How big of an issue is our FieldTurf?

by Jeremiah Oshan on Feb 1, 2010 12:56 PM PST

There's an interesting post over at Daily Soccer Fix discussing the pluses and minuses of various MLS stadiums. On the whole, Qwest comes out looking pretty good. Steve Davis, the author, gives the stadium four out of five stars, putting it in the upper echelon of MLS stadiums.

Still, he docks us for two things: size of the stadium and synthetic turf. I tend to think the size of the stadium is a potential plus, but I was more worried about the turf, namely the likelihood that it could cost us a chance to host major international matches.

What I found is that there are definitely examples of MLS teams sharing stadiums with NFL or college teams, playing on grass fields in equally wet climates. I also found that the U.S. national team has not been shying away from turf fields as much as I thought, and in the long run it might not make that much of a difference, anyway. Here's how I came to those findings:

I started off by looking for grass fields in cities with large stadiums that get as much or more annual rainfall as Seattle. There's no shortage of these, as virtually every city in the Southeastern Conference has a football stadium as big or bigger than Qwest, receives often times far more rainfall and generally plays on grass. But they also only play five to eight games a year and don't share the field.

I then whittled down the list to grass stadiums that share or shared space with an MLS tenant and received as much or more rainfall as Seattle. That essentially left me with four stadiums: Tampa Bay's Raymond James Stadium, Kansas City's Arrowhead, Houston's Robertson and Washington D.C.'s RFK.

Of those, only Robertson currently matches, as the Mutiny were dissolved in 2001, the Wizards moved out of Arrowhead after the 2007 season and the United have had RFK all to themselves since 1997.

From what I can tell, Robertson is not an ideal soccer stadium. The field is too tight, it's aging and because of its heavy use, not always in great condition. Obviously, Seattle does not want to look here for encouragement. But if it's simply a matter of being able to stage games on grass fields while it's raining, I think there's ample reason to believe it can be done.

Which brings us back to the main point, how big of a deal is it that Qwest has a turf field? A quick look through Wikipedia's archives will show that the U.S. National team has chosen turf fields on occasion for its home games, at least since 2007. Prior to last year's Gold Cup, the U.S. had only played on turf once in each of the past two years, at Giants Stadium in 2008 and Gillette Stadium in 2007. But last year, the U.S. actually played four games on FieldTurf, all during the Gold Cup. One of those games, as many of you will remember, was at Qwest.

FIFA has recognized that FieldTuf is most likely the wave of the future. It has given one- or two-star approval to at least 60 FieldTurf stadiums, even allowing the 2007 U-20 World Cup in Canada to have half its games played on the surface. To be sure, there were and are complaints, but obviously, FIFA does not consider FieldTurf to be the death knell of a stadium's hosting bid.

Of course, FIFA's stance on FieldTurf may not even be that big of issue. While it's unlikely that anyone is willing to pay the costs of converting Qwest to grass for a one-time appearance by the national team, there's reason to believe it could be done in order to accomodate several games as part of the U.S. World Cup bid.

At least according to a 2001 PI article, the decision to install FieldTurf at Qwest was done with the caveat that grass could be installed if that's what it took to bring MLS or FIFA to town. Obviously, that ended up not being an impediment for MLS, but there's no reason I see why similar moves couldn't be made to accomodate a multi-match event with tens of millions in potential revenues.

All of this is to essentially say that the FieldTurf issue may be much ado about not very much. There will always be detractors, but there's no reason I see why that issue alone would keep Seattle from becoming the centerpiece of a winning U.S. World Cup bid. In the long run, it probably makes sense to keep the field FieldTurf, since that's what seems to work best on a day-to-day basis.

FanPosts only represent the opinions of the poster, not of Sounder at Heart.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think you meant " the wizards moved out of arrowhead"

Plus I can’t cite the source at the moment, but I remeber reading that a major stumbling block for grass at quest was the amount of sunlight it would get. Apparently the orientation of the stands prevents the grass from getting it’s optimal amount.

by Murk on Feb 1, 2010 7:55 PM PST reply actions

thanks

Yeah, that’s what I meant. Wonder if my mind got stuck on the Washington Wizards or something…

As for the grass, I’d be really interested if that were the case. Not being able to import grass if needed would seem to be a mark, hopefully not insurmountable, against getting the WC here.

by Jeremiah Oshan on Feb 1, 2010 9:09 PM PST reply actions

Gold Cup

4th of July? Didn’t the USMNT play at Qwest?

Are you talking about MNT friendlies?

If the WC came, I would think they would put in grass, and not in a “throw it in quick, tear it out fast” sort of way.

I’m very interested to see how BMO does with grass in the frozen north, and thawing muck of early spring and late fall.

The main issue with grass conversion, to me, is that football teams carve a muddy line down the middle of the field. Especially in the wet PNW. Soccer spreads the action out all over (though I remember the mud pits in front of the goals, back in the day). However, the seasons overlap just slightly, and maybe we wouldn’t have that problem.

by Cornchops on Feb 1, 2010 9:45 PM PST reply actions

If FIFA wants grass (which I'm sure they will) I'm not sure that it's as big of an issue as people think.

The last NFL game of the year to be played at Qwest would be the final week of January at the latest (several weeks earlier if the Seahawks don’t make the playoffs or fail to secure a home game). That gives them until June to get a FIFA acceptable natural grass solution in. Since the Seahawks practice at the VMAC during training camp in the late summer, they’ll have a month and change to get the field turf back in for the NFL preseason in August/September, and I’d have to imagine that would be a quicker process than putting the grass in.

Paul Allen and his team seem to be willing to bankroll natural grass if the need arises. They’ve done so before with international friendlies, and that’s probably the key. If the organization can host more friendlies and continue to install grass for these games, it would likely show FIFA we’re serious about giving them an acceptable playing surface.

As for the rain, has the drainage system at Qwest been considered? It’s regarded as being the best in the NFL. Only issue I can remember was the freak squall that parked on top of Seattle during the Thursday Night Football game back in 2006, and that was mostly due to a debris blockage caused by the heavy winds that day. If natural grass was put in, I don’t think the rain would cause the pitch to turn into a mudpit that NFL fans are accustomed to seeing at, say, Heinz Field.

Long story short, if natural grass is needed I think there’s enough time to come up with a plan that leaves FIFA, the Seahawks, and the Sounders happy.

by BrianL on Feb 1, 2010 10:11 PM PST reply actions

Missed one, you're right

The U.S. did, indeed, play a Gold Cup game last year at Qwest. I’m sure many of this blog’s readers realized that. Whoops, I guess that’s what happens when you’re not working off anything but research. Apparently I neglected to notice the whole Gold Cup tournament, which actually featured four games on FieldTurf. Maybe it’s even less of an issue than I thought.

by Jeremiah Oshan on Feb 1, 2010 11:12 PM PST reply actions

Anything but Houston

So as one of those who made the trip to Houston, that pitch was horrid! Adding sand to “even things out” just doesn’t fly.

There is a few things that need to be pointed out, and that starts with the generation of Fieldturf at Qwest. The pitch we have now was installed in 2008 and will be replaced again in at some point. Due to the “other” events at Qwest, where they cover the entire field for concerts, monster truck and motorcross events, the impact to the field is none, where as it would greatly impact a grass pitch. Add in the ability to erase the lines for NFL games and most players will agree that the pitch is as good as it can get in a multi-tenant stadium.

Fieldturf like pitches will eventually be standard for all top leagues, it’s just a matter of time. Adidas proved that they can’t leave well enough alone with their new ball for the World Cup – and the same will happen here.

by jtowner206 on Feb 3, 2010 12:09 AM PST reply actions

I'm fairly certain there aren't monster truck and motocross events at Qwest, that's a Tacoma Dome thing.

I don’t think they do a whole lot of concerts either.

by BrianL on Feb 3, 2010 1:35 PM PST up reply actions

FieldTurf & Grass

FieldTurf holds up better, and it’s a multi-use stadium with the NFL potentially, especially with MLS. Personally, I think FieldTurf plays great, it’s fast, but it’s also very consistent and unlike AstroTurf it’s not hard like concrete. I don’t think that anyone can claim that FieldTurf “causes” more injury that natural grass.

I think that the biggest critic of FieldTurf is actually a Houston supporter ;) I didn’t go to Houston, but it looked awful on TV. Houston is a huge market, the MLS needs a stadium done there pronto.

I love the aesthetic of natural grass. The cushion it gives the ball. The smell of cut grass. Coming home with grass clippings instead of little rubber pellets. But it’s also tough to pull off in this climate, and expensive. As far as natural grass of FieldTurf a la Chelsea & Barcelona, the players should be consulted about how they felt that it played. Pep Guardiola was very critical of the sod>FieldTurf.

It’s here to stay apparently and more games are going to be played on artificial surfaces. Players are going to have to get used to it.

by SoundersASN on Feb 5, 2010 6:35 PM PST reply actions

I agree with all that...

I would much rather see FIFA fully embrace FieldTurf than have to worry about bringing in grass in order to get World Cup games, I just don’t know if that’s a realistic expectation.

by Jeremiah Oshan on Feb 8, 2010 11:49 AM PST up reply actions

As far as football lines on the soccer field...

It’s easy to forget that not so long ago, baseball infields were just part of life during the first month or so of the NFL season. It took awhile, but I believe the only team still dealing with that is the Raiders.

by Jeremiah Oshan on Feb 8, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions

is the EPL instructive at all here?

admittedly having never been to England, I still have an image of soggy English weather.

There was a little rumbling at DSF about players’ potential preference for natural grass. With that noted, I have to imagine that whatever negatives there are to the unnatural feel of FieldTurf pale far, far in comparison to the Unholy specter of football lines. That’s the easiest possible way to make soccer feel like an amateur operation.

If I remember right there was also a little more grumbling after the friendlies WRT the grass feeling a little loose due to its new arrival…..but with a year of experience under their belt I think it’s likely that this season the Sounders FO finds the best mix between grass for international friendlies and FieldTurf for the MLS peons.

by Will Kier on Feb 7, 2010 9:38 PM PST reply actions