On grass vs. turf, NFL clings to the injury-rate statistics

The NFL remains steadfast in its stance regarding the debate between grass and artificial turf playing surfaces, despite ongoing discussions. During a recent conference call, NFL executive VP Jeff Miller reaffirmed the league's reliance on injury data from grass and synthetic surfaces over the past three years, asserting that there is no difference across any injury categories or overall injury rates.

However, the players' preference for playing on grass cannot be ignored, as they report feeling better the following day due to the body absorbing forces on grass, unlike artificial turf, where forces rebound into the players' bodies.

Miller also highlighted that injuries during games do not necessarily occur at the moment of injury. In many cases, injuries result from prolonged wear and tear leading to breaks, tears, or strains. Furthermore, Miller pointed out that FIFA-quality grass fields, which are designed for soccer, would not be suitable for NFL games due to the distinct requirements of the sport. The NFL would opt for an NFL-quality field rather than replicating FIFA standards.

The World Cup demonstrated that grass surfaces can be successfully utilized indoors, but the cost of installing and maintaining such systems remains a challenge. This issue has now become a collective bargaining topic, with the NFL potentially sharing the financial burden of converting turf fields to grass. The best approach for players may not be to pressure the league generally but to target individual owners, starting with new Seattle Seahawks owner Vinod Khosla, who has expressed openness to transitioning from turf to grass in Seattle.