At Gillette Stadium this summer, the ground itself has become a mirror held up to power. Temporary grass was laid for the World Cup — as it was for Copa América a decade ago — only to be torn out again once the soccer ends and the Patriots return. In a league where 92 percent of players say they prefer natural surfaces for the sake of their joints and their careers, the willingness to install grass for international guests but not for the men who play there every season has given an old labor grievance a new and clarifying shape.
Patriots Frustrated as World Cup Gets Grass While NFL Players Stuck With Turf
Players report increased joint pain, longer recovery times, and higher injury risk from turf surfaces, affecting long-term player health and career longevity.
They do it for soccer players. Why not for us?
Mark
Why does this matter so much to players? It's just the surface you play on.
Mimi
Because they play on it sixty, seventy times a year, and their bodies absorb the impact every single time. Over a career, that's thousands of collisions with a harder surface. The difference between grass and turf compounds.
Mark
But the NFL says injury rates are basically the same.
Mimi
They are, statistically. But players aren't talking about catastrophic injuries. They're talking about recovery. Joint pain. How long it takes to feel normal again after Sunday. That adds up over time.
Mark
So why not just switch everything to grass?
Mimi
That's the question the union keeps asking. The owners say it's expensive, it requires maintenance, it doesn't work in every climate. But then they install grass for the World Cup and take it back out. That sends a message.
Mark
What message?
Mimi
That it's possible when they want it to be. That they can do it for FIFA but won't do it for the people who built the league. It feels like a choice about whose comfort matters.
Mark
Do the Patriots specifically feel differently about this than other teams?
Mimi
The players here are vocal about it. Stevenson, Schooler, Williams — they all talk about preferring grass. But this isn't unique to New England. It's league-wide. The 92 percent number tells you that.
Mark
What happens next?
Mimi
The grass comes out in July. The turf goes back in. The conversation continues. But something has shifted. It's not about capability anymore. It's about will.
Il Polso
- NFL players have long endured artificial turf despite near-universal preference for grass, citing joint pain, slower recovery, and the unforgiving grip of synthetic surfaces in cold weather.
- The World Cup's arrival at Gillette Stadium made the contradiction impossible to ignore — temporary grass was installed for soccer, confirming that the technology and resources are readily available.
- The NFLPA responded sharply, framing the switch as owners choosing to do for FIFA what they refuse to do for their own workforce, turning a facilities debate into a question of institutional priorities.
- NFL owners have pointed to near-identical injury rates on both surfaces, but players and the union have largely moved past that argument — the fight is now about respect and what investment signals.
- When the World Cup ends in July, the grass comes up and the turf goes back down, leaving the Patriots to return to a field that most of them would not choose — and a question that won't be buried with the sod.
At Gillette Stadium this summer, the ground itself has become a mirror held up to power. Temporary grass was laid for the World Cup — as it was for Copa América a decade ago — only to be torn out again once the soccer ends and the Patriots return. In a league where 92 percent of players say they prefer natural surfaces for the sake of their joints and their careers, the willingness to install grass for international guests but not for the men who play there every season has given an old labor grievance a new and clarifying shape.
In a few hours, Haiti and Scotland will open the 2026 FIFA World Cup at Gillette Stadium — the first soccer match ever played there. The Super Bowl banners remain. The locker rooms are untouched. But the ground beneath the players' feet has been completely transformed: the artificial turf torn out, replaced with rolled grass laid over the past several months. Seven American host cities made the same switch. It is, by design, temporary. When the final World Cup match concludes on July 9, the grass comes up and the turf goes back in for the Patriots.
That cycle has crystallized something long simmering in the NFL. A recent NFLPA survey found that 92 percent of players prefer grass — not marginally, but overwhelmingly. Running back Rhamondre Stevenson describes turf as taxing on knees and ankles in ways that linger. Safety Brenden Schooler talks about how artificial surfaces cut and grip in cold weather in ways grass simply doesn't. Safety Kevin Byard notes that his ankle joints take measurably longer to recover after turf games. The complaints are consistent: grass is gentler, and the players know it.
The NFLPA's response to the World Cup installation was pointed: owners are willing to do for soccer players what they refuse to do for their own. Gillette has been through this before — grass from 2002 to 2006, then turf, then grass again for the 2016 Copa América, then turf again. The pattern is familiar. The NFL has countered that injury rates are nearly identical across surfaces, but the union has largely moved past that argument. The question is no longer only about injury data. It's about what it means when owners invest in grass for international guests and not for the men who play there every season.
By August, the field will look the way the Patriots have always known it — artificial, familiar, and not what most of them would choose. For a few weeks this summer, players from around the world will stand on the surface the home team says it wants. The grass will be gone before training camp. The question of why it has to be will not.
In a few hours, Haiti and Scotland will take the field at Gillette Stadium for the opening match of the 2026 FIFA World Cup — the first soccer game ever to be played there. The Patriots' home has been transformed for the occasion. The Super Bowl banners will stay. The locker rooms untouched. But the ground beneath the players' feet will be entirely different from what the home team knows.
When the NFL season ended last winter, the artificial turf was torn out and replaced with sod-on-plastic, a rolled grass surface installed over the past several months. Seven of the eleven American host cities are making this same switch for the tournament. It's temporary. Once the final World Cup match concludes on July 9, the grounds crew will rip it all back up and reinstall the artificial turf for the Patriots' return. This cycle — grass for soccer, turf for football — has crystallized something that's been simmering in the league for years: a question about whose comfort matters, and why.
The numbers are stark. A recent survey by the NFLPA found that 92 percent of NFL players prefer grass. Not slightly prefer. Overwhelmingly prefer. Running back Rhamondre Stevenson describes turf as taxing on knees, ankles, and joints in ways that leave him sore after games. Safety Brenden Schooler talks about the give of grass, how it doesn't cut you up the way artificial surfaces do in cold weather, how it doesn't trap your foot the way turf can. Defensive tackle Milton Williams notes that cleats engage and disengage more naturally on grass, allowing for sharper cuts. Safety Kevin Byard, who has played on both surfaces throughout his career, describes a longer recovery process on turf — his ankle joints especially take time to bounce back. The complaints are consistent and specific: grass is gentler on the body.
The irony is not lost on the players or their union. The NFLPA released a statement that cut to the heart of the frustration: "The temporary installation of natural grass fields for the World Cup is a choice by certain NFL team owners to do for soccer players what they refuse to do for NFL players." The union's point was direct. The technology exists. The expertise exists. The resources exist. What's missing is the will.
Gillette Stadium itself has a history with this debate. From 2002 to 2006, it was all grass. A rainy game against the New York Jets, combined with New England's harsh weather and the stadium's growing use for events beyond football, prompted ownership to switch to artificial turf. That lasted until June 2016, when grass was rolled out for the Copa América Centenario tournament. After those matches ended, back to turf. This year will follow the same pattern.
The NFL has offered a counterargument: injury rates are nearly identical on both surfaces, with artificial turf recording 0.43 injuries per game and grass 0.42. But players and the union have moved past that debate. The conversation has shifted. It's no longer primarily about whether turf causes more injuries — it's about why owners will invest in grass for international soccer competitions but won't do the same for their own players, who overwhelmingly ask for it. It's about what that choice says about priorities.
When the Patriots return to Gillette for training camp, the field will look familiar again — the artificial surface they've grown accustomed to, even if they don't prefer it. For a few weeks this summer, though, soccer players from around the world will experience what the home team's players say they want: a surface that's easier on the body, that allows for better movement, that doesn't leave you aching the next day. The grass will be gone by August. The question of why it has to be won't be.
Citazioni salienti
The temporary installation of natural grass fields for the World Cup is a choice by certain NFL team owners to do for soccer players what they refuse to do for NFL players.— NFLPA statement
Playing on grass is a lot less taxing on the knees and ankles and joints. After games on turf, my knees ache, my ankles ache. It's a little bit more harsh on your body.— Brenden Schooler, Patriots safety
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su Sports Illustrated ↗
Sports