1Volume 4 Case Study 12IN SPORT MANAGEMENTCase STUDIE.docx

1
Volume 4 Case Study 12
IN SPORT MANAGEMENT
Case STUDIES
This content is copyright © 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc. and is
not to be distributed, disseminated, or reproduced without
permission.
Jason Simmons is with Sport Administration, University of
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. Nels Popp is with the Department
of
Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Greg Greenhalgh is with the
Center for
Sport Leadership, Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, Virginia. Address author correspondence to Jason
Simmons at
[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/cssm.2015-0009
Here’s the Pitch: The Dilemma of Selecting a New Outdoor
Playing Field for Sunshine State University
Jason Simmons
University of Cincinnati
Nels Popp
University of North Carolina
Greg Greenhalgh

Virginia Commonwealth University
The outdoor athletic fields of Sunshine State University are in
poor condition. Overuse, insufficient drain-
age, and a lack of human and financial resources have
contributed to the fields’ deterioration. Sunshine State
University’s director of athletics, Emily Rodriguez, has decided
to replace the existing fields, but that decision
is just the tip of the iceberg. Rodriguez now must decide on a
natural or synthetic surface for the new fields.
This decision is complex because cost, maintenance, durability,
player safety, and player preference must all
be considered. Both surfaces have their advantages and
disadvantages. In the end, Rodriguez must decide
which surface is right for Sunshine State University.
Keywords: facility management, decision making, natural grass,
synthetic turf, college athletics
As director of athletics at NCAA Division-II Sunshine State
University (SSU), Emily Rodriguez oversees facility
and event operations for a 14-sport athletic department. One of
Rodriguez’s most pressing concerns is the condition
of SSU’s outdoor athletic fields, which consistently garner
negative feedback from coaches, players, and fellow Gulf
Coast Athletic Conference (GCAC) administrators. The campus
currently has two natural grass fields, one for varsity
competition (with seating for roughly 1,500 spectators) and one
practice field, which is used by men’s and women’s
soccer (in-season fall), women’s lacrosse (in-season spring),
and outdoor men’s and women’s track and field (in-season
spring). In addition to varsity sports, the fields are used for
intramurals, club sports, SSU summer sports camps, and
youth tournaments. In total, the fields are used on 220 to 240
dates per year.

Both fields are experiencing overuse, which has worn away
much of the grass in certain spots, such as the area in
front of the goals. Sunshine State University’s maintenance
staff has limited human and financial resources, which has
contributed to the fields’ deterioration. The fields were not
designed with adequate drainage systems, so when it rains,
water pools in depressions in the surface for an extended period
of time after the storm passes. These depressions have
also made it difficult for Rodriguez’s coaches to schedule out-
of-conference games, as some opposing coaches have
expressed an unwillingness to play on the field. While the
GCAC has never suggested Rodriguez’s fields are unsuit-
able for conference games, the inability to attract prominent
out-of-conference opponents has significantly increased
the travel budgets for her outdoor teams. If that weren’t enough,
Rodriguez’s own coaches have also said the facilities
have hurt their ability to recruit top student-athletes.
mailto:[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/cssm.2015-0009
2 Simmons, Popp, and Greenhalgh
permission.
Rodriguez has been in consultation with administrators from
other schools and knows that a handful of SSU’s com-
petitors have transitioned to synthetic turf for their outdoor
fields. After pleading her case to university administration
about improving athletic facilities, the athletic department has
been approved for a 1-year capital improvement increase
of $350,000 from university funds to improve the outdoor
fields. In addition to that allotment, the athletic department

can generate additional dollars through private gifts,
sponsorship sales, and outside rentals.
Despite the fundraising challenges ahead, Rodriguez has made
the decision to replace both fields, but she is unsure
which direction to go: natural grass or synthetic turf. Brent
O’Toole, SSU’s director of grounds and landscape mainte-
nance, is a purist and prefers a natural surface; however, he has
insisted that if Rodriguez goes with natural grass, she
needs to invest in a sand-based field to address drainage and
compaction issues plaguing the existing fields. Sand-based
fields are a bit more expensive than those that incorporate
native soil.
In the past, SSU has issued requests for proposals (RFPs) for
capital projects, such as when the gymnasium roof needed
to be replaced and when permanent seating fixtures were added
to the baseball and softball stadiums. In each case, three to
five firms bid on the projects, with cost being the most
important factor. Money is tight in the department, but from her
own
research and conversations with colleagues at other institutions,
Rodriguez has learned that unlike other capital improvement
projects, cost is just one of many factors to consider when it
comes to turf replacement. Other issues Rodriguez has
encountered
include maintenance requirements, durability, player safety, and
coach/player preference. This is not a decision to be taken
lightly. The decision Rodriguez makes today will affect the
athletic department and campus for at least the next 10 to 15
years.
Costs
Rodriguez invited a turf specialist, Dave Acker, to campus to
examine the existing fields and help her estimate how

much it would cost to replace the competition field and the
practice field. The cheapest option would be to simply
replace the current fields with new grass on top of the existing
soil. Acker told her she could probably stay under an
installation cost of $200,000 going this route, but she would
likely run into the same problems she is facing now in the
not too distant future, as the existing soil has percolation and
drainage problems. The sand-based fields that O’Toole
recommended would cost roughly $700,000 to install, but they
drain at a significantly faster rate and should have fewer
compaction problems (Turfgrass Producers International, n.d.).
Acker is an advocate for synthetic fields, particularly for fields
receiving a lot of use. One of the biggest issues
that Director of Grounds and Landscape Maintenance O’Toole
has with maintaining the existing fields is that they are
constantly being utilized. Even in the summer, the soccer and
lacrosse teams hold youth camps and tournaments, and
practices start up in early August. The fields are given very
little time to recover, resulting in bare spots all over the
field. The installation costs for synthetic fields can be
substantial, and somewhat difficulty to determine. Rodriguez
spoke with representatives from several different synthetic turf
providers and the quotes she was given varied drastically,
with some only covering the cost of installation, and others
including the cost of maintenance and equipment as well.
A salesperson from DreamFields, Inc., gave Rodriguez an
installation estimate of $450,000 per playing field. Acker
felt the estimate was on the low end, noting a synthetic surface
would likely range from $600,000 to $1,000,000 for a
single field (Adamson, 2008; Simon, 2010; SportsTurf
Managers Association, n.d.a.). These latter numbers are more
in line with what Rodriguez heard from other synthetic turf
companies she contacted.
Rodriguez also consulted with Christian Goldberg, the athletic

director from fellow GCAC-member Eastern Florida
Shore University (EFSU), who recently made a similar decision
and opted for synthetic turf. For Goldberg, the constant use
and harsh summer and fall rains made the decision easy. He did
admit it was a more costly option, but an EFSU alum, who
has had a notable career in the NFL, made a sizeable donation
to the athletic department 3 years ago, offsetting the installation
costs. Eastern Florida Shore University installed Green 24/7’s
Pro-Series synthetic turf for $1,360,000 on both their football
and soccer/lacrosse fields. Green 24/7 does offer an Elite-Series
synthetic, but it costs just over $1,000,000 for a single field.
Maintenance
One thing Goldberg said that caught Rodriguez by surprise was
the maintenance costs associated with synthetic turf.
When she spoke to the DreamFields, Inc. salesperson, he made
it sound like maintenance on an artificial surface would
be minimal, especially when compared to a natural grass field.
Grass fields require mowing, fertilizing, weed and pest
Outdoor Playing Field Surface 3
permission.
control, seeding, aeration, watering, and line painting. O’Toole
and his crew are usually out working on the fields 4–5
days a week—maintenance that currently costs the department
$30,000–$35,000 per year. This figure includes only
maintenance supplies and equipment, not labor. The
Dreamfields representative suggested their product costs
approxi-

mately $5,000 per field to maintain annually. Goldberg said that
estimate was on the low side, as he is spending in the
neighborhood of $12,000 to $14,000 annually to maintain
EFSU’s new fields.
Goldberg’s numbers seemed fairly accurate to Acker,
Rodriguez’s turf specialist consulting on the project. Whereas
natural grass fields are like living organisms requiring regular
maintenance, synthetic surfaces must be maintained to
avoid unnecessary wear and tear. As Acker explained, third-
generation synthetic surfaces use a crumb rubber infill to
create a resilient surface that has a consistent feel across the
field (Synthetic Turf Council, n.d.). The infill can become
compacted with heavy use and the rubber granules can harden if
they mix with surrounding clay and dirt, something that
can occur after heavy winds and rain. To reduce compaction and
extend the life of the field, Acker recommends regular
grooming, which involves brushing the field to redistribute
compacted infill. For severely compacted fields, an aeration
tine may be necessary, in which high-pressure air is blasted into
the surface to loosen the rubber granules (Steinbach,
2014). Additional maintenance issues include periodically
adding additional infill, minor tear repairs, disinfecting the
field when it comes in contact with bodily fluids (i.e., blood),
removing foreign debris, and even watering the field on
extremely hot days to cool the playing surface (SportsTurf
Managers Association, n.d.b).
There will be some start-up equipment costs if Rodriguez opts
for a synthetic surface, expenses she would not
have if SSU continued with natural grass fields. O’Toole
already has a utility cart, but grooming and cleaning equip-
ment, as well a vacuum and field magnet to remove debris, will
likely run upwards of $5,000. Even though this is a
costly expense, Acker agrees with Goldberg that Rodriguez can
expect to trim the annual field maintenance budget by

roughly 50–60% going the synthetic route.
Durability
Aside from cost, surface durability is among Rodriguez’s chief
concerns. Despite O’Toole’s best efforts over the summer
months, the fields deteriorate very quickly once the fall
semester begins. According to O’Toole, poor drainage and
overuse are the primary culprits. One soccer game on a
drenched field is enough to cause significant damage (Miller,
2010). O’Toole estimates the fields logged 1,600 hr of use last
year. That is inclusive of games, practices, intramurals,
university events, and summer camps. Regardless of drainage
rates, Acker says any grass field is going to struggle to
hold up under those conditions, especially if the field is wet
(Miller, 2010).
Everything Rodriguez has read indicates a synthetic surface is
going to hold up much better under constant use
than natural grass (City of San Diego, 2011; FieldTurf, n.d.;
Simon, 2010; SportsTurf Managers Association, n.d.b;
Turfgrass Producers International, n.d.). The Synthetic Turf
Council (n.d.) states that artificial fields can withstand 3,000
hr of use each year no matter the weather conditions. It is for
this reason Acker is a proponent of synthetic fields. He
said most synthetic turf providers offer an 8- to 10-year
warranty. In his experience, most fields last that long, some
even longer, provided they are properly maintained.
The warranty was something Goldberg and EFSU’s legal team
went through thoroughly before settling on Green
24/7. Their warranty is for 8 years and only covers
manufacturing defects, installation-related issues, drainage, and
surface firmness. Any issues arising from weather, vandalism,
improper cleaning, improper maintenance, or improper
equipment are not covered and can actually void the warranty.

For example, Goldberg noted metal spikes or any cleat
longer than half an inch are not permitted on the field. The
grounds crew is also required to keep a maintenance log and
follow Green 24/7’s maintenance protocol for the life of the
warranty. Acker added that most synthetic turf warranties
also prohibit food, tobacco, cigarettes, and chewing gum from
being consumed on or near the field.
Rodriguez is somewhat familiar with the complex nature of
synthetic turf warranties. A few months ago, Rodriguez
met with Sturgis Winslow, the athletic director at Shoreline
Preparatory Academy, a local private high school. Shoreline
replaced their football field 4 years ago, opting for a synthetic
field installed by NeverMow, a discount turf provider.
Winslow said cost was the biggest factor in his decision to
choose NeverMow, as they were able to replace the field for
$300,000. The school raised funds through private gifts, and
sold naming rights to the field to a dental practice owned
by an alumnus. The field also came with a 15-year warranty.
4
permission.
After two full seasons of year-round use (football, boys and
girls soccer, track and field, and marching band),
Shoreline’s field began to show wear. The manufacturer
repaired a few minor tears and holes around the seams, but
over the last year, more seams are coming undone and the turf
blades in high traffic areas of the field are beginning to
deteriorate. Winslow sought a replacement field under the
warranty, but NeverMow said the warranty had been voided

when the golf team held practices on the field when the driving
range at their home course was being renovated in
the fall. Shoreline is challenging NeverMow’s claim in court,
but for the time being, the school’s field is in a state of
disrepair and Winslow is not confident he can secure another
half a million dollars in funding to replace the field with
an upgraded product.
Winslow told Rodriguez his biggest regret was focusing solely
on the financial side of the decision. Colleagues at
other schools warned him that low-end synthetic turf products
have a much shorter life than advertised. Durability and
drainage are two things he wished he had researched more. The
NeverMow field was never quite level, even shortly
after installation, and it held water in shallow pockets during
and after heavy rains. The two products Rodriguez is
considering, Dreamfields, Inc. and Green 24/7, both advertise
their fields will drain at a rate of 10 inches per hour,
which is consistent with the sand-based grass field estimate
Acker provided. Even so, any natural grass surface is going
to require weather-based restrictions and creative scheduling
and management solutions to ensure the longevity of the
fields, which is a challenge not present should Rodriguez opt
for a synthetic surface.
Player Safety
Upon hearing about the possibility of new athletic fields, SSU’s
head athletic trainer, Desiree Robinson, scheduled a
meeting to talk with Rodriguez about safety concerns she had
with artificial turf. Prior to coming to SSU, Robinson
worked for 4 years with a semi-pro soccer team who practiced
and played their home games exclusively on a synthetic
field. While there, she regularly treated ankle and knee injuries
that seemed to occur with more frequency at home than on
road matches played on natural grass. After the meeting,

Robinson emailed Rodriguez a study conducted by researchers
from Stanford University that found the rate of ACL injuries
among NCAA football players was significantly greater
on artificial turf than natural grass surfaces, with 90% of ACL
injuries in the sample occurring on third-generation infill
fields (Dragoo, Braun, & Harris, 2013). Concerns over player
safety were the impetus behind SSU administration’s
decision to increase the athletic department’s budget to replace
the existing fields; therefore, Rodriguez decided to
research this issue herself so she could make a more informed
decision.
She came across two studies indicating ankle injuries were more
common on artificial surfaces as opposed to grass
(Ekstrand, Hägglund, & Fuller, 2011; Williams, Hume, & Kara,
2011), and one from the American Journal of Sports
Medicine suggesting a correlation between concussions and
artificial surfaces, although the sample size was small
(Guskiewicz, Weaver, Padua, & Garrett, 2000). Another study
looked at knee and ankle injuries among NFL players
from 2000 to 2009, and found a significantly higher incidence
of ACL sprains and eversion ankle sprains on artificial
turf compared to natural grass (Hershman et al., 2012).
Conversely, Almutawa, Scott, George, and Drust (2014) found
injury rates were higher on grass than third-generation synthetic
surfaces among members of the Saudi National Foot-
ball (soccer) Team. By and large, however, most of the articles
that Rodriguez came across suggested essentially no
difference between artificial and natural grass surfaces in terms
of injury risk (Aoki et al., 2010; Ekstrand et al., 2011;
Fuller, Dick, Corlette, & Schmalz, 2007; Soligard, Bahr, &
Andersen, 2012; State of New York Department of Health,
2008; Williams et al., 2011).
Rodriguez asked Acker about the risk of injury associated with
the different surfaces, and he said it is really dif-

ficult to say definitively that one surface causes more injuries
than the other because or variations in shoe and cleat
type, player skill level, prior injury history, individual physical
characteristics, the presence of field moisture, and the
time in the game when the injury occurred (Balazs et al., 2014;
State of New York Department of Health, 2008). He did
say, though, that heat-related issues are a concern with synthetic
fields. In his experience, synthetic turf fields are much
hotter than natural grass fields because they absorb heat (State
of New York Department of Health, 2008; Turfgrass
Producers International, 2010). Acker recalled a study
conducted at the University of Missouri showing a 68-degree
surface temperature difference between synthetic and natural
surfaces. On a 98-degree day, the field-level tempera-
ture of the synthetic surface was 173 degrees, compared to 105
degrees on the natural grass field (Adamson, 2005).
permission.
A similar study was conducted at BYU where average surface
temperatures for synthetic fields were 117 degrees, 39
degrees warmer than the average natural grass surface
temperature (Williams & Pulley, 2002). Acker said that
watering
synthetic fields has been shown to reduce surface temperatures,
but the fields do begin to warm up again rather quickly
(Serensits, McNitt, & Petrunak, 2011).
In her research, Rodriguez also came across a few articles
discussing potentially hazardous effects of synthetic

surfaces caused by the chemicals used in tires, which are
recycled for use in crumb rubber infill fields. Tires contain a
host of metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) that could poten-
tially enter the body through skin abrasions or inhalation
(Simon, 2010). An NBC News story even drew an anecdotal
correlation between playing on artificial turf and cancer after a
University of Washington soccer coach identified 38
soccer players who had been diagnosed with cancer after
playing on artificial turf fields (Rappleye, 2014). Most of
what Rodriguez read, though, seems to suggest that while
carcinogens, metals, and VOCs are present in crumb rubber,
the health risks of playing on crumb rubber infill surfaces are
minimal (Beausoleil, Price, & Muller, 2009; California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2010;
Pavilonis, Weisel, Buckley, & Lioy, 2013; Simon, 2010). A
study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency did
find traces of metals and VOCs in a very limited sampling
of synthetic surfaces; however, the presence of components
analyzed were “below levels of concern” (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2009, p. vi).
There are alternative options to crumb rubber infill, but they
add to the overall cost of the project. One of Acker’s
previous clients went with a plastic infill substitute, and a few
others have opted for an organic infill material. Both
eliminate any risk posed by potentially hazardous chemicals
present in crumb rubber, but they do have drawbacks of
their own, most notably cost (Charwick, 2014). Acker estimates
a plastic infill will add $300,000 to the overall project
cost for both fields. The organic infill could be double that.
Preference
For the most part, student-athletes and coaches at SSU are in
favor of a synthetic field. The players love road games

at EFSU, citing how consistent the field plays compared to their
home surface and how “cool” the artificial field looks
with the EFSU logo in the middle. Even the coaches are
attracted to the aesthetic appeal of the artificial surface. The
lacrosse coach says a pristine artificial field will really help
with recruiting, as it will create a lasting impression in the
minds of prospective student-athletes. The women’s soccer
coach was more concerned with how the field plays. For
her, if intramurals are going to use the fields in addition to
athletics, the new fields need to be able to withstand the
constant use. Divots (torn-up pieces of turf) and uneven play
wreak havoc on a soccer game.
Rodriguez was surprised to learn that her student-athletes and
coaches felt this way. From what she read, it seems
players preferred a natural grass field. For example, a 2010
survey of National Football League players indicated
69.4% of players preferred playing on natural grass. Perhaps
more importantly, 82.4% of players felt an artificial turf
field was more likely to contribute to injuries, 89.1% said
playing on artificial fields led to more soreness and fatigue,
and 89.7% think artificial fields are more likely than natural
grass to shorten their careers (NFL Players Association,
2010). These perceptions are not limited to football players.
Elite soccer players have also expressed concerns over
playing on artificial turf (Andersson, Ekblom, & Krustrup,
2008; Geier, 2014). The University of Minnesota even had
to temporarily install sod on top of their synthetic football field
prior to an exhibition soccer game played by European
league champions at TCF Bank Stadium in 2014. The
cumulative effect of artificial turf on the legs of players over
the
course of a game was cited as the primary reason for installing
the natural surface (Sheild, 2014).
Conclusion

Emily Rodriguez has a tough decision to make. Sunshine State
University’s existing fields need to be replaced, but several
factors must be taken into consideration when deciding on the
new surface. The athletic department did receive a one-
time budget increase from the university to help pay for the
fields, and Rodriguez is confident another $150,000 can be
raised through fundraising efforts, but cost is still a concern—in
terms of both field installation and maintenance. At a
school like SSU, revenues will never outweigh expenses in this
decision. If finances were the only concern, Rodriguez’s
6 Simmons, Popp, and Greenhalgh
permission.
choice would be easy. A natural grass surface with native soil is
the cheapest option in the short term and the long term.
Unfortunately, as Rodriguez learned from Shoreline’s Athletic
Director Sturgis Winslow, making a decision like this
based solely on cost is probably not the best approach. Beyond
cost, Rodriguez must also consider how well the new
surfaces will hold up given the number of hours the fields will
be in use, as well as the maintenance considerations
necessary to extend the life of the fields. Player safety and
player preference must also factor into Rodriguez’s decision.
Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages to each surface.
Rodriguez has consulted with experts, sought advice
from peers, spoken with coaches and players, and conducted
research on her own. She has heard from representatives of
Green 24/7 and DreamFields, Inc., as well as her own director
of grounds, who has suggested sticking with natural grass,

but with a new subterranean base and drainage system installed.
Now she must decide: natural grass or synthetic turf?
Discussion Questions
1. Make a list of all the factors Rodriguez needs to consider in
this case. Which of these factors are the most important
for an NCAA Division-II athletic department? Why?
2. Would it be beneficial for Rodriguez to hold a meeting with
current stakeholders to gather their input on this
decision? What are the benefits and drawbacks of holding such
a meeting? Who should be invited to this meeting?
What case would each of those individuals make? Do certain
perspectives carry more weight than others? Why?
3. If Rodriguez opts for natural grass, what strategies could she
employ to reduce the wear and tear on the field, aside
from limiting the number of hours the field is in use?
4. Conduct a 10-year cost–benefit analysis for the fields. In
your analysis, be sure to include installation costs,
annual maintenance costs, and equipment costs. Which surface
provides a better long-term value from a financial
perspective? Conduct a 20-year cost–benefit analysis. Assume
costs remain the same, but you must now account
for a replacement synthetic field after 10 years. Which surface
provides a better financial value after 20 years?
5. What additional information would Rodriguez want/need
prior to making this decision?
6. What surface should Rodriguez choose to install at SSU?
What are the two most significant factors that contributed
to your decision? Once a surface is selected, decide on a
specific product. Justify your selection, both for the surface

and product choices.
References
Adamson, C. (2005). Synthetic turf playing fields present
unique dangers. Retrieved from
http://cafnr.missouri.edu/research/turfgrass.
php
Adamson, C. (2008). Synthetic turfgrass costs far exceed
natural grass playing fields. Retrieved from
http://cafnr.missouri.edu/
research/turfgrass-costs.php
Almutawa, M., Scott, M., George, K.P., & Drust, B. (2014). The
incidence and nature of injuries sustained on grass and 3rd
genera-
tion artificial turf: A pilot study in elite Saudi National Team
footballers. Physical Therapy in Sport, 15(1), 47–52.
Andersson, H., Ekblom, B., & Krustrup, P. (2008). Elite
football on artificial turf versus natural grass: Movement
patterns, technical
standards, and player impressions. Journal of Sports Sciences,
26(2), 113–122.
Aoki, H., Terushige, K., Fujiya, H., Kato, H., Yatabe, K.,
Morikawa, T., & Seki, J. (2010). Incidence of injury among
adolescent
soccer players: A comparative study of artificial and natural
grass turfs. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 20(1), 1–7.
Balazs, G.C., Pavey, G.J., Brelin, A.M., Pickett, A., Keblish,
D.J., & Rue, J.P.H. (2014). Risk of anterior cruciate ligament
injury in athletes
on synthetic playing surfaces: A systematic review. The

American Journal of Sports Medicine.
doi:10.1177/0363546514545864
Beausoleil, M., Price, K., & Muller, C. (2009, June). Chemicals
in outdoor artificial turf: A health risk for users. Retrieved from
http://www.ncceh.ca/sites/default/files/Outdoor_Artificial_Turf.
pdf
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
(2010, October). Safety study of artificial turf containing crumb
rubber
infill made from recycled tires: Measurements of chemicals and
particulates in the air, bacteria in the turf, and skin abrasions
caused by contact with the surface. Retrieved from
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/Tires/201
0009.pdf
City of San Diego. (2011). Guidelines on the use of synthetic
turf within the city park system. Retrieved from
http://www.sandiego.
gov/park-and-
recreation/pdf/parkdesign/11syntheticturfuseguidelinesreport.pd
f
http://cafnr.missouri.edu/research/turfgrass.php
http://cafnr.missouri.edu/research/turfgrass.php
http://cafnr.missouri.edu/research/turfgrass-costs.php
http://cafnr.missouri.edu/research/turfgrass-costs.php
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546514545864
http://www.ncceh.ca/sites/default/files/Outdoor_Artificial_Turf.
pdf
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/Tires/201
0009.pdf
http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-
f

http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-
f
permission.
Charwick, J. (2014, December 4). Marlborough turf study.
Retrieved from http://marlborough.wickedlocal.com/assets/pdf/
WL265181224.pdf
Dragoo, J.L., Braun, H.J., & Harris, A.H.S. (2013). The effect
of playing surface on the incidence of ACL injuries in National
Col-
legiate Athletic Association American football. The Knee,
20(3), 191–195.
Ekstrand, J., Hägglund, M., & Fuller, C.W. (2011). Comparison
of injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass by male and
female
elite football players. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Science in Sports, 21(6), 824–832.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, November). A
scoping-level field monitoring study of synthetic turf fields and
playgrounds.
Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/nerl/download_files/documents/tire_crumbs
.pdf
FieldTurf. (n.d.). Turf talk: Cost comparison (vol. 4). Retrieved
from http://www.fieldturf.com/ru/artificial-

turf/downloads?page=2
Fuller, C.W., Dick, R.W., Corlette, J., & Schmalz, R. (2007).
Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries
sustained
on grass and new generation artificial turf by male and female
football players. Part 1: match injuries. British Journal of
Sports
Medicine, 41(Suppl. 1), i20–i26.
Geier, D. (2014, October). Suit filed against FIFA over
Women’s World Cup turf. Retrieved from
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/
more-news/soccer-players-file-lawsuit-against-fifa-over-
women-s-world-cup-turf.html
Guskiewicz, K.M., Weaver, N.L., Padua, D.A., & Garrett, D.A.
(2000). Epidemiology of concussion in collegiate and high
school
football players. The American Journal of Sports Medicine,
28(5), 643–650.
Hershman, E.B., Anderson, R., Bergfeld, J.A., Bradley, J.P.,
Coughlin, M.J., Johnson, R.J., . . . Powell, J.W. (2012). An
analysis of
specific lower extremity injury rates on grass and FieldTurf
playing surfaces in National Football League game. The
American
Journal of Sports Medicine, 40(10), 2200–2205.
Miller, G. (2010, March 3). Maximizing the durability of
athletic fields. Retrieved from
http://turffiles.ncsu.edu/PDFFiles/005037/
AG-726_Maximizing_the_Durability_of_Athletic_Fields.pdf
NFL Players Association (2010). 2010 NFL players playing

surfaces opinion survey. Retrieved from
http://www.stma.org/sites/
stma/files/pdfs/2010_NFL_Survey.pdf
Pavilonis, B.T., Weisel, C.P., Buckley, B., Lioy, P.J. (2014).
Bioaccessibility and risk exposure to metals and SVOCs in
artificial turf
field fill materials and fibers. Risk Analysis, 34(1), 44–55.
Rappleye, H. (2014, October 8). How safe is the artificial turf
your child plays on? NBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.
com/news/investigations/how-safe-artificial-turf-your-child-
plays-n220166
Serensits, T.J., McNitt, A.S., & Petrunak, D.M. (2011). Human
health issues on synthetic turf in the USA. Proceedings of the
Institu-
tion of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports
Engineering and Technology, 225(3), 139–146.
Sheild, R. (2014, July). TCF Bank Stadium switches to grass for
soccer match. Athletic Business. Retrieved from http://www.
athleticbusiness.com/sports-media/tcf-bank-stadium-switches-
to-grass-for-soccer-match.html
Simon, R. (2010, February). Review of the impacts of crumb
rubber in artificial turf applications. University of California,
Berke-
ley, Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability. Retrieved
from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/
resource/resmgr/docs/manex-uc_berkeley_crumb_rubb.pdf
Soligard, T., Bahr, R., & Andersen, T. E. (2010). Injury risk on
artificial turf and grass in youth tournament football.
Scandinavian

Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 22(3), 356–361.
Sportsturf Managers Association. (n.d.a). A guide to synthetic
and natural turfgrass for sports fields. Retrieved from
http://www.
stma.org/natural-grass-resources
Sportsturf Managers Association. (n.d.b). Natural grass athletic
fields. Retrieved from http://www.stma.org/natural-grass-
resources
State of New York Department of Health. (2008, August). Fact
sheet: Crumb-rubber infilled synthetic turf athletic fields.
Retrieved
from
https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_tu
rf/crumb-rubber_infilled/fact_sheet.htm
Steinbach, P. (2014). Regular maintenance ensures synthetic
turf performance. Athletic Business. Retrieved from
http://www.
athleticbusiness.com/outdoor/regular-maintenance-ensures-
synthetic-turf-performance.html
Synthetic Turf Council. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions.
Retrieved from
http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/?page=FAQs
Turfgrass Producers International. (n.d.). Natural grass and
artificial turf: Separating myths and facts. Retrieved from
http://
turfgrasssod.org/pages/resources/natural-grass-vs-artificial-turf-
information/?professional-resources
Turfgrass Producers International. (2010, August). For artificial
turf: The heat is on! Retrieved from
http://www.turfgrasssod.org/

pages/professional-resources/artificial-turf-heat-issues
Williams, S., Hume, P.A., & Kara, S. (2011). A review of
football injuries on third and fourth generation artificial turfs
compared
with natural grass. Sports Medicine, 41(11), 903–923.
Williams, C.F. & Pulley, G.E. (2002). Synthetic surface heat
studies. Retrieved from
http://www.turfgrasssod.org/pages/professional-
resources/artificial-turf-heat-issues
http://marlborough.wickedlocal.com/assets/pdf/WL265181224.p
df
http://marlborough.wickedlocal.com/assets/pdf/WL265181224.p
df
http://www.epa.gov/nerl/download_files/documents/tire_crumbs
.pdf
http://www.fieldturf.com/ru/artificial-turf/downloads?page=2
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/more-news/soccer-players-file-
lawsuit-against-fifa-over-women-s-world-cup-turf.html
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/more-news/soccer-players-file-
lawsuit-against-fifa-over-women-s-world-cup-turf.html
http://turffiles.ncsu.edu/PDFFiles/005037/AG-
726_Maximizing_the_Durability_of_Athletic_Fields.pdf
http://turffiles.ncsu.edu/PDFFiles/005037/AG-
726_Maximizing_the_Durability_of_Athletic_Fields.pdf
http://www.stma.org/sites/stma/files/pdfs/2010_NFL_Survey.pd
f
http://www.stma.org/sites/stma/files/pdfs/2010_NFL_Survey.pd
f
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/how-safe-
artificial-turf-your-child-plays-n220166
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/how-safe-
artificial-turf-your-child-plays-n220166
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/sports-media/tcf-bank-

stadium-switches-to-grass-for-soccer-match.html
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/sports-media/tcf-bank-
stadium-switches-to-grass-for-soccer-match.html
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/resource
/resmgr/docs/manex-uc_berkeley_crumb_rubb.pdf
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/resource
/resmgr/docs/manex-uc_berkeley_crumb_rubb.pdf
http://www.stma.org/natural-grass-resources
https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_tu
rf/crumb-rubber_infilled/fact_sheet.htm
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/outdoor/regular-maintenance-
ensures-synthetic-turf-performance.html
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/outdoor/regular-maintenance-
ensures-synthetic-turf-performance.html
http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/?page=FAQs
http://turfgrasssod.org/pages/resources/natural-grass-vs-
artificial-turf-information/?professional-resources
http://turfgrasssod.org/pages/resources/natural-grass-vs-
artificial-turf-information/?professional-resources

1Volume 4 Case Study 12IN SPORT MANAGEMENTCase STUDIE.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from felicidaddinwoodie

More from felicidaddinwoodie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1Volume 4 Case Study 12IN SPORT MANAGEMENTCase STUDIE.docx