Caleb Williams, other NFL players pining for grass surfaces that are being uprooted following World Cup matches

· Yahoo Sports

For months, FIFA helped prepare for the 2026 World Cup by installing fresh grass surfaces in seven different NFL stadiums, only to see that grass be torn out.

Just in time for football season.

Visit grenadier.co.za for more information.

Eleven NFL stadiums have been in use for the World Cup, including seven that used artificial turf surfaces. Six of the seven have had their temporary grass torn out, with one still left with grass on the field — MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, home of the Giants and Jets and the location for Sunday's World Cup final between Spain and Argentina. Shortly after the game, the grass will be ripped out — incredibly, you can buy your own hunk of verdant fuzz from FIFA — and the much-maligned turf will be reinstalled. (Saturday's third-place match between England and France will be played at Miami's Hard Rock Stadium, which uses grass.)

NFL players, including the Bears' Caleb Williams, watching these transitions occur have started the, ahem, grassroots hashtag on X (and other platforms) of #WorthTheCost.

Players whose teams already play home games on grass fields are even throwing their support toward the grass movement, too.

The NFL Players Association has maintained a firm stance of its players' strong preference to play on a natural surface. An NFLPA survey from 2023 found that 92% of players prefer grass over turf.

The NFL has provided counter data, arguing that injury rates are actually higher on grass than on turf, and grass installation costs can be much higher than turf surfaces, which have a slower rate of decay. 

NFLPA executive director J.C. Tretter pushed back, arguing "we have to make sure we're having good surfaces." The Steelers are one team that's attempting to do just that this coming season, swapping out their poorly rated grass for a different, more weather resistant strain at Acrisure Stadium. 

Play Yahoo's new College Fantasy Football game: Create or join a league now!

Players appear to be taking up the issue of grass vs. turf as a serious matter, but it might be a tough battle to take on, league-wide. The current collective bargaining agreement is set to expire following the 2030 NFL season, in March 2031. For anything to change, battles might have to be waged on the local level, franchise by franchise.

Right now, the NFL stadium split is even — 15 fields with grass, 15 with artificial turf — although two of those turf stadiums house two franchises apiece (SoFi Stadium, home of the Rams and Chargers, and MetLife, home of the Jets and Giants), so there is a slight imbalance leading to more games played on turf overall.

The cost difference between the two surfaces is tricky to calculate because there are myriad factors that impact it, including climate, stadium design (including whether there's a retractable roof), environmental factors, field usage (including what types of other events are hosted at said stadiums), water and energy costs, local restrictions and sustainability guidelines and even the type of grass used. 

Overall, however, grass tends to be most costly to maintain. FIFA largely footed the bills for these pricey transformations, although it's hard to imagine that NFL franchises couldn't do the same if there was enough of a push to do so.

The #WorthTheCost tag is a clear shot across the NFL's bow, indicating that the players believe NFL team owners simply don't want to spend the extra money for player happiness. Now we find out if their voices are being heard.

Read full story at source