My son played on both artificial grass and the real stuff, from Green Bay, Wisconsin in the north to Bradenton, Florida in the south, and from Long Island, NY in the east to Lancaster, California in the west. According to him, there's a wide variety of fake grass out there, some of it is a lot more forgiving and easy on the body than other types. Having grown up in Canada, I can say for certain that real grass up there can't take the beating of more than a few games played on it each year. They had awful artificial turn at the Calgary football stadium at least as far back as 1976. I remember playing on a field hockey team in a game on that field and getting a horrible rash from a slide. It festered and oozed puss for weeks. Very painful, too. But the new stuff is supposed to be soft and nonabrasive. The country's growing season just can't accommodate real grass stressed from repeated use. But there is good fake turf out there. Probably a cost issue why they haven't adopted it. My first question would be: On what fields do the Canadian MNT play? If natural grass, then I totally agree with the plaintiffs in this suit. You also have regional climate disparities affecting available surfaces. Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan have harsher climates than, say, British Columbia or southern Ontario.
