turf fields: Helpful or harmful? The grass isn’t always greener Keep the playing field even

QUINN NEWHOUSE SPORTS EDITOR

Around early November, after a rise in non-contact injuries around the NFL, many players aired out frustrations. Their aim: level the playing field. Not in the metaphoric sense, in a literal sense: turf grass is still the custom for 14 of the NFL’s 30 teams despite indisputable evidence that these stadiums have a much higher rate of non-contact ankle and knee injuries.

The NFL Player Association President and Cleveland Browns center JC Tretter addressed the situation in a statement.

“The players are frustratedthey just want a safe workplace,” Tretter said Other players came to his side — Denver Broncos kicker Brandon McManus also called out the stadiums on Twitter.

“When the 2026 FIFA World Cup comes to the US, our NFL stadiums with turf will convert to grass,” he tweeted. “Why? Because grass is a much safer playing surface. But for us, their own players, they want us to compete on inferior surfaces.”

The stats tell the same story — per UH Hospital’s studies on high school ACL tears (the most common and damaging non-contact knee injury) on turf fields vs. natural grass, these injuries were 58 percent more likely to occur on artificial turf. The main scientific explanation is that grass provides more give when the foot is planted during the running and stopping motion, which releases the cleat from the force exerted — unlike turf, which puts strain on the foot, ankle and knee during a similar motion, according to the NFLPA.

The main reason many schools and programs use turf fields, however, is due to economics. There is much less maintenance and less funds that go into a turf field. Turf fields make up for their extremely expensive price by providing a much lower maintenance cost, practically paying up front for most of the expenses. According to Sports Field Solutions, the average turf football field installation is between $519,000 and $623,000. A hefty price, but at the cost of much less maintenance.

Turf Factory Direct reports that the yearly maintenance for a grass football field is $50,000. In the long run, many would argue a turf field wins the economic battle. However, is it worth the injury risk for many young student athletes, most of whom have not even fully developed knee muscles?

Lower body injuries are extremely detrimental to student athletes. According to healthychildren.org, teens who suffer an ACL tear are ten times more likely to develop arthritis and often develop depression immediately after the fact. Despite overwhelming evidence of increased risk and its harm to young athletes, many schools still overlook this and choose the slight economic benefit of turf fields.

All things considered, it’s foolish and cheap to continue to overlook the evidence of turf fields, especially the impact they could potentially have on a young athlete. Schools should do better than prioritizing a minimal future economic benefit over the safety and future of their student athletes.

TARIK FERMIN MANAGING EDITOR

Despite some recent discourse within the National Football League (NFL) community, not every turf field in the United States needs a makeover. Though artificial turf grass may have some sparse flaws, turf has been proven to be more convenient, more costefficient and not nearly as harmful to athletes.

Artificial grass has some undeniable downsides, but grass fields aren’t all that perfect either. They come with a much lengthier list of restrictions in comparison to turf. While grass fields require an annual $50,000 dollars to maintain, a turf field — though more expensive — is a one-time investment.

Grass fields need pesticides and chemicals that cause heavy environmental damage, and with a football field worth of grass, that would need an astonishing amount of chemicals to maintain; eventually degrading the surrounding environment and being costineffective for a school’s yearly budgeting.

Turf fields have the advantage of longevity. According to USTurfSanDeigo.com, turf fields can typically last up to 20 years before requiring replacement. If the yearly costs of maintaining a grass field can be nearly $50,000, but a turf field can last up to 20 years with much smaller yearly costs and installation fees — the turf field comes out on top yet again as the most convenient and effective option.

Grass fields can be very unpredictable as a result of weather changes, making them much more susceptible to slipperiness due to rain than turf fields. Though it has been speculated that ACL tears in high school athletes were more common on turf fields, regardless of the surface being played on, the likelihood of tearing an ACL skyrockets in slippery and wet conditions — conditions which are much more easily bred on grass fields than turf.

The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports published a study analyzing the statistical correlation behind ACL tears in high school athletes and turf fields, the study’s results showed.

It appears that many of the most popular high school sports are some of the outliers according to the study’s data. The researchers found that in soccer, 71,877 ACLrelated injuries occurred on turf, while 104,028 ACL-related injuries transpired on grass fields. Even more interesting, between approximately 360,000-420,000 recorded ACL related injuries in high school football, an estimated 74,620 of those injuries occurred on turf, while 122,654 of those injuries occurred on grass fields.

Football is the most turfdesignated sport in the country, and the claim that turf fields are unsafe for players started at the highest level of football itself. But, based on the statistics gathered by the previously mentioned study, grass fields are actually less injury-preventative. Schools shouldn’t focus on prioritizing the maintenance of grass fields, when the benefits and convenience of turf fields are still as apparent as always.