This is the third story in Sportico’s Turf Wars series, examining the business decisions behind choosing natural grass or artificial turf for an NFL stadium.
The year 2024 brings a new dynamic to the “natural grass versus synthetic turf” debate in NFL stadiums: the possibility of a state banning turf in NFL stadiums and thus taking the choice of playing surface away from NFL teams.
The overarching debate is not new. Playing on artificial turf—generally, but not always, associated with higher injury rates and additional wear and tear on players—has led to multiple medical studies concerning injury probabilities for NFL players and other athletes when playing on the different field surfaces. The debate also tends to rise in prominence when an NFL star suffers an injury possibly because of the surface, like when Jets QB Aaron Rodgers tore his Achilles tendon last year while playing on FieldTurf CORE used at MetLife Stadium.
The NFLPA has described synthetic turf as an unsafe working condition, a position the union says is supported by studies finding turf is associated with higher injury rates. Earlier this year, NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell relayed survey data finding that 92% of NFL players want to play on grass. NFL players have said that playing on turf leads to more soreness and stiffness, including to hamstrings.
But what has traditionally been a health and safety debate, often between the NFL and its players’ association, is gradually morphing into a legal one.
Take for example the Ohio legislature, which is considering House Bill (H.B.) 605. If it becomes law, H.B. 605 would require that the playing surface of all professional sporting stadiums in Ohio be composed of not less than 90% natural grass. Although the bill wouldn’t impact the Cleveland Browns, who play on a grass field in Cleveland Browns Stadium, it would compel major changes for the Cincinnati Bengals, who play on a synthetic turf field at Paycor Stadium.
As worded, H.B. 605 is predicated on a widely shared belief that football (and other sports) played on natural grass surfaces “result in fewer non-contact lower extremity injuries.” The bill says that “natural grass provides the safest available work environment for athletes who compete on either natural grass, synthetic turf, or a blend.”
Inconclusive Studies
Data on NFL player injuries and playing surface presents a mixed bag. Some of the data suggests that playing on synthetic turf is associated with a higher frequency of injury than playing on grass. But other data paints a murkier picture, including some evidence that grass might be a more dangerous surface for certain athletic movements.
A study published five years ago in the American Journal of Sports Medicine examined foot and leg injuries occurring during NFL games between 2012 and 2016. It concluded there was a 16% increase in lower extremity injuries per play on turf than on grass, along with a 27% higher rate for non-contact lower extremity injuries. A 2012 study published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine similarly found problems with turf. NFL players sustaining knee and ankle sprains were 22% more likely on FieldTurf, though likelihood of MCL sprains and inversion ankle sprains were not found to be higher by surface type.
Earlier this year, a joint NFL-NFLPA study found that noncontact lower-extremity injuries per play were essentially the same on turf and grass in both 2023 and 2021, though injuries occurred at a higher rate on turf in 2022.
There has been no shortage of studies on sports and playing surfaces, and they paint a similarly conflicting picture. A 2020 study published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, found that NCAA soccer players who practice on natural grass “have increased risk of ACL injury compared with the risk of those practicing on an artificial surface,” and that was true “regardless of sex or NCAA division of play.” A 2022 study published in the same journal concluded that ACL injuries for high school soccer players were more likely to occur on artificial turf, but the data didn’t find surface type as meaningful for high school football players.
“Well-kept grass in an NFL stadium is, in general, safer than using a turf field in that stadium, but the difference—especially when looking at modern types of turf—is less than what a lot of people think,” Dr. David J. Chao, an internationally recognized orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine specialist, said in a phone interview.
Chao, who served as head team physician of the Chargers for 17 years, has studied the issue extensively, and he tracks and analyzes injuries at Sports Injury Central. He stressed that “each kind of surface has pros and cons in terms of types of injuries that are more likely to occur,” with grass posing a higher risk for certain types of injuries.
“Grass vs. turf is a topic that usually gets simplified too much for its own good,” Chao observed, adding “there are a lot of factors that need to be weighed.”
To that point, Chao highlighted how the “type of cleat a player uses and how that cleat interfaces with a given surface is an important safety factor that often gets overlooked.” He also noted that “weather concerns” for NFL games played in wintery, cold-weather climates further complicates the analysis further.
“It’s one thing for stadiums to install grass for 160-pound soccer players but another to hold up to wear and tear of football players that weigh twice as much,” Chao said.
Dr. Dwight Lin, a specialist in non-surgical treatment of knees, hips and backs and expert on regenerative orthopedic sports medicine, agrees that athlete injuries reflect multiple factors, including cleats and their interaction with surfaces and the unique physical traits of each athlete.
But Lin, who treats athletes and other patients at Regenerative Medicine & Rehabilitation of Hawaii, views grass as typically better all things considered.
“Our bodies evolved through hunting and gathering,” Lin said. “As much as I love science and technology, right now the data leans towards a grassy playing field being kinder to the joints.”
The Government’s Role
To date, the league and NFLPA have seen playing surfaces as a topic of discussion and negotiation—and not one of government intervention.
That could change.
The Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) is a federal agency charged with ensuring U.S. employees are “free from recognized hazards” that can cause “serious physical harm” in their workplaces. Such a mission suggests OSHA could potentially weigh in on playing surfaces and perhaps find synthetic turf is unsafe. An OSHA complaint brings about an investigation and possible fines.
Although NFL games involve numerous injuries—including concussions and their relationship to CTE and long-term neurological problems—OSHA hasn’t played a meaningful role in policing NFL games or in how the league weighs safety when making business decisions.
There is one notable exception. In 2001, OSHA investigated the 2001 death of Minnesota Vikings offensive lineman Korey Stringer after he collapsed and died due to heat stroke during training camp. OSHA cleared the team of responsibility after the investigation. Stringer’s death led to litigation. His widow, Kelci Stringer, sued the NFL and helmet maker Riddell alleging the helmet contributed to a dangerous rise in Stringer’s body temperature. The litigation was resolved through out-of-court settlements.
The role of playing surfaces has occasionally spawned litigation. Six years ago, Reggie Bush was awarded $12.5 million from a St. Louis jury for an ACL tear he sustained after slipping on uncovered concrete surface in the Edward Jones Dome during a game in 2015. Bush, who played for the San Francisco 49ers at the time, couldn’t stop his momentum while running onto the surface, which bordered the turf playing field. The jury found the use of the surface to constitute negligence.
Player lawsuits over playing surfaces are rare, however. That is at least partly because many types of potential legal claims are preempted by contract and arbitration procedures mandated by the league’s CBA.
The NFL’s View
The NFL maintains that its policies toward field surfaces follow the advice of scientific experts, reflect collaboration with the NFLPA and direct input from NFL players and are consistent with the game becoming noticeably safer in recent years.
To that end, the league reported that players missed 700 fewer games in the 2023 regular season than the preceding season. The drop in lower-extremity injuries, such as knee injuries and ACL tears, was especially pronounced, with those injuries hitting a four-year low. The league has also promoted research on new surface technologies including through the HealthTECH Challenge, an initiative with Football Research Inc. and Duke Biomedical Engineering intended to accelerate research on more consistent and safe surfaces. Last week the league awarded funds for a hybrid surface playing design that uses synthetic carpeting and natural grass, and one that incorporates liquid surface modifiers to enhance turf.
Article 29 of the CBA governs players’ rights to medical care and treatment. It contains details on the field surface safety and performance committee, which is a joint committee consisting of representatives for the league and players’ association as well as subject matter experts. The committee is charged with advising the NFL and NFLPA on strategies for, among other things, injury prevention and improving field surface testing methods. The committee also considers players’ views on how they feel after playing on a surface and what can be done to improve it.
One related area where innovation has been lacking is cleats. While new helmet designs have been credited with reducing player concussions by as much as 25% over the last handful of NFL seasons, cleats, as well as their lengths, insoles and sizing, have not changed dramatically. The NFL conducts tests on cleats and is hoping that data, coupled with more consistent surfaces, will lead to more dynamic improvements and market incentives for cleat makers to better tailor their shoes for impact sports.
Potential Impact of H.B. 605
While the NFL contends turf is safe, H.B. 605 co-sponsors Rep. Rodney Creech (R) and Rep. Terrence Upchurch (D) believe otherwise, asserting their bill is intended to promote player safety. Creech owns and operates Lawn Plus, a company that provides services to lawns and offers “professional athletic field design” that can “turn grass into a major-league-ready field.” Creech has said his company would not bid on potential jobs should H.B. 605 become law and lead to stadiums having to turn to grass.
H.B. 605 has a long way to go before it would become a law. Introduced in May, it is currently before the Ohio House’s Economic and Workforce Development committee. Whether it advances out of committee, passes both houses of the Ohio legislature and is signed into law by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) all remains to be seen.
An opponent of H.B. 605, Ohio Rep. Reggie Stoltzfus (R), blasted the bill as “an ill-conceived play against free market principles that arbitrarily favors one sports turf industry over another.” Given that the bill imposes a new business condition on a private industry, there’s a good chance that Ohio, a red state with a Republican governor, is an unlikely forum for this type of legislation to pass.
But even if not in Ohio, the prospect of NFL teams—some of which play in dome stadiums where natural grass is challenging to utilize—being ordered to use grass is no longer a theoretical matter. As seen when name, image and likeness and sports betting bills were introduced in one state, politicians in other states could copy those ideas and introduce analogous bills in their legislatures. In states with more progressive-leaning politics, an H.B. 605-like bill might gain more traction, no pun intended.
Such legislation, however, could be challenged in court as unconstitutional or violating existing statues.
A bill that compels the field structure of a stadium used by players who travel across states might be portrayed as violating the Commerce Clause (Section 8) and the Contract Clause (Section 10) of the U.S Constitution. The Commerce Clause entrusts Congress with the exclusive authority to regulate interstate commerce; a bill that commands changes to a facility might be seen as unduly interfering. For its part, the Contract Clause makes it illegal for states to pass laws that “impair” contractual obligations. That could give a team or the league a chance to argue that a state dictating a playing surface for a pro team interferes with safety and business matters at issue in the collective bargaining agreement and sponsorship contracts.
However, states would have counterarguments. For instance, through the 10th Amendment, states are reserved the general right to regulate health and safety. States also have a long tradition of regulating sports facilities through zoning, environmental and consumer protection laws.
Ohio isn’t the first community to consider legislation that would prohibit turf fields. However, other prohibitions have targeted sports facilities used by young adults and the public rather than multibillion dollar NFL teams and their multimillion-dollar players.
Boston, for example, no longer installs artificial turf in public parks, although the city’s mayor, Michelle Wu, has stressed the move is not a ban per se. Other communities in Massachusetts have also stopped using turf, some driven by concerns that turf contains chemicals that cause health and environmental problems. While turf is more durable for repeated use than grass, turf’s dependence on chemicals—especially polyfluoroalkyl substances, which resist heat, water, oil and grease—has drawn concerns about links to disease and other problems.
Several states, including California and New York, have weighed legislative proposals that would restrict the use of synthetic turf, including in sports stadiums. Two decades ago, the Hawaii legislature weighed H.B. 230, which would have mandated that all playing fields controlled by the state use natural grass as the playing surface. The bill explicitly referenced concerns for NFL players “who are prone to more serious injuries due to artificial surfaces.”
While the safety of turf continues to spark medical debate, the legal fallout of that debate could become its own quandary.
