Artificial vs grass fields

[PumpFake]

Interesting article in the Athletic regarding field surface.

The gist:
This is what I asked Bosa this week: Could future free-agent decisions turn on whether or not a team plays its home games on natural grass instead of artificial turf?

“Oh, a hundred percent,” Bosa said, nodding his head for emphasis. “Yeah, a hundred percent, for sure. It’s usually the older guys who know more about it. Or guys who have dealt with injuries from it. Because when you’re young and in high school and college, you think it’s fast and fun and it looks good. And then you realize after a few years, it’s like, whew, I’ll do anything to get on some grass.”

 

[PumpFake]

Interesting field info. 3 out of 4 AFCW fields have grass.

monumental sports network

www.nbcsports.com

 

[Debbie Does]

I still think football is a better viewer experience at home when watching teams compete outdoors on real grass. The element of weather should be part of the game. Remember mud? Shit, they’re even playing NHL games outdoors even though every team has a perfectly good indoor rink. Well, maybe not Arizona.

 

[broncosmitty]

It’s nice that players voice their ideas and opinions on this, it really is.

But they are paid well to perform in venues that feature much more than just football. Many of those venues funded by public money. Decisions are going to continue to be made that maximize profit and utility of the venue.

They could always sell insurance and play frisbee in the park if they don’t want to play on artificial surfaces. Nobody forces them to play football. And nobody is stopping them from watching like the rest of us.

 

[SpringStein]

@broncosmitty, curious about your banned in Europe byline.

 

[broncosmitty]

@broncosmitty, curious about your banned in Europe byline.

I honestly forget now.

A few years ago the EU banned something or other from being imported. Hickory smoked bacon maybe, I forget what it was. But I just piggy backed that.

 

[LGM]

It’s nice that players voice their ideas and opinions on this, it really is.

But they are paid well to perform in venues that feature much more than just football. Many of those venues funded by public money. Decisions are going to continue to be made that maximize profit and utility of the venue.

They could always sell insurance and play frisbee in the park if they don’t want to play on artificial surfaces. Nobody forces them to play football. And nobody is stopping them from watching like the rest of us.

I understand the sentiment, but as someone who dealt heavily with "publicly funded" venues, let's be completely up front.

Most "funding" for these kinds of deals come in the form of land sales or leases of a ridiculous nature; say $1 per year for 50 years.

Actual "publicly owned" percentage of these deals is usually in the 5-25% range. Meaning a very small minority stake at best.

Yes, there are places like the LA coliseum that was multi use, but those are the proverbial dinosaurs in a league where stadiums like Sofi are privately funded to the tune of 5 billion dollars. Id guarantee you this Walton group would privately fund a new stadium in Denver if they thought it would benefit their bottom line.

Revenues from these deals are not direct in most cases, but deferred or through assessed fees or added taxes. Cities will plop down a new stadium downtown, lease or sell the land, and then increase hotel fees or taxes to offset their costs. Revenues usually far outpace the original cost when its all said and done.

Cities rarely have any kind of dual/multi use agreement, since they neither staff, fund, or maintain the facility.

You are correct that decisions are made to maximize profits, but those have no bearing on the publicly funded portion of the agreement. Again, this falls on team owners or ownership groups. If they want to protect their investment and grass is proven to keep players healthy, and grass can be grown in that area Id be willing to bet they make that switch.

TLDR: stadiums that are publicly funded rarely cost taxpayers anything out of pocket, are a very small percentage of overall ownership, and sound like the "I pay your salary" Karen response to be given a speeding ticket.

 

[broncosmitty]

I understand the sentiment, but as someone who dealt heavily with "publicly funded" venues, let's be completely up front.

Most "funding" for these kinds of deals come in the form of land sales or leases of a ridiculous nature; say $1 per year for 50 years.

Actual "publicly owned" percentage of these deals is usually in the 5-25% range. Meaning a very small minority stake at best.

Yes, there are places like the LA coliseum that was multi use, but those are the proverbial dinosaurs in a league where stadiums like Sofi are privately funded to the tune of 5 billion dollars. Id guarantee you this Walton group would privately fund a new stadium in Denver if they thought it would benefit their bottom line.

Revenues from these deals are not direct in most cases, but deferred or through assessed fees or added taxes. Cities will plop down a new stadium downtown, lease or sell the land, and then increase hotel fees or taxes to offset their costs. Revenues usually far outpace the original cost when its all said and done.

Cities rarely have any kind of dual/multi use agreement, since they neither staff, fund, or maintain the facility.

You are correct that decisions are made to maximize profits, but those have no bearing on the publicly funded portion of the agreement. Again, this falls on team owners or ownership groups. If they want to protect their investment and grass is proven to keep players healthy, and grass can be grown in that area Id be willing to bet they make that switch.

TLDR: stadiums that are publicly funded rarely cost taxpayers anything out of pocket, are a very small percentage of overall ownership, and sound like the "I pay your salary" Karen response to be given a speeding ticket.

The investment has a very short shelf life to begin with.

And the investment has a very long, eager line of replacements.