The conversion of several NFL stadiums from artificial turf to natural grass for this summer’s World Cup rekindled ongoing discussions about the merits of grass versus synthetic playing surfaces in professional football. FIFA invested millions to install natural grass on SoFi Stadium and six other NFL venues, as well as additional stadiums in Mexico and Canada, temporarily replacing their usual artificial turf. This move has drawn renewed attention from players, owners, and experts regarding field safety, performance, and costs.

Las Vegas Raiders owner Mark Davis, an advocate for grass fields, emphasized safety as his primary motivator. “I just always felt that football should be played on grass,” Davis said, noting the additional expense but affirming it was worthwhile. SoFi Stadium, which normally features artificial turf, was among the fields converted for the tournament. Davis’ stadium was not a World Cup site but had already invested in the ability to switch between grass and artificial surfaces to accommodate different events quickly.

NFL players have long expressed a preference for natural grass. San Francisco 49ers tight end George Kittle echoed this sentiment, stating in a players’ association release that grass is better for players’ bodies and achievable, evidenced by the World Cup installations. The NFL Players Association (NFLPA) recently cited a poll of 1,700 players showing 92% favor grass fields. Despite widespread player support for grass, injury data over the past three NFL seasons reveal no statistically significant difference in injury rates between grass and artificial turf.

Following the World Cup, all stadiums are scheduled to revert to their prior turf systems, including MetLife Stadium in New Jersey and Seattle’s Lumen Field, which received low marks in the latest NFLPA field quality survey. SoFi Stadium’s artificial turf earned a relatively better “C” grade, though grass surfaces typically score higher.

The technical feasibility of installing natural grass in NFL stadiums, especially indoor or domed arenas, hinges on complex systems. The Raiders and Arizona Cardinals have pioneered expensive, roll-in grass systems that require substantial space and investment. Michigan State professor John “Trey” Rogers, who advised FIFA and led a similar conversion at the 1994 World Cup, described the sod-on-plastic approach that prevents root growth downward, instead encouraging horizontal rooting to create a resilient playing surface. This method was used for most World Cup venues and is exemplified in Miami’s Hard Rock Stadium, which regularly replaces sod up to a dozen times per year and maintains an “A-minus” rating by the NFLPA.

Experts note that the grass varieties used in World Cup soccer venues differ from those that best suit American football’s unique demands. The narrower NFL field, heavier athletes, and style of play require turf with specific traction and durability characteristics. FIFA-installed fields benefit from portable ultraviolet lighting and irrigation systems, but permanent features like grow lights and drainage would need to be added for a full-time grass surface in many indoor stadiums, substantially increasing costs.

Each shipment of sod can cost approximately $250,000 and may need replacement during a season. Ongoing maintenance adds further expenses, making the switch to grass a significant financial and logistical commitment. Rogers highlighted the hesitation among NFL teams to pioneer such changes, citing the risks and upfront costs involved.

As of now, none of the NFL teams whose stadiums hosted grass during the World Cup have committed to a permanent switch. The Buffalo Bills will join the grass field ranks next season upon moving into their new stadium, leaving their artificial turf behind. Meanwhile, the debate over grass versus artificial turf in the NFL continues, balancing player safety preferences, injury data, financial considerations, and stadium operation challenges.