Recently a LinkedIn post argued to buy British synthetic turf and not cheap imports, which started me thinking. Should you buy from a local producer, at a higher price, when it is actually owned by an overseas company, where profit is taken by private equity owners? Interesting!

The premise of buying local to support local manufacturing makes sense, whatever country you are in. But is this not compromised when the extra cost means that customers are overpaying for a product? By customer, I refer to both the contractor and the end customer; be it the club, school or local authority.

Would buying the same quality (if not higher) synthetic turf, but at a lower price, from an overseas producer, be more beneficial for the customer? It would mean that the contractor, in theory, could make more profit, and still offer a lower end price to their client. As all pitch contractors are based in the country where they work, and also where their owners are based, the extra profit generated stays in that country, and allows the contractor to grow, employ more people and thrive.

Choosing your turf supplier

Choosing your turf supplier

If the end product is superior from the local producer, then there is a justifiable reason to charge more. But if the only explanation is to brand imports, en masse, as cheap, then that is not an argument. After all, imported synthetic turf, by its nature, includes extra transport costs, whilst from even further afield, there are also import duties to consider, so, in theory the local producer, should always win on price, unless it is too greedy.

Choosing your turf supplier normally comes down to 10 key points. In no particular order:

  • Quality
  • Price
  • Availability
  • Accreditation
  • Warranty
  • Performance
  • Appearance
  • Brand comfort
  • Choice
  • Relationship

Our industry is fortunate to have some excellent synthetic turf producers, who meet the above criteria, based locally and globally.

back-to-top