05 mai 2026

Non-Infill Systems: Red Flags from Coaches, Athletes, and Lab Testing

Key Takeaways

From high school football coaches to NFL and FIFA testing, the feedback on non-fill systems is consistent: They don't deliver.
A recent survey of high school coaches and administrators asked which field was their least favorite to play on last season. Nearly 70% independently named a field with a non-infill system.
25 products are approved for use in the NFL. Not a single non-infill system made the list.
Non-infill systems cannot be FIFA certified.

The debate over non-infill synthetic turf systems has been growing louder. What’s striking is not the volume of the discussion, it’s the consistency of the feedback, regardless of sport, level, or geography.

At FieldTurf, athlete and coach feedback has always been central to how we develop products and innovate. That commitment has produced formal structures like our Player Innovation Committee, to specific system technology developments across product collections. Our innovations are player and coach-informed.

Feedback from the Field on Non-Infill Systems

At the end of the high school football season, a local third-party PR firm surveyed coaches and administrators from various California high school football programs with an open and direct question:

“Which artificial turf field was your LEAST favorite to play on last season? Not including your home field.”

There were no categories, no prompts. Respondents named specific fields in their own words. Nearly 70% identified a field with a non-infill system.

The open-text format matters here. These coaches weren’t reacting to a leading question. They were recalling an experience. And the experience kept pointing in the same direction.

When Science and Feedback Match Up

The negative experience that athletes describe has a measurable explanation.

Independent traction research from the Center for Applied Biomechanics at the University of Virginia evaluated release traction, the shear force required for a cleated shoe to break free from the surface. It is the most direct measure of the grip-and-release behavior athletes rely on for cutting, pivoting, and accelerating.

Kentucky bluegrass, the recognized standard for elite natural grass performance, delivered a release traction value of 1.81. FieldTurf’s heavyweight infill system recorded 1.86, virtually mirroring natural grass. A dense non-fill system scored 1.01. That is a reduction of approximately 56% relative to the natural grass benchmark.

The NFL’s new mandatory Surface Standard, developed jointly by the NFL and NFLPA, reinforces the same conclusion through a different lens. When the program evaluated systems for the 2026 season, 25 infill systems were approved. Not one non-fill system was certified. The highest level of professional football, applying its most rigorous surface science to date, arrived at the same conclusion.

A Global Pattern

The feedback from coaches and athletes does not exist in isolation. The international synthetic turf community is having the same conversation, driven by the same evidence.

FIFA changed its 2024 manual after recognizing limited market acceptance and pushback from athletes, clubs, and federations. FIFA revised its manual regarding mineral-stabilized, mineral-filled, and non-filled turf systems, declaring that they cannot be awarded FIFA Quality or FIFA Quality Pro certification.

“Slippery when wet” was identified by Sportsfields.info as a concern raised by every single source consulted for their investigation, spanning multiple countries, climates, and levels of the game.

Too Many Red Flags

There is cause for concern when it comes to selecting non-infill systems for performance sports installations.

Not approved for use in the NFL.
Non-infill systems cannot be awarded FIFA Quality or FIFA Quality Pro certification under the new manual.
Negative coach and player feedback across numerous levels and locations.