OPINION | The Grass That Once Grew Dreams: The NFL’s $22 Billion Betrayal Beneath the Cleats

By Christina Winnegar | October 29, 2025

The inconsistency in the National Football League's (NFL) use of real grass versus synthetic turf is not just a matter of preference for fans in the audience, but a pressing issue that demands immediate attention. While it offers a green and aesthetically pleasing choice for the audience, for the league's players, it presents a daunting red flag, especially given the risk of a season-ending injury. 

On Sept. 28, 2025, New York Giants wide receiver Malik Nabers’ career changed forever, the injury marking him as another victim of unsafe turf. Crumpled, untouched on the white sideline paint, clutching his knee, the crowd went silent. Another promising future stopped cold, not by a hit, but by the very turf that once grounded him with hope and opportunity.

Nabers was not the first; in fact, he joined a growing list, including star players like Aaron Rodgers and Odell Beckham Jr., who have suffered from career-threatening injuries. Collisions from the opposing team that occur across the line of scrimmage are often to blame, but the true culprit may be the surface beneath their cleats. It is time for the NFL to live up to the game it claims to have created for the players and mandate natural grass in every stadium. The league's conscious decision to do anything less is putting their greatest assets second to convenience.

The Evolution of Artificial Turf 

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the first installation of synthetic turf across any major sporting venue occurred in Houston, Texas, at the Astrodome in 1966. What is now known as AstroTurf was originally referred to as ChemGrass, described by the NIH as a short-fiber, dense nylon carpet, installed over a compacted soil base. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, many of the multisport stadiums that players still suit up to play in today replaced their natural turfgrass with artificial turf, commonly branded as AstroTurf. 

The intrigue behind the change lay in its ability to withstand high levels of impact while maintaining a consistent playing surface. The first generation, labeled as "AstroTurf," paved the way for the second generation, invented in 1976 by Frederick T. Haas. Then, the third generation, developed by FieldTurf, gained popularity in 1997 with its installation debut at a high school in Pennsylvania. The development of artificial turf had an underlying purpose of being a cost-saving alternative. 

As of 2025, 15 out of 30 stadiums hosting the NFL’s 32 teams still use artificial turf despite growing concerns from players, medical experts and safety advocates. According to Pro Football Network’s 2025 stadium surface analysis, which further notes that 15 stadiums use turf and 15 use some form of real or hybrid grass, the league remains evenly split on surface types. Among those with artificial turf are high-revenue venues like MetLife Stadium, AT&T Stadium, and Ford Field, which faced scrutiny over injury risks.

The Case for Turf: Cost, Climate and Convenience

Owners and stadium operators argue that turf is more practical and cost-effective; their main points concern citing savings on water upkeep and ground crews. Estimated surveys from the Sports Field Management Association (SFMA)indicate that maintaining a high-quality natural grass athletic field typically ranges from approximately $6,000 to $49,000 per year, depending on the climate and usage, compared to the $7,000 to $23,000 per year range offered by synthetic turf. For multipurpose venues, like stadiums lacking climate control and enclosing roofing systems, turf is also known to be more manageable and less vulnerable to weather damage. A 2023 AP News Report noted that many college and pro teams opt for synthetic turf because it can handle the variation in climates throughout the seasons and heavier year-round usage.

At MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, home to both the New York Giants and New York Jets, the proposed financial defense collapses under evaluation. According to a 2024 Forbes Analysis, the venue’s valuation exceeds $1.6 billion, and both teams are owned by franchises valued at $10.1 billion for the Giants and $8.1 billion for the Jets. Converting MetLife’s highly criticized synthetic field to natural, or hybrid grass (a mix of natural grass reinforced with synthetic fibers for added durability) would cost an estimated $1.25 to $2 million, according to CNBC’s 2025 NFL Team Valuations Report. The overall installation cost, coupled with roughly $1 million per year in maintenance per the SFMAs' estimates, is predicted to be less than 0.015% of the Giants’ total franchise value.

The same logic applies to another heavily criticized field in Detroit, Michigan. Ford Field, home of the Detroit Lions, is valued at $6.35 billion per CNBC’s 2025 NFL Team Valuations Report. A full turf-to-grass conversion, including the heating installation needed for Michigan’s winter conditions, would cost approximately $2 million according to SFMA estimates. This would be predicted to be about 0.05% of the overall franchise value. According to the SFMA, annual upkeep for a natural or hybrid system would average up to $1 million. 

In both markets, the supposed economic burden of real grass is dull in comparison to the financial scale of the franchises themselves. The argument that turf saves money may sound pragmatic, but it rings void under the weight of the league’s own financials. 

Some research also complicates the narrative. A 2023 review in eClinicalMedicine amalgamated multiple studies and found the overall incidence baseline of football-related injuries was 14% lower on artificial turf than on grass. Other studies have shown that while turf raises the risk of lower-extremity damage, grass may be associated with higher rates of specific upper-body injuries. 

The NFL’s ‘False’ Economy 

Despite minor conflicting data, those argumentative points do not outweigh the broader picture. Even with the grass having a higher maintenance cost compared to synthetic turf, the NFL has no ground to stand on for financial defense. According to CNBC's 2025 NFL Team Valuations estimate, it is expected to generate $22 billion in revenue across the league's 32 teams. With a league grossing at such a high level, saving a few million annually at the expense of player health is not a financial obligation; it is a choice the league is actively making. Furthermore, while some injury studies show mixed results, the most recent study by the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) and peer-reviewed data consistently identify synthetic turf as a hazard for lower extremity injuries; these injuries are likely to end the careers of franchise players. 

When the Field Fights Back

Injury data and player testimonials have sharpened the debate over the past decade. According to the NFLPA, non-contact lower-extremity injuries occur at a significantly higher rate on turf than on grass. A 2022 analysis found a 28%  higher rate of such injuries on artificial turf compared to natural surfaces, with knee and ankle injuries disproportionately represented. Peer-reviewed research published in the Orthopedic Journal of Sports Medicine parroted these findings, reporting elevated odds of ACL and Achilles injuries on fields laid with synthetic turf compared to grass.

The issue is not purely academic; it plays out weekly in front of millions of viewers tuning in to watch the broadcast games or watching in the same confines. As recently as Sept. 28, 2025, when New York Giants rookie Malik Nabers suffered from an ACL tear at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, there were statistics to support the calls for reform. Odell Beckham Jr., who fractured his ankle in MetLife Stadium while playing for the New York Giants on Oct. 8, 2017, has been among the most vocal critics. In a recent post on X following the injury of Nabers, tagging the league directly, Beckham Jr. wrote, "Dear @NFL, I mean this with the upmost love and respect. We (The NFL) take all The precautions in the world with EVERYthing else when it comes to players "health" and "safety". PLZ. PLZ. PLZ. GET RID OF THE * TURF. Thank You in advance. LUV."

The data speaks for itself: synthetic turf is more dangerous than real grass. In the NFLPA’s 2022 study, on-contact, lower extremity injuries between 2018-2023 occurred more frequently on turf, with 32% more knee-related injuries and a 69% increase in foot and ankle injuries compared to grass. 

A peer-reviewed study published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, which analyzed the 2021-22 NFL seasons, found that the incidence of lower extremity injuries was 1.42 per game on artificial turf, compared to 1.22 per game on natural grass. Furthermore, the odds of a season-ending surgery were 60% greater on turf. Another analysis of season-ending lower extremity injuries across various playing surfaces found that synthetic turf was associated with a 16% increase in injury risk per play compared to natural grass. 

The 2022  NFLPA survey reflects the sentiments of players leaguewide, 92% of NFL players expressing a strong preference for high-quality natural grass over synthetic turf, citing comfort, stability, and perceived safety. Many described the turf on such fields as "sticky," as their cleats gripping unnaturally, and torque transferring directly into the joints. Sports medicine experts at the University of California, San Francisco, agree, stating that the turf's lack of "give" changes biomechanics, increasing stress on knees, ankles and Achilles tendons. 

The turf debate is not just a statistical argument; it is a deeply personal issue for the players. The debate has been fueled by years of high-profile injuries affecting some of the most notable names across the league. For instance, Odell Beckham Jr. tore his ACL in Super Bowl LVI at SoFi Stadium, a game played on turf. Since this pivotal day in his career, he has grown to become one of the most outspoken critics of the NFL's lack of care. Consistently presenting the issue on a silver platter with the argument that the league’s mission prides itself on player safety. MetLife Stadium, home of the New York Giants and another team Beckham Jr. played for during his active years in the NFL, was another turf-laid field, which led to the previously mentioned ankle fracture in Oct. 2017. Over the years, it has built a reputation as one of the most perilous fields in the league, with players nicknaming it "DeathLife" due to the repeated non-contact injuries it causes.

Perhaps the most striking was Aaron Rodgers' torn Achilles on Sept. 11, 2023, during the season opener at MetLife Stadium, which ended his New York Jets season just four plays into his debut. A year later, the narrative repeated with the previously mentioned Nabers' rookie season derailed by an ACL tear on treacherous turf. Together, these recent season-ending injuries at MetLife Stadium alone reinforced the belief among players that the turf is not only unsafe but also predictable.

These cases illustrate the broader tradition; turf does not just raise injury risk in abstract percentages, it sidelines stars, alters careers, and reshapes the season-long trajectory of these franchises. The impact of these injuries goes beyond the statistics; it affects the lives and careers of these athletes, and it is time for the NFL to take their safety as seriously as they take their stats.  

Hybrid Grass: The Middle Ground

The proof of hybrid grass technology and heated, retractable systems is currently evident in stadiums such as Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin, home of the Green Bay Packers, and Allegiant Stadium in Paradise, Nevada, home of the Las Vegas Raiders. The proven success of hybrid systems is a true testament that weather and multi-use events do not have to be a barrier.

At Lambeau Field, the Packers utilize a unique hybrid surface consisting of natural Kentucky bluegrass reinforced with synthetic fibers, paired with an underground heating system to combat the ever-changing seasons experienced in Wisconsin. The hybrid design of Lambeau Stadium has been adapted to provide a natural feel for players while mitigating the potential complications that arise as winter approaches.

Then, on the flip side, at Allegiant Stadium, the Raiders insist on natural grass, despite playing in a dome. The stadium features a 19-million-pound retractable field tray, which is rolled outside on non-game days to allow for sunlight and maintenance. Then, it is slid and locked into place inside for NFL games, allowing the building to host a multitude of other events without compromising the football surface of choice. 

Hybrid grass primarily differs from synthetic turf by using natural grass roots coupled with synthetic reinforcements. According to GrassMaster and SISGrass, their systems use machines to stitch or inject millions of polymer fibers vertically into the root zone, forming a 2-by-2 centimeter grid that anchors the soil. As the grass begins to grow, its roots wrap around these synthetic fibers, creating a composite surface that blends into the natural softness and shock absorption of grass with the synthetic stability and durability of artificial turf. 

While there is no reported data on hybrid injuries from the NFL, league-wide research indicates fewer lower-extremity injuries on natural grass compared to full synthetic grass, likely due to the shock absorption upon impact.

By blending the durability of turf with the biomechanical safety of grass, hybrid systems offer a proven compromise. Due to hesitation and worry regarding costs of maintenance and the realism of investing in real grass fields, the hybrid systems present themselves as a realistic and financially viable middle ground that protects the players while accommodating multipurpose venues, ultimately allowing owners, alongside the league, to profit. 

These counterarguments are in favor of convenience, not player safety. The facts are precise: the NFL can afford to mandate hybrid or real grass across the remaining 17 stadiums. What it cannot afford is the reputational and marketable toll of ignoring the evidence. The pattern has become painfully familiar: the league's most valuable assets are not the billion-dollar franchises with the logos stitched onto their uniforms, but the athletes who wear them with pride and fill stadiums to drive their yearly revenues.

Global Standards: How the Rest of the World Plays It Safe 

Outside of the United States, the turf debate has already been settled. Across major international leagues, from soccer to rugby, natural and hybrid grass are the global standard. 

According to a 2019 AP News Report, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) mandates natural or hybrid grass for all World Cup venues, rejecting fields due to performance and safety concerns. Per a June 2024 AP News Report, every U.S. stadium hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup, including Lumen Field (in Seattle, Washington) and NRG Stadium (in Houston, Texas), will temporarily replace their turf with real grass systems to meet FIFA’s requirements. 

Other leagues have taken the same stance. World Rugby discourages full synthetic surfaces at elite levels due to inconsistent traction and increased impact in the heavy-contact sport. The World Rugby’s Rugby Turf Performance Specification states a minor exception, that any artificial turf used for competitive contact rugby must comply with Regulation 22, emphasizing that artificial turf must replicate the playing qualities of good-quality natural grass and provide an environment that does not increase the risk of injury to players. 

The rest of the world has already evolved. If global leagues can modernize their fields to optimize safety and performance, the NFL, the world’s most profitable league, can certainly do the same. The question is no longer whether the league could change, but how soon it will choose to. 

A Roadmap for Reform

The path forward is no longer theoretical. While change may appear daunting, a realistic roadmap already exists. The league could begin with its stadiums on a time clock. Beginning with Lumen Field and NRG Stadium, which are soon to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The change, at least temporarily, is needed by FIFA. This seems the most apparent option to proceed with a more permanent solution versus a temporary one. 

Alternatively, the league can focus on high-risk venues, like MetLife Stadium and Ford Field in Detroit, which have recorded some of the most publicised turf-related injuries. Following the 2025-26 season, the NFL and NFLPA could collaborate to commission an independent surface safety review, evaluating the options mentioned and supported by their own data. Following this, by constructing a multi-year conversion plan, mandating owners to implement hybrid or natural grass league-wide by the start of the 2028-29 season and evaluating which teams would benefit from which systems.

For example, MetLife Stadium would benefit from hybrid technology similar to Lambeau Field’s, given the similar seasonal climate of New Jersey. Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida, home to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, would benefit from converting to a real grass system solely based on the average climate. 

Change can start small in the communities that make the NFL what it is known to be. Their very own players and their supporting fans have the power in their hands to push for reform by joining together through collective petitioning, sponsorship pressures and boycotting. The same passion amping up on gameday can be brought to their government offices, using multiple methods of contacting officials, leading to states funding stadium renovations or safety regulations as a condition of continued public support.

Whether the call comes from, the message roots the same. The NFL has the money, the technology, and the responsibility to act, while the fans have the future of the game in their hands without realizing it. The change starts the second the need for it is acknowledged. 

The solution is simple. When franchises across the league can afford to unveil new alternative jerseys to market a new "Rivalries" collection purely for aesthetics, they can afford to put their $22 billion where their mouth is when it comes to protecting what makes the game – the players. 

Flip the turf and lay down the grass. 

Disclaimer: This article reflects personal opinions and views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position or editorial stance of HAZZE MEDIA, it’s staff, and editorial team. We publish diverse perspectives to foster dialogue and encourage welcome submissions that contribute to meaningful, thought-provoking conversations.