Executive Summary

Most turf-versus-grass research focuses on injury. This 2019 study, published in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance by a research team spanning Tunisia, Germany, France, and the UK, focused instead on athletic performance and physiological response, specifically, how playing surface affects a player’s ability to sustain repeated sprints, and what’s happening in the body while that’s occurring.

Nine male professional football players from the same regional team completed two sessions of a repeated-sprint ability (RSA) test, six 30-second maximal sprint efforts separated by short recovery periods, once on natural grass and once on artificial turf, in randomized order.

Key Findings

Performance declined across repeated sprints on both surfaces (as expected with fatigue), but the drop-off was smaller on artificial turf — an 11% decline versus a 15% decline on natural grass.
Total distance covered during the test was 6% higher on artificial turf than on natural grass, a statistically significant difference.
Players reported lower perceived exertion (RPE) on artificial turf for the same test, meaning the same physical effort felt less demanding on turf.
Blood biomarkers told a consistent story: blood lactate and specific immune markers (neutrophils, lymphocytes) were lower following the turf sessions, suggesting a comparatively lower physiological stress response for the same test.

Important Limitations

This is a very small study, 9 players from a single regional team. Small sample sizes limit how confidently these results generalize to other athletes, playing levels, or turf/grass field conditions.
The broader research literature on this exact question is genuinely mixed, not settled. Other studies have found no significant sprint-speed difference between surfaces, some have found grass fields (particularly higher-quality ones) associated with greater covered distance, and systematic reviews note real heterogeneity in results depending on the specific fields, athletes, and protocols studied. We think it’s important to say plainly that this single study should be read as one data point in an unresolved area, not a definitive answer.
Specific field and turf system characteristics weren’t standardized or reported in detail, surface hardness, infill type, and grass condition can all independently affect performance and fatigue markers, and this study doesn’t isolate which specific mechanical properties drove the difference.
The study measured a single testing protocol on a single occasion per surface, it doesn’t address performance over a full season or repeated exposure.

Why This Matters

For coaches and performance staff, fatigue resistance and perceived exertion are practical, day-to-day concerns, how hard does a session feel, and how much can an athlete sustain before performance drops off. This study’s findings are a genuinely interesting, favorable data point for well-built turf systems on those specific measures. But given the small sample and the genuinely mixed broader literature on sprint performance by surface, we don’t think this single study should be oversold as proof that turf universally improves sprint performance, it’s one useful piece of a still-developing picture.

Act Global Perspective

We think this study is worth including precisely because it looks at performance and physiological response rather than injury, a less-covered angle in the public conversation about turf. The lower perceived exertion and biomarker findings are a genuinely interesting signal about how a well-engineered surface might reduce cumulative physical stress during high-intensity efforts. At the same time, we’re not going to present a 9-player study as a settled fact, this is exactly the kind of finding we’d want to see replicated in larger cohorts before treating it as a core performance claim.

Related Resources

Access the Original Study

This review is Act Global’s independent summary of publicly available peer-reviewed research, prepared for educational purposes. Act Global does not host or reproduce the original article. Read the full study directly from the publisher:

Ammar A, Bailey SJ, Hammouda O, Trabelsi K, Merzigui N, El Abed K, Driss T, Hökelmann A, Ayadi F, Chtourou H, Gharbi A, Turki M. “Effects of Playing Surface on Physical, Physiological, and Perceptual Responses to a Repeated-Sprint Ability Test: Natural Grass Versus Artificial Turf.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(9):1219–1226, 2019. DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0766

This is an Act Global Research Review, an independent interpretation of publicly available peer-reviewed research prepared for educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical, legal, or engineering advice.

Vincent Garcia

Sprint Performance: Turf vs. Grass Study | Act Global