PFAS in Sports Equipment Padding, Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Based on available materials and data, padding from Easton, MacGregor, and La Pointique splits sharply into two tiers once you look past the branding and into what the foam, fabric coatings, and moisture-wicking liners are actually made of. The clearest lower-concern option in our database is the Easton Easton Universal Padding Fit Kit, which our model-based estimate from materials and public disclosure puts at 65 out of 100, tied with three other products for the best score currently on record for this category. On the opposite end, a cluster of catcher's gear, leg guards, and chest protectors from both Easton and MacGregor land at 20 out of 100, the lowest grade in our data set, largely tied to the kind of durable water-repellent and stain-resistant treatments that commonly carry PFAS chemistry in padded sporting goods.

This guide walks through every graded product we have for sports equipment padding, explains what separates the "Good" tier from the "Bad" tier, and gives you a straight answer on what to avoid and what to consider instead. None of this is a substitute for a lab report on the specific unit you own. It is a structured read of brand disclosures, material composition where published, and known industry patterns, built so you can shop with sharper questions rather than false certainty.

Summary comparison

Product	PFAS grade (model estimate)	Verdict
Easton Easton Universal Padding Fit Kit	Good, 65/100	Lower concern tier, worth a closer look first
Easton Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad	Good, 65/100	Lower concern tier
MacGregor Macgregor Shock Absorbing Base	Good, 65/100	Lower concern tier
MacGregor MacGregor Umpire's Inside Chest Protector	Good, 65/100	Lower concern tier
La Pointique Four-Way Stretch Knee Sleeve Support Brace	Good, 65/100	Lower concern tier
Easton Easton Adult Original Catcher's Knee Savers	Bad, 20/100	Avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority
MacGregor MacGregor MCB67 Umpire's Leg Guards	Bad, 20/100	Avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority
MacGregor MacGregor Adult Padded Shin Guard	Bad, 20/100	Avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority
MacGregor Golf Deluxe Padded Travel Cover with Wheels	Bad, 20/100	Avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority
MacGregor MacGregor Varsity Chest Protector	Bad, 20/100	Avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority
MacGregor B61 Double Knee Varsity Leg Guard	Bad, 20/100	Avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority
Easton Easton Power Pad	Bad, 20/100	Avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority
Easton Easton Knee Savers	Bad, 20/100	Avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority
Easton Stealth RS II Hockey Shoulder Pads	Bad, 20/100	Avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority
Easton Easton Sliding Knee Pad	Bad, 20/100	Avoid if minimizing PFAS exposure is a priority

How we graded these

Every score here is a model-based estimate built from publicly available materials lists, brand disclosures, marketing language, and known patterns in how padded sporting goods are typically treated for moisture resistance, odor control, and durability. It is not a laboratory test of a specific unit, and it is not a claim about what is inside the exact pad sitting in your gear bag. Padding products are especially tricky because the foam core, the outer shell fabric, and the stitching or coating can each be sourced differently even within the same product line, and manufacturers rarely publish a full chemical bill of materials for sports equipment the way they sometimes do for apparel.

What tends to separate the "Good" tier from the "Bad" tier in our data is the presence or absence of described water-repellent treatments, antimicrobial finishes, and synthetic leather or vinyl shells, which historically have been common carriers of PFAS-based durable water repellent (DWR) chemistry in the sporting goods industry. Products with simpler foam-and-fabric construction, with fewer stated performance coatings, tend to score higher in our model. That is a pattern, not a guarantee, and association between a product category and PFAS use is not the same as proof that a specific unit contains PFAS.

The Good tier, ranked by what they are

Easton Easton Universal Padding Fit Kit

The Easton Easton Universal Padding Fit Kit scores 65 out of 100 in our model, the top grade currently recorded for this category. It is a modular foam padding accessory designed to retrofit helmets and protective gear, built around closed-cell foam inserts rather than a treated outer shell.

• Materials, Closed-cell foam padding components, basic fabric or foam-facing layers, no described water-repellent coating in available listings.
• Brand claims, Easton markets the kit on fit, comfort, and shock absorption. We found no brand-stated PFAS-free claim and no third-party lab verification in reviewed sources.
• Pros, Simpler construction with fewer treated surfaces, based on available materials and data, this profile is associated with lower modeled PFAS concern. Easy to retrofit into existing gear.
• Cons, No independent lab certification available. "Good" here means lower concern relative to peers in this category, not a confirmed absence of PFAS.

Easton Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad

The Easton Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad also grades Good at 65/100, again reflecting a foam-forward construction without the moisture-barrier shells that drag down scores elsewhere in the Easton lineup.

• Materials, Shock-absorbing foam core with a basic outer fabric layer, no stated DWR or stain-guard treatment in public materials we reviewed.
• Brand claims, Positioned for impact protection and comfort. No explicit PFAS-free marketing claim found.
• Pros, Consistent with the lower-concern pattern seen in other high-scoring padding products.
• Cons, Lack of published chemical disclosure means the grade is an estimate, not a certification.

MacGregor Macgregor Shock Absorbing Base

The MacGregor Macgregor Shock Absorbing Base rounds out the Good tier for base and foam-core products at 65/100.

• Materials, Foam base construction, minimal treated fabric exposure based on available listings.
• Brand claims, Marketed for impact dampening and field durability. No independently verified PFAS-free claim identified.
• Pros, Scores well relative to MacGregor's own leg guards and chest protectors, which sit at the bottom of the scale.
• Cons, Same caveat as above, this is a materials-pattern estimate, not a lab result.

MacGregor Umpire's Inside Chest Protector

The MacGregor MacGregor Umpire's Inside Chest Protector is notable because it shares a product category with MacGregor's lowest-graded chest protector, yet it scores 65/100 instead of 20/100. The likely differentiator, based on available materials and data, is the inside-wear design, which typically uses less outer-shell treatment than an outside-worn protector exposed to weather and abrasion.

• Materials, Padded foam inserts intended to be worn under a uniform, reducing the need for a weatherproofed exterior.
• Brand claims, Marketed on protection and low-profile fit. No explicit PFAS-free statement found in reviewed sources.
• Pros, Demonstrates that construction style within the same brand and sport can meaningfully change the modeled grade.
• Cons, Still an estimate. Buyers wanting more certainty should contact MacGregor directly for material disclosure.

La Pointique Four-Way Stretch Knee Sleeve Support Brace

The La Pointique Four-Way Stretch Knee Sleeve Support Brace is the only non-Easton, non-MacGregor product in our data set and it matches the top score of 65/100. It is a compression-style knit brace rather than a rigid foam pad.

• Materials, Four-way stretch knit fabric, typically a nylon-spandex or polyester-spandex blend, without the rigid foam or vinyl shell seen in catcher's and umpire gear.
• Brand claims, Marketed for compression support and flexibility. We found no brand-stated PFAS-free claim and no third-party lab verification in reviewed sources.
• Pros, Knit compression construction is a different product family entirely from foam-and-shell padding, and it scores consistently with the lower-concern pattern.
• Cons, A knee sleeve brace is not a substitute for padded protective gear in contact sports, so compare it on function first, PFAS grade second.

The Bad tier, what they have in common

Ten products in our data set land at 20 out of 100, the lowest grade recorded for this category, and nearly all of them share a profile, exterior-worn protective gear with synthetic leather, vinyl, or heavily treated fabric shells designed to shed moisture and resist staining on the field.

Easton's lowest-graded products

The Easton Easton Adult Original Catcher's Knee Savers Easton Easton Power Pad Easton Easton Knee Savers Easton Stealth RS II Hockey Shoulder Pads, and Easton Easton Sliding Knee Pad all score 20/100 in our model.

• Materials, Foam padding paired with synthetic leather, vinyl, or coated nylon shells, several designed for ground contact (sliding, kneeling) that typically call for abrasion and moisture resistance.
• Brand claims, Marketed heavily on durability, impact absorption, and weather resistance. These are exactly the performance claims historically delivered via PFAS-based DWR finishes industry-wide. We found no brand-stated PFAS-free claim for any of these five products.
• Pros, Strong on-field performance reputation and widespread adoption among catchers and hockey players.
• Cons, Lowest modeled score in the category. Based on available materials and data, the exterior shell treatments common to this product type are associated with higher modeled PFAS concern. This is a pattern-based estimate, not a confirmed lab finding of PFAS in a specific unit.

MacGregor's lowest-graded products

The MacGregor MCB67 Umpire's Leg Guards MacGregor Adult Padded Shin Guard MacGregor Golf Deluxe Padded Travel Cover with Wheels MacGregor Varsity Chest Protector, and MacGregor B61 Double Knee Varsity Leg Guard round out the bottom of the scale at 20/100 each.

• Materials, Outer-worn leg guards, shin guards, and chest protectors with vinyl or synthetic leather shells, plus a padded golf travel cover using a treated fabric exterior intended to resist scuffs and moisture during transport.
• Brand claims, Marketed on toughness, weather resistance, and multi-season durability. No independently verified PFAS-free claim found for any of these five.
• Pros, These are purpose-built, impact-tested products with long track records in their sports.
• Cons, Lowest modeled score in our data set. The pattern across both the golf travel cover and the on-field leg guards and chest protectors suggests the exterior treatment, not the sport, is the common thread. Again, this is an estimate from materials and disclosure patterns, not a certified lab result.

What to avoid

• Padded gear explicitly marketed as "weatherproof," "water-repellent," or "stain-resistant" without a specific material disclosure, since this language has historically correlated with PFAS-based DWR treatments across sporting goods and waterproof boots alike.
• Vinyl or synthetic leather outer shells on gear meant for ground contact or outdoor exposure, such as sliding pads, leg guards, and travel covers, which score lowest in our current data.
• Any product where the brand makes no disclosure at all about shell treatment or foam composition, leaving buyers to guess.
• Assuming a high price or premium brand name guarantees a better score. In our data set, both the best and worst grades include products from the same two brands, Easton and MacGregor.

Our pick

Based on available materials and data, the Easton Easton Universal Padding Fit Kit is the strongest option currently in our database for buyers prioritizing lower modeled PFAS concern, tied at 65/100 with the Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad, the MacGregor Shock Absorbing Base, the MacGregor Umpire's Inside Chest Protector, and the La Pointique Four-Way Stretch Knee Sleeve Support Brace. None of these carry a lab-verified PFAS-free certification in our reviewed sources, and "Good" should be read as lower modeled concern relative to peers in this category, not a declaration that the product is free of PFAS. If you are outfitting a full roster and need exterior-worn protective gear, cross-check the specific SKU against our product pages before buying, since construction style (inside-worn versus outside-worn, foam versus vinyl shell) appears to shift the grade more than brand name does.

For a broader sense of how padding compares to other PFAS-prone categories, see our roundups on waterproof boots and carpets and rugs, two other categories where water and stain resistance often signal treated materials. You can also run any gear you already own through our product finder to check for a grade.

FAQ

Does a high PFAS grade mean the padding is guaranteed PFAS-free?

No. A "Good" grade in our system reflects a model-based estimate from publicly available materials and disclosure patterns, not a laboratory test. It means the product's construction and materials profile is associated with lower modeled PFAS concern relative to other products in the same category. Based on available materials and data, we describe this as "no evidence of PFAS found in reviewed sources" rather than a confirmed PFAS-free status.

Why do some products from the same brand score so differently?

Construction style matters more than brand reputation in our data. MacGregor's Umpire's Inside Chest Protector scores 65/100 while its Varsity Chest Protector scores 20/100, and the likely driver is that an inside-worn product typically needs less weatherproof exterior treatment than an outside-worn one. The same split shows up across Easton's lineup, where simple foam inserts outscore treated, moisture-resistant shells used on sliding pads and shoulder pads.

Is there a health risk from PFAS in padded sports gear?

Some research has linked long-term PFAS exposure to various health concerns, but that research describes association, not proven causation, and it is not specific to any single product listed here. Our grades reflect modeled material and disclosure patterns, not a health risk assessment of a specific item you own. If you have specific health concerns, consult a medical professional and consider contacting the manufacturer directly for material safety data.