Grass or Turf: The NFL Players' Fight Over Playing Surfaces

Timeline

1. 2012–2016Regular-season data later analyzed in a peer-reviewed study show higher lower-extremity injury rates on synthetic turf.
2. 2019The American Journal of Sports Medicine publishes the study, by researchers including NFL-affiliated data scientists and team physicians.
3. Nov 2022NFL officials tell reporters the grass-versus-turf question has changed after near-equal 2021 rates.
4. Dec 24, 2022A stadium field in Carolina fails the pregame hardness test, but the game kicks off as scheduled, according to the NFLPA.
5. Apr 19, 2023NFLPA president JC Tretter publishes 2022 data showing the widest gap between surfaces and accuses the league of a PR campaign.
6. Sep 11, 2023Aaron Rodgers tears his Achilles tendon on MetLife Stadium's synthetic turf in his first game for the Jets.
7. Sep 13, 2023NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell calls for all stadium fields to move to high-quality natural grass.
8. Feb 2024Joint data show non-contact lower-extremity injury rates of 0.043 on turf and 0.042 on grass for 2023.
9. Jan 30, 2026The NFL reports no statistically significant difference between surfaces for a third straight season and new mandatory playing-surface practices.
10. Feb 2026Leaked union survey grades 18 of 32 home fields C+ or worse after the NFL wins a grievance barring publication.
11. Jul 2026Temporary World Cup grass is removed from Gillette Stadium; the union protests.

The ethical issues

• Duty of care: what owners owe players when the safety evidence is contested.
• Whose evidence counts: multi-year trends versus single-season data, and players' reports of how their bodies feel.
• Cost and convenience versus safety: multi-use stadiums, climate, and maintenance costs.
• Consistency of standards: fields switched to grass for soccer events but not for the NFL's own players.
• Enforcement: whether a game should proceed when a field fails the agreed test.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
NFL players	Their bodies, careers and earnings, which depend on staying healthy.
NFL Players Association	Safer working conditions and credible injury data.
Team owners and stadium operators	Cost, multi-use scheduling, climate constraints and the value of their players.
NFL league office	Player availability, the product on the field, and its health-and-safety reputation.
Turf and cleat manufacturers	Developing and selling surfaces and footwear that meet league specifications.
Fans and broadcasters	Seeing star players on the field.

The case

Few workplace-safety disputes in sport are as visible as the argument over what NFL players run on. Players have said for years that they feel worse after games on artificial turf and that they would rather play on grass. The league has answered with data that, in recent seasons, show little difference between the two. The dispute became a public fight in September 2023, when one of the league’s biggest stars was hurt in his first game for a new team.^[1][4][5]

Background

The NFL plays its games in about 30 stadiums, some outdoors on grass and many, including domed and multi-use venues, on synthetic surfaces.^[5]

Players have long contested whether it is as safe. The union’s case rests partly on a 2019 study in The American Journal of Sports Medicine by researchers including NFL-affiliated data scientists and team physicians. Using regular-season data from 2012 to 2016, it found a 16% higher rate of lower-extremity injuries on synthetic turf, with larger differences for non-contact injuries and for foot and ankle injuries.^[2] In a column on the union’s website, then-NFLPA president JC Tretter, a former offensive lineman, cited league data from 2012 to 2018 showing a 28% higher rate of non-contact lower-extremity injuries on turf, 32% higher for knees and 69% higher for feet and ankles. His explanation was physical: grass eventually gives and releases the cleat, while turf gives less, so the foot, ankle and knee absorb the force.^[1]

The rules and governance

There is no NFL rule requiring grass. Field surfaces are chosen by clubs and stadium owners, subject to league standards. Injury data are collected by IQVIA, an independent company retained jointly by the NFL and the NFLPA, and are reviewed by a joint Field Surface Safety & Performance Committee.^[6] The committee’s measure of surface-related injuries is non-contact, lower-extremity injuries serious enough to cost playing time, which make up about a third of all NFL injuries.^[5]

For years the main standardized field check was the Clegg test, which measures surface hardness. According to the union, a surface must read below 100 g to pass, and the meter tops out at 150 g. Tretter called the test “extremely limited” in what it says about safety.^[1][3]

The 2022 data fight

In 2021 the injury rates on the two surfaces came closer than ever. In November 2022, NFL officials told reporters that “the questions have changed,” and Dallas owner Jerry Jones said league statistics did not show problems with turf.^[3]

The union disagreed sharply. In an April 2023 post, Tretter published the 2022 figures, which showed the gap as wide as it had ever been, and argued that 2021 had been an outlier in a decade of data favoring grass. He wrote that the league’s credibility with players on health and safety was “virtually nonexistent.” He also described a December 24, 2022 game in Carolina in which, he said, the field registered 150 g on the pregame Clegg test. Players complained it felt like concrete, he wrote, but the league allowed kickoff and later told the union the field fell below 100 g late in the first half.^[3] ESPN later reported the 2022 rates as 0.048 injuries per 100 plays on synthetic turf and 0.035 on grass.^[5]

Rodgers and the union’s demand

On September 11, 2023, Aaron Rodgers tore his left Achilles tendon on MetLife Stadium’s synthetic turf in his first game for the New York Jets.^[4][5] Players quickly linked the injury to the surface, among them Green Bay tackle David Bakhtiari, who wrote that the league cared “more about soccer players than us.”^[4]

Two days later, NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell issued a statement: “Moving all stadium fields to high quality natural grass surfaces is the easiest decision the NFL can make.” He said players overwhelmingly preferred grass, that the data showed it was safer, and that it made “no sense” for stadiums to install grass for World Cup matches and soccer exhibitions while artificial surfaces were acceptable for NFL players.^[4] The league’s Jeff Miller said the NFL shared all of its injury information with the union and that some grass stadiums had higher injury rates than some synthetic ones.^[4] Whether the turf caused Rodgers’ injury cannot be established from a single case, and the NFL later noted that its total of 23 Achilles tears that season was in line with previous years.^[5]

The 2023–2025 data

In February 2024, the joint data showed a rate of 0.043 non-contact lower-extremity injuries per 100 plays on synthetic turf and 0.042 on grass in 2023, a difference IQVIA’s epidemiologist said amounted to six to eight injuries over the season. The league called the rates “virtually identical.”^[5][6] The union replied that the numbers converged only because injuries on grass rose, and that one-year data could not override what players had known for years.^[5]

The league also highlighted other changes. Several teams had replaced “slit-film” turf, a type that produced higher injury rates, and the committee was studying indoor grass and more consistent field-management standards.^[5] For the 2025 season, the NFL reported no statistically significant difference between turf (0.43) and grass (0.42) for a third consecutive season, and announced new Mandatory Practices for NFL Playing Surfaces and a best-practices guide produced with the union.^[7]

Players grade the fields

In February 2026 the union’s annual player survey graded home playing surfaces for the first time. Before the results came out, the NFL won a grievance barring the union from publishing its report cards. The union said it would keep collecting the data and share it privately with players, but would no longer issue statements about the results.^[8] ESPN obtained them anyway. As Yahoo Sports summarized ESPN’s report, 18 of 32 teams had their home field rated C+ or worse, and 10 rated D or worse, including seven F’s. MetLife Stadium, shared by the Jets and Giants and where Rodgers was hurt, received an F-, as did the fields in Pittsburgh and Tennessee.^[8] Yahoo Sports called the results a challenge for the league’s new joint surfaces committee and expected field conditions to come up in the next round of collective bargaining, particularly if owners pressed for an 18-game regular season.^[8]

The World Cup comparison

Howell’s 2023 point about soccer became concrete in 2026. FIFA requires natural grass at its events, so NFL stadiums that normally use artificial turf installed temporary grass for the World Cup.^[9] At Gillette Stadium, home of the New England Patriots, which had used artificial turf since November 2006, the field superintendent said installing the grass took six weeks. The stadium hosted seven World Cup matches on it.^[9] Patriots players welcomed the change. Running back Rhamondre Stevenson said grass is “a lot less taxing on the knees and ankles.”^[9] After the tournament, the grass was removed and artificial turf went back in for the NFL season.^[9]

The union responded: “The temporary installation of natural grass fields for the World Cup is a choice by certain NFL team owners to do for soccer players what they refuse to do for NFL players.” It added that “the technology exists, the expertise exists and the resources exist” to install the grass that players “overwhelmingly prefer.” Sporting News reported that a union poll of 1,700 players found 92 percent preferred natural grass.^[9] The league continued to point to its injury data showing comparable rates on the two surfaces.^[7][9]

Aftermath

As of October 2026 there was no league requirement to install grass. The two sides were working on shared surface standards, while the union’s public position remained that well-maintained grass is safer.^[5][7]

The core dilemma

The players say a decade of data and their own bodies show turf is more dangerous. The league says recent joint data show no meaningful difference and that the answer is better fields of every kind. Converting every stadium would be costly and, in some venues, technically difficult. When the evidence is contested, what does a league owe the workers who bear the risk, and who should get the benefit of the doubt?

Competing values

• Player safety vs. cost and venue flexibility: grass costs more to maintain and limits multi-use scheduling.
• Long-term trends vs. recent data: each side points to the years that support it.
• Measured evidence vs. lived experience: soreness and recovery are real costs that injury counts may miss.
• Collaboration vs. accountability: joint committees share data but leave decisions with clubs.

Strongest arguments

For mandating grass: the long-run data, including a peer-reviewed study by league-affiliated researchers, found higher injury rates on turf.^[2] Players overwhelmingly prefer grass, and owners already install grass for soccer events, which suggests feasibility.^[1][4] When workers bear the risk, a precautionary approach favors them.

For improving all surfaces instead: three straight seasons of joint data show no statistically significant difference, and some grass fields have performed worse than some synthetic ones.^[4][7] Poorly maintained grass can be dangerous too. Standards, testing and better turf may reduce injuries more than a blanket switch.

Applying the frameworks

Utilitarian

A utilitarian analysis would weigh the injuries that grass might prevent, and the wear players feel even without injury, against conversion and maintenance costs, lost multi-use revenue, and the chance that grass in some climates or domes performs worse. It would ask who bears the costs: the injuries fall on players, while the savings go to owners. If the true difference is now small, resources might do more good spent on testing and consistency; if the long-run gap is real, the injuries avoided may dominate.

Care ethics

A care lens focuses on the relationship between those with power (owners and the league) and those whose bodies are at risk. It asks whether players’ repeated reports of feeling worse are being listened to or argued away, and whether a game should go ahead on a field that failed its own test. Responsiveness to the vulnerable party, not only statistical significance, is central here.

Rights-based

A rights lens asks whether players have a right to a reasonably safe workplace and a voice in decisions that affect it. Through the union, players can see the data and help shape standards, but they cannot decide surfaces. The lens might also ask whether a right to safety requires proof of harm, or whether a credible risk is enough to shift the burden to employers.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You chair the NFL-NFLPA Field Surface Safety & Performance Committee in early 2024. Stakeholders include players, owners, stadium operators, turf and cleat makers, team medical staff, fans and less visible ones such as practice-squad players who train on club practice fields. Codes in play: the CBA’s health and safety provisions and the league’s field standards.
2. Gather facts. What do the full multi-year data show, and what changed in 2021 and 2023? What were the rates by turf type? Watch for bias on both sides: owners’ cost interests and the union’s advocacy position, and for the pull of a single high-profile injury.
3. Test options. (a) Recommend grass in all stadiums on a timeline; (b) ban the worst-performing turf types and set strict standards for all surfaces; (c) keep the status quo while research continues. Run each through consequences, the duty not to expose workers to avoidable harm, and what each says about the league’s character.
4. Check codes and law. What does the CBA require of clubs on field safety? What happens under current rules when a field fails its pregame test, and does that honor the spirit of the standard?
5. Decide and document. Record the evidence threshold you used, the trade-offs, and who you consulted, including players directly.
6. Communicate and follow up. Publish the data and method, set a binding rule on failed tests, and track injury rates by surface and by turf type over several seasons.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the 2019 study’s findings for 2012–2016; the near-identical 2023 rates; the NFL’s report of no significant difference in 2023–2025; the union’s call for grass in every stadium.
• Contested: whether turf is inherently more dangerous than well-maintained grass; whether recent data reflect better turf or worse grass; whether the December 2022 Carolina game should have been played.

Why this case matters

The turf debate is a model for workplace-safety disputes in sport: incomplete data, high costs, and a gap between what workers feel and what statistics can show. How a league handles that gap, and whether it shares control with the people at risk, says a great deal about its duty of care.

Key terms

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Non-maleficence

The duty to avoid causing harm, often paired with care ethics when setting safety rules.

Prevent, minimize, mitigate, remedy

An order of priorities for harm: prevent it if possible, then minimize it, mitigate what remains, and remedy what has been done.

Trust

The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Controls

Concrete safeguards that make ethics operational: training, disclosure forms, testing, monitoring, hotlines. Ethics needs principles, process and controls.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. If injury rates on turf and grass are similar in recent seasons but higher on turf over a decade, how should the league weigh those data?
2. Should players' strong preference for grass decide the issue even without a clear statistical difference?
3. Was it wrong to play the December 2022 game on a field that failed the hardness test? Who should have the authority to stop it?
4. Is it inconsistent for stadiums to install grass for soccer events but not for NFL games? What explains it?
5. What would a fair cost-sharing arrangement look like if all stadiums had to install grass?

Sources

1. Only Natural Grass Can Level The NFL's Playing Field — NFL Players Association
2. Higher Rates of Lower Extremity Injury on Synthetic Turf Compared With Natural Turf Among National Football League Athletes — The American Journal of Sports Medicine (PubMed)
3. Why the NFL's Approach to Field Surfaces Is Uneven — NFL Players Association
4. NFLPA calls for 'moving all stadium fields' to natural grass in wake of Aaron Rodgers' season-ending injury — CBS Sports
5. Joint committee finds NFL injuries similar across surfaces — ESPN
6. 2023 Season Key Takeaways — NFL Player Health and Safety
7. 2025 Season Key Takeaways — NFL Player Health and Safety
8. NFLPA report cards: Home-field hatred, a Chip Kelly F, Steelers crushed and more eyebrow-raising grades (Feb. 27, 2026) — Yahoo Sports
9. NFLPA protests as Gillette Stadium trades World Cup grass for turf (July 2026) — Sporting News