Bringing attention to FIFPRO’s Drake Football Study project

Avatar
Sam Kerr Football and PARK
Image credit: IOIO IMAGES / Shutterstock.com

Initiated in 2019, the Drake Football Study is a decade-long research project dedicated to monitoring the physical and mental well-being of football players. Spanning ten years, this study aims to provide valuable insights into the long-term health impacts of playing football, offering a comprehensive analysis of both physical and psychological aspects as they evolve over time.

The study initially enrolled over 170 male and female players, capturing data from the early stages of their playing careers and continuing to track their journey as they transition into retirement.

Recent findings from the Drake Football Study have uncovered that 20 percent of professional women’s footballers experienced disordered eating within a 12-month timeframe, which is 1 in 5 women. These results highlight a significant concern within women’s football, underscoring the prevalence of disordered eating patterns among athletes.

The most recent sub-study, titled Unmasking Mental Health Symptoms in Female Professional Football Players, also indicates that female footballers are nearly twice as likely to experience sport-related psychological distress following each surgery. These findings shed light on the significant mental health challenges faced by women in professional football, particularly in the aftermath of surgical procedures.

Among the 74 players surveyed in this sub-study, 55 percent reported experiencing sport-related psychological distress within a 12-month period, a rate consistent with findings across other elite sports. Additionally, three percent of these athletes reported engaging in substance misuse during the same timeframe.

These statistics highlight the pervasive mental health struggles within the professional football community, mirroring trends seen in other high-performance sports.

Over the past decade, FIFPRO has taken a leading role in addressing mental health challenges within football. This effort began in 2013 with a pioneering pilot project aimed at assisting member unions in creating and implementing strategies to protect players’ mental well-being. Since then, numerous additional studies and initiatives have been launched, further strengthening the support network for athletes.

“Players are screened pre-season for musculoskeletal injuries, for their level of endurance, strength and speed, for cardiovascular abnormalities, and the same should apply for mental health,” said FIFPRO’s Chief Medical Officer Prof Dr Vincent Gouttebarge via FIFPRO’s website.

“In Australia, for instance, thanks to the work done jointly by FIFPRO and Professional Footballers Australia, mental health screening in pre-season is now embedded in the minimum medical requirements. It’s a big step forward.”

The findings in women’s football align with those observed in other sports but are less prevalent compared to aesthetic or weight-class sports like gymnastics, judo, wrestling, or boxing. Despite this, the results still raise significant concerns regarding player welfare, emphasising the need for continued attention to the well-being of athletes across all disciplines.

The initial findings of the project, derived from studies on male professional footballers, revealed a low prevalence of knee and hip osteoarthritis (the degeneration of joint cartilage). The research also indicated that pain is a reliable symptom for suggesting the presence of osteoarthritis. Additionally, the likelihood of developing knee osteoarthritis was found to increase by 1.5 times with each injury and by just over four times following surgeries. These insights underscore the significant impact of injuries and surgical procedures on the long-term joint health of football players.

Although the 10-year Drake Football Study focuses primarily on joint pain in the ankles, hips, and knees of players and its potential long-term effects on their well-being, it also seeks to investigate mental health symptoms such as anxiety and depression, which are commonly reported by athletes. Additional data from the study is expected to be published in the coming months.

The Drake Football Study is initially funded by The Drake Foundation and receives support from Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Mehiläinen in Finland, and Push Sports in the Netherlands.

Previous ArticleNext Article

FIFA sparks widespread backlash with private investment proposal

Avatar
Image credit: BBC Sport

In a shock announcement made on Tuesday this week, FIFA revealed plans to create a subsidiary known as FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) to manage commercial and event operations for major competitions, including the World Cup. FIFA promises to reinvest all benefits back into the game, but the plan is receiving widespread criticism from governing bodies and governments around the world.

 

“Unleashing” football’s commercial power

Following the huge financial success of this summer’s FIFA World Cup, FIFA President Gianni Infantino indicated plans to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity” at FIFA’s disposal.

Indeed, it appears Infantino is wasting no time in capitalising on the tournament’s success, which generated AUD 21 billion (USD 15 billion) for FIFA.

An eye-watering number. A tournament record. And, apparently, still not enough.

Tuesday’s announcement made clear the intention to bring commercial rights under a new subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). This, according to FIFA, could generate AUD 6 billion (USD 4.2 billion) of initial capital with all net benefits going back into grassroots and infrastructure development for Member Associations (MA) through the FIFA Forward programme.

The money would be raised by selling minority stakes in FFE to private third-party investors, although FIFA has outlined that it will retain “sole control of FFE”.

The venture has a reported valuation of AUD 29 billion (USD 20 billion), prompting questions and backlash from around the world over who will actually benefit from the finances – and whether anyone should benefit at all.

 

What are critics saying?

On the surface, the principle of generating more money for MAs and investing into grassroots, coaching, women’s and youth football is a worthwhile ambition.

Currently, each MA receives AUD 11.5 million (USD 8 million) per year from FIFA Forward. FIFA affirms that, should the proposal go through, this funding would increase to AUD 29 million (USD 20 million) between 2027-2030.

However, several governing bodies, including UEFA, Concacaf and the English FA, are adamantly fighting the plans.

“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said via an official statement on social media.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially,” UEFA continued.

“None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

Concacaf also expressed deep concern over the reports, citing a distinct lack of warning and due process from FIFA prior to the announcement.

“We share the disappointment of many within our region and the game that this level of detail has been designed and shared publicly before any discussion with the relevant governance bodies and stakeholders has taken place,” Concacaf said via official statement.

“As leaders within football, we are custodians of the game. Collectively, FIFA, the Confederations and every Member Association have a responsibility to always act in the best interests of the sport.”

Further concerns also centre around the company set to lead the proposed investor group – Thrive Eternal. Founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Thrive Eternal’s role in the venture opens the door to potential conflicts of interests – and emboldens criticisms that Infantino’s relationship with the US President is compromising his leading role in football’s international governing body.

 

Football was never about the money

Investing into the game is vital to football’s sustained future, especially for nations without the financial power to fund it independent of football’s governing body.

Nobody will argue that supporting the entire football pyramid – from grassroots to professional, men’s and women’s, youth and para, playing and coaching – should benefit from the financial might of the sport’s elite.

And FIFA is promising such benefits for all – arriving in the form of tens of millions of dollars – and stemming from third-party investors intrigued by the commercial value of the beautiful game.

But this is exactly where the venture’s flaws start to appear.

Rhetoric about increasing football’s commercial power following the 2026 World Cup leads the governing body down a slippery slope to a sport which prioritises money over integrity, due process and the fans who uphold it week-in week-out.

Football – from its very first beginnings as a working class sport – was never about the money.

Although modern commercialisation has turned clubs into businesses and players into tradable assets, everyone within the pyramid is a custodian of the game.

The game is not a product to sell – especially by those entrusted to uphold its integrity.

 

What happens now?

FIFA stated its intentions to only proceed with the venture if it receives support from the majority of MAs. While many are already uniting in opposition to the proposal, there are national governing bodies who have vocalised their support, including the Czech FA.

UEFA, on the other hand, is set to hold an emergency meeting with its 55 members to discuss a potential boycott of future tournaments.

But with a deadline of September 19 for MAs to accept the proposal, and the promise of a payment worth AUD 57.5 million (USD 40 million) if they do, the next eight weeks will reveal the future of the game and the nature of its global governance.

FIFA’s plan, although laced with promises of investment, development and growth for all, has instead kicked off a contest to save the game’s soul – or change it forever.

Governance, guidelines and game integrity: Did the 2026 FIFA World Cup uphold all three?

Avatar
Image Credit: AHCPF/Shutterstock.com

The FIFA World Cup 2026 is now over. Aside from the action and drama on the pitch, it is how FIFA performed off it which will dictate its lasting legacy.

 

Money talks

Projections for this year’s tournament placed total revenue at an eye-watering figure of AUD 16 billion (USD 11 billion); in the end, the number reached AUD 21 billion (USD 15 billion).

The newly-introduced hydration breaks – much bemoaned by fans accustomed to a more traditional 45 minute half – generated further income. Fox Sports was expected to earn more than AUD 356 million (USD 250 million) from these breaks alone, taking global revenue upwards of AUD 1.4 billion (USD 1 billion).

Four minutes and 20 seconds per match, worth more than 1 billion dollars. For FIFA, therefore, time truly is money.

As the most profitable World Cup in history, it also raises further questions (and potential ideas) for how to continue the success. FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, is already considering ways to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity that FIFA has” going forward.

“I think I can say that this FIFA World Cup here in particular has opened a lot of doors, a lot of opportunities, a lot of possibilities,” Infantino said.

“This will have an impact on what we can do all over the world, but the revenues and the financial economic success come only if the sporting side is right.”

Expanded participation – marking the first time a World Cup features 48 teams compared to the previous 32 – was a major factor in increasing revenue. More teams, more games, more sponsorship and advertising opportunities.

“There are discussions about whether we should increase more (from 48) to 64 (teams), but this will be debated and this will be discussed,” Infantino affirmed.

More revenue for FIFA should also mean its 211 Member Associations also benefit from further investment, although details regarding this remain unknown.

Record-breaking attendance

Going into the tournament, the issue surrounding ticket prices was widespread. Many fans accused the governing body of pricing fans out of the game they love – and the numbers justified it.

While tickets opened at AUD 85 (USD 60), the dynamic pricing led to resales worth tens of thousands of dollars. For the final between Spain and Argentina, fans seeking last-minute tickets needed closer to AUD 3 million (USD 2 million).

But despite the criticism aimed at the dynamic pricing system, FIFA’s resolve paid off. Attendances smashed previous records, with total attendance double the figure seen in Qatar 2022.

FIFA reported that 6,810,966 fans packed into stadiums across the 104 matches, reaching an average crowd of 65,490. With higher attendances also comes more revenue generated from hospitality within the stadium itself.

Clearly, the price of a ticket to the world’s biggest sporting tournament does not affect demand. If FIFA sets the price, people will pay.

Or rather, people who can afford these prices will.

 

Red card, rescinded

As USA and Bosnia & Herzegovina went toe-to-toe in their round-of-32 clash, few could have known the drama would continue far beyond the referee’s whistle after 90 minutes.

A red card for star-striker, Folarin Balogun, in the 64th minute prompted concerns among US fans not only for the remaining half-an-hour of play, but for the following round of the tournament: as per FIFA rules, a player who receives a red card automatically misses the subsequent match.

This was the case for Balogun, until external pressure entered the field. And for football’s global governing body, external pressure arrived in the form of the President of the United States of America.

The legality over the rescinded red card is irrelevant to the wider issue. People will dispute the various articles outlined in the FIFA Disciplinary Code, but the incident itself sets a problematic precedent for football’s global governing body: if FIFA compromises its rules and political neutrality for one nation, where does it draw the line in future tournaments?

The tournament’s integrity had already come under pressure before a match had kicked-off, following the first ever FIFA Peace Prize awarded to President Trump in December 2025. The rescinded red card ultimately added fuel to the fire.

 

A game of two halves

The FIFA World Cup 2026 was as entertaining on the pitch as it was controversial off it.

It featured some incredible individual performances from stars like Mbappe and Kane, as well as Cabo Verde’s Vozinha – the 40 year-old overnight sensation who became a tournament icon.

308 goals were scored, surpassing with flying colours the previous record of 172 in 2022. A goal-per-game ratio fo 2.96 was the highest in recorded history since 1970.

Celebrations like Norway’s ‘Viking Row’ took the world by storm, and several brands including Levi’s, Gillette and Under Armour (the latter being the tournament-winning boot sponsorship) enjoyed huge public attention online for their unique marketing approaches.

These are the stories which represent the World Cup at its very best and the side of football fans want to see: action-packed matches, world-class talent, inspirational underdog stories and moments which generate discussions between fans from all over the world.

Beyond the pitch, however, memories of this year’s tournament will be comprised of financial success marred by a failure to govern and uphold the game’s integrity throughout.

It is a disappointing contradiction, that the cost of the most entertaining and economically successful World Cup in history, is the growing concern whether we can believe in those delivering the game to us at all.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend