Start Project BriefATHREN FIELD · Public selection framework
ATHREN FIELD is not one universal artificial-turf product. Each sport places different demands on the complete system, and the correct pathway should be selected around the playing programme, water strategy, impact requirements, maintenance model, certification need and total facility brief.
The matrix compares public pathways only. It does not establish technical suitability, certification, pile height, shockpad thickness or final product choice.
Exact construction and evidence are confirmed after the sport, site, operating model and project requirements are known.
FIH, FIFA, World Rugby and ITF-related requirements must be matched to the exact underlying product/system and, where applicable, the completed-field process. ATHREN branding does not transfer certification.
For community and school projects without a federation requirement, performance and maintenance still need to be matched to the actual use.
Water-based hockey, filled football/rugby, non-infill systems and shared-use fields can have very different maintenance routines. The operator's staff, equipment and budget should be discussed before the system is frozen.
A technically capable surface can still be a poor project choice if the owner cannot maintain it as required.
Comparison reference
Use this to decide which public pathway deserves technical review. It is not a ranking and does not replace current product data or project-specific testing.
| Planning criterion | Hockey | Football | Rugby | School / Community Multisport | Tennis Turf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typical facility type | Dedicated hockey, Hockey5s, club, school and performance fields. | Dedicated or shared football fields, academies, clubs, schools and community facilities. | Dedicated or shared rugby fields, clubs, schools, academies and community grounds. | Shared school, council, club and training fields serving several activities. | Club, school, resort and recreational tennis courts using artificial-turf construction. |
| Water model | Dry / non-irrigated, water-based or dressed pathway depending on exact system. | Normally non-irrigated; drainage and heat management remain important. | Normally non-irrigated; drainage and complete impact system are central. | Normally non-irrigated; selected around sport mix and destination climate. | Normally non-irrigated; base drainage and infill strategy depend on exact system. |
| Shared-use suitability | Possible for selected community pathways, but hockey ball behaviour can limit broad multisport compromise. | Can suit shared community or school use where the exact system supports the secondary sports. | Shared football use may be possible, but rugby impact requirements should control system selection. | Designed around shared use; primary sport hierarchy must be explicit. | Usually a dedicated racquet-sport pathway rather than a field-sport multisport solution. |
| Maintenance intensity | Ranges from dry-system care to water-based operating and maintenance requirements; exact system controls. | Depends on filled, reduced-infill or non-infill construction and use intensity. | Typically requires disciplined inspection, brushing and infill/impact-system maintenance where applicable. | Should favour maintainable systems with clear responsibilities and accessible equipment. | Routine grooming, infill/line care where applicable and court cleaning depend on exact construction. |
| Certification pathway | FIH-related requirements tied to exact product/system and field. | FIFA-related requirements tied to exact system and completed field where required. | World Rugby Regulation 22 tied to exact tested system and finished field where required. | Usually project-specific; any included federation requirement must be checked against the shared-use system. | Any ITF classification or tender requirement tied to the exact current product evidence. |
| Typical project scale | Compact Hockey5s through full club, school and high-performance fields. | Training pitch through school, club and multi-field football precinct. | School or club field through larger shared-code and competition facilities. | Single school/community field through multi-field recreation precinct. | Single court through club, school and resort court groups. |
| Main early decision | Level of hockey and dry vs irrigated pathway. | Use intensity and filled vs non-infill strategy. | Impact requirement and rugby-only vs shared-code use. | Which sport is primary and how the line/equipment hierarchy will work. | Playing characteristics, infill/base strategy and whether turf is preferred over ATHREN COURT hard/cushioned systems. |
This matrix is a planning framework only. Final selection follows current supplier documentation, exact system build-up, site conditions, maintenance capability, destination requirements and any federation or tender criteria.
Reference this resource
Link to the live page rather than a saved copy so readers reach the current Apollo planning resource and its latest product and planning links.
apollonzglobal.com/knowledge-centre/sports-courts/athren-field-system-selection-guideapollonzglobal.com/knowledge-centre/sports-courts/athren-field-system-selection-guide#comparison-matrixMove from knowledge to project