As more high schools replace grass with turf, student-athletes and coaches are divided on whether the change improves safety or increases the risks of injury. The first turf fields were introduced in 1965, and not long after, in 1966, the Astrodome (famous baseball field in Houston) installed artificial turf and others began to follow. FIFA even switched to turf for the 2010 World Cup. Most American stadiums and fields have switched to turf and artificial grass fields, but in Europe most soccer stadiums have stuck with grass. This showcases the raging war in the sports world: what’s better turf or grass?
So many may wonder what is turf? Turf is a petroleum based product where the oil is compacted and then a layer of sand is lead on top of the soil so the turf lays flat. Then a layer of plastic is applied and this artificial grass or turf is stapled down.
Across the country, turf fields have become a popular option for schools looking for low-maintenance and weather resistant alternatives to grass. Turf fields are better for the environment as opposed to grass sports fields that need between 500,000 to 1 million gallons of water each year. They are also more cost effective because they don’t need water and are cheaper than grass fields. However there are many downsides. Artificial turf gets extremely hot and can even reach temperatures up to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Furthermore, unlike grass when it rains, turf does not absorb any water, leading to run off and pollution. Since there are disadvantages and advantages to both turf and grass, questions remain about the long term effects on athletes performance and physical health.
Class of ‘26 senior varsity soccer player, Remi Hayes, has spent most of her 13 year soccer career on turf fields. “It’s a lot more manageable,” Hayes stated. “You can predict what’s going to happen more.”
She explained that turf feels smoother and makes ball control easier. “The ball moves faster and goes in a straight line,” she said. Hayes adds that grass makes the ball’s movement unpredictable and turf offers better traction. Additionally Hayes believes turf helps reduce some common injuries. “I think it’s easier to twist an ankle on grass, so I think turf is probably better for the body,” she said. Still, she admitted the heat from turf can be uncomfortable during warm weather. “It definitely gets hot”, she said, “It’s not significantly noticeable, but when it’s hot, it’s hot.” Despite that she believes turf is the better long term option for schools because it is more manageable and she feels most players prefer turf.
Spanish teacher and Bishop O’Dowd Varsity Girls Soccer Assistant Coach, Mr. Ramirez agrees that both surfaces affect gameplay differently depending on their quality. “Playing on turf is very different from playing on turf. It can get really hot, which is horrible for the kids.” Ramirez believes turf can be a smart investment, but only if schools are committed to its upkeep.
“If a team is going to go the turf field way, they need to understand it shouldn’t be at a lower cost,” he said. “There are turf fields that are very well maintained and don’t cause as many injuries, but if schools installed it and then rejected it, that’s when problems happen.”
The debate between turf and grass is about cost, safety, and the student-athlete experience. Turf provides a consistent surface and resists weather delays, but can cause more stress on joints and increase heat exposure. Grass fields, while softer and cooler, require more time, effort, and expense to keep in good condition.
Ultimately the decision for schools comes down to priorities: convenience and durability versus tradition and comfort. For athletes, turf represents the future of sports and for coaches, it is a tool that must be used responsibly. The surface beneath an athlete’s feet can shape not only how they play, but also how they stay safe. Whether schools choose turf or grass, maintaining quality fields and protecting players should always be the top priority.
