Cory's Corner: Real Grass Just Makes Sense
The only reason to go with artificial turf is because the maintenance is a lot cheaper. That argument doesn't hold water when a $23 billion organization continues to watch its players suffer serious injuries.
Super Bowl week is upon us and that means we get to hear the annual State of the League address.
Obviously, from the NFL’s perspective, nothing is wrong. People have never been more in love with the pro football product and that will be proven when Super Bowl LX breaks yet another ratings record.
But everything isn’t perfect with the Shield. There will be at least three to four stadium projects in the next five years, which includes a new Bills stadium, a new Titans stadium, a new Bears stadium and a potential new Commanders stadium. The Titans and Bears stadiums will be artificial turf and heading into the 2027 season, there will be 15 NFL stadiums with artificial turf.
I don’t get it. It’s clear that the NFL likes the aesthetic and how it looks on TV, but it just doesn’t make sense anymore. A study from 2020–2023 found that there were more knee ligament injuries on turf than on grass.
And that study isn’t some outlier. Year after year, data — whether independent or released by the league itself — keeps pointing in the same direction: artificial turf carries a higher risk for certain lower-body injuries, particularly non-contact injuries involving the knee and ankle. Those are the injuries that change careers. Those are the injuries players fear the most.
This isn’t just a numbers argument; it’s a human one. The NFL can talk all it wants about player safety, but actions matter more than slogans. When players consistently say they prefer grass, when the NFLPA continues to push for grass fields, and when evidence keeps suggesting turf is harsher on the body, the league’s reluctance to move away from artificial surfaces feels less like pragmatism and more like stubbornness.
The most common defense of turf is convenience. Turf is easier to maintain, cheaper in the long run, and more reliable for multi-use stadiums. It holds up better for concerts and soccer matches. It looks pristine on television. All of that may be true — but this is the National Football League, not a real-estate management company. If the league can afford guaranteed contracts, private jets, and billion-dollar broadcast packages, it can afford grass.
Grass has evolved. This isn’t the sloppy, torn-up mess of the 1970s. Hybrid grass systems now exist that combine natural grass with synthetic reinforcement, offering durability without sacrificing the biomechanical benefits of a natural surface. Some of the league’s best and most respected venues — Lambeau Field, Arrowhead Stadium, Soldier Field — have long proven that cold weather and heavy use aren’t valid excuses anymore.
And if the NFL needs proof that elite athletes can perform on grass consistently, it only has to look across the Atlantic. Soccer in Europe — the most popular sport in the world, played at the highest level with relentless schedules — is played almost exclusively on natural grass. The Premier League, Champions League, La Liga, Bundesliga: all grass. These clubs play upwards of 50 competitive matches a year on the same surfaces, often in harsh weather, often with minimal recovery time, and they still prioritize natural grass because it’s better for players’ bodies.
European soccer teams invest heavily in field maintenance, undersoil heating systems, drainage technology, and hybrid grass solutions to keep surfaces playable year-round. They do this not because it’s easy or cheap, but because it’s understood that the playing surface is part of player health. If global soccer — with its congested calendars, international travel, and billion-dollar stars — can commit to grass, it’s hard to accept that the NFL, with far fewer games, can’t do the same.
There’s also a credibility issue at stake. The NFL mandates safer helmets, modifies kickoff rules, penalizes dangerous tackles, and promotes mental health resources — all good and necessary steps. But when it comes to playing surfaces, the league suddenly becomes hesitant, even defensive. You can’t credibly claim to prioritize player safety while choosing a surface that many players believe puts them at greater risk.
This is especially important as the league expands. More international games. More prime-time games. It’s only a matter of time before we see an 18-game regular season schedule. The wear and tear on players is only increasing. In that context, choosing turf over grass feels like moving backward.
The NFL loves to say it listens to its players. Here’s a chance to prove it. With multiple stadiums being built from the ground up, the league has a rare opportunity to set a standard — not just for optics, but for safety. Grass should be that standard.
If the NFL truly wants to protect its most valuable asset — the players — the choice shouldn’t be complicated. Grass isn’t just tradition. It’s common sense.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Cory Jennerjohn is a graduate from UW-Oshkosh and has been in sports media for over 15 years. He was a co-host on "Clubhouse Live" and has also done various radio and TV work as well. He has written for newspapers, magazines and websites. He currently is a columnist for CHTV and also does various podcasts. He recently earned his Masters degree from the University of Iowa. He can be found on Twitter: @Coryjennerjohn
__________________________
Comments (26)
TKWorldWide
January 31, 2026 at 06:23 am
Excellent article. First thing I thought of was, “is there data to support it?” And the answer is YES!
Second thing is (pardon my probable ignorance) can natural grass be grown in a 100% indoor stadium? (No retractable roof like AmFam.)
Coldworld
January 31, 2026 at 08:54 am
A lot of enclosed stadia can slide out the field for events and husbandry, but yes, with proper lighting equipment, indoor horticulture has long been feasible.
EchoGirl
January 31, 2026 at 08:31 pm
The Cardinals have a natural grass field in a non-retractable dome. There's still a few hitches they need to iron out (ahem, Super Bowl 57) but the foundation is there, figuring out how to perfect it would probably be just as easy if not easier than what they're putting towards trying to find (often only marginally) "better" artificial turf options.
Renllaw
January 31, 2026 at 06:51 am
Its pretty obvious the league only cares about $. not the players OR the fans. I watched fewer games this year than ever before because the shield decided to go for a money grab on streaming services and increased international games. Sorry, I love the NFL but Im also not in the Green Bay market. So I have to pay for the NFL package, and this year I had to do temporary monthly subscriptions to watch (don't exactly recall) 2 or 3 packer games. I did not watch a single non-packer game on those services or games at 9am . They just don't care about anything but the all mighty dollar.
bjkdad44
January 31, 2026 at 08:34 am
My sentiments… to a T!!
CHEESEHEADDALLAS
January 31, 2026 at 10:26 pm
Amen the only thimg the dam owners care about is how much money they are makeing. Proff 15.00 for a soft drinke that cost .10 cens to make 25.00 for a bugger 400.00 fir a ticket and a network that shows out of market games has no compation if you happen to be a fan of a teme that your not in.their home network .It is getting to point that only the ceo of co and the rich can aford to see a game. But the nfl cares about about the players and the fans YEA RIGHT
stockholder
January 31, 2026 at 07:48 am
Cory it's about concussions.
A poorly maintained grass field.
Causes more concussions than Artificial turf.
The hardness of fields is what they're looking at.
TKWorldWide
January 31, 2026 at 08:11 am
Seems like the hardness of fields, especially artificial turf, would be easily remedied.
dobber
January 31, 2026 at 08:44 am
Most of the arguments against grass fields and concussions are at the lower levels and are due to poor maintenance. That seems more controllable at the NFL level.
Coldworld
January 31, 2026 at 09:11 am
Heating the under soil is the answer to concussions (allied with good drainage). Grass is soft comparable to artificial surfaces where softness tends to risk trapping cleats. Frozen grass sod is not just hard but uneven, and often sharp.
Soccer at high levels is effectively forced to be on grass (hybrid is allowed) in the English football league and has been for almost 30 years. It can be done. Other leagues do permit them.
Rugby allows artificial surfaces, but with extremely high specifications and rigorous biannual inspections (Third-generation (3G) synthetic turf, with a 50mm-60mm pile height and an underlying shock pad for impact absorption). Even then there is a pretty heated debate raging over whether they are really adequately safe.
TKWorldWide
January 31, 2026 at 10:40 am
So with all the $ and high tech available, the NFL could really fix this.
If it wanted to.
(Operative word being ‘wanted’, of course.) 😬
jaxpackfan
January 31, 2026 at 09:01 am
Stockholder - can you show us the data that backs up your assertion?
stockholder
January 31, 2026 at 11:20 am
No I can't -
I looked for comparisons; and
it surprised me they blamed concussions,
on the grass field conditions.
just thought I'd pass it on.
barutanseijin
January 31, 2026 at 08:22 am
The new stadiums will probably be domed because the economics of domed stadiums make more sense than an outdoor stadium that’s going to be used a dozen times per year. That’s because they can accommodate more events year round, monster truck shows, arena rock shows, etc. (They still aren’t worth the cost because there aren’t that many events that need huge venues.). Sucks, and detracts from the game.
Once you have a dome, you need the fake grass. Cheapskate billionaires would probably opt for fake grass anyway, just to save a few nickels. The owners will eventually drive pro football into the ground just like they have done with baseball and basketball.
dobber
January 31, 2026 at 08:40 am
Arizona has a stadium that they can actually roll the surface outside for growing and inside for playing. My understanding is the base under the rolling surface is usable for concerts and the like. Presumably that surface could be allowed to go dormant in January-March for stadiums that might try the same things in northern climates.
Ferrari-Driver
January 31, 2026 at 12:28 pm
dobber, that makes sense and 100 yards truly is not that long. For me I'm an avid golfer and I can easily hit a 3 wood 100 yards with a little wind at my back.
TKWorldWide
January 31, 2026 at 03:53 pm
And I can walk 100 yards with only one or two snack breaks.
dobber
January 31, 2026 at 08:35 am
Cory oversimplifies the issue in that the European stadiums ...
...are more likely to be "single use". Meaning the playing surface can be tailored to the sport. Maybe there are concerts and other things, but they aren't the prime users and can be covered for stage areas. Rugby might be the other sports user in other countries.
...deal with a very different sport(s). You talk wear-and-tear, but you never see all 22 soccer players in a pile grinding and digging the surface up and down the field over the same patches of dirt for 90 minutes. They're all spread out, and while they're cutting and sprinting, they aren't pushing on each other and digging in. Watch a game: they aren't cutting up the turf like they do on grass in American football. Even in rugby, that pile moves to just about every place on the pitch and doesn't run up and down the field between narrow hashmarks.
"If the league can afford guaranteed contracts, private jets, and billion-dollar broadcast packages, it can afford grass."
The league doesn't build stadiums--those are tremendous investments. Stadiums are built by football owners working with their states and cities that end up with multi-use facilities driven by local taxpayer sentiment more than by owners...which makes operating costs a prime point of planning. Yes, I'd agree that owners could flex their muscles more on the playing surface, but I think many treat their team as an investment more than an entertainment product.
"Grass has evolved. This isn’t the sloppy, torn-up mess of the 1970s. Hybrid grass systems now exist that combine natural grass with synthetic reinforcement,"
**Knock**
**Knock**
Sa-rah Con-nah?
**Knock**
**Knock**
Coldworld
January 31, 2026 at 09:29 am
Rugby (either code) will destroy a pitch faster than football and all over the surface as well, not only between the hashes. The sport is notorious for it. Soccer clubs hate having to ground share with a rugby team for that reason, even with professional grounds keepers and equipment.
Most major modern European stadia can remove grass for events (entertainment/other sports) or horticulture if needed. A lot of lower league stadia are more one use type, but there are a lot more of them. About 180 pro soccer stadia in the UK alone (many of which have a few thousand capacity) in small towns. A lot are not new by any standards.
LeotisHarris
January 31, 2026 at 08:44 am
To the NFL, the widgets and cogs on the playing surface are all easily replaceable. That's why it's so important that they all look alike. No individuals. Any deviation from uniform code will be punished with a fine. Plus, that messy grass and mud sullies up the performance. Bad optics.
Good article, Cory.
Coldworld
January 31, 2026 at 08:49 am
While I generally agree, not all artificial surfaces are created equal and hybrid is neither truly natural nor perfect. Nor is natural always good: Soldier Field was a well known nightmare pre hybridization. There are enough teams who would complain about Lambeau now.
What is not acceptable is old, shoddy artificial turf where there are gap areas, thin sports etc. part of the claim about maintenance depends on the standard. No field with a gap that injures players is, for example, acceptably maintained, by definition. Fines for that type of thing—steep ones—and even points deductions would be a sign of serious commitment. More so than an all (sort of) natural edict.
However, don’t expect much from a league that can’t be bothered to professionalize its officiating and is allowing it to decline. This season was excruciating at times and the quality arrow keeps pointing down.
Zapato
January 31, 2026 at 09:00 am
Great article! But, I don't think stubbornness has anything to do with moving to artificial turf. It's all about the money! Making money for the owners is the leagues number one priority!
Since'61
January 31, 2026 at 09:54 am
The only beneficiaries of artificial turf are the owners. Beyond money there is no reason for the NFL to have artificial turf fields. Grass would not only be better for the players but it would slow down the game. Given the speed and size of today's players slowing the game down would also help to reduce the number of injuries in addition to reducing non-contact injuries and other injuries which occur due to the hardness of the artificial surface.
It's absolutely ridiculous that the owners pay their players multi-millions of dollars but allow them to be exposed to a dangerous playing surface to save money. They are actually working against themselves and enabling their product to be watered down due to injuries to their best players. More importantly what about the impact on the players' careers and their lives when their careers are shortened due to unnecessary injuries caused by the playing surface.
This conversation is as old as artiifical turf itself. The sad part is that it has yet to be resolved. Mandate grass fields, deal with the additional costs and protect the players. Thanks, Since '61
LambeauPlain
January 31, 2026 at 11:44 am
NeoQuimica Arena’s field in Brazil is regarded as one of the best fields for soccer in the nation. It too is a mixture of artificial and natural grass.
It was an ice rink of slipping and sliding...also knocking Love out with a significant injury when his foot got stuck in it during a tackle. (I think I recall the Packers switched to longer cleats at halftime.) It was not a good venue in spite of the hybrid and I wondered what the NFL did to inspect the field long before the contest, given how invested they say they are in "player safety'.
I had the opportunity to be on Camp Randall field in the mid 70's when our fraternity filled up thousands of helium balloons then released them to start the Homecoming game. They had artificial turf then and it was kind of fluffy on the surface but still as hard as concrete.
I was on Lambeau field a few years ago with its hybrid surface...very springy and kind of soft but also firm...if that makes sense.
Hyrid is the way to but those too can be mismanaged.
HarryHodag
January 31, 2026 at 05:15 pm
I question the assumption that Lambeau Field has the best surface. The field is often slippery on dry nights and the number of injuries sustained over many seasons makes me wonder if some are simply believing the hype. The so-called grass field is interwoven with synthetic strands so is it really a natural field?
I don't care if the field is brown after the freeze arrives. Natural grass all the time. My bet is the number of injuries would also drop.
Lare
February 01, 2026 at 02:20 pm
While natural grass/artificial grass is a no brainer issue, the reason I don't watch any NFL games anymore is due to poor officiating. Poor officiating is dictating the outcomes of games which makes the teams largely irrelevant.
If a visiting team has a decent play you can pretty much guarantee there will be a penalty. No thanks, I've got better things to do with my time.