Proven Safety

AKADEMICKA PIŁKA NOŻNA

FIELDTURF KONTRA NATURALNA TRAWA

3-letni program badań

Systemy FieldTurf pozwoliły uzyskać:

• 13% mniej naciągniętych/naderwanych mięśni
• 11% mniej wstrząśnień mózgu
• 31% mniej naderwanych ścięgien
• 24% mniej wysokich skręceń stawu skokowego
• 21% mniej poważnych kontuzji
• 23% mniej kontuzji na nawierzchni liczącej 4-8+ lat

HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL

FIELDS WITH SHOCK PADS VS FIELDS WITHOUT

7-year study

Fields without pads led to:

• 53% less player-to-turf collision injuries
• 39% less shoulder girdle trauma
• 63% less lower leg injuries
• 73% less neck trauma

See the full study

When are shock pads recommended?
There are some situations where a shock pad is highly recommend. When installing light-weight infill systems, common with alternative / natural infills like cork, coconut and/or olive, there isn’t enough material in the system to provide the necessary shock absorption. To meet the needed industry safety requirements, a shock pad is added under the system to provide the adequate performance.

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE

FIELDTURF VS NATURAL GRASS & COMPETING SYSTEMS

4-year study

ACL Injury Rate per Team Games Played:

• .048 FieldTurf
• .050 Natural Grass
• .053 Competing Turf Systems

See the full study

COLLEGE men's soccer

FIELDTURF VS NATURAL GRASS

6-year study

FieldTurf systems led to:

• 25% Fewer Total Injuries
• 20% Fewer Severe Injuries
• 33% Fewer Concussions
• 15% Fewer Injuries due to player-to-surface collisions

See the full study

United Soccer League, League 1

Artificial Turf vs Grass

Three Seasons - 2020-2022

Study concluded: Overall, the incidence of injuries per athlete exposure was significantly lower on artificial turf than natural grass. Injuries subdivided into location demonstrate statistically lower rates of head/neck, upper limb, and lower limb injuries on artificial turf. Additionally, with regards to type of injury, the rate of contusions and central/peripheral nervous system injuries were statistically lower on artificial turf.

See the full study

MLS Soccer

Artificial Turf vs Grass

4-year study

Study concluded: The overall rate of injury on artificial turf was “noninferior” — or equivalent — to that on natural grass.

See the full study.

Effects of Playing Surface on Physical, Physiological and Perceptual Responses

artificial vs grass

Study concluded:

• An improved physical performance on artificial turf compared to natural grass.
• Performance tasks incorporating greater reliance on agility and change of direction ability are more likely to be enhanced on artificial turf compared to natural grass.
• The improved physical performance on artificial turf was accompanied by improved perceptual and some blood biochemistry (Lac, Neu and LYM) responses.

See the full study

Pitch Impact Markers of Fatigue, Recovery and Readiness to Play

artificial vs grass

Study concluded:

• Players covered significantly more distance per minute on artificial turf (222.59 ± 18.93 meters/min) compared to natural grass (215.89 ± 17.80 meters/min)
• Countermovement jump (CMJ) parameters and subjective wellness questionnaires (fatigue, sleep quality, muscle soreness, stress, and mood) showed no significant differences based on pitch surface.
• Artificial turf pitches do not elicit more fatigue, impede recovery, or impact readiness to play, though they may lead to small differences in activity patterns and styles of play.