Officials involved with the maintenance of natural-grass football and soccer fields know how challenging the upkeep can be, especially when faced with rainy whether and frequent play. After weighing pros and cons of synthetic sports turf vs natural grass, officials say synthetic is more durable and cost-effective.

“Even with the state-of-art, fully funded grounds crew and maintenance program, it was just impossible to keep a good set of grass, a good field, without the synthetic turf,” said Johnson, who transitioned this year to SWC commissioner. “As soon as the fall started … it wouldn’t last that long. You weren’t really playing on grass, you were playing on dirt.”

Synthetic turf fields can be used around the clock in just about any weather condition. Their durability is invaluable, especially when poor weather conditions send teams scurrying for a place to practice.”

Even if you have a fully funded maintenance crew available, football, soccer, and other high-impact sports will eventually damage the natural grass. If this happens early in the season, the field may be damaged for the rest of the season due to the scheduled games, whether conditions, and other elements preventing repair.

Synthetic sports turf is far more durable than natural grass, so officials can rest assured their fields will last the entire season without issue. Players don’t have to spend time maintaining the fields in harsh conditions, because synthetic sports turf doesn’t require it.

Read more at CTPost