For me, the idea that artificial turf is inherently bad feels outdated. Advances in turf technology have created a much more nuanced reality than many soccer fans acknowledge. There is a wide range of turf quality, and places like Seattle, Portland, and Atlanta have some of the best artificial fields in the league. I remember reading that Seattle specifically prioritized soccer considerations when selecting its current surface.
This is anecdotal and now decades old, but I played college lacrosse on a lot of artificial fields. The old 1990s carpet-style turf over concrete absolutely earned its awful reputation, but modern turf felt just as comfortable to play on as grass and I can only imagine how good modern NFL fields are at this point. There is no real evidence that MLS teams with artificial home fields suffer higher injury rates than teams playing on grass, and the fan narrative seems heavily driven by confirmation bias.
I do agree that the ball behaves differently on turf. That said, the ball also plays differently on grass depending on length, moisture, and maintenance. To me, these are nuances players should be studying and adjusting to, no different than adapting to a small pitch like Yankee Stadium.