Roger Goodell’s push to plant the NFL flag around the globe is in full flow. And this time it’s taking the Dolphins and Commanders to Madrid, inside Real Madrid’s gleaming, reimagined Santiago Bernabeu. It should’ve been a simple “look how far the league has come” moment. Instead, it lit up the familiar grass-vs-turf debate yet again.

Once people got a look at the Bernabeu’s setup, the automated mowers, a full irrigation network, LED growth lights, and an underground greenhouse system that stores the grass tray like it’s riding an elevator, former Chiefs quarterback Chase Daniel couldn’t help himself. He fired off what most players have been saying for years.

“Zero excuses for all NFL teams to have grass fields…just costs more 💵,” he wrote on X.

Well, this debate has been around forever, and players have made it clear which side they’re on. Grass is softer. It doesn’t catch cleats the way turf does. It’s simply safer. Every time a football player goes down on turf, the conversation flares up again.

Odell Beckham Jr.’s Super Bowl injury at SoFi. Dak Prescott’s broken ankle on the turf at AT&T Stadium. One after another. Owners, of course, look at the bottom line. Natural grass isn’t cheap. New sod runs anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000. And that’s before replacements, which can happen once or twice a year. Add in grow lights, heating systems, aeration, staff, fertilizer… you’re staring at another million annually.

Turf is the budget-friendly option over time. It costs more upfront, but it lasts three to five years with minimal maintenance. For owners, that math apparently matters more than player safety.

Ideally, every team would play on grass. Roughly half do. The other half insists turf is “good enough.” Jerry Jones leads that group and has said he’ll never switch AT&T Stadium to natural grass. America’s Team plays on plastic, and that’s not changing anytime soon.

This brings us back to Chase Daniel’s point: if Real Madrid can sink a billion dollars into a stadium with a world-class natural surface, why can’t the richest team in the world do even a fraction of that? The answer is simple; they don’t want to.

The grass vs. turf argument is just one of many simmering right now, especially after NFL owners tried to shut down the annual player report cards. And the NFLPA has hit back.

NFLPA stands up against the owners

NFL owners dislike the annual player report cards so much that they’ve now taken the nuclear route: they filed a grievance to try to shut the whole thing down. In August, the league’s management council sent a letter to the NFLPA arguing that the surveys violate a clause in the CBA. In other words, they want the report cards gone before they can embarrass anyone again.

But the NFLPA didn’t budge. In its reply, sent to players that same week, the NFLPA made it clear that after months of back-and-forth with the league, the plan remains unchanged. The survey is happening.

“We have responded to the grievance with our intention to fight against this action and continue what’s clearly become an effective tool for comparing workplace standards across the league and equipping you to make informed career decisions,” the NFLPA wrote in the letter sent to the players.

These report cards have turned into something teams can’t brush aside. They give players a platform to talk about things most fans never see. From the quality of training rooms, to how teams handle family travel, to whether the weight room has enough space for 53 grown men.

It’s not just complaining. It’s a snapshot of how teams treat the people who actually play the games. Owners clearly don’t love being graded, especially when some of those grades have been… harsh. But unless the league finds another angle, the surveys are staying. The NFLPA isn’t backing down, and this fight could stretch on for a while.