Why are some World Cup 2026 pitches, including the final venue, drawing such heavy criticism from players and coaches?

The condition of some World Cup pitches is already drawing significant criticism from players and coaches, according to French newspaper "L'Équipe." The problem lies with stadiums primarily designed for American football. These venues are forced to replace their artificial turf with natural or hybrid surfaces, but the results have been mixed.

“I don't even know if we can call it a pitch; it looks more like quite hard and stiff synthetic turf,” said France midfielder Adrien Rabiot after Les Bleus' 3-1 victory over Senegal on Tuesday at MetLife Stadium. The stadium, located in East Rutherford, just a few kilometers from New York, is hosting numerous tournament matches, including the final scheduled for July 19.

“The grass dries out quickly, and the game becomes very slow,” complained Brazilian star Vinicius Junior three days earlier after his team's 1-1 draw with Morocco on the same pitch. Three hundred and fifty kilometers north, in Foxborough, on the outskirts of Boston, the local stadium also faced criticism. Scandinavian coach Ståle Solbakken described the pitch in the same condition after Norway's 4-1 victory over Iraq on Tuesday: “The pitch was very dry; the ball almost stuck to the grass.”

Although FIFA quickly tried to quell the controversy, assuring that “the pitches at all 16 World Cup stadiums remain in excellent condition, both from a playing perspective and for player safety,” installing these surfaces has proven to be a colossal headache. Designed for American football, 8 of the 16 stadiums had to replace their artificial turf with natural or hybrid grass to meet FIFA's requirements.

Several different suppliers were engaged for this purpose, including the French multinational company Tarkett, which undertook the pitch replacements at stadiums in Seattle, Atlanta, and Foxborough. “Each of them is covered with Grassmaster turf, similar to that used by the French national team in Clairefontaine. It consists of over 95% natural grass, into which millions of synthetic fibers are injected to reinforce the root system,” the company explained via email before the tournament began.

This technology is supposed to provide “exceptional surface stability and consistent playing quality, regardless of weather conditions.”

The problem is that some stadiums, like the one in New York/New Jersey, are not entirely suited for natural grass surfaces. In a stadium with permanent grass, the pitch lies on natural soil, allowing roots to anchor deeply and permanently. In New York, however, everything is laid out on a concrete slab, on top of which layers of sand, irrigation systems, and finally, the hybrid grass are placed.

This difference was also noted by French coach Didier Deschamps after his team's first match. “The fact that there's a concrete slab underneath means the grass fibers are very short. The bounce is different, and the surface changes depending on the watering,” he said. Weather and irrigation are among the other challenges in maintaining these pitches, as the competition is held in 16 cities across three countries with sometimes radically different climatic conditions and sunlight levels.

While some covered facilities, like the stadium in Atlanta, can control temperature and humidity thanks to their climate control systems, this is not the case for the aforementioned MetLife Stadium in New York/New Jersey and Foxborough, which are exposed to the whims of the weather in the northeastern USA. These are all issues that FIFA and its specialized suppliers will try to rectify as soon as possible, to prevent the pitches from becoming the main talking point of a World Cup that is already facing criticism of all kinds.