The debate about the use of synthetic pitches in Brazilian football heated up again this Thursday (11). After the Palm trees and four more clubs issue a joint statement in defense of the artificial fieldo Flemish made a publication pointing out what he understands to be “fact” and “fake” in this discussion.
“GRASS OR PLASTIC? Flamengo clarifies, with data and studies, what is FACT and what is FAKE about the use of plastic grass in football”, published Rubro-Negro on its Instagram account – see the post at the end of the article.
O ‘fact 1’ pointed out by Flamengo is the protocol, with the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF), of a suggestion “of more than 20 pageswith evaluation methodology, technical parameters, recommendations for structural improvements for the gradual evolution of Brazilian lawns from 2026 to 2029”.
Already the ‘fake 1’ quoted by the club is that Rubro-Negro would have made a proposal that only deals with removing the plastic lawns, without improving the natural lawns. See the other points raised by Flamengo below.
“Fact 2: Flamengo suggests a gradual process of replacing synthetic pitches with natural or hybrid pitches over 2 years for Series A and 3 years for Series B; Fake 2: Flamengo’s proposal wants an immediate change that economically harms clubs that have synthetic pitches.”
Before presenting the third point, the publication made by Flamengo also says: “If it’s going to hurt badly, the ball could be made of iron”.
“Fact 3: most studies have strong indications that synthetic turf increases the risk of more serious injuries, such as torn ligaments and knee sprains – due to the greater traction and impact on the athlete’s body; Fake 3: denying the risks of synthetic grass ignores the evidence – studies identify microplastics, PFAS and other toxic substances (benzene, phthalates, heavy metals) in synthetic grass, in addition to offering a greater risk of injury to athletes.”
When presenting the fourth point, Flamengo publishes a montage that shows a goalkeeper lying on the Allianz Parque lawn and surrounded by plastic waste.
“Fact 4: The vast majority of athletes demonstrated against the synthetic turf, even those from clubs that have this surface in particular, the prominent players; Fake 4: athletes do not feel the physical and sporting impacts of playing on an unnatural sports surface.”
Flamengo continues to list the points it considers ‘fact’ and ‘fake’: “If we want the best, we don’t play artificially.
“Fact 5: synthetic surfaces HEAT much more than natural grass (up to +30°C in some cases and above 60°C in strong sunlight), increasing the risk of heatstroke, extreme tiredness and burns due to friction; Fake 5: Flamengo does not care about the health of the athletes and refereeing team who work on synthetic grass, in addition to denying chemical risks and evidence such as studies that identify microplastics, PFAS and other substances in synthetic grass, with potential health impacts.”
To conclude, Rubro-Negro writes that “where football is big, the grass is real”presenting his last two points in the debate.
“Fact 6: the main elite leagues (England, Spain, Germany, etc.) require natural grass in the 1st division and the EU has already decided to ban plastic infil (microplastic) on these pitches by 2031, reflecting a global trend of restriction; Fake 6: saying that ‘high level players love synthetic’ is incorrect. In fact, many elite athletes avoid playing on synthetic turf, with recent movements in Brazil calling for its ban by professional football.”
