The History of Artificial Turf in Football

By 4Football Staff · October 26, 2026 · 10 min read

How a failed grass field in a Houston dome led to synthetic turf, how three generations of it changed the game, and why players and teams still argue about grass versus turf.

Few things divide football people like the playing surface. Ask a group of players, coaches and fans whether they would rather play on natural grass or on turf and you will get a spirited answer, usually backed by a personal story about a slippery field or a sore knee. The argument is old, and it began with a problem that had nothing to do with football at all.

The problem was a ballpark. In the mid-1960s, a new domed stadium in Houston discovered that grass does not grow well without sunlight, and the search for a replacement produced a product that spread across the continent and reshaped how football was played, watched and debated. This article tells that story from the beginning: where artificial turf came from, how the products changed over three generations, what the surface did to the game, and what researchers and players say about it today. For the story of the stadiums around the field, see the history of football stadiums.

A Problem Under a Roof

When the Houston Astrodome opened in 1965, it was celebrated as the first major sports stadium with a roof that covered the entire field. The roof had translucent panels, intended to let in daylight so that natural grass could grow inside. The panels worked too well in one respect: they produced glare, and outfielders struggled to see fly balls. The panels were painted to cut the glare, which in turn cut the sunlight that the grass needed. The grass struggled, and by the end of the first season the field was in poor shape.

Meanwhile a research effort had been under way for some years to develop a synthetic surface for urban playgrounds and school yards. A chemical company had worked on a nylon-based product in the early 1960s, and a version of it had been installed in a few smaller places. The Astrodome gave it a stage. The stadium installed the synthetic surface for the 1966 season, first on the infield and then across the whole field. The product was given a new name drawn from the stadium itself: AstroTurf. The name stuck so completely that people still use it as a generic term for any artificial field.

First-Generation Turf: Nylon on Concrete

The earliest synthetic fields were stiff and thin. The surface was a short nylon pile, a few strands to the inch, laid over a thin foam pad, and the pad was laid over asphalt or concrete. There was no infill, which is the sand or rubber granules used in later fields. The result was fast, uniform and weatherproof, and it was also hard.

What players noticed

• Speed. The ball bounced true, and runners did not slow down on mud. Many players and coaches believed the surface favored fast players.
• Abrasion. Falling on the surface could scrape skin. "Turf burn" became a familiar phrase for the raw patches that players got on elbows and knees.
• Heat. On a hot day the surface temperature could be much higher than the air temperature, a problem that still affects synthetic fields.
• Hardness. With little padding over a hard base, the first-generation surface did not absorb impact the way soil does.

Teams still wanted it. Houston's football team moved into the Astrodome in 1968 and played on the new surface, and many other stadiums were built or rebuilt with it over the next decade. The multipurpose stadiums of the 1970s often opened with it, because a field that could host baseball and football on the same day, in any weather, with little upkeep, was attractive to the cities that owned the buildings. In a short time the surface went from an experiment to a common sight in the league.

Why Teams Switched: The Business Case

It is easy to assume that the surface spread because players liked it. The evidence points elsewhere. Turf was popular with the people who paid for stadiums and managed them.

1. Multiple uses. A baseball team and a football team could share a field, and a concert or a monster-truck show could use it the next day.
2. Weather. A field that does not turn to mud saves games from looking bad on television.
3. Maintenance. Natural grass needs mowing, watering, reseeding and rest. Synthetic fields need grooming but not growing.
4. Image. In the 1960s and 1970s, a synthetic field felt modern.

None of that is about what is best for the athlete, and that distinction is the root of much of the argument that followed.

Second Generation: Softer, With Sand

By the 1980s, manufacturers had responded to complaints. The second generation of synthetic turf used longer fibers, usually made of polyethylene or polypropylene, which were softer to the touch and less abrasive than nylon. The fibers were tufted into a backing, and sand was added between them to hold them upright and add weight. The surface looked more like grass and felt less harsh underfoot.

The second generation was an improvement, but it did not end the debate. Sand-filled fields could still be firm and heated up in the sun. Players continued to report that the surface caused a different kind of wear on the body, and the question of whether the surface was more likely to lead to injury remained open, because the data at the time were limited.

Third Generation: Infill and the Modern Field

The type most people see today arrived in the late 1990s and spread through the 2000s. Third-generation turf uses long, soft, grass-like blades tufted into a backing, with a layer of infill, commonly a mix of sand and crumb rubber, spread between them. The infill holds the blades up, cushions impact, and lets the surface drain. Some systems add a shock pad beneath the turf for more give. Other systems use different infill materials such as cork or coconut fiber for a cooler and more natural feel.

The brands changed, but the basic idea did not. Companies made fields that looked and played more like grass, and the early 2000s saw a wave of high school, college and professional teams installing them. In the NFL, several teams adopted the newer surfaces in new stadiums; others kept natural grass. Over the following years, the share of the league using synthetic surfaces has shifted from season to season, so check the current stadium information on our stadiums page for what each team uses.

The hybrid option

A fourth approach combines the two. Hybrid systems grow natural grass in a base that is reinforced with synthetic fibers, either stitched into the soil or mixed with it. The idea is to give the grass roots something to hold onto so that the field survives heavy use. Hybrid fields are expensive and require care, but some stadiums, including some that host more than football, have adopted them.

Grass vs. Turf: What We Know and What We Do Not

The debate about safety is the most serious part of the story, and it deserves a careful and honest summary.

What is reasonably well established

• Several analyses of league injury data have found higher rates of non-contact lower-body injuries, particularly to the knee and ankle, on synthetic surfaces than on natural grass.
• Players' unions have, at various times, asked leagues to move to natural grass or to improve the safety of synthetic fields.
• Synthetic surfaces can get significantly hotter than natural grass on sunny days.
• Different fields behave differently. A new well-maintained field is not the same as an old, worn one, and a third-generation field is not the same as a first-generation one.

What is less clear

• How big the difference is. The size of the effect varies by season, by injury type and by the study.
• Why the difference exists. Possible factors include the grip of cleats, the stiffness of the surface, the type of footwear, and the type of play on the surface. Researchers disagree about how much each one matters.
• Whether modern turf fields have closed the gap. Manufacturers say they have narrowed it; some analyses suggest differences remain.

If you are a player, parent or coach, the practical conclusion is not that every turf field is dangerous. It is that the surface is one of several factors, and that footwear, conditioning, field maintenance and the specific surface all matter. For any injury question, a doctor or athletic trainer is the right person to ask, not an article. A related note: "turf toe" is a name for a sprain of the big-toe joint that is commonly associated with firm surfaces, and a trainer or physician is the person to diagnose it.

How a Modern Synthetic Field Is Built

It helps to know that a synthetic field is a layered system, not a carpet thrown over a floor. The exact design varies by manufacturer and by budget, but the layers usually run in this order from the bottom.

1. A prepared base. Crushed stone, graded and compacted, is common, with drainage built in so that water moves through the field rather than sitting on it. Older fields sat on asphalt or concrete.
2. An optional shock pad. A layer of foam or similar material that adds cushion and helps the field absorb impact.
3. The backing and fibers. Thousands of plastic blades are stitched into a backing. Some blades are flat, some are curled, and some are mixed to help them stand up and look natural.
4. The infill. Sand, rubber, or a blend, brushed in between the blades to hold them up and fine-tune how the surface plays.

Fields wear out unevenly. Areas near the middle of the field, the hash marks and the sidelines see the most traffic, and the infill can get compacted or pushed to the sides. Grounds crews groom the surface, redistribute the infill and test the firmness at intervals. A field that passes one season may not pass the next without attention, which is one reason that "turf" is not a single thing: a field that is two years old and maintained is not the same as one that is ten years old and neglected.

Lines, Logos and the Look of the Game

Synthetic fields changed the look of the sport as well as the feel. Because the surface does not need to be repainted every week, lines and logos can be sewn or inlaid into it. That makes the end zone a canvas: team names, mascots and colors appear in sharp detail that painters would struggle to match on grass. It also made it easier to mark a field for more than one sport at once. Detailed end zone designs and large midfield logos are easier to keep sharp on a surface that does not wear away under a painter's stripes.

Why the Argument Is Not Settled

The interesting thing about the grass-versus-turf debate is that both sides have a point. Grass has a natural give, a familiar feel, and a long record. Turf gives teams, schools and cities a field that survives heavy use and bad weather. Each approach requires care, and each can be done well or badly. A well-kept grass field in a mild climate and a well-kept modern turf field can both be good places to play. A neglected field of either type is a problem.

That is why many knowledgeable people avoid blanket statements. The more useful question is usually specific: what is this field made of, how old is it, how is it maintained, and what are the conditions today?

Turf at Other Levels

The NFL's choices get the attention, but the great majority of football is played elsewhere.

For high school teams, the case for turf is largely about use: a grass field in a school that hosts football, soccer, band practice and gym classes can be worn out in a season, while a synthetic field can handle far more hours. The tradeoff is the up-front cost, the replacement cost when the surface wears out, and questions about heat. The article on high school football facilities goes into the practical side, and the high school section of this site lists schools by state.

Environmental and Cost Questions

Two other themes appear whenever communities discuss installing a synthetic field.

Cost. A synthetic field costs a lot to install and has a finite lifespan; many fields are replaced after roughly a decade, depending on use and maintenance, and the old surface has to be disposed of or recycled. Grass costs less to install but needs continuous care.

Materials. The crumb rubber used as infill, often made from recycled tires, has been the subject of studies and public debate. Some communities have chosen different infill materials, and regulators and health agencies have published reviews that you can find through your local government. As with any material question, local guidance and current research are better sources than a general article.

The Short Version

• Artificial turf began with a failed grass field in the Astrodome in 1965 and a synthetic product that was named AstroTurf in 1966.
• First-generation turf was a thin nylon carpet over a hard base; it was fast, hot and abrasive.
• Second-generation fields added softer fibers and sand; third-generation fields use long blades with sand and rubber infill and are the standard today.
• Hybrid fields combine natural grass with synthetic reinforcement.
• Teams adopted turf for business reasons first: multiple uses, weather resistance and low maintenance.
• League injury data have often shown higher rates of non-contact lower-body injuries on synthetic surfaces, though the size of the gap and its causes are debated.
• Surface type, footwear, conditioning and field care all matter; ask a doctor or athletic trainer about specific injuries.
• Check the teams and stadium pages for what each team uses today, because choices change.