Metlife Stadium is one of seven NFL venues that replaced its synthetic turf with natural grass just for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. (Photo by Nicolò Campo/LightRocket via Getty Images)
LightRocket via Getty Images
Is the grass really greener on the other side? Seven NFL venues including MetLife Stadium in New Jersey—the site of tomorrow’s 2026 FIFA World Cup Final between Spain and Argentina—had replaced the synthetic turf on their fields with natural grass just for the duration of the big international football tournament. Those moves have certainly fielded some questions from football players—meaning NFL players or those who play the American version of football.
NFL Players Have Been Using The #WorthTheCost Hashtag
For example, Washington Commanders tackle Laremy posted, “If stadiums can make grass work for the World Cup, they can make it work for NFL players. We’re #WorthTheCost,” on X.
And Green Bay linebacker Zaire Franklin also used the #WorthTheCost hashtag to state, “The cost of doing nothing is paid for by players’ bodies. Make grass mandatory. #WorthTheCost,” as everybody can see here:
Meanwhile, former Packer David Bakhtiari responded with, “Tell me you don’t care about player’s safety, without telling me you don’t care about player’s safety? @NFL” to an X post showing how Gilette Stadium had removed the natural grass that it had laid down for the World Cup:
In fact, five weeks ago, the NFL Player’s Association had posted the following on social media: “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. It’s no longer a question of capability; the technology exists, the expertise exists and the resources exist to install the high-level grass fields that our players overwhelmingly prefer.”
The Push By NFL Players For Natural Grass Isn’t New
This push for natural grass isn’t an artificial thing and it isn’t new. Last November, I wrote in Forbes about how the NFLPA has been clamoring for NFL teams to return to their roots, so to speak, and reinstall the natural stuff in their fields. The NFLPA cited a survey that showed 92 percent of NFL players preferring natural grass and studies suggesting that injuries are more common on synthetic turf. Of note, last NFL season saw even more key NFL players getting major injuries than usual as I covered in Forbes.
The argument for synthetic turf is sort of an ever green one. The artificial stuff is easier and thus less costly to maintain. That suggests that something green—meaning money—may be a big deciding factor here. FIFA did demand that all 11 stadiums hosting World Cup matches have natural grass field, and the NFL stadiums did respond without much protest. The NFL so far hasn’t responded to the NFL players’ #WorthTheCost social media movement.
The NFLPA also used the occasion of last year’s World Club Cup tournament to do the natural argument. They pointed out how readily Metlife Stadium had switched to a grass field then. The big question, though, is whether such football —meaning soccer—showcases will end up laying the ground for NFL teams to reconsider what’s on their football—meaning American football—fields.