Risk evaluation in professional football

Risk management is composed of three major elements viz., hazard identification, risk estimation and risk evaluation. The aim of hazard identification and risk estimation is to identify the outcomes from risk, the magnitude of the associated con&quences from risk, and the estimation of the probabilities of these outcomes. Previous work focused on hazard identification and risk estimation and identified the relatively high risks associated with playing professional football. By adhering to the risk management process, the aim of this thesis was to determine the significance of these high risks to football clubs and their players. A theoretical framework was designed to evaluate the influence of player injury on the financial and playing performance of professional football clubs. This framework was also used to assess, through use of cost benefit analysis, the practicalities of investing in suitable injury prevention strategies, to reduce the risks to football clubs and their players. Former professional footballers were surveyed to investigate the long-term medical and socioeconomic consequences associated with the high risks of playing professional football. The results identified the high financial costs associated with player injury on professional football clubs. Although the high risks of player injury have a relatively minor effect on teamperformance of the Premier League clubs, this effect still has a relatively major influence on the financial performance of the club. In contrast, the influence of player injury to teamperformance was relatively major for Division I and Division 2 clubs, but this had a relatively minor effect on financial performance. The application of cost benefit analysis to the investment of specialist personnel to reduce the risks of injury demonstrated that the proposals were practicable for Premier League and Division I clubs only. In addition, it was also demonstrated that the high risks associated with playing professional football have a significant influence on the long-term well-being of foriner players. One-third of former players had been medically diagnosed osteoarthritic in a lower limb joint. The majority of players also perceived that injury had a negative influence on their present and future welfare. The results demonstrate that the consequences associated with the relatively high acute injury risk also have a significant effect on the financial and playing performance of football clubs and the future welfare of their players

Homogenous subsets for all dependent variables measure for U20 sample (<i>p</i> < .05).

<p>Homogenous subsets for all dependent variables measure for U20 sample (<i>p</i> < .05).</p

Movement Demands of Elite Under-20s and Senior International Rugby Union Players

<div><p>This study compared the movement demands of elite international Under-20 age grade (U20s) and senior international rugby union players during competitive tournament match play. Forty elite professional players from an U20 and 27 elite professional senior players from international performance squads were monitored using 10Hz global positioning systems (GPS) during 15 (U20s) and 8 (senior) international tournament matches during the 2014 and 2015 seasons. Data on distances, velocities, accelerations, decelerations, high metabolic load (HML) distance and efforts, and number of sprints were derived. Data files from players who played over 60 min (n = 258) were separated firstly into Forwards and Backs, and more specifically into six positional groups; FR–Front Row (prop & hooker), SR–Second Row, BR–Back Row (Flankers & No.8), HB–Half Backs (scrum half & outside half), MF–Midfield (centres), B3 –Back Three (wings & full back) for match analysis. Linear mixed models revealed significant differences between U20 and senior teams in both the forwards and backs. In the forwards the seniors covered greater HML distance (736.4 ± 280.3 vs 701.3 ± 198.7m, p = 0.01) and severe decelerations (2.38 ± 2.2 vs 2.28 ± 1.65, p = 0.05) compared to the U20s, but performed less relative HSR (3.1 ± 1.6 vs 3.2 ± 1.5, p < 0.01), moderate (19.4 ± 10.5 vs 23.6 ± 10.5, p = 0.01) and high accelerations (2.2 ± 1.9 vs 4.3 ± 2.7, p < 0.01) and sprint•min^-1 (0.11 ± 0.06 vs 0.11 ± 0.05, p < 0.01). Senior backs covered a greater relative distance (73.3 ± 8.1 vs 69.1 ± 7.6 m•min^-1, p < 0.01), greater High Metabolic Load (HML) distance (1138.0 ± 233.5 vs 1060.4 ± 218.1m, p < 0.01), HML efforts (112.7 ± 22.2 vs 98.8 ± 21.7, p < 0.01) and heavy decelerations (9.9 ± 4.3 vs 9.5 ± 4.4, p = 0.04) than the U20s backs. However, the U20s backs performed more relative HSR (7.3 ± 2.1 vs 7.2 ± 2.1, p <0.01) and sprint•min^-1 (0.26 ± 0.07 vs 0.25 ± 0.07, p < 0.01). Further investigation highlighted differences between the 6 positional groups of the teams. The positional groups that differed the most on the variables measured were the FR and MF groups, with the U20s FR having higher outputs on HSR, moderate & high accelerations, moderate, high & severe decelerations, HML distance, HML efforts, and sprints•min^-1. For the MF group the senior players produced greater values for relative distance covered, HSR, moderate decelerations, HML distance and sprint•min^-1. The BR position group was most similar with the only differences seen on heavy accelerations (U20s higher) and moderate decelerations (seniors higher). Findings demonstrate that U20s internationals appear to be an adequate ‘stepping stone’ for preparing players for movement characteristics found senior International rugby, however, the current study highlight for the first time that certain positional groups may require more time to be able to match the movement demands required at a higher playing level than others. Conditioning staff must also bear in mind that the U20s players whilst maintaining or improving match movement capabilities may require to gain substantial mass in some positions to match their senior counterparts.</p></div

Movement Characteristics for Senior and U20s, Forwards and Backs Groups.

<p>Movement Characteristics for Senior and U20s, Forwards and Backs Groups.</p

Movement Characteristics Presented by Playing Groups.

<p>Movement Characteristics Presented by Playing Groups.</p

Anthropometric Characteristics of Position Groups.

<p>Anthropometric Characteristics of Position Groups.</p

Estimates and confidence intervals for the differences in methods of measurement for the whole team (ROLL method as baseline).

<p>Estimates and confidence intervals for the differences in methods of measurement for the whole team (ROLL method as baseline).</p

Relative distance and high speed running (HSR) covered by the forwards, backs and team and per cent differences between ROLL and FIXED methods.

<p>Relative distance and high speed running (HSR) covered by the forwards, backs and team and per cent differences between ROLL and FIXED methods.</p

Rolling average method peak distance and high speed running (HSR) by position group for epoch lengths 60–300 s.

<p>^# = significantly different to FR.</p

Estimates and confidence intervals for HSR differences between positions using the ROLL method.

<p>Estimates and confidence intervals for HSR differences between positions using the ROLL method.</p