Introduction:
Over the years, a growing trend in sports has emerged with schools, professional teams, families, and even city parks switching from real grass to artificial turf. In my life alone, I have seen my friends’ families remove beautiful grass lawns, and my high school get rid of grass fields in favor of more expensive artificial turf.
History:
First installed in 1966 at Houston’s Astrodome, artificial turf originally consisted of nylon carpet over compacted soil, and the trend of replacing natural grass with so-called AstroTurf continued due to its durability and low maintenance requirements (Cumberbatch et al., 2025). Even back then, many shared concerns about the grass, as, for the first time in human history, people ran on a human-made version of a natural surface. These issues have laid the foundation for modern discourse around playing surfaces, whether we should prioritize convenience or player opinions.
Current Use:
Now, artificial turf uses synthetic polymers, with the top layer consisting of polymers attached to a textile with latex backing, and the infill made of recycled tires (Cheng et al., 2014). To emulate the shock absorption of real grass, artificial grass makers use sand laid over a shock pad made of materials such as rubber. These moves have increased its energy and water costs; however, they remain lower than those of maintaining a real grass field.
The new turf only needs water to cool it down at times due to its material’s high heat absorption and the lack of evaporation seen in normal grass (Cumberbatch et al., 2025). The new turf also excels in durability, with strong polymers preventing the grass from tearing and avoiding the dirt spots and rough patches characteristic of a normal grass field.
While the new turf clearly excels in many areas, the areas it does not excel in have become the greatest sources of conversation, with its impervious surface limiting water infiltration and the synthetic grass having lower permeability to water (Cheng et al., 2014). Normal grass serves as a runoff area; as anyone who has played sports remembers, practice gets canceled because of heavy rainstorms. Furthermore, plastic pollution also becomes a major issue with artificial turf as microplastics, which do not biodegrade, linger in the environment and account for 15% of plastic debris in aquatic environments (Cumberbatch et al., 2025). Artificial turf also produces significantly more greenhouse gases than natural grass, and maintaining the grass increases the use of pesticides and cleaning solvents. Suppose you thought that you should just get rid of the synthetic grass and replace it with natural grass; even more issues emerge, as we do not have proper recycling facilities for artificial turf.
Health Risks:
Health-wise, synthetic grass also raises serious concerns, as high surface temperatures increase the risk of dehydration and heat stroke (Reiad et al., 2025). The high presence of forever chemicals in artificial turf can also cause developmental issues, liver damage, and an increased risk of cancer (Reiad et al., 2025). Furthermore, athletes dislike the grass because of the increased risk of injury. In a study by John Powell, he linked artificial turf surfaces to increased knee injuries in professional football, and just from the top of my head, I can think of 10 bad lower extremity injuries from artificial turf, like Aaron Rodgers tearing his Achilles on his debut with the Jets and Dre Greenlaw doing the same in the Super Bowl. The NFL even conducted a poll in which 92% of athletes said they preferred natural to synthetic grass (The Associated Press, 2024). However, some studies have seen a greater concussion risk associated with natural grass, so you cannot simply say x is better than y in terms of injury risk.
Hopefully, this article has guided you to my research question: Why would anyone ever use synthetic grass? The NFL has proven, through this year’s World Cup, that it can switch fields quite easily. In Europe, nearly all professional soccer teams use grass, so why would baseball and football team owners use hated synthetic grass fields over nostalgic, beloved grass fields? The answer to your question is likely effort and money.
Appeal of Turf:
When you walk on a field of grass, you may not realize the effort it took to avoid rolling your ankle on a divot or accidentally stepping on an ant hill, but maintaining a proper grass field requires continuous, multifaceted effort. It requires seasonal reseeding, watering, mowing and cutting, fertilization, and changing costs based on weather conditions. The costs behind these actions tend to add up, leading to high and even unpredictable costs at times, which has led organizations and teams to stray away from grass in favor of turf. To maintain a turf field, all you might need to do is brush the surface of artificial grass to make it stand up straight or remove any debris or stains on the field, but other than that, and maybe a light watering for cooling, the cost associated with cleaning and maintaining turf remains relatively steady. Turf withstands heavy use and weather better than grass, making it ideal for the US’s multipurpose stadium venues. Artificial turf appeals to owners because of its low-cost marketing, consistent playability, and stable costs, which allow them to more easily manage the tight budgets they deal with. Europe, in contrast, has a more holistic approach to sports, where the fans and players come first, prioritizing tradition over costs, making real grass a cultural priority in sports infrastructure.
Conclusion:
The grass vs. turf debate underscores the broader theme of convenience versus quality. While turf saves money and lasts longer, artificial grass can cause adverse health effects, may increase lower-body injuries, and sacrifice the traditional, beloved feeling of grass. In debating grass vs. turf, we are asking what we should prioritize. As technology advances, we must ensure our answer to the question not only makes budgeting easier but also maintains the quality that players love.
References:
Cheng, Hefa, et al. “Environmental and Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Review.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 48, no. 4, 2014, pp. 2114–2129. American Chemical Society, https://doi.org/10.1021/es4044193.
Cumberbatch, Iman S., et al. “Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass: A Case Study of Environmental Effects, Health Risks, Safety, and Cost.” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 14, 2025, article 6292. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146292.
Macy. (2025). Artificial turf vs. natural grass football fields: The complete difference. Mighty Grass. https://www.mightygrass.com/artificial-turf-vs-natural-grass-football-fields/
Reiad, Timothy A et al. “Comparing Sports-Related Orthopedic Injury Trends on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass: A 20-Year Nationwide Analysis of the NEISS Database.” Rhode Island medical journal (2013) vol. 108,7 41-47. 1 Jul. 2025
The Associated Press. (2024, February 8). NFLPA head says 92% of players prefer playing on grass. FOX Sports. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/nflpa-head-says-92-percent-of-players-prefer-playing-on-grass
