The perceptions of professional soccer players on the risk of injury from competition and training on natural grass and 3rd generation artificial turf

Abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to describe professional soccer players’ perceptions towards injuries, physical recovery and the effect of surface related factors on injury resulting from soccer participation on 3rd generation artificial turf (FT) compared to natural grass (NG).MethodsInformation was collected through a questionnaire that was completed by 99 professional soccer players from 6 teams competing in Major League Soccer (MLS) during the 2011 season.ResultsThe majority (93% and 95%) of the players reported that playing surface type and quality influenced the risk of sustaining an injury. Players believed that playing and training on FT increased the risk of sustaining a non-contact injury as opposed to a contact injury. The players identified three surface related risk factors on FT, which they related to injuries and greater recovery times: 1) Greater surface stiffness 2) Greater surface friction 3) Larger metabolic cost to playing on artificial grounds. Overall, 94% of the players chose FT as the surface most likely to increase the risk of sustaining an injury.ConclusionsPlayers believe that the risk of injury differs according to surface type, and that FT is associated with an increased risk of non-contact injury. Future studies should be designed prospectively to systematically track the perceptions of groups of professional players training and competing on FT and NG.

The Influence of Playing Surface on the Loading Response to Soccer-Specific Activity

“…Whilst previous research has identified no surface effect on prolonged soccer activity, 8,10,11 issues have been raised in terms of players' perceptions of an increased risk of injury when playing on artificial turf. 25 Players have specifically reported that artificial surfaces are more physically demanding, 24,26 which is contrary to the perceptions of the players in the current study. These differences might simply be founded in the relative exposure and familiarisation with artificial surfaces and the nature of the physical task, and therefore direct comparison between studies should be treated with caution.…”

Risk factors for injury in men´s professional football

“…Previously, biomechanical studies showed no difference in physiological responses after semi-professional matches (Hughes et al, 2012), or footballspecific exercises for professional players on AT and NG of high quality (Nédélec et al, 2013). However, 97% of professional players in another setting reported greater muscle and joint soreness after playing on AT (Poulos et al, 2014). Also, previous studies from Swedish male professional football showed that players generally had a negative impression towards AT, including a high rating for physical demands (Andersson et al, 2007).…”

“…The findings from Paper III suggest the opposite, where NG clubs had a reduced total injury rate when playing away matches on AT compared to away matches on NG. A recent study showed that professional players from clubs with NG installed at their home arena believe that the injury rate is increased when playing on AT, and that some individuals may play with caution on AT due to a fear of sustaining injuries (Poulos et al, 2014). Also, technical analyses have shown a difference in playing style between the two surfaces, where sliding tackles are less common and short passes are more frequently used on AT (Andersson et al, 2007).…”

No association between surface shifts and time-loss overuse injury risk in male professional football

“…A recent study showed that professional NG club players believe that the injury rate is increased when playing on AT, and that some individuals may play with caution on AT due to a fear of sustaining injuries. 16 Perhaps this could lead to a more careful playing style in general when NG clubs play away matches on AT, and could therefore be an explanation to the decreased injury rates observed in this study. These differences could also be due to variations in team tactics when playing on an unaccustomed surface.…”

“…15 Still, remarkably 97% of professional players experience that playing on AT results in greater muscle and joint soreness. 16 It should be acknowledged that a time-loss definition may underestimate the burden of overuse injuries substantially, 17 and we may thus have been unable to observe a possible association between frequent surface shifts and non-time loss overuse injury risk.…”