Cows Aren't the Only Ones Who Prefer Grass

Cows Aren't the Only Ones Who Prefer Grass:

Football Players' Dislike of Artificial Turf

Adolf Manning

University of Saskatchewan

For Tom Jones, Level 50.4

August 2, 2007

Artificial turf has been proven to cause more injuries than natural turf. In a study done at North Carolina State University, Dr. lke Grass (1992) found that artificial turf causes greater stress on knee joints than natural turf. Jake Smith, trainer at UCLA, claims that artificial turf "causes twice the injuries than we used to have back in the good old days of natural turf" (1998, p. 17). The injuries are also more serious than those on natural grass. Last year 78% of all season-ending injuries occurred at stadiums that had artificial playing surfaces (Brown, 2001). Clearly, artificial grass is bad news for the professional athlete who needs to avoid injuries to make a living on Sunday afternoons.

Despite all the hype about new stadiums and their climate controlled interiors, athletes hate to play on synthetic carpets. While players often speak fondly about stadiums with natural grass, rarely do they have anything good to say about artificial grass. James Swift (personal communication, March 12, 2001), tailback for the Giants, has never sustained an injury on natural turf. "I hate to play on the plastic," says James. "It's like playing Russian Roulette every time I carry the ball. I never know if I'm going to get up alive." Frank Forbes, tight end for the Green Bay Packers, even had a clause put in his contract that stipulated that the owners had to pay him a 25% bonus for each away game he had to play on artificial grass (Green, Ellis, & Meyers, 1994). Forbes isn't the only one who condemns artificial turf. In a survey done by the NFL Players Union, 93% preferred to play on natural grass if they had the choice (Langford, 1993). In fact, according to Bierck (1996), many pro football players are "pushing to have the synthetic surface ripped out and replaced with grass" (¶ 2). Forbes sums it up well when he states, "Players prefer good old natural grass, pure and simple" (Green et al., p. 56).

And what about the fans? What do they prefer? A poll taken by USA Today found that an overwhelming 88% preferred to watch football played on natural grass ("Fans Speak," 1993). A mere 8% preferred the plastic. And significantly, 52% said they would pay higher ticket prices if their home stadiums tore out the plastic and replaced it with the real thing. An overwhelming 95% believed that artificial grass caused more injuries. While 62% admitted that the plastic allowed players to increase their speed, most fans did not consider this an important factor in their final preference. Like the players, then, the fans largely disapprove of artificial turf.

References

Bierck, R. (1996, June 3). Artificial turf takes a hit. US News & World Report. [Online magazine]. Retrieved February 28, 2003, from

Brown, S. (2001). Season-ending injuries caused by artificial turf in 2000. San Francisco, CA: Pearson.

The fans speak about artificial turf. (1993, October 17). USA Today, pp. 15-16.

Grass, I. (1992). The medical case against artificial turf. Journal of Sports Medicine, 15 (4), 121-124.

Green, P., Ellis, S., & Meyers, J. G. (1994). The life of football legend, Frank Forbes. Chicago: Random House.

Langford, A. (1993, September 9). The players union speaks out about turf. Des Moines Register, pp. D4, D9.

Smith, J. (1998). Plastic is bad news for the players. In R. Miller (Ed.), Sports medicine (pp. 17-23). Houston, TX: Random House.