​It’s one thing for people on the labor side to push for increased use of grass on NFL fields, and another thing entirely for management to embrace the shift. Recently, Raiders owner Mark Davis voiced a commitment to grass “for safety purposes,” a stance that may upset some of his partners who would rather see a united front in the ongoing turf-versus-grass debate. Broncos coach Sean Payton has also weighed in, suggesting that more grass fields could be on the horizon.
“Our game is a little different,” Payton told Jason La Canfora of SportsBoom.com. “When you’re playing in the trenches on that surface, you know, the type of football shoes we wear are different. . . . But eventually I think you’re going to see grass in more stadiums where it’s possible.”
At present, a substantial number of teams play on natural grass: the Dolphins, Bills (who switched to grass for their new stadium), Browns, Steelers, Ravens, Jaguars, Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders, Eagles, Commanders, Packers, Bears, Buccaneers, Cardinals, and 49ers. In total, 16 teams still use artificial turf. La Canfora also notes that Payton acknowledged the logistical challenges of maintaining grass in covered or domed stadiums. Yet, several enclosed facilities have proven that grass can be viable in a dome, as evidenced by World Cup venues.
The crux of the matter is money. As more players advocate for grass, the discussion inevitably shifts toward collective bargaining. The NFL would likely resist a rapid shift back to natural grass across the league, especially given the potential for players to push for this to be a central issue in the next CBA. The league may prefer to keep the current turf status quo unless a broader agreement is reached.
There is a distinction between preferring grass and prioritizing grass. Right now, owners have the leverage to dig in their heels on artificial turf, which can compel players to concede in exchange for a move toward grass. That dynamic serves as a strategic maneuver for owners: push the issue in a way that secures concessions in return for adopting a grass-based approach, framing it as a win-win where player safety and field quality could improve, while also advancing labor negotiations. The debate, however, extends beyond safety and quality to economics, scheduling, maintenance costs, and the practicalities of converting and maintaining fields in various stadium configurations.
As talks and demonstrations continue, the priority for many players remains simple: the field matters. Grass advocates emphasize that natural turf can reduce certain types of injuries and provide a more familiar playing surface for countless athletes who have trained on grass for years. Opponents highlight the durability, weather resilience, and lower maintenance headwinds associated with artificial turf, particularly in climates with extreme or unpredictable conditions. The conversation isn’t just about yards and lines; it’s about player safety, performance, and the long-term financial implications for teams and the league.
If grass wins the day in more venues, teams will need to navigate renovation costs, scheduling compromises, and potential weather-related vulnerabilities. If turf remains prevalent, proponents will press for improvements in material science and maintenance to mimic some benefits of natural grass while preserving the practicality of artificial surfaces. Either way, the coming seasons will test how a high-profile league manages field quality, player welfare, and the economics that ultimately drive what kind of grass—or grass-like surface—teams choose to lay down for game days.