Executive Summary

The synthetic turf industry is filled with performance claims. What separates a credible claim from a marketing statement is one thing: independently verified, accredited, published test data. This article takes viewers inside Act Global’s testing process — explaining what is tested, who does the testing, what the results mean, and why this matters for every field owner, architect, and athlete who depends on a synthetic surface.

Act Global’s testing framework covers five categories of performance: ASTM safety testing, FIFA certification, World Rugby certification, NFL field performance, and environmental testing. Each category is conducted by ISO 17025-accredited independent laboratories — not Act Global’s own facilities

Key Testing Areas to Cover

ASTM Safety Testing

The American Society for Testing and Materials establishes the baseline safety standards for synthetic turf in North America. Key metrics include:

• Gmax (impact attenuation): Measures field hardness and resistance to impact. A Gmax value above 200 is generally considered unsafe; Act Global’s systems are tested and published against this threshold.
• HIC (Head Injury Criterion): Measures the risk of head injury from falls or contact with the surface. Modern Act Global systems with long fibers, infill, and shock-absorbing pads are tested for this parameter directly.
• Rotational Resistance: The most important safety metric for lower extremity injury risk. Measures how much resistance a surface applies when a cleat is twisted — too much resistance means cleats don’t release, transmitting torque to the knee and ankle.
• Vertical Deformation, Force Reduction, Energy Restitution: Each measures a distinct dimension of how the surface responds to athletic load.

FIFA Certification (Quality and Quality Pro)

FIFA’s testing program is among the most rigorous in the world. It covers ball roll, vertical ball rebound, angle ball rebound, force reduction, vertical deformation, energy restitution, and rotational resistance — all evaluated by FIFA-approved Research Institutes including Labosport and Sports Labs. Act Global has achieved FIFA certification on 300+ fields globally — a number that reflects manufacturing consistency at scale, not a single approved prototy

World Rugby Certification

World Rugby’s Preferred Turf Producer Programme applies some of the most demanding traction and durability standards in the industry. Act Global carries World Rugby certification — one of the fewer than 20 producers globally to do so.

NFL Field Performance Testing

NFL installations are tested to ASTM F1936 Gmax field standards across all zones of the field — not just at the center. The NFL’s injury research (Mack et al., 2019) identified rotational traction as the primary biomechanical mechanism for lower extremity injury, and NFL field performance testing is specifically designed to verify this parameter meets required thresholds.

Environmental Testing

Independent environmental testing covers heavy metals, PAHs, and PFAS migration from Act Global systems. Results are published transparently because environmental transparency is not optional for a company that builds fields where children play.

Who Does the Testing (and Why It Matters)

Act Global’s test reports carry authority because they are produced by the world’s most credible independent testing laboratories:

Firefly Sports Testing (Hooksett, NH): North America’s largest recreational surface testing firm. The only US-based lab with indigenous ISO/IEC 17025:2017 for both lab and field testing. Has tested Super Bowl fields and NFL stadiums. Tests over 1,000 surfaces annually.

Labosport (Global; France, UK, USA, Canada, China, Italy, Portugal): Global leader in sports surface testing since 1993. Official FIFA Research Institute since 2001. Developed the LISPORT wear testing system — the global standard for turf durability.

Sports Labs (Scotland/Nordic/International): FIFA-approved Research Institute, UKAS ISO 17025 accredited. Pioneered automated rotational resistance testing. Holds the broadest sports surface accreditation scope in the UK.

When these lab names appear on a test report, it signals something no competitor can manufacture: real, independent, accredited data from the labs that govern the global standards.

What Act Global Publishes vs. What It Protects

Act Global’s approach to transparency is deliberate. The company publishes all performance results — Gmax values, HIC scores, rotational resistance readings, FIFA pass/fail status, LISPORT durability outcomes, and environmental test results. It protects proprietary formulation data: fiber polymer composition, infill ratios, backing specifications, and manufacturing parameters. This balance, publish the proof or protect the recipe, is the foundation of the Test Report Center.

Act Global Perspective

Testing is not a marketing activity. It is an engineering discipline. At Act Global, independent test reports are our most valuable credibility asset  because they represent the only claim in this industry that no one can fabricate: actual numbers, from accredited labs, on real fields. When we say “Bringing Science to the Surface,” the test report center is the proof. Every score, every threshold, every pass/fail determination is published so that architects, engineers, and field owners can make decisions based on data not on sales pitches.

The NFL Players Association surveyed its membership of approximately 1,700 professional players and found that 92% prefer to play on high-quality natural grass, 6% are indifferent between surfaces, and only 2% prefer synthetic turf; a group composed predominantly of kickers. This is one of the most cited data points in the professional sports world on player surface preference, and it has reshaped the public conversation around synthetic turf safety at the highest levels of the game.

But what do these numbers actually tell us  and what do they leave out? That is the question this article addresses directly.

Key Findings to Address

🟢 92% player preference for grass is a preference metric, not an injury metric. It reflects how players feel on different surfaces, including chronic soreness, fatigue, and perceived injury risk.

🟢 The NFLPA’s own data showed that 82.4% of NFL players believe synthetic turf is more likely to contribute to injury, and 89.7% believe it is more likely to shorten their career.

🟢 1% of NFL players reported that synthetic turf causes more soreness and fatigue.

🟢 NFLPA President JC Tretter noted: “Turf has stayed relatively consistent at an injury rate over the last decade. Grass this year has its highest injury rate over the last decade, but it was still lower than the injury rate on turf.”

🟢 Of the 30 NFL stadiums in use, 15 use artificial turf and 15 use grass or hybrid grass. The league has no specific regulation on surface type.

🟢 The 2026 FIFA World Cup prompted seven NFL stadium operators to install grass fields temporarily, a fact the NFLPA highlighted as proof that permanent grass is operationally possible.

What the Survey Does NOT Tell Us

This is where expert interpretation matters most. The NFLPA survey is a preference and perception survey, not a controlled scientific study. It does not:

• Identify which generation, specification, or product of synthetic turf players experienced.
• Distinguish between well-maintained, independently tested turf and poorly maintained, aging fields.
• Control for cleat type, weather conditions, or field maintenance history.
• Indicate whether surface quality or surface category is the actual driver of outcomes.

The peer-reviewed literature on this question is more nuanced. The Mack et al. (2019) NFL study found approximately 16% higher lower extremity injury rates on synthetic turf vs. natural grass, and identified rotational traction, not material category, as the primary biomechanical mechanism. A 2023 systematic review of 53 studies by Gould et al. found overall injury rates broadly similar between surfaces. The scientific consensus is not that synthetic turf is inherently unsafe — it is that surface design specifics, maintenance, and lifecycle performance are the determining variables.

Why This Matters (By Audience)

Field owners and athletic directors: Player preference data matters. So does surface specification. The right question is not “turf or grass?” — it is “what specification, what maintenance protocol, and what independent testing standard?”

Architects and engineers: Rotational traction — the measurable safety variable the NFLPA data points toward, is a designable, testable parameter. It can be independently verified before and after installation.

Community and school decision-makers: A high-quality, independently tested synthetic field may offer more consistent, safe playable conditions than a poorly maintained natural grass field, particularly at the community level.

Act Global Perspective

At Act Global, we take the NFLPA survey seriously, because our players take it seriously. The frustration behind those numbers is real. What the survey confirms is not that synthetic turf is universally inferior, but that the industry has not consistently delivered turf systems designed and verified to meet professional-level performance standards. That gap is exactly what independently tested, FIFA and NFL-validated turf systems are designed to close. Surface quality, rotational traction management, infill specification, and lifecycle maintenance are the engineering variables that determine whether a synthetic surface earns player trust, or loses it