One of the main reasons for the conversion of playing fields from natural grass to artificial grass is cost effectiveness. Natural grass fields require a large amount of maintenance to keep in a good condition. This can seem like a futile expense when someone sees the state of the fields after the football season. The fields need to be watered, fertilized, weed sprayed, aerated, relayed and even completely resurfaced most of which also includes labor. All of this adds up especially when you consider how many grounds the council must manage. This is even more important from a water perspective especially since in Australia we have the ever-present threat of drought.
Artificial fields require a significant outlay for the initial construction but after that they barely require any maintenance whatsoever. The only maintenance that I have observed on the artificial fields is the occasional re-distribution of the rubber pellets and re-surfacing of the penalty spot. This then means that the artificial fields are long-term investments. It should mean that in the long run costs are significantly reduced. This is the main benefit of having artificial surfaces and is often the main justification for them.
I am 100% for them in this instance I do have concerns over it though. I am only for it if the cost of maintaining the fields is adjusted appropriately. Currently the council charges the association who then charges the clubs for the maintenance of the fields. Personally, I do not think this is right. The council would have to maintain the fields regardless if people were playing sport on them or not. Personally, I think that the clubs should only pay for the maintenance that I has to take place as a result of football occurring. Such as the relaying of turf. As I said before I am all for it, as long as the savings is passed on down through to the residents of area and/or the players.