Daily Soccer Fix: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Network Message: 50% Off: CBS/SB Nation Fantasy Baseball

State of MLS facilities: where things stand on stadium development

Red Bull Arena ... set to open in March, turning the league's worst stadium situation into the best.

Red Bull Arena ... set to open in March, turning the league's worst stadium situation into the best.

Bonus: Click through for a team-by-team rating on how each club stacks up

People who regularly read my work – both of them – probably grow weary of me harping and hounding on stadium development.  But I harp and hound for a reason. Nothing is more important for development of the domestic game. These physical structures greatly enhance financial footing and do wonders in establishing a sense of community permanence, something pro soccer has always lacked.

(It also says to the soccer haters: "Screw you, we’re here to stay. So go hide in the forest with the rest of the xenophobic jackholes and douchey ding dongs who always want to know ‘Why can’t things just be the way they used to be?’ ")

Whoa! I guess I’m feeling a bit aggressive today.

Any-who, ground has been broken on a new stadium in Kansas City, albeit outside the city center.  Mistake? Could be.  It’s certainly not ideal.  But these choices are complex. In the absence of suitable alternatives, and in dire need of a place to call home – have you seen the poorly retrofitted baseball stadium the Wizards are currently calling home? – sometimes you just must make the best of the imperfect solution. The alternative is to remain stuck in the mud.

Meanwhile, the Portland Timbers organization is moving forward with needed renovations to PGE Park; the Timbers will merge into MLS in 2011.

As I’ve noted before, PGE Park is conveniently located downtown, in dandy proximity to the tattoo parlors, pubs, hipster hideouts and urban-friendly folks who generally cotton to soccer. That urban core, stocked with followers who will actually care about wins and losses and not just about something to occupy a Saturday night, will be a massive benefit to MLS.

So, it seems like a good time to review the state of MLS facility development. After all, even some of the best soccer fans aren’t all stadium geeks like me. I know it’s hard to keep up. So click forth for a chart-type thingy on where MLS stands in this critical development initiative.

Star-divide

(Ratings explainer: The following ratings, sure to create some conversation and consternation, is a comprehensive measure of the current stadium scene that factors in facility, location, state of potential upgrades and ability to utilize the existing assets.)

Chicago Fire – Where things stand: The only thing that could enhance the stadium situation at this point in the Windy City would be a light rail option into outlying Bridgeview.  Pressure point:  Early issues with a less-than-perfect playing surface seem to have been ironed out. Everything else looks good there – other than the fact that its corporate sponsor is undergoing some hard times at the moment. It’ll pass. Eventually. Rating: 4 Stadium-stars out of 5.

Chivas USA – Where things stand: The Goats play as a second tenant inside the Home Depot Center. It ain’t perfect, but it works for now.  Pressure point: You remember when you got out of college and got your first place? And you didn’t really want a roommate, but it kinda-sorta made sense financially, and you could help a buddy who needed the help, too? Well same here. Ideally, Chivas gets their own place, where they can benefit from naming rights and not have to split the sponsorships and such. For now, it’s OK.  But eventually, a new stadium would greatly assist the creation of Chivas’ local brand identity. Rating: 3.5 Stadium-stars out of 5.

Colorado Rapids – Where things stand: DSG Park in nearby Commerce is everything it needs to be, if just a tad too far outside the city. Pressure point: They’ll simply have to work harder at cultivating fans and establishing stronger roots in the community. Rating:  4 Stadium-stars out of 5. 

Columbus Crew – Where they stand: Crew Stadium, the granddaddy of U.S. pro soccer stadiums, where the facility initiative all started, remains a viable MLS ground. It’s Spartan, to be sure, but it works fine for the Crew and its fans.  Pressure point: Ten years and no naming rights? Ownership has literally left millions on the table by over-valuing the asset – and getting zilch for it. Rating: 4 Stadium-stars out of 5.

D.C. United – Where things stand: Good grief, what a mess.  Pressure point: The effort to find a stadium solution is a years-long tale of fits and stops. RFK continues to be a good place for atmosphere, but that’s about it. The inability to make money there is a serious drag on MLS and, certainly, pro soccer in the nation’s capital. At some point, this thing has to get solved, or United will have to pack up and go elsewhere. And wouldn’t that be sad? Rating: 3 Stadium-stars out of 5.

FC Dallas – Where things stand: Pizza Hut Park, now in its sixth year of play, remains a swell, functional ground – so long as they can squeeze in some soccer between those profitable concerts.  Yes, it’s too far out. No, there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Pressure point: They’ve just got to get the front office sorted out and begin gaining a toehold on putting more people inside their swell stadium. There are signs of progress, but organizational bungling has put this club years behind where it should be. Rating: 3.5 Stadium-stars out of 5.

Kansas City Wizards – Where things stand: They’ve broke ground and should be playing in their pretty new grounds some time in 2011.  Pressure point: We’ve been on this train before, and "some time in 2011," could easily mean 2012. Meanwhile, they’re playing as renters in a small ground that’s horrible ill suited for soccer, and that’s a real problem. Rating: 3 Stadium-stars out of 5.

Houston Dynamo – Where they stand: Ownership is bullish on a stadium project, biding its time inside Robertson Stadium on the University of Houston Campus. It’s not bad as a stop-gap, although the field is too tight and the park amenities are old and scraggly. Oh, and you might get cut if you wander outside the parking areas. So don’t.  Pressure point: Negotiations with the city of Houston and Harris County seem to hit the skids after a recent mayoral election. Ownership had seemed close to striking a deal with the city and county for a 22,000-seat, $80 million venue just east of U.S. 59 downtown. Now, perhaps seeking leverage, management has started making noise about another site altogether. Rating: 2.5 Stadium-stars out of 5.

Los Angeles Galaxy – Where things stand: The Home Depot Center would only be better if it weren’t in Carson, situated somewhere between downtown Los Angeles and Orange County.  Pressure point: The only real drawback to the site is in its associated usage. On the one hand, it’s a versatile and well-liked facility that raises righteous cash by hosting concerts, X Games, Motocross and such. But all those events are hell on the field, which is frequently subpar. Rating: 4 Stadium-stars out of 5.

New England Revolution – Where things stand: The play inside too-big Gillette Stadium. On artificial turf. Often with football lines. Sigh.  Pressure point: They play at Gillette Stadium. Sigh. Rating: 1 Stadium-star out of 5.

Philadelphia Union – Where things stand: Planners had the benefit of looking at what everyone else has done right and wrong so far as they erected the new grounds in suburban Chester. Ticket sales look strong and, by all appearances, things will rock once they throw to door open later this year. Pressure point:  The team will play its first few matches at Lincoln Financial Field, home to the NFL’s Eagles. The clock is ticking, boys. Get ‘er done, eh? Rating: 4 Stadium-stars out of 5.

Real Salt Lake – Where things stand: Rio Tinto opened 18 months ago with everything more or less in place. Yeah, it could be a little closer to downtown. But light rail goes into Sandy, and it’s not like the place is in the middle of nowhere, just about 6-8 minutes beyond downtown. And it may be the best looking stadium out there – at least until Red Bull Arena opens. Pressure point: None, really. Occasionally, the crowd counts dip below favorable rating, but the team generally seems to get things right. Rating: 4.5 Stadium-stars out of 5.

Red Bull New York – Where things stand: Red Bull Arena opens in March, and what a glorious time it will be. If you haven’t seen photos, do so. It’ll be the country’s best soccer venue the minute the doors open.  Pressure point: Years and years of administrative bumbling and wretched performance mean tickets will be harder to sell than they should be. Let’s just hope the stadium is so cool that fans can’t help but be in a forgiving mood. Rating: 5 Stadium-stars out of 5.

San Jose – Where things stand: Little Buck Shaw Stadium on the Santa Clara campus is a dandy little stop-gap while, but far from ideal. Lack of luxury boxes or other devises to create revenue streams will be a drain on the team until a suitable location for a new park can be identified. Pressure point: Land in NoCal ain’t cheap, and it’ll be tricky for the Earthquakes to find that suitable spot. And they lose revenue every year that a solution isn’t identified.  Ka-ching! Rating: 2.5 Stadium-stars out of 5.

Seattle Sounders – Where things stand: Qwest isn’t ideal due to its size. That said, it’s the best atmosphere by far in MLS history in terms of playing in NFL grounds, and the trade-off is well worth it for all the great elements of the park. The location, downtown, near a neat row of pubs and restaurants, can’t be beat.  Pressure point: As long as they play on artificial turf, there’s going to be some grumbling. Rating: 4 Stadium-stars out of 5.

Toronto – Where things stand: They got it right at BMO Stadium, where the waiting list for season tickets is longer than Tiger Woods’ roster of hussies.  Pressure point: They laid natural grass (finally) in December; now we see how it holds up to the long Canadian winter once games begin in March. Rating: 5 Stadium-stars out of 5.

0 recs  |  Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I would give the Rapids DSG a lower rating

The stadium is pretty cool and pitch is great, but it’s simply too far from civilization. Not only is it super weak that there is zero public transportation to it, but you have to drive through the worst part of the Denver metro area to get there. I don’t know about you guys, but driving past oil refineries and dog food factories to a place so vacant they used to make nerve gas at with the threat of being robbed by a meth head doesn’t exactly get you stoaked for the match. All that being said, parking is free, and thats awesome. I give you a 3, DSG.

"It's like an owl without a graduation cap; Heartbreaking!!" -Tracy Jordan

by 303buff on Feb 1, 2010 11:18 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

yeah, i hear you, but ...

… it’s still not as far out as others. so, relatively speaking, it could be worse.

by Steve Davis on Feb 1, 2010 11:26 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm confused
Qwest isn’t ideal due to its size

Bigger is worse? Seattle is going to have more season tickets sold next year than the next two teams combined, and that’s a problem?
Last year we were 50th in the world for soccer attendence and that’s an issue?
In 2010 we will crack the top 40, and pass Tottenham, and this is a negative?

Obviously I strongly disagree, and I bet ownership in places like Toronto, Portland and Philly wish their stadiums were bigger as well. Currently they are going to be forced to have NBA/NHL attendence numbers when they could pass many college football teams if they had the stadium for it.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Feb 1, 2010 11:45 AM EST reply actions   1 recs

too big is an issue

I would suggest spending a match up in section 307, perhaps then you would understand bigger is worse. The stadium wasn’t built for soccer, it was built for the NFL. I wouldn’t have scored you lower for the size alone, I would have given you a 3 for playing on turf alone.

by denz on Feb 1, 2010 12:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

False

From Day one it was designed with soccer in mind – Day One. Every single design decision was made for it to be able to host top-flight soccer. This includes having a non-regulation crown on the pitch (NFL requires, but Qwest had to get an exception so that it would be better for soccer).

By the way, the only reason you were able to get to the game was because it was that big. Are you saying that you wish the event was at BuckShaw so you couldn’t go?

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Feb 1, 2010 12:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

why is 307 a bad seat?

http://www.seats3d.com/mls/seattle_sounders_fc/

The plan next years is to open the first 4 rows of the 300s (rows A-D). If you enter 307 D, those seats look pretty darn good. I was tempted to move my seats up there when they became available (I’m staying down below because I enjoy standing).

by PeterJH on Feb 1, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

like watching

From 307 it was like watching the old electronic football game, little figures moving around and even during warm ups it was hard to see numbers on players.

The only reason fans from Salt Lake and LA had to sit in the upper deck is because the Cup was included in the season ticket package. Listen I love what you guys have going on and as much as I hate Buck Shaw, I would have liked to see the Championship played on grass but I had a great time in Seattle both for the first RSL match of 2009 and the final RSL match of 2009.

If it had been at Buck Shaw the 3,000 RSL fans who showed up would almost all have had better seats, same for the 1,000 LA fans, since they have half their stadium available after you count all their season ticket holders.

by denz on Feb 1, 2010 10:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Fair enough

But I doubt comparable seats at, say, Emirates would be any better.

by PeterJH on Feb 2, 2010 1:57 AM EST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

A little sensitive

“Ideal” is just that. It means that conditions are exactly as they need to be to generate the optimum results. If the stadium were “ideal” they wouldn’t need to artificially cap sales, would they? If they could fill all the seats, I assume they would move in that direction. Therefore, for the here and now, yes, bigger is less than ideal.

by Steve Davis on Feb 1, 2010 12:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sellout Myth is roundly critiqued in these parts

They have only sold out two matches (Barca, Chelsea), the rest are just great gate days.

But last season they moved from a planned 22,000 seats sold to end the season with 35,500. This year they are starting with a plan for 35,500 and already have contingencies to expand well beyond that.

But I’m still confused why selling out 20k is better than selling a concentrated 35k (ignoring the old Arrowhead issue where the seats were scattered all over the place).

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Feb 1, 2010 12:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Have to agree

It seems like the turf is going to be the only thing worth worrying about at Qwest. The size of the stadium should be a bonus since it allows the team to expand capacity on its own schedule. There’s no reason to believe that in a few years if the team’s fanbase continues to grow that the team won’t eventually be opening up every seat in the house.

I’m a little more worried about the turf and its potential to scare off international matches. Seattle would seem like an obvious location for big matches featuring the national team, but is there any precedent for those kinds of games being played on turf?

by BayAreaRefugee on Feb 1, 2010 1:55 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Artificial turf

Has been OK’d by FIFA since the U-17 tournamnet was played in Finland in 2003.

I’ve been to games in big stadiums and no stadium is too big if it is full. That atomsphere in the Rose Bowl was fantastic this past year when Chelsea and Barcelona played there. Of course it was dismal when the LA Galaxy were there all the time. The issue is the fit between the size of the crowd and the size of the stadium.

oc phil

by oc phil on Feb 1, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

For what it's worth

I kinda answered my own question here.

by BayAreaRefugee on Feb 1, 2010 7:59 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Once again, go back to the word ideal

It’s not that the size isn’t good or that it’s not better than 20k sold out. Nobody said they should go to 20k sold out if they could. The current situation is better than that, but if you could have a 40,000 seat stadium, wouldn’t it be better. It would definitely. That doesn’t mean the current size is a bad thing, it’s just not ideal.

For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 1, 2010 6:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

40k seats wouldn't be better

because they couldn’t sell 67,000 for the 3 friendlies ;)

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Feb 1, 2010 7:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't disagree

But if we’re aiming for ideal size, than BMO should be at least 30k. And with that I think they would still have a large waiting list.

by PeterJH on Feb 1, 2010 7:17 PM EST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

Earthquakes

They just broke ground on a training facility that is adjacent to the “future” stadium, which is a few minutes out of downtown and near the airport. Do you know what’s holding the project up, because I read that they had bought the land, but that apparently isn’t so.

Insanity is just a state of mind.

by giants9107 on Feb 1, 2010 12:28 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

As far as I know

The hangup is in the funding mechanism. Originally, Lew Wolff was planning to do some sort of landswap where he would get some industrial land in South San Jose rezoned to residential and he’d use the profits from that to pay for the stadium’s construction. I think that all fell apart in part because it was shaping up as very controversial, but mainly because the market fell out. Best as I can tell, they know exactly where the stadium will be, what it will look like and about how much it will cost. The land is currently owned by the city. Paying for the construction is a whole other issue, though.

by BayAreaRefugee on Feb 1, 2010 2:00 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Last I heard, Lew Needs More Cash

The real estate market crash hurt Lew (as did the failed investment in the A’s stadium in Fremont – he put 20 million dollars into that land in sunk cost and hasn’t resold it yet).

He said they need a naming right sponsor to get some more cash together to finance the deal.

You can change your job, you can change your wife, you can even change your gender, but you can never change your club.
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
Fear no foe, wherever we go.

by johnjahafanclub on Feb 4, 2010 9:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

One strike against size

The size of Qwest has created this interminable debate about how many sections to open and how often. You have a dilemma: on the one hand, you could open up the whole place, have the upper deck be sparse at least on some gamedays, and not be able to declare a sellout or motivate ticket buyers to buy ahead of time, or on the other, you can close those sections down and have the customers complain about it.

If the stadium had been built to about the number of fans the franchise can draw, this wouldn’t be an issue, because fans would know and accept buying ahead.

'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'

by Sgc on Feb 1, 2010 1:41 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

not much of a strike

I think this is an “issue” or “problem” that all other MLS clubs would love to have.

by PeterJH on Feb 1, 2010 2:41 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Agreed.

The ability to easily expand seating is a great benefit to the Sounders at this early stage in their development. Yes, ideally, they would be in their own grass-pitched, non-tarped stadium sitting right across the street from Qwest.

At this point though, the benefit of being able to adjust to the demand is a greater positive than the empty 300 section is a negative. If they had built a new stadium, do you think they would have built it to seat 35K+? Probably not. They would have built it and it would have been immediately in need of expansion.

As the Sounders mature, perhaps they can look into building a stadium in town that is more suited to their needs. For now, playing at Qwest is pretty dang good. And, when the time comes to build a new stadium, there’s this nice piece of land that’s not in use… Some NBA team used to play there…

by kopp on Feb 1, 2010 4:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Key Arena...

…is not an ideal site for a soccer stadium. Located north of downtown, it sits on a corner of a local art/community space known as Seattle Center in a carved out bowl. In the event the Sounders fanbase grows (which it probably will; as they were selling out to 35k fans at the end of the ‘09 season and were home to, percentage-wise, the best media base in MLS based on Nielsen data), it wouldn’t be able to have the space to seat those fans. Key Arena doesn’t have its own parking, so there’s nowhere to expand the stadium. You’d pretty much be limited to occupying the footprint the arena already takes up, and a basketball court is significantly smaller than a soccer pitch. Seattle Center, for what its worth, already has a sports field that is used by the local high school teams, and is in the midst of being thoroughly revitalized.

Qwest really is ideal for the Sounders situation, minus the FieldTurf pitch, especailly given the buffer between the NFL and MLS seasons. If the Sounders wanted to build a dedicated stadium, they probably wouldn’t move far from south downtown (where Qwest is; Seattle Center is just north of downtown). The area is on the rise, with lots of trendy bars and arthouses, an international district less than a mile away and major transit lines to the east—local light rail, a bus transit corridor, train station and the end of Interstate 90, not to mention a primary exit off of Interstate 5. Parking is perfect, with Safeco Field (the Mariners baseball stadium) parking available most days, and a garage integrated into Qwest Field itself, not to mention the large parking lot on the north end of the stadium. Safeco Field and Qwest are literally right across the street from each other.

SoDo has a lot of old warehouse and commercial space that has shriveled up as the town has become less industrial, so redevelopment and shuffling some local businesses probably wouldn’t be a large hassle. I did have a thought once, as Seattle was fighting to keep the Sonics, that that entire area could be redeveloped with Qwest and Safeco as cornerstones of a “sports district” with a new basketball arena, plenty of bars, et cetera.

by harkening on Feb 2, 2010 10:04 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Aaahh, my little FCD...

Probably one of the prettier stadiums around, with facilities outside that could serve to funnel thousands into the stadium after they finish playing their own games (For those that don’t know, there are 17 soccer fields outside of PHP). But HSG has managed to alienate most of its fans, drive away Hispanic support completely, and raise the prices high enough to piss off even it’s hardcore support, i.e. me.

Stadium, other than location, not a problem. HSG, big problem. Steve, if they took that stadium without fields and put it where Reunion Arena was, don’t you think they would sell out every week? I certainly do!

Chad the Ref

by Chad the Ref on Feb 1, 2010 4:22 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

sold out every week?

maybe not — especially given the front office bungling over the last few years. but there is absolutely no question that crowds would be bigger downtown and that going forward, building the audience would be more easily accomplished.

by Steve Davis on Feb 1, 2010 6:31 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

totally agree with the pissing off hardcore supporters

they have absolutely the coolest digs (I like the underground level field…) but HSG has jerked me around with the prices so much I take my kid maybe 2-3 times per season instead of buying seasons which I did for the first 3 years of Pizza Hut Park, .all because they wanted to suck $9.00 (seriously) for a large beer…they don’t listen to their fans. the completion of the tollroad is no longer an excuse for Dallas’ soccer fans though…but management needs to get this ship righted…

by rindworld on Feb 16, 2010 12:44 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Robertson Stadium Houston

You forgot the lure of the neighborhood crack houses right across Scott St. from Robertston Stadium. Been to 90% of the games since the Dynamo moved here and it is a great place with a good atmosphere and 1940’s era concessions and bathrooms. Not the final answer

by Gorilla Monsoon on Feb 1, 2010 11:44 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

i agree with all that

it’s a really good place to sit and watch a game. the atmosphere rocks. it’s just everything else that lacks. so, it really is a prime example of a stop-gap solution. but as you said, something better simply must be in the plan.

by Steve Davis on Feb 2, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

And by "sell out" I mean...

15-22k in the house every home game. It’s downtown, it’s on the rail line, and the parking infrastructure is already in place. And I think I read the land is owned by someone by the last name of Hunt. I’m assuming he’s either a brother or half-brother. Why can’t a deal like that be done? They could donate PHP to Frisco ISD (or sell it to them on the cheap) and build a 22,500 seater right there at Reunion site. Success with Hispanic market would reappear, suburbanites wouldn’t be afraid to go because they could take the train, and it could be a party atmosphere at the games and afterwards at West End.

Okay, here’s my evil plan. We talk Mark Cuban into buying FCD. Get him to build (with city help) that stadium n that location. Tell him that he could wrestle control of the areas between AAC and new stadium from Perot and others. Money would flow like wine, area rejuvinated, and Cuban can own north end of downtown. It’s a win-win!

Chad the Ref

by Chad the Ref on Feb 2, 2010 11:51 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

as long as you're dreaming ...

… let’s also ask for free beer and Swedish messages once inside the gates of this palatial new estate!

by Steve Davis on Feb 2, 2010 12:00 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Can someone please explain to me why artificial turf is so hated?

Throughout my childhood, highschool, and post highschool “career” in rec leagues, we played on dirt, grass, and various turfs. By far, we all preferred Field Turf that has been installed all over the place these days. Almost zero maintenance, consistency between fields, etc. I know that nothing beats a finely kept grass surface, but the maintenance on that can be a nightmare depending on the climate. Now I’m not making excuses for Qwest and others to not have grass due to climate, but really I’m just wondering what all the fuss is about.

Toronto “finally” installed grass. Qwest’s only drawback is the artificial turf. Can someone provide insight on it? Is it just because it’s not the traditional surface or just not what FIFA prefers?

by chrisperry1983 on Feb 2, 2010 12:04 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

FieldTurf...

…at Qwest Field is not based on climate. Literally straight across the street from Qwest Field is an open-air baseball stadium featuring natural grass surface. Qwest’s drainage system is amazing, so huged puddles aren’t a problem. FIFA allows regulation games on FieldTurf, so I think the issue is the first of your suggestions: it’s not a traditional surface.

To be fair, I think if every field was FieldTurf, the consistency would be obnoxious. I love the feel of fresh grass, the spring of soil. I think varying field surfaces—dirt, grass, clay, turf—offer unique properties to the game. One well-maintained lawn isn’t necessarily like another, given different grass and soil mixtures. But as long as FieldTurf is just one of several surfaces, who cares?

by harkening on Feb 2, 2010 10:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sure Chris, I'll do it

I have been a referee since 1990. I have done games on all of the surfaces. Astro Turf was the worst. Field Turf, while much better, is still not nearly as good as a decent grass field, or even a field that is mostly dirt, as long as it is loose and not packed. It is now High School soccer season, the time of year that I dread the most. Shin splints, ankle and knee pain, and general joint discomfort increase exponentially during this time of year. And I don’t run as hard or cut nearly as much as the players. While better than Astroturf, the injuries that occur on Field turf are still higher than grass.

Just ask players what they prefer to play on, and you will get a universal answer: Grass. Toronto FC missed out on many players coming there because of it. Seattle will do the same.

Chad the Ref

by Chad the Ref on Feb 2, 2010 5:18 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Interesting that your example

isn’t backed up in the data from peer reviewed medical studies

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Feb 2, 2010 8:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think you got it half right

Players prefer grass because the ball is a little easier to control. I would concur with them based on my experience.

I don’t buy the injury part, though…neither from personal experience nor from what I read. I can understand that bad field turf may cause injuries, just like a bad grass field can. But good field turf cause any more injuries than good grass, I really doubt it.

And loose dirt not causing injuries, are you kidding me! That’s the worst! You lose your footing when you push off and it causes all sorts of twisting and pulls your body doesn’t like. It’s horrendous!

by PeterJH on Feb 2, 2010 9:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Do you think we can get that?

I’ll settle for the free beer!!!

Chad the Ref

by Chad the Ref on Feb 2, 2010 5:19 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

I have personal experience

I’m on Field turf and grass fields all the time. I don’t need medical studies. I know how I feel after leaving both. Grass (and dirt) are much more forgiving on the joints than Field turf. And I’m not busting it at full tilt like the players are doing. If I hurt, then they are doing much more damage to themselves. Injuries don’t have to be instintanious. They can be cumulative. Field Turf causes those types of injuries at a higher rate than grass.

Chad the Ref

by Chad the Ref on Feb 4, 2010 5:21 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

"Injuries don’t have to be instintanious. They can be cumulative. "

Well said. Completely agree.

You can change your job, you can change your wife, you can even change your gender, but you can never change your club.
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
Fear no foe, wherever we go.

by johnjahafanclub on Feb 4, 2010 9:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not questioning you, but...

How can you say you don’t need studies, then go on to say that they cause injuries at a higher rate?

And I’ve played on both, and good turf doesn’t have any affect. In fact, I prefer Turf over some of the grass fields I’ve been on.

Insanity is just a state of mind.

by giants9107 on Feb 5, 2010 12:59 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Whoops, in re: to Chad.

Insanity is just a state of mind.

by giants9107 on Feb 5, 2010 1:00 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Because

I can say it because I live it. I’m in the middle of the high school season, and I hurt much worse today sitting in this chair typing this than I do at any other time of the year. And the good news is, the season lasts thru March. My joints, knees, and ankles will be a mess by then. I’ll need 2 weeks of no running at all to get back to normal.

Don’t believe me, figure this out. Steve Ralston just gave up playing for NE Revs to play in St. Louis (hometown, true, but I’ll bet for less money). NE Revs play on Field Turf. He’s coming back from a knee injury. AC St. Louis will play on grass. I know beyond all doubt that was a reason he’s going there. His knees couldn’t handle playing 15 games (more with other teams having it too) on that turf.

Chad the Ref

by Chad the Ref on Feb 5, 2010 12:41 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

The Red Bull Arena opening will be a glorious day. There is a huge Brazilian and Mexican population in that area so with Santos being the opening game, there will be a pretty awesome crowd.

twitter.com/thisredengine

by thisredengine on Feb 17, 2010 12:06 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SB Nation's soccer blog is heavy on the domestic game -- flavored with a dash the global greatness
Start posting on Daily Soccer Fix »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Lack of Competitiveness in CONCACAF
Small
MLS Strike
Esty_small
Why no CONCACAF Champions League?
Johnjaha_small
Greece Riots Should Warn South Africa re: Hosting Major Sports Tournaments
Btb_desktop_small
US-El Salvador: Who helped and who hurt their chances?
Johnjaha_small
FSC HD FAIL
Daily_soccer_fix_crest_small
MLS schedule released
Daily_soccer_fix_crest_small
Demise of the Sol
Daily_soccer_fix_crest_small
Aly Wagner's retirement
Daily_soccer_fix_crest_small
Michelle Akers benefit

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Daily_soccer_fix_crest_small Steve Davis