio, who criticized the bill as” an ill-conceived play against free market principles that arbitrarily favors one sports turf industry over another,” blasted the bill. Given that the bill imposes a new business condition on a private industry, there’s a good chance that Ohio, a red state with a Republican governor, is an unlikely forum for this type of legislation to pass.
However, the possibility of NFL teams being ordered to use grass in dome stadiums where natural grass is difficult to use is no longer a theoretical issue even if it is n’t in Ohio. Politicians in other states could imitate the concepts presented in one state and introduce similar bills in their legislatures, as seen when sports betting, image, and name bills were introduced in one. In states with more progressive-leaning politics, an H. B. No pun intended, but a bill that looks like 605 might gain more popularity.
However, such laws may be challenged in court as being unconstitutional or infringing on existing laws.
A bill that compels the field structure of a stadium used by players who travel across states might be portrayed as violating the Commerce Clause ( Section 8 ) and the Contract Clause ( Section 10 ) of the U. the US Constitution. A bill that mandates changes to a facility might be seen as excessively interfering because the Commerce Clause grants Congress the exclusive authority to regulate interstate commerce. For its part, the Contract Clause makes it illegal for states to pass laws that “impair” contractual obligations. That might allow a team or league to argue that the state’s collective bargaining agreement and sponsorship contracts interfere with the safety and business issues at issue.
However, states would have refutations. For instance, through the 10th Amendment, states are reserved the general right to regulate health and safety. Additionally, states have a long history of enforcing zoning, environmental, and consumer protection laws.
Ohio is not the first state to consider legislation that would forbid turf fields. However, other prohibitions have targeted sports facilities used by young adults and the public rather than multibillion dollar NFL teams and their multimillion-dollar players.
For instance, Boston no longer places artificial turf in public spaces, despite Michelle Wu, the city’s mayor, stating that the move is not a prohibition in itself. Some communities in Massachusetts have stopped using turf because it contains chemicals that could harm people and the environment. While turf is more durable for repeated use than grass, turf’s dependence on chemicals —especially polyfluoroalkyl substances, which resist heat, water, oil and grease—has drawn concerns about links to disease and other problems.
Legislation proposals that would enact restrictions on the use of synthetic turf, including in sports stadiums, have been considered by several states, including California and New York. The Hawaii legislature weighed H. B. two decades ago. 230, which would have mandated that all playing fields controlled by the state use natural grass as the playing surface. The bill made a specific mention of concerns for NFL players who are “prone to more serious injuries from artificial surfaces” ( ).
The legal ramifications of that debate could become its own quandary, even though turf continues to stoke medical debate.