Real Grass for the NFL, Science Doesn’t Matter

The player opinion is clear. They want grass. They hate turf.

#WorthTheCost is trending on Twitter X after the World Cup put NFL owners in a bind. They CAN put real grass on NFL fields. They did it for soccer, they can do it for football.

NFL owners have long argued that there’s no scientific or statistical correlation between turf and player safety. The reality is that the owners are right. Despite players’ best efforts, their representation (And the NFLPA) has yet to produce a single conclusive study that finds players are less likely to be injured on turf versus grass.

Here’s where the people who might have just swiped off my post might agree with me, IT DOES NOT MATTER. The players overwhelmingly prefer grass. Fans overwhelmingly prefer grass. The cost to maintain and roll out grass for 6-10 Home Games a year is peanuts to these multibillionaire ownership groups.

As Pro Football Talk argues, players getting their way might require giving up something in the next collective bargaining agreement. The owners will surely argue the players need to sacrifice pay in order to offset the cost, however insignificant the cost would be to owners, in a money printing machine like the NFL.

One of the best parts of wealth is that it buys the freedom to do the right thing. Money isn’t an obstacle. Why is money being an obstacle for taking care of the players and fans that are the reason the league exists in the first place?

It’s #WorthTheCost

-Written by Seattle Mike