Soccernomics: Grass - or Not

I have blogged a few times about my desire to see soccer played on natural grass.  I have lamented the decision by Merritt Paulson to install artifical grass at PGE Park.  And I have argued that the new modern natural grass field technology works pretty well in controlling moisture.

But I have to say that this is about as clear and direct an explanation as you could wish for, and I find it convincing.  This is from a Timbers Q&A with Merritt Paulson:

This is very simple. If we could have a quality grass field, we would. We cannot. PGE Park is below grade and only a small fraction of the field, especially after our new configuration, receives direct sunlight. That fact in and of itself makes PGE Park a unique challenge for grass even without the weather in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, add training needs (although we will provide a grass training complex for the team) to our fall high school and PSU football games that we will host, to our weather and you have an equation that simply does not work. Imagine an October soccer game, when the grass no longer grows in Portland, the day after a football game on grass. No way to get rid of football lines and an awful surface. Our organization has looked at this long and hard and will continue to look at it as technology advances. Turf is much better quality today than it was 5 years ago, and we will look at a product that favors soccer. Additionally, we will likely have our own custom grass cut-outs for exhibitions when necessary.

Let's hope that field turf comes up with a modified, soccer-specific, product soon. I think that the main adjustment would be to have slightly longer blades of fake grass to prevent the ball from bouncing too much and to slow the momentum of a rolling ball.  But still, soccer played mostly without tackles is just not the same.

Soccer on Grass...Again.

The New York Times' Goal blog has a nice update on the new Red Bulls Arena and the transition of the team to the new surface. Here is the key passage which concerns the Red Bulls star Juan Pablo Angel and his concerns about artificial turf:

Angel, the team’s career leading scorer, has often complained about the artificial turf at Giants Stadium, which exacerbated his nagging back problems... “Everyone knows I’ve been the biggest critic, I never liked the turf,” he said.

Yes, Giants stadium has the new, modern turf. So it is not a matter of what fake grass it is, it is a matter of fake grass, full stop.

Juan Pablo Angel has been perhaps the most successful foreign star to join the MLS. While not a superstar, he was a successful striker in the English Premier League and could have signed a very lucrative contract with a team in that league when he decided to come to the MLS. He immediately became the most dangerous striker in the MLS (and he is all class to boot). So if he is dissatisfied with the turf, it suggests that other high quality players will balk at signing with a team that plays on turf.

Something else for the Timbers to think about...

MLS and Public Goods: Grass Fields

Okay, now that I have been all rah-rah about MLS in Portland, I think it is a good time to look back at the league's history and future. The summary is: it is mostly a big success story but there are some troubling signs on the horizon - most importantly the move away from natural grass playing surfaces.

The league started as a single ownership structure with 10 teams and only a couple of wealthy backers, most notably, Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt. Play was mostly in football stadiums and, truth be told, neither the play nor the atmosphere was very good. For a little while the future was uncertain, the expansion Miami Fusion folded, but the expansion Chicago Fire thrived. Losses were common, but Lamar Hunt's construction of Columbus Crew stadium was seen as a glimpse of the future: soccer specific stadia in which the team controlled all the revenue sources.

Slowly the league became established, more stadiums were built and new teams added, but the most important change was the number of new, deep-pocketed, investors in the league that diversified the league and sent a signal that it was here to stay. Now most existing teams are stable, many have their own soccer-specific stadium, and more stadia are in the works, and the league has solidified the broadcast rights and most games are now shown on TV.

A number of very important decisions were made along the way that facilitated the rise of the league in my opinion. The first was to scrap the silly rules that made MLS an international oddity, most notably the shoot-out that determined outcome in the case of ties. The second was a steadfast determination to get the game out of NFL stadiums and to keep it off of artificial turf. The atmosphere in big stadiums is awful (I know from my time in Denver), and the game on turf is horrible: the ball bounces and skids, and players are reluctant to tackle - a key part of the sport - and in stadiums with football, the gridiron mars the visual experience. All of which degrades the spectator sport badly.

This is where my concerns come in. Recently, in the interest of expansion, the league has gone away from the last two criteria. The Toronto franchise built a soccer specific stadium, but it has a turf field. And the Seattle franchise was allowed to play in Quest field and on turf. Vancouver will likely be awarded a franchise and will play in a NFL-style indoor stadium on turf. The degradation of the quality of the product for the spectator is deeply troubling. The Seattle decision is especially so. In the beginning MLS was seen as a good way for NFL owners to get some revenue out of their otherwise idle stadiums. But it has been a terrible failure: most teams that started in NFL stadiums have either folded, left (or are leaving) or are struggling to fill seats. Seattle may be an exception in the short-run, but the long run impact on the televised product of these reversals in decisions will be painful - especially as TV revenue is the key to the future.

So, should Portland get a franchise, I hope (pray) that Paulson puts in real grass. It is expensive to install and maintain. Apparently Chicago spent 1.7 million on a state-of-the-art natural grass field with heating and drainage compared to about $1 million for a new turf field. Maintenance is more costly for grass and there are concerns about durability. But Chicago is a stadium that hosts football and concerts in addition to soccer so if they can do it, surely Portland can too. I know it is a more expensive short-term option and may even be the individually rational long-term option, but turf is a bad option for the league as a whole. It is time for MLS to insist on grass again and the Timbers should too.

[Note, here is a consenting view, and one that makes another point: if MLS teams want to make money by hosting major international clubs, it is likely that those clubs will refuse to play on turf]