Inside Football's Biggest Tournament This Summer: What Managing Three World Cup Pitches Taught Us"

Sep 3

7 min read

Three Elite Pitches, Three Cities, Three Completely Different Conditions

Ethan Reed, Reece Watson, Eddy van Endert during World Cup

Raw Stadia were engaged to help manage and maintain three venues at this year's tournament, looking after three indoor stadiums in Dallas, Houston and Los Angeles. The challenge was to deliver optimum pitch quality within an indoor environment, across eight to nine matches per venue, within four weeks of football.

We had a practice run the year before, when we were invited to maintain the pitch at the SoFi Stadium for the CONCACAF Gold Cup finals in May 2025. This allowed us to test the pitch construction specifications we planned to use and to run the maintenance team and equipment on site under real conditions. The pitch performed excellently, and we came away with key learnings to build on.

This project was led by Chris Carnahan, now with pitch construction company Precision Turf. It was my first time working on a full construction project with a solely US-based company, and I was wholly impressed by the professionalism, level of detail, and desire to deliver the highest standard at every stage, even though it was a temporary construction intended to last only eight weeks. Chris also brought on board Wayne Billing to manage the pitch in Los Angeles. I have known Wayne for a long time, having worked for north London rivals at the same time, and while I have always had a great respect for what he has achieved, his work ethic and drive for optimum standards are extraordinary. Wayne and Chris rarely take credit for what they do, but I can assure you, they are two of the best in the industry and an absolute pleasure to work with.

The Teams

To support the maintenance work in Los Angeles, we brought in a team of international grounds professionals to work alongside Chris Chang's SoFi Team: Rhys from Wales, Andy and Tony from the UK, Luuk from the Netherlands, Mo from Japan, and Dan from Austria. It was a brilliant mix of personalities that brought not only the highest level of expertise to the project, but great energy throughout.

For Dallas and Houston, we reached out to our customer base to find professionals who could commit to an eight- to nine-week placement. We brought in Eddy from KRC Genk, one of the most forward-thinking Grounds Managers in Belgium, and Ethan, one of the best up-and-coming Pitch Performance managers in the Premier League. Eddy worked alongside the brilliant Eric from Precision Turf, whose shared level of detail was a perfect match, as was, somewhat unexpectedly, their mutual love for NASCAR. Ethan was paired with Shane from Precision Turf and the very experienced Dan from Houston Dynamo.

How We Measured

At all three venues, the pitches were performance tested daily using the Raw Stadia equipment and platform. This allowed us to manage the surface using objective data day-to-day, monitor trends throughout the tournament across all three venues, and compare results with the previous year.

The RAA (Raw Artificial Athlete) was used daily to track firmness and energy return. The RTT (Rotational Traction Tester) was used every three days to track optimal boot selection, slipping risk, and grip levels. The density scanner was used every two days to track density between matches, and the moisture probe was used daily to guide irrigation decisions. pH, root depth, and infiltration were also measured throughout the tournament to allow direct comparison between venues.

During the tournament, we provided weekly reports from the Raw Stadia performance testing and logged all maintenance on the calendar so we could track differences between venues. All reports were shared with the grounds teams, venue management, and tournament organisers.

World Cup The Pitches

All fields were built to specification. Even though the venues were indoors, all three had a SubAir system, a Permavoid drainage layer, an upper root zone layer and a full irrigation system. In Dallas and Houston, the fields were turfed (sod on plastic) and stitched using GrassMax. In Los Angeles, a Hybrid Turf (Hero) system was used. In Dallas, the Toro TS90 system was installed so the pitch could be irrigated underneath the lighting system, which was suspended from the roof.

We visited the turf farms six weeks before installation, which I am very glad we did. For Dallas and Houston, we had to reject one pitch due to a disease outbreak at the farm. Two alternatives were available, and we switched to those, although they also showed some signs of disease. With adjustments to the maintenance programme, we were confident they would recover on time. They did.

The temporary pitches were installed four weeks before the tournament to allow time for advertising boards and surrounding infrastructure to be put in place.

Dallas

My first stop was Dallas to meet Eric and his team, including the two young Aidans. The Cowboys Stadium is extraordinary. Everything looks brand new, and the quality of the temporary construction, right down to the edges, was flawless. You would not have known you were half a meter above the usual field level.

The lighting system was particularly impressive, suspended from the roof so all maintenance operations could be carried out without moving any equipment. The lights are fixed in position, which means side-to-side adjustment for even light distribution is not possible, but that was genuinely the only thing I could find to criticise. After a few days of handover with Eddy, I drove south to Houston.

Huston

Houston was similar to Dallas in setup but felt more enclosed and presented a harder-growing environment. With 12 lighting units on wheeled bases, this was always going to be the greater test. Inside, air conditioning kept the venue at around 18 degrees Celsius. Step outside and you immediately feel the difference: 40 degrees and intense. After a few days with Ethan and the team, I flew into Los Angeles.

Los Angeles

This is, without question, my favourite venue in the world. Although it is enclosed, the sides are partially open, which allows airflow, and the glass roof is transparent, letting through a good level of natural light, which was then enhanced by nine lighting rigs during the tournament. By the time I arrived, the pitch had already been down for a few weeks, and the team had made an exceptional start.

Key Findings

What struck me most is that even though all three venues were indoors and built to a similar specification, they performed completely differently and required completely different management approaches. This is precisely why measuring, monitoring, and comparing is so important. You cannot assume a shared specification will deliver a shared result.

Firmness and Aeration

Dallas and Houston started very soft, dropping further after stitching to readings in the mid-50s. Firmness gradually increased over the following weeks without any need to aerate. Houston, however, chose to aerate during this period, which caused firmness to drop significantly, requiring additional rolling to return to the optimum range.

Los Angeles was the opposite. The pitch started firm and had to be aerated weekly, sometimes twice weekly, to remain within range. We also noticed that as the ProCore tines wore across the surface, firmness increased at the leading edge. To manage this, we alternated the starting points for each pass to even out the distribution.

The opening ceremony in Los Angeles presented one of the bigger challenges. Rehearsals and the show itself, with vehicles moving repeatedly through the same corners and hundreds of people walking and dancing on the surface tool a real toll. RAA tests before and after allowed us to map exactly where the traffic had been. It took around a week to rectify.

What was particularly interesting is that deformation, our measure of player comfort, remained optimal in Los Angeles throughout, and at times exceeded readings at Dallas and Houston, which were widely regarded as the softer pitches. Los Angeles was actually the most comfortable surface to play on, and also delivered the highest energy return.

Moisture

Moisture management proved to be one of the most significant differences between venues. Dallas averaged around 18%, reflecting a well-managed surface with irrigation decisions driven consistently by data. Houston averaged around 26%, with irrigation cycles well above the other two venues.

Los Angeles was the most challenging, averaging 28% despite receiving the least irrigation of the three venues. The team spent considerable time hand-watering specific areas to avoid triggering full irrigation cycles, which would have raised moisture levels significantly across the entire surface. The issue appeared to be a high level of organic material and variation in particle distribution in the root zone, which retained moisture for a longer time. This became increasingly difficult given the frequency of matches and the need to water the leaf between games. The team did an exceptional job of using the data to adapt their approach day by day.

Density

Density levels performed as expected across all three venues. The most significant drops occurred after match day four, with goal areas and warm-up zones showing stress first, followed by corners and pitched edges, which were heavily impacted by the volume of activity on match days. Rehearsals and shows had relatively little impact on overall density, with only the entrance corners showing notable change.

Importantly, no venue dropped below 96% turf density at any point during the tournament.

Traction and Boot Selection

Traction varied noticeably between the hybrid stitched pitches in Dallas and Houston and the carpet pitch in Los Angeles. The carpet surface produced significantly lower traction, which we believe is related to the lower amount of synthetic fibre exposed at the surface compared to the stitched venues. At the stitched venues, traction readings were at the high end of the optimum range, which carries meaningful risk of ACL strain if the wrong boot type is selected. In practice, this meant that boot selection advice differed across all three venues, even though all three were classified as hybrid surfaces.

We predicted that slipping risk would peak at match four in Los Angeles. That is exactly what happened. Using Stud Depth, a measurement exclusive to the RTT from Raw Stadia, we recorded a significant decrease at that point in the tournament. Had players been wearing inappropriate footwear, the risk of slipping would have increased substantially. We believe the most likely cause was an increase in moisture within the higher organic layer, which reduced the ability of studs to penetrate the soil effectively.

Closing Thoughts

All three venues adapted their maintenance programmes continuously to stay within optimum performance bands, learning quickly how to respond to environments none of them had encountered before in quite this form. I believe that Raw Stadia, and the frequency and quality of data collected throughout, played a meaningful role in enabling that process.

Every venue performed superbly. None fell below 96% density. All three were regarded as among the best playing surfaces in the World Cup, which is something the entire team can be genuinely proud of.

There are too many people to thank for this project. But a particular thank you to Eddy, Ethan, Eric, Chris and Wayne, who were outstanding throughout and an absolute pleasure to work alongside.