ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of a newly developed warm-up programme (‘11+ Kids’) regarding its potential to reduce injuries in children’s football.MethodsChildren’s football teams (under 9 years, under 11 years, and under 13 years age groups) from Switzerland, Germany, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands were invited. Clubs were randomised to an intervention group and a control group, and followed for one season. The intervention group replaced their usual warm-up by ‘11+ Kids’, while the control group warmed up as usual. The primary outcome was the overall risk of football-related injuries. Secondary outcomes were the risks of severe and lower extremity injuries. We calculated hazard ratios using extended Cox models, and performed a compliance analysis.ResultsIn total, 292,749 h of football exposure of 3895 players were recorded. The mean age of players was 10.8 (standard deviation 1.4) years. During the study period, 374 (intervention group = 139; control group = 235) injuries occurred. The overall injury rate in the intervention group was reduced by 48% compared with the control group (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.32–0.86). Severe (74% reduction, hazard ratio 0.26; 95% confidence interval 0.10–0.64) and lower extremity injuries (55% reduction, hazard ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.24–0.84) were also reduced. Injury incidence decreased with increasing compliance.Conclusion‘11+ Kids’ is efficacious in reducing injuries in children’s football. We observed considerable effects for overall, severe and lower extremity injuries. The programme should be performed at least once per week to profit from an injury preventive effect. However, two sessions per week can be recommended to further increase the protective benefit.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02222025.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40279-017-0834-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This rule change appeared to reduce the risk of head injuries in men's professional football.

The warm-up programme "FIFA 11+" has been shown to reduce football injuries in different populations, but so far veteran players have not been investigated. Due to differences in age, skill level and gender, a simple transfer of these results to veteran football is not recommended. The purpose of this study was to investigate the preventive effects of the "FIFA 11+" in veteran football players. Twenty veteran football teams were recruited for a prospective 9-month (1 season) cluster-randomised trial. The intervention group (INT, n = 146; 45 ± 8 years) performed the "FIFA 11+" at the beginning of each training session, while the control group (CON, n = 119; 43 ± 6 years) followed its regular training routine. Player exposure hours and injuries were recorded according to an international consensus statement. No significant difference was found between INT and CON in overall injury incidence (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.91 [0.64-1.48]; P = 0.89). Only severe injuries reached statistical significance with higher incidence in CON (IRR: 0.46 [0.21-0.97], P = 0.04). Regular conduction (i.e. once a week) of the "FIFA 11+" did not prevent injuries in veteran footballers under real training and competition circumstances. The lack of preventive effects is likely due to the too low overall frequency of training sessions.

Ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) typically occur in professional football and epidemiological data about longitudinal injury development is needed. This practice-driven investigation of media-derived ACL data provides information about professional football over 10 years. Injury registration was based on "kicker" sports magazine information that have been recorded over one decade in a standardized manner. Only ACL ruptures in the first German football league were included when they could be verified by a second reliable source. Level of evidence: III. Fifty-seven primary ACL ruptures were verified in the first German football league during the seasons 2007/2008 to 2016/2017. Among them, six re-injuries were found. Mean age at the time of injury was 24.8 years (SD 3.8). 31% (n = 20) of ACL ruptures occurred at the beginning of the season in August or September (p = 0.02). Mean time of RTC after primary ACL ruptures was 226.7 days (SD: 93.5) and 245.6 days (SD: 45.4) after re-injury. Although 62 (98%) players returned to football after injury and only one player immediately finished his career, 54.9% of the affected individuals played 3 years after the ACL rupture in the same league. ACL ruptures lead to longer absence than 7 months from football but does not give reason for immediate career-ending. The decrease in playing level after 3 years illustrate the serious consequences of ACL ruptures in football. Media-based injury reports may provide interesting information.

Subjective assessment of athletes' movement quality is widely used by physiotherapists and other applied practitioners within many sports. One of the beliefs driving this practice is that individuals who display 'poor' movement patterns are more likely to suffer an injury than those who do not. The aim of this review was to summarize the reliability of the movement screens currently documented within the scientific literature and explore the evidence surrounding their association with injury risk. Ten assessments with accompanying reliability data were identified through the literature search. Only two of these ten had any evidence directly related to injury risk. A number of methodological issues were present throughout the identified studies, including small sample sizes, lack of descriptive rater or participant information, ambiguous injury definitions, lack of exposure time reporting and risk of bias. These factors, combined with the paucity of research on this topic, make drawing conclusions as to the reliability and predictive ability of movement screens difficult. None of the movement screens that appear within the scientific literature currently have enough evidence to justify the tag of 'injury prediction tool'.