Artificial soccer pitches were absolutely horrible 30 years ago. They were based on concrete. But today is the picture completely different. The technology is superb. The newer pitches the better.
In Norway we still have snow. Here at the coast is the snow melting, but snowfall have earlier occurred as late as 17th of May (our National Day). The skiing season in the mountains ends in May. But there is high risk of avalanches, even now in April. My point is that soccer is not suitable in early March nor late November on natural grass pitches. The grass hasn't gotten fully green yet. The National Arena in Oslo (Ullevål Stadion) looks awful. Everybody knows that soccer is a summer sport. It's just the way it is.
The top soccer league in Norway (Eliteserien) had 12 teams when I grew up. The league was later extended to 14 teams. And last year we reached 16 teams in the top division. This means that the season starts in early March and ends in late November. The change give the teams greater matching. Artificial grass pitches is obviously the best solution. But there has been great resistance: "Soccer is meant to be played on grass". And it has been believed that players will get more injured, but this idea is not supported by science.
Today, several clubs have artificial grass pitches. And today it has been finally decided that our National Arena is going to get artificial grass (it's not an Aprils fool). Manchester United has been playing on the newest pitch in an indoor arena near Oslo. They, among others, think the ground is fantastic! Who are the resisters in general actually trying to convince? If Manchester United thinks Telenor Arena is fantastic, which team can not play great football on artificial grass pitches then?
Answer suggestion:
Only the morons.
