92% of NFL players want grass fields

[Forward_Lateral]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

My cousin got seriously injured playing indoor soccer on turf. He wasn't anywhere near the play. He just turned to run towards the ball, his cleat got caught in the turf and he broke his leg in 2 places. It took multiple surgeries to get back to normal.

Of course, that was over 20 years ago at some white trash sports complex in South Jersey, so I'm sure the NFL has better turf than what he was playing on.

I don't know how much more advanced turf is. it seems like a lot of the non contact, and even some of the contact knee injuries are due to the shoe/spike getting caught up in the turf with no give.

It's just another reason on the list of many that the NFL is the greediest sports entity in the world

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

DUH!!!! Of COURSE "92% of NFL players want grass fields".

I do not share the negatively that it will "never happen".

It may have to wait until the current NFL CBA expires in March 2030, but I strongly suspect there will be a LOT of pressure on the NFLPA to make it a critical issue in the negotiations.

We already know that it is not only possible to change field surfaces, but when the rubber hits to road it gets done.

Half of the NFL stadiums have artificial playing surfaces. Seven of those will host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup soccer matches. Ahead of the tournament, grass field MUST be installed at the stadiums in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, LA, New Jersey and Seattle.

It's a matter of time. The players ARE the NFL. Over the years they have used their clout to demand close to 50% of almost all of the revenue generated in the NFL. Since grass fields affects their very career and health, with the FACT that once a league REQUIRES grass fields (like thew FIFA) it gets done, excuses for not doing it are exposed as pure bullcrap.

The method to ensure it gets done is the NFL CBA.

[OpIv37]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

DUH!!!! Of COURSE "92% of NFL players want grass fields".

I do not share the negatively that it will "never happen".

It may have to wait until the current NFL CBA expires in March 2030, but I strongly suspect there will be a LOT of pressure on the NFLPA to make it a critical issue in the negotiations.

We already know that it is not only possible to change field surfaces, but when the rubber hits to road it gets done.

Half of the NFL stadiums have artificial playing surfaces. Seven of those will host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup soccer matches. Ahead of the tournament, grass field MUST be installed at the stadiums in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, LA, New Jersey and Seattle.

It's a matter of time. The players ARE the NFL. Over the years they have used their clout to demand close to 50% of almost all of the revenue generated in the NFL. Since grass fields affects their very career and health, with the FACT that once a league REQUIRES grass fields (like thew FIFA) it gets done, excuses for not doing it are exposed as pure bullcrap.

The method to ensure it gets done is the NFL CBA.

Jones and Kraft will change it for the World Cup then change it back because long-term, turf is cheaper to maintain than grass. The other owners will probably do the same.

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Jones and Kraft will change it for the World Cup then change it back because long-term, turf is cheaper to maintain than grass. The other owners will probably do the same.

That's not the point.

Turf being cheaper to maintain than grass is shortsighted and dumb. The owners will not do it without being forced...like they were to host the FIFA tournament.

The point is that the NFLPA is going to have to force them to do it. If they do, it will get done.

[DraftBoy]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

That's not the point.

Turf being cheaper to maintain than grass is shortsighted and dumb. The owners will not do it without being forced...like they were to host the FIFA tournament.

The point is that the NFLPA is going to have to force them to do it. If they do, it will get done.

I believe this was tried in both of the last two CBA negotiations but the owners wanted too much back to cover their costs so the NFLPA nixed it. The overwhelming majority of players may want it, but what are they willing to give up to get it?

[BuffaloBlitz83]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

It’ll never happen because it will cost the owners too much money.

But has anyone done a study to see if there really are more serious injuries on turf? If there really are more significant injuries, maybe the owners will want to invest in grass to protect their investment in the players.

You could compare injury rate From these 2 grass fields vs turf fields.

The Cleveland Browns and Pittsburgh Steelers are two franchises that have stadiums in cold-weather climates, but also cultivate natural grass fields in both Lambeau and Heinz Field.

[TheConsigliere]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

97% just want good grass to smoke.

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

I believe this was tried in both of the last two CBA negotiations but the owners wanted too much back to cover their costs so the NFLPA nixed it. The overwhelming majority of players may want it, but what are they willing to give up to get it?

I have no idea what it will take. I suspect that other issues (percentage of shared revenue....reducing practice time...etc...) were more critical in respect to priorities.

The "cost" argument is pretty much a canard.....in other words bullcrap.

I do not buy for ONE SECOND that there is an overwhelming "cost" issue. The cost for installing and maintaining a grass field, although more than turf, is NOT in any way daunting or would come even close to seriously impacting the bottom line.

There are a lot of numbers thrown around as to the cost difference in installing (and replacing every so often) a turf field as compared to the ongoing cost to maintain a grass field.

The differences are not that great. According to this article, "Costs: Grass vs Synthetic Turf"....the conclusion is....."Synthetic turf costs more to install, ALMOST as much to maintain, and HAS TO BE replaced once it wears out."

The estimates to install grass field in each stadium, a report by Forbes said....

….the Associated Press reported the cost for each one would be “roughly $500,000 for demolition, new rock underlayment and irrigation (drainage could be reused) and another $350,000 for lay-and-play sod.”

Let’s see.

That’s $850,000 overall.

Yes, cold weather stadiums would have to change the grass more often and more difficult to maintain. Indoor stadiums present a challenge but not that much with the advent of advanced LED technology. Gee....they have been growing marijuana (and other less critical plants ) indoors for decades, a little grass (yes, the grass that is played on) would present more maintenance cost but it is extremely possible and realistic.

As the article above states, the difference in maintaining a grass vs turf field is not that great....For arguments sake, let's say it would cost $2M more annually to maintain grass over turf.

Forbes also annually publishes some extremely interesting numbers of each NFL team's worth, revenue and "operating income"...better known as PROFIT.

The numbers are eye opening.

Average Worth - $5.1B
Average Revenue - $581M
Average Profit - $126M

Highest Worth - Dallas - $9B
Lowest Worth - Cincy - $3.5B

Highest Revenue - Dallas - $1.14B
Lowest Revenue - Detroit - $495M (only two teams below $550M - Cincy - $498)

Highest Profit - Dallas - $504M
Lowest Profit - Detroit - $51M

Only 13 Teams with profit under $100M (Minny - $99M, Pittsburgh - $96M, KC - $95M)

Bills Worth - $3.7B
Bills Revenue - $503M
Bills Profit - $119M

$581M in Revenue...the average for NFL teams - if spend $2M on Grass (.34%)

Equivalent as a family with $100,000 income - spending $344.23

You would think that NFL owners, all of which became wealthy well before they bought or owned (if passed down within the family) would want to protect THE most valuable asset they have. THE PLAYERS!!!!

I suspect that they do not believe, for whatever reason, that grass field will not effect injuries in a substantial way. Studies are mixed on that subject.

What is NOT "mixed" is that players HATE PLAYING ON TURF. They may not get injured, but it is UNDENIABLE that their bodies take a MUCH worse beating with turf than grass.

Whenever the "it costs to much" argument comes up, it's bullcrap!!! When the NFLPA raises the priority of grass field, over or close to the subject of percentage of the overall revenue (and what constitutes sharable revenue) grass field will become the norm.

[Historian]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

In addition to it being en vogue at the time, this is the reason the Bills put artificial turf into Rich Stadium, and why they never changed to grass over the last 50 years:

[Historian]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Here's a better illustration.

Opening day, 1971.

Rained like hell. My first regular season game.

Watch how the field deteriorates as the game goes on.

The Bills then have to play on it for another seven games, lol.

[sukie]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

I have no idea what it will take. I suspect that other issues (percentage of shared revenue....reducing practice time...etc...) were more critical in respect to priorities.

The "cost" argument is pretty much a canard.....in other words bullcrap.

I do not buy for ONE SECOND that there is an overwhelming "cost" issue. The cost for installing and maintaining a grass field, although more than turf, is NOT in any way daunting or would come even close to seriously impacting the bottom line.

There are a lot of numbers thrown around as to the cost difference in installing (and replacing every so often) a turf field as compared to the ongoing cost to maintain a grass field.

The differences are not that great. According to this article, "Costs: Grass vs Synthetic Turf"....the conclusion is....."Synthetic turf costs more to install, ALMOST as much to maintain, and HAS TO BE replaced once it wears out."

The estimates to install grass field in each stadium, a report by Forbes said....



Yes, cold weather stadiums would have to change the grass more often and more difficult to maintain. Indoor stadiums present a challenge but not that much with the advent of advanced LED technology. Gee....they have been growing marijuana (and other less critical plants ) indoors for decades, a little grass (yes, the grass that is played on) would present more maintenance cost but it is extremely possible and realistic.

As the article above states, the difference in maintaining a grass vs turf field is not that great....For arguments sake, let's say it would cost $2M more annually to maintain grass over turf.

Forbes also annually publishes some extremely interesting numbers of each NFL team's worth, revenue and "operating income"...better known as PROFIT.

The numbers are eye opening.

Average Worth - $5.1B
Average Revenue - $581M
Average Profit - $126M

Highest Worth - Dallas - $9B
Lowest Worth - Cincy - $3.5B

Highest Revenue - Dallas - $1.14B
Lowest Revenue - Detroit - $495M (only two teams below $550M - Cincy - $498)

Highest Profit - Dallas - $504M
Lowest Profit - Detroit - $51M

Only 13 Teams with profit under $100M (Minny - $99M, Pittsburgh - $96M, KC - $95M)

Bills Worth - $3.7B
Bills Revenue - $503M
Bills Profit - $119M

$581M in Revenue...the average for NFL teams - if spend $2M on Grass (.34%)

Equivalent as a family with $100,000 income - spending $344.23

You would think that NFL owners, all of which became wealthy well before they bought or owned (if passed down within the family) would want to protect THE most valuable asset they have. THE PLAYERS!!!!

I suspect that they do not believe, for whatever reason, that grass field will not effect injuries in a substantial way. Studies are mixed on that subject.

What is NOT "mixed" is that players HATE PLAYING ON TURF. They may not get injured, but it is UNDENIABLE that their bodies take a MUCH worse beating with turf than grass.

Whenever the "it costs to much" argument comes up, it's bullcrap!!! When the NFLPA raises the priority of grass field, over or close to the subject of percentage of the overall revenue (and what constitutes sharable revenue) grass field will become the norm.

Still haven’t seen any LED grown grass surfaces that could stand up to NFL play. Soccer perhaps but that’s not an equivalent. As of now there are no football stadiums that are domes with real grass NOT on a removable”Tray” setup.

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Still haven’t seen any LED grown grass surfaces that could stand up to NFL play. Soccer perhaps but that’s not an equivalent. As of now there are no football stadiums that are domes with real grass NOT on a removable”Tray” setup.

Then you are not looking close enough....or more likely, you do not have enough knowledge about LED lighting.

I do.

The last 16 years of my career was in photo/video lighting. The company I worked for also produced and sold LED lighting for agricultural use.

Not only is it possible to grow "grass surfaces that could stand up to NFL play", the ability to precisely control the color wavelength output of LED lights make it better suited than relying on fickle sunshine in cold weather cites, even in open air stadiums.

Baltimore was the second city to use artificial lighting (after Green Bay) to ensure a healthy grass field (Green Bay uses a hybrid that is mostly grass but fortified with synthetic fibers....the field is heated as well, like the Bills field will be), suitable to stand up to NFL play, when late in the year, there is diminished amount of sunshine....along with sometimes too much water and too cold temperatures.

The ability to completely control light, water and temperature could provide domed stadiums with extremely good field surfaces.

Additionally, new sod surfaces can be and ARE changed regularly and artificial lighting is perfectly suitable to assist in maintaining a good field surface. All it takes is a little bit more money.

The Athletic (who else....best sports media site in the US) had this tidbit in a story about how the field was prepared for the Super Bowl....

Allegiant Stadium is a domed stadium that utilizes a field tray that enables the Raiders to play on natural grass. Using an artificial turf field would be more convenient, but owner Mark Davis insisted on natural grass because that’s what the majority of NFL players prefer. On Wednesday, the NFLPA revealed it surveyed about 1,700 players to ask whether they preferred to play on grass or turf.

THAT is the attitude that is missing from too many NFL owners.

The field surface in last years SB, in Arizona, was TERRIBLE, despite the fact that they use the same tray system as Las Vegas. This years' field was perfect.

George Toma, the longtime groundskeeper of every Super Bowl until he retired after last year's debacle (at the age of 94) had choice words for NFL field director, Ed Mangan, who reportedly screwed up in the care of the field.

Not surprisingly, Ed Mangan was replaced by the NFL and hired Nick Pappas last March to prepare for this years SB surface.

The point is that proper CARE for a grass field is what matters. Domed stadiums could ALL have grass fields if they are forced to do so.

[sukie]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

I understand the lighting. But your examples of Baltimore and GB are outdoor facilities in the cold north. There has yet to be a football played indoor grass surface that I am aware of (other than the rail-tray systems.)

im not saying that it may not be possible in the future it’s just not ready yet.

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

I understand the lighting. But your examples of Baltimore and GB are outdoor facilities in the cold north. There has yet to be a football played indoor grass surface that I am aware of (other than the rail-tray systems.)

im not saying that it may not be possible in the future it’s just not ready yet.

Uhhhh....you certainly suggested as much.


It IS possible TODAY!!!! NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER.


It's a matter of will and money.

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

BTW...the examples of Baltimore and Green Bay are perfectly applicable is so much as the conditions of those cites in winter is much more difficult than inside a dome for both light and temperature.

A completely controlled environment as to amount and colr spectrum (and wavelength) of light, water and temp all favor doing so inside a dome.

LED lighting has been in use for agricultural use for many years. Here is an article discussing it back in 2018....

Growing the future
High-tech farmers are using LED lights in ways that seem to border on science fiction

Mike Zelkind stands at one end of what was once a shipping container and opens the door to the future.

Thousands of young collard greens are growing vigorously under a glow of pink-purple lamps in a scene that seems to have come from a sci-fi movie, or at least a NASA experiment. But Zelkind is at the helm of an earthbound enterprise. He is chief executive of 80 Acres Farms, with a plant factory in an uptown Cincinnati neighborhood where warehouses sit cheek by jowl with detached houses.

Since plants emerged on Earth, they have relied on the light of the sun to feed and grow through the process of photosynthesis.

But Zelkind is part of a radical shift in agriculture — decades in the making — in which plants can be grown commercially without a single sunbeam. A number of technological advances have made this possible, but none more so than innovations in LED lighting.

“What is sunlight from a plant’s perspective?” Zelkind asks. “It’s a bunch of photons.”

Diode lights, which work by passing a current between semiconductors, have come a long way since they showed up in calculator displays in the 1970s. Compared with other forms of electrical illumination, light-emitting diodes use less energy, give off little heat and can be manipulated to optimize plant growth.

In agricultural applications, LED lights are used in ways that seem to border on alchemy, changing how plants grow, when they flower, how they taste and even their levels of vitamins and antioxidants. The lights can also prolong their shelf life.

“People haven’t begun to think about the real impact of what we are doing,” says Zelkind, who is using light recipes to grow, for example, two types of basil from the same plant: sweeter ones for the grocery store and more piquant versions for chefs.

….snip…

In addition to shaping the plants, LEDs allow speedy, year-round crop cycles. This permits Zelkind and his team of growers and technicians to produce 200,000 pounds of leafy greens, vine crops, herbs and microgreens annually in a 12,000-square-foot warehouse, an amount that would require 80 acres of farmland (hence the company’s name).

….snip….


Production in the Cincinnati location began in December 2016. In September, the company broke ground on the first phase of a major expansion 30 miles away in Hamilton, Ohio, that will eventually have three fully automated indoor farms totaling 150,000 square feet and a fourth for 30,000 square feet of vine crops in a converted factory. (The company also has indoor growing operations in Alabama, North Carolina and Arkansas, which acted as proving grounds for the technology.)

A reminder....a NFL football field is 57,600 sq feet.

The ability to grow food with more control as to their output, taste and even their levels of vitamins and antioxidants is more difficult than growing something as simple as grass.


All that is needed is light, water and relatively warm temp.