Functional Movement Screen Scores and Physical Performance among Youth Elite Soccer Players

Abstract

This study had two main objectives: (1) to determine if differences in Functional Movement Screen (FMS) scores exist between two levels of competition; and (2) to analyze the association between FMS individual and overall scores and physical performance variables of lower-limb power (jumps), repeated sprint ability and shot speed. Twenty-two Under 16 (U16) and twenty-six Under 19 (U19) national competitive soccer players participated in this study. All participants were evaluated according to anthropometrics, FMS, jump performance, instep kick speed and anaerobic performance. There were no significant differences in the individual FMS scores between competitive levels. There were significant negative correlations between hurdle step (right) and Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST) power average (ρ = −0.293; p = 0.043) and RAST fatigue index (RAST FatIndex) (ρ = −0.340; p = 0.018). The hurdle step (left) had a significant negative correlation to squat jump (SJ) (ρ = −0.369; p = 0.012). Rotary stability had a significant negative correlation to RAST fatigue index (Right: ρ = −0.311; p = 0.032. Left: ρ = −0.400; p = 0.005). The results suggest that individual FMS scores may be better discriminants of performance than FMS total score and established minimal association between FMS scores and physical variables. Based on that, FMS may be suitable for the purposes of determining physical function but not for discriminating physical performance.

Anthropometry, Physical and Movement Features, and Repeated-sprint Ability in Soccer Players

“…Unexpectedly, there were no significant differences in the FMS tests between groups, except in FMSmove, where the Elite group gained higher scores than the Sub-elite players. In our study, the scores obtained in the FMStotal by the Elite group were similar to those reported by Silva et al [44] for youth Portuguese elite soccer players (FMS total = 13.8) and higher than those presented in the study by Marques et al [32] on youth athletes from a premier league soccer team (FMStotal = 12.4).…”

Functional Movement Screen Composite Scores for Collegiate Field Club Sport Athletes at One University

“…17 The FMS CS was 13.2+1.7 vs. 14.5+1.5, which is lower than the youth elite soccer players completed the FMS. 21 Functional movement scores were 13.87+2.93 vs. 14.96+2.07. 21 Negligible differences were noted within individual FMS movements between the two age groups.…”

“…21 Negligible differences were noted within individual FMS movements between the two age groups. 21 A comparison between NCAA Division II men's and women's soccer players was conducted to assess differences in FMS CS. 19 Men's soccer scored slightly higher than women's soccer, 16 An examination of these studies suggested that injury and younger ages negatively impact FMS CS in field sport athletes.…”

“…21 Functional movement scores were 13.87+2.93 vs. 14.96+2.07. 21 Negligible differences were noted within individual FMS movements between the two age groups. 21 A comparison between NCAA Division II men's and women's soccer players was conducted to assess differences in FMS CS.…”

“…Plus, the majority of participants were female and 15±1.49 on the FMS CS. Despite being a club sport athlete, the participants in this study scored better or similarly to athletes participating in the same sport at different competition levels.U16 and U19 youth elite soccer players averaged 13.87±2.93 and 14.96±2.07 21. These younger athletes scored lower than female and male club soccer athletes (14.9±1.44, 15.0±0.0).…”