0363-5465/100/2828-S22$02.00/0 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, Vol. 28, No.

5 2000 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

Psychological and Sport-Specific Characteristics of Football Players

Astrid Junge,* PhD, Jiri Dvorak,* MD, Dieter Rosch, MA, Toni Graf-Baumann, MD, Jiri Chomiak, MD, and Lars Peterson,a MD

From the *Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland, the Department of Sport and SportPedagogic, Pedagogic-University, Freiburg, Germany, the Office for Management in Medical Research, Teningen, Germany, the Orthopedic Clinic Bulovka, Praha, the Czech Republic, and the aGothenburg Medical Center, Vastra Frolunda, Sweden
ABSTRACT
It is hypothesized that players of different levels of play might differ not only in their football skills but also in their way of playing football and with respect to psychological factors such as concentration, reaction time, or competitive anxiety. The psychological characteristics of a player might influence his way of playing football (in particular with respect to fair play) and also his risk of injury. A group of 588 football players were studied by questionnaire; additionally, reaction time tests were performed. Psychological characteristics were assessed by three established self-evaluation questionnaires: the Athletic Coping Skills Inventory, the State Competitive Anxiety Test, and the StateTrait-Anger-Expression-Inventory. Football-specific characteristics that were investigated included playing experience and positions played, style of play, number of training hours and games, as well as aspects of fair play. Reaction time was tested twice: without the influence of physical exercise and immediately after a 12minute run. A significant reduction in reaction time was observed after physical exercise. In high-level players, the reaction time immediately after the 12-minute run was significantly shorter than it was in low-level players. The questionnaire answers given regarding fair play clearly indicated that fair play is not paid sufficient respect. The relationship between psychological characteristics and attitudes toward fair play was analyzed and discussed.
Football requires, as do other sports, not only a high level of physical performance but also mental preparation and psychological skills. Although several studies have dealt with the physiologic demands of football,2, 26 little attention has been paid to the influence of psychological aspects on the level of performance and on the incidence of injuries in football.11 It could be hypothesized that players of different levels of play might differ not only in their football skills but also in their playing characteristics and in psychological factors such as concentration, reaction time, or attitudes toward fair play. The identification of factors that influence football performance could provide important information to improve the preparation for the game. Furthermore, such aspects might also influence the occurrence of injuries.4 Several empirical studies have demonstrated the influence of psychosocial stressors (in particular, life events) as well as psychological characteristics on sports injuries in general,1, 11, 23 but only one study has addressed this issue particularly in regard to football.24 In that study, poor reaction time was found to be a risk factor for injury. Because more than one-quarter of football injuries are caused by foul play,5, 6, 8 10 fair play is closely related to the incidence of injuries. In ice hockey, it has been shown that the introduction of the checking-from-behind rule is related to a decrease in head/neck and back injuries27 and that a fair play concept reduced injury rates.18 Pilz15 reported that the comprehension of fair play had changed in recent years, and he stated that success has become more important in football than fair play. From the results of his representative study of the attitudes of juvenile football players toward fair play, he concluded that violation of rules and unfairness are logical consequences of the orientation toward success in modern sport.16 However, psychological factors, such as competitive anxiety or expression of anger, may also determine the way football is played, especially with respect to fair play. Therefore, it is important to analyze the attitudes of players and their readiness to contravene the laws of the game. An underS-22

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jiri Dvorak, MD, Spine Unit, Schulthess Clinic, Lengghalde 2, CH-8008 Zurich, Switzerland. No author or related institution has received any financial benefit from research in this study.

Vol. 28, No. 5, 2000

Psychological and Sport-Specific Characteristics of Football Players

S-23

standing of the psychological factors underlying foul play may lead to interventions to improve fair play. The aims of this study were to examine psychological and footballspecific characteristics at different levels of play, as well as to analyze the relationship between psychological characteristics and attitudes toward fair play.

available data (always more than 95% of the whole study group). Differences between groups were examined by ttests, analysis of variance, or the chi-square test. Unless otherwise stated, only results that were significant at the 5% level or less are presented. Sample

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All information, except reaction time, was ascertained by questionnaire. Football-specific characteristics included the number of training hours and games, playing experience and positions, style of play, and attitudes toward fair play. In some aspects of the questionnaire, objective information was acquired, and in others, subjective attitude. All questions were formulated so that they could be answered by selecting one of the given alternatives or by entering a number. Psychological characteristics were assessed by three established self-evaluation questionnaires. The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory (ACSI20) provided answer scales for coping with adversity, ability to be coached, performance under pressure, mental preparation for competition, concentration, freedom from worry, and self-confidence. A second questionnaire elicited information on competitive anxiety (State Competitive Anxiety Test [SCAT]13). Finally, the trait scale and anger expression scales of the State-Trait-Anger-Expression-Inventory (STAXI19, 22) were used to assess the characteristics of aggression and anger. The reaction time of the player was examined using a simple electronic device, whereby the player pressed a button in response to an optical signal (see Acknowledgments). To estimate the effect of fatigue on this measure, reaction time was tested twice: before the sports tests were performed (without the influence of physical exercise) and immediately after a 12-minute run. At both times, the test was repeated five times and an average value was calculated. Definition of Age and Skill-Level Groups Players were grouped according to age and skill level of their team. Adult players were categorized into four skill level groups: top-level adults (first and second league), third league, amateur teams (Division), and local teams. Youth players were divided into two age groups (14- to 16-year-old players and 16- to 18-year-old players) and two skill-level groups (high and low). Statistical Analysis All data were processed on a Macintosh computer (Apple Computers, Cupertino, California) using Microsoft Office (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Washington). The statistical procedures were performed using StatView (version 4.5; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) and SPSS (version 6.1; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois). Methods applied were frequencies, cross-tabulations, descriptives, and means. Where data were missing for a given variable, frequencies are reported as percentages with respect to all

A total of 588 players from Germany, France, and the Czech Republic was studied (see Table 1 in Medical History and Physical Findings in Football Players of Different Age and Skill Levels). The average age of the players was 18.4 years (SD, 4.0; range, 14 to 41). As can be expected from the average age, most of the players were still at school or in vocational training; 75 (13%) were professional football players.

RESULTS
Football-Specific Characteristics On average, the players had started playing football at the age of 6.3 years (SD, 1.8; range, 3 to 15) and had played for 10.6 years (SD, 4.9) in an organized club. In the youth groups, high-level players were younger when they began playing football compared with low-level players (Table 1). Approximately one-half of the players (306 of 580, 52.8%) preferred the right leg for shooting, 62 (10.7%) preferred the left leg, and 212 (36.6%) players shot with both legs. The proportion of players shooting with both legs was higher in high-level teams than in low-level teams (Table 1). Most of the players were midfield players (N 203; 34.9%) and defenders (N 164; 28.2%); attackers (N 110; 18.9%) were less numerous. The number of goalkeepers (N 54; 9.3%) reflected the usual proportion in a team. Fifty-two (8.9%) players stated that they played in more than one position, but 314 players (59%) classified themselves as an all-rounder. When trying to get past an opponent, 272 players (53.4%) relied more on technique and 237 (46.6%) more on strength. No significant differences between age or skill-level groups were observed for the previously mentioned variables. When asked about their role in games, 145 (27.2%) players described themselves as a leader. In higher leagues, the proportion of leaders was higher than in lower leagues; for youth players, this difference reached statistical significance (Table 1). About one-half of the players (N 280; 52.1%) were willing to play a hard physical game. In the total group, 225 players (42.9%) depicted their actions as planned and well prepared, but top-level adult players characterized their actions significantly more frequently as quick and spontaneous than did adult players in lower leagues (Table 1). Amount of Training and Games In the last season, the players participated in an average of 25 matches (SD, 12.5). They trained an average of 9.9 hours per week (SD, 6.7) during the preparation period

S-24

Junge et al.

American Journal of Sports Medicine TABLE 1 Football-Specific Characteristics of Players of Different Age and Skill Levels
Adult players Youth (1618 years) Local teams (N 38) Mean (SD) High-level (N 137) Mean (SD) Low-level (N 96) Mean Youth (1416 years) High-level (N 118) Low-level (N 93) Mean (SD)

Characteristics

Top-level (N 40) Mean (SD)

Third league (N 41) Mean (SD)

Amateur (N 25) Mean (SD)

(SD) Mean (SD)

Beginning to play football (age in years) Playing football in a club (duration in years)

6.6 17.0 N

(1.4)

6.3

(1.6) (4.7) (%) (47.4) (7.9) (44.7) (25.7) (58.3) (58.3) (41.7)

6.3 17.1 N 13 4 7 6 8 12 9

(1.5)

6.7

(1.8) (5.4) (%) (47.4) (5.3) (47.4) (18.2) (51.5)

5.9 9.6 N 69 13 55 44 59

(1.4) 6.8 (3.0) 8.9 (%) (50.4) (9.5) (40.1) (34.9) (46.5) (56.6) (43.4) N 58 12 26 19 56 53 32

(2.2) 5.8 (3.3) 8.2 (%) (60.4) (12.5) (27.1) (21.3) (61.5)a N 53 11 52 35 54

(1.4) 6.7 (2.8) 7.8 (%) (45.7) (9.5) (44.8) (32.7) (50.0) (54.6) (45.4) N 62 14 16 15 49 45 41

(2.2)b (2.7) (%) (67.4) (15.2) (17.4)c (17.4)a (57.6) (52.3) (47.7)

(5.1) 16.1 (%) (38.5) (7.7) (53.8) (30.6) (44.4) (77.1) (22.9) N 18 3 17 9 21 21 15

(5.1) 16.2 (%) (54.2) (16.7) (29.2) (27.3) (38.1) (57.1) (42.9) N 18 2 18 6 17 13 18

Preferred foot Right Left Both Leader in games Physical type of player Actions Spontaneous Well prepared
a b

15 3 21 11 16 27 8

(41.9) 69 (58.1)b 53 0.05. 0.01. 0.001.

(62.4) 59 (37.6) 49

Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P c Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P

and an average of 6.0 hours per week (SD, 3.6) during the competition period. The number of games did not vary significantly between adult players of different skill levels; however, high-level youth players played more games than low-level players (Table 2). High-skill players of all three age groups had significantly more hours of training in the preparation period as well as in the competition period than did lowlevel players. Although high-skill players spent more hours for recovery (for example, sauna, swimming, light jogging) in the preparation period, these players felt overloaded by the amount of training and games more often than did low-skill players of the same age group (Table 2). Overall, more than one-third of the players (N 207; 35.5%) felt at least occasionally overloaded by the games

and training sessions. Only 119 players (20.4%) felt completely recovered before the next game. Almost 40% of the players (N 228; 39.1%) at least occasionally had aching muscles before the subsequent training session and 20% (N 117) before a game. Reaction Time Reaction time measured without the influence of physical exercise (at the beginning of the examination) was slower in low-level groups, but the differences reached statistical significance only for youth players (Table 3). Immediately after the 12-minute run, this difference was more pronounced. The reaction time was significantly shorter in high-level than in low-level players of all three age groups.

TABLE 2 Amount of Training and Games in Football Players of Different Age and Skill Levels
Adult players Training and games Top-level (N 40) Third league (N 41) (SD) (8.3) (4.4)b (2.5) (6.7) (1.0) Amateur (N 25) Local teams (N 38) Youth (1618 years) High-level (N 137) Low-level (N 96) Youth (1416 years) High-level (N 118) Low-level (N 93) (SD) (14.8)a (2.5)c (1.9)c (2.8)a (0.7)c

Mean (SD) Mean Number of games played in the last season Hours of training (preparation period) Hours of training (competition period) Hours of recovery (preparation period) Overloaded by amount of training and games (1 never to 5 always)
a b c

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean 22.2 9.0 6.5 2.1 2.4 (13.1) 19.3 (4.1)c 8.6 (2.0)b 5.1 (3.4)b 2.4 (0.8) 2.2 (12.8) 26.8 (3.8)c 12.6 (1.7)c 6.6 (7.2)a 2.2 (0.9)a 2.3 (12.7) 22.9 (6.2) (2.0) (2.4) (0.9) 6.4 4.3 1.7 1.9 (8.9) 28.6 (5.9)c 10.1 (2.0)c (4.5) (0.7)c 6.3 1.7 2.3
b

22.1 18.5 9.6 3.9 2.6

(9.6) (6.5) (4.3) (7.2) (0.6)

25.0 14.8 8.5 3.9 2.8

(13.3) 24.4 (6.8) (5.8) (6.9) (1.0) 5.1 4.1 1.1 1.8

Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P Significance of difference from high-level players of the same age group: P

0.05. 0.01. 0.001.

Vol. 28, No. 5, 2000

Psychological and Sport-Specific Characteristics of Football Players TABLE 3 Reaction Time of Football Players of Different Age and Skill Levels
Adult players Youth (1618 years) Local teams (N 38) Mean (SD) High-level (N 137) Low-level (N 96)

S-25

Youth (1416 years) High-level (N 118) Low-level (N 93)

Measurement

Top-level (N 40)

Third league (N 41) (SD)

Amateur (N 25) Mean (SD)

Mean (SD) Mean

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Reaction time (time unit) Before the tests began 148 (53) 152 (56) 143 (45) 175 (67) 136 (58) 161 (54)b After 12-minute run 106 (37) 133 (53)a 136 (59)a 140 (60)b 114 (49) 148 (57)c Difference between reaction time 48.9 20.1 7.7 36.8 23.6 12.4 before and after the test Significance of difference P 0.001 P 0.05 P 0.05 P 0.01 P 0.001 P 0.05
a

157 (65) 178 (68)a 128 (48) 164 (74)c 23.8 15.1 P 0.001 P 0.05

Significance of difference from high-level players to low-level players of the same age group: P b Significance of difference from high-level players to low-level players of the same age group: P c Significance of difference from high-level players to low-level players of the same age group: P

0.05. 0.01. 0.001.

Comparing the reaction time before and immediately after the 12-minute run, we observed a significant reduction in all three age groups, but not in all skill-level groups. The most significant differences were found in the high-level groups. No substantial association was ascertained between reaction time and the number of previous injuries. Psychological Characteristics The results of the psychological questionnaires are presented in Table 4 for the whole study group, as players of different ages and skill levels were, with only few exceptions, not statistically different. Young players of highskill level had significantly fewer worries about their performance, and 14- to 16-year-old high-level players reported significantly more peaking under pressure and a better concentration than low-level players. The study group differed significantly from other populations described in the literature, reaching higher values in anger trait and the outward expression of anger, but lower values in anger control than the norm population described by the authors of the State-Trait-Anger-Expres-

sion Inventory.19 The competitive anxiety of the study groups was higher than that of the players evaluated by the authors of the State Competitive Anxiety Test.13 On the Athletic Coping Skills Inventory, the study group scored significantly lower on all scales, except for freedom from worry, where they reached higher values than the athletes described by the authors of this questionnaire.20 Relationship Between Psychological Characteristics and Previous Injuries The average number of previous injuries was 6.6 (SD, 8.8) for the total groups (see Junge et al.12). For analysis of the psychological data, the group was split by the average number of injuries. Because players with seven or more injuries were older than those with fewer than seven injuries, the effects of age were controlled in the analyses. Compared with players with more than the average number of injuries, players with fewer injuries had less worries about their performance (P 0.05), less competitive anxiety (P 0.01), less peaking under pressure (P 0.01), a lower anger trait (P 0.05), and less outward anger expression (P 0.01).

TABLE 4 Comparison of Psychological Characteristics in the Current Study Group and Populations From the Original Studies
Current group Questionnaire Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Significance Comparison group Difference between groups

Athletic Coping Skills Inventory (ACSI) Coping with adversity Concentration Ability to be coached Confidence Mental preparation Free from worry Peaking under pressure Sport Competitive Anxiety Inventory (SCAT)b Competitive anxiety State-Trait-Anger-Expression Inventory (STAXI)c Anger trait Anger expression inward Anger expression outward Anger control
a b

5.52 6.81 7.93 7.16 4.41 6.61 5.66 18.06 21.11 16.04 13.97 21.47

(2.09) (2.04) (2.27) (2.05) (2.45) (2.30) (2.55) (4.32) (4.87) (3.70) (3.71) (4.13)

6.37 7.20 8.85 8.12 5.84 6.32 6.76 17.04 18.1 16.0 13.0 22.4

(2.17) (2.08) (2.32) (2.22) (2.67) (2.86) (2.70) (4.30) (5.34) (4.04) (4.02) (5.29)

P P P P P P P P P P P P

0.001 0.05 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.05 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.05 0.001 0.001

Comparison group is 594 male athletes.20 Comparison group is 303 football players.13 c Comparison group is 990 normal subjects.19

S-26

Junge et al.

American Journal of Sports Medicine TABLE 5 Relationship Between Psychological Characteristics and Fair Play Statements
I do not talk to an opponent I do not listen to what an during a game. opponent says during a game. I respond to provocation with the same methods. 293) No (N (SD)
c

I pay back a hidden foul immediately. 65) No (N (SD)

b

Psychological Characteristic

Yes (N Mean

224) No (N (SD)
b

353) (SD)

Yes (N Mean

268) (SD)

No (N

353) Yes (N

278) Yes (N

418)

Mean

Mean (SD) Mean

Mean (SD) Mean

Mean (SD)

Coping with adversity 5.8 (2.1) 5.3 (ACSI) b Concentration (ACSI) 7.1 (2.1) 6.6 Ability to be coached (ACSI) Confidence (ACSI) Mental preparation (ACSI) Free from worry (ACSI) Peaking under pressure (ACSI) Competitive anxiety (SCAT) Anger trait (STAXI) 20.4 (5.1)b 21.6 Anger expression inward (STAXI) Anger expression outward 13.2 (3.6)c 14.5 (STAXI) Anger control (STAXI) 22.1 (4.3)b 21.1
a b

(2.0) (2.0)

5.8 8.3 4.7

(2.1)

5.2 (2.1) 7.6 (2.3) 4.2 (2.7)

5.1 (2.0)

5.9 (2.1) 7.1 (2.0) 8.3 (2.1) 6.8 (2.2)

4.9 (1.9)

5.7 (2.1) 6.9 (2.0) 8.1 (2.2)

(2.2)c (2.6)a

6.5 (2.0) 7.5 (2.4)c 6.3 (2.3)b

6.2 (2.3) 7.2 (2.5)b

4.9 (2.6)b (4.7) (3.7) (4.0) 20.1 13.4 22.2 (4.6)c (3.7)c (3.9)c

5.8 (2.5)

18.5 (4.4)a 17.6 (4.3) 22.1 (4.9) 22.9 (4.9)c 19.3 (4.2) 23.4 (5.0)c 20.5 (4.7) 14.5 (3.7) 15.2 (3.8)c 20.9 (4.2) 20.3 (3.9)c 12.7 (3.1) 15.5 (4.1)c 13.6 (3.6) 22.7 (4.0) 19.7 (4.0)c 21.7 (4.2)

Significant difference between yes and no groups (P Significant difference between yes and no groups (P c Significant difference between yes and no groups (P

0.05). 0.01). 0.001).

Fair Play The answers given with respect to fair play statements clearly indicate that players have insufficient respect for the rules of the game, its regulations, and its spirit (Table 5).Indeed, nearly all players (N 526; 91.8%) were ready to commit a professional foul if required, depending on the score and the importance of the match. The majority of players stated that provocation (N 401; 70.5%) and hidden fouls (N 360; 62.4%) were, from their point of view, part of playing football. Half of the players (N 293; 51.3%) declared that they retaliated in the same way when an opponent provoked them with word or gesture, and even more players tended to pay back a hidden foul with similar methods (N 323; 57.6%). No substantial differences between different age and skill-level groups were observed in relation to these findings. Relationship Between Psychological Characteristics and Fair Play Statements For each of the eight fair play statements, players who agreed and who disagreed with the statement were compared with respect to their psychological characteristics (Table 5). Players who declared that they do not talk to an opponent during a game had more ability to cope with adversity and had better concentration. Their anger trait was lower, and they controlled their anger more often and outwardly expressed it less frequently than did players who disagreed with this statement. Players who agreed that they do not listen to what an opponent says during a game were more often mentally prepared for competition, had a better ability to cope with adversity, and were easier to coach. Their anger trait was lower, and they controlled their anger more often and outwardly expressed it less frequently than did players who disagreed with this statement.

Players who stated that they reply with similar methods when provoked by an opponent more often had a lack of concentration, had problems in coping with adversity, and were harder to coach. Their anger trait was higher, and they controlled their anger less frequently and outwardly expressed it more often than did players who disagreed with this statement. Players who stated that they pay back a hidden foul immediately with similar methods were less able to cope with adversity, had less peaking under pressure, had worse concentration, and were harder to coach. Their anger trait was higher, and they controlled their anger less frequently and outwardly expressed it more often than did players who disagreed with this statement. Players who stated that they pay back a hidden foul at the right moment with similar methods had less ability to cope with adversity and were harder to coach. Their anger trait was higher, and they controlled their anger less frequently and outwardly and inwardly expressed it more often than did players who disagreed with this statement. Players who agreed that, for them, provocation is a part of football, more often declared peaking under pressure. Their anger trait was higher, they controlled their anger less frequently and expressed it more often outwardly than did players who disagreed with this statement. Players who agreed that, for them, hidden fouls are a part of football, controlled their anger less frequently and expressed it more often outwardly than did players who disagreed with this statement. Players who agreed that, depending on the score and the importance of a match, a player sometimes has to commit a professional foul, were older (P 0.05), more often had previous injuries (P 0.05), and more often were prepared mentally for the game. They had better concentration, better control of anger, and more self-confidence, but also had more wor-

Vol. 28, No. 5, 2000

Psychological and Sport-Specific Characteristics of Football Players TABLE 5 Continued

S-27

I pay back a hidden foul at the right moment. Yes (N Mean 323) (SD) No (N Mean 238) (SD)

For me, provocation is part of football. Yes (N Mean 401) (SD) No (N Mean 168) (SD)

For me, hidden fouls are part of football. Yes (N Mean 360) (SD) No (N Mean 217) (SD)

Sometimes a player has to commit a professional foul. Yes (N Mean 526) (SD) No (N Mean 47) (SD)

5.2 7.7

(2.0)

5.9 8.3

(2.1) 6.9 (2.0)b (2.0)a (2.3)a 6.0 6.4 7.3 (1.8) (1.9) (2.4) (2.2) 7.2 6.5 5.8 21.5 (2.6) (4.7)a
a

(2.3)b

22.1 16.4 14.6 21.0

(4.6)c (3.8)b (3.7)c (4.0)c

19.7 15.5 13.1 22.3

(4.9) (3.6) (3.6) (4.3)

5.2 20.4

(2.4) (5.0)

14.3 21.2

(3.7)b (4.1)b

13.3 22.2

(3.6) (4.1)

14.3 21.2

(3.8)a (4.2)a

13.5 21.9

(3.5) (4.0) 21.6 (4.2)b 19.8 (3.3)

ries about their performance than did players who disagreed with this statement. In summary, the eight statements covered four different aspects of fair play. This was also confirmed by a factor analysis. The psychological characteristics of players who did not talk or listen to an opponent during a game were almost the opposite of those who agreed with the other statements. Players who refrained from verbal interaction with the opponent more often prepared mentally for the game, had better concentration, and were easier to coach. They coped better with adversity and anger than players who talked or listened to an opponent during the game. On the other hand, players who agreed with the questionnaire statement of paying back provocation and hidden fouls had a higher anger trait and less control of their anger. Moreover, they had a lack of concentration, poor ability to cope with adversity, and were difficult to coach. Players who stated that for them provocation and hidden fouls were a part of football controlled their anger less frequently and outwardly expressed it more often, but they did not differ in any other aspects from players who disagreed with these statements. Finally, nearly all players agreed that sometimes a player has to commit a professional foul. There was no difference in anger trait or expression of anger; in fact, players who answered the statement in the affirmative had better control of anger than players who refrained from professional fouls.

DISCUSSION
Regarding football-specific characteristics, it is remarkable that the number of games did not vary significantly between adults of different skill levels although the amount of training and recovery was lower in the lower leagues. In the youth teams, players in lower leagues had both less training and fewer games compared with high-level players. However, more than one-third of all players at least occasionally felt overloaded by the number of games and training sessions. The high percentage of players with aching muscles before

the subsequent training session or game also indicated the inadequate physiologic recovery of the players. The reaction time, as measured by a simple electronic device, differed significantly between the eight age and skill-level groups. The reaction time was slower in lowlevel players than in high-level players. This observation, which was already noticeable at the first examination (without the influence of physical exercise), was even more pronounced at the second examination (immediately after the 12-minute run). In comparing the pre- and postexercise measurements, no general effect of fatigue was observed; indeed, on the contrary, a reduction in reaction time after physical exercise suggested an increased arousal in the players. Either a lesser degree of arousal or a confounding effect of fatigue in the low-level players may have been responsible for the finding that the differences in reaction time between players of high- and low-level football were more pronounced at the second measurement. An association between reaction time and injury, as showed in two prospective studies,4, 24 could not be confirmed using retrospective data. The psychological characteristics of the study group differed significantly from populations described in the literature,13, 19, 20 but mostly the numeric differences were small ( 0.5 SD) and reached statistical significance only because of the large sample sizes. Several studies have demonstrated the influence of psychological factors on sports injury.11 In the present study, a relationship between competitive anxiety and injuries was demonstrated, confirming the findings of other prospective investigations of other types of sport.3, 7, 14 Blackwell and McCullagh3 compared the extreme quartiles of the State Competitive Anxiety Test and revealed significant differences between injured and uninjured American football players, as well as between those who were severely injured and those who were not. Discriminant analysis indicated that competitive anxiety was a predictor of the severity of injury7 as well as the time-loss associated with injury.14 In all studies, high competitive anxiety (measured using the State

S-28

Junge et al.

American Journal of Sports Medicine

Competitive Anxiety Test) was associated with a higher risk of (severe) injury. The result of the present study, that a low score in the scale free from worries (Athletic Coping Skills Inventory) was associated with a higher risk of injury, points in the same direction. A relationship between single scales of the Athletic Coping Skills Inventory and injuries has not previously been shown. The authors of the questionnaire,21 as well as Rider and Hicks,17 found no associations between coping skills and injuries. Contrary to these results, Petrie,14 using multiple regression analysis, identified the sum of all Athletic Coping Skills Inventory scales as a predictor of the number of days of absence from training or competition. Using logistic regression, Thompson and Morris25 demonstrated that high anger directed outwardly increased the injury risk in American football players. In the present study, not only the outward expression of anger but also a high anger trait was associated with the number of previous injuries. Although in the present study the information regarding injuries was ascertained retrospectively, the results corresponded to findings of previous investigations and confirmed the influence of psychological factors on sports injuries. Regardless of the type of sport, high competitive anxiety, low coping skills, a high anger trait, and outward expression of anger seem to increase the risk of a sports injury.11 A relationship between fair play and the occurrence of injury appears to be evident to observers of the game. In football, approximately half of all injuries are caused by contact with another player and more than one-quarter are caused by foul play.5, 6, 8 10 Therefore, it is of great importance to analyze the attitudes of the players and their readiness to contravene the laws of the game. Pilz15 reported that more than half of the youth football players (average age, 13 years) that he investigated considered fair play to include a fair foul. With increasing age and football experience in a club, players accept more intentional rule violations.16 Younger players learn to violate the rules according to the importance of the situation and the degree of punishment.16 In the present study, nearly all players agreed that, depending on the score and the importance of a match, a player should commit a professional foul if required by the situation. Analyzing the psychological characteristics of these players, we could find no differences in anger trait or the expression of anger. Moreover, this group of players controlled their anger well, were more often mentally prepared, had better concentration, and were more confident than players who disagreed with the statement. This psychological profile indicates that a professional foul is not a spontaneous reaction, but an established and well-prepared action in the game. In contrast, players who stated that they would pay back provocation and hidden fouls with similar methods not only had more anger trait and less anger control but also demonstrated a lack of concentration, poor ability to cope with adversity, and were difficult to coach. These players seemed to mask personal weaknesses by aggression and use, or misuse, of the game to vent their own emotions. An understanding of the psychological factors

underlying unfair play may allow for the development of interventions to improve fair play. However, fair play should be promoted not only with regard to the players, but also in relation to the attitudes and behavior of the trainers, referees, and spectators. Fair play involves more than just complying with the existing rules; its essence comprises respect for the opponent and the spirit of the game.

REFERENCES
1. Andersen MB, Williams JM: A model of stress and athletic injury: Prediction and prevention. J Sport Exerc Psychol 10: 294 306, 1988 2. Bangsbo J: The physiology of soccerwith special reference to intense intermittent exercise. Acta Physiol Scand 619 (Suppl): 1155, 1994 3. Blackwell B, McCullagh P: The relationship of athletic injury to life stress, competitive anxiety and coping resources. Athl Train 25: 2327, 1990 4. Dvorak J, Junge A, Chomiak J, et al: Risk factor analysis for injuries in football players: Possibilities for a prevention program. Am J Sports Med 28(Suppl): S69 S74, 2000 5. Ekstrand J, Gillquist J: The avoidability of soccer injuries. Int J Sports Med 2: 124 128, 1983 6. Engstrom B, Forssblad M, Johansson C, et al: Does a major knee injury definitely sideline an elite soccer player? Am J Sports Med 18: 101105, 1990 7. Hanson SJ, McCullagh P, Tonymon P: The relationship of personality characteristics, life stress, and coping resources to athletic injury. J Sport Exerc Psychol 14: 262272, 1992 8. Hawkins RD, Fuller CW: An examination of the frequency and severity of injuries and incidents at three levels of professional football. Br J Sports Med 32: 326 332, 1998 9. Hawkins RD, Fuller CW: Risk assessment in professional football: An examination of accidents and incidents in the 1994 World Cup finals. Br J Sports Med 30: 165170, 1996 10. Inklaar H: Soccer injuries. II: Aetiology and prevention. Sports Med 18: 8191, 1993 11. Junge A: The influence of psychological factors on sports injuries: Review of the literature. Am J Sports Med 28(Suppl): S10 S15, 2000 12. Junge A, Dvorak J, Chomiak J, et al: Medical history and physical findings in football players of different ages and skill levels. Am J Sports Med 28(Suppl): S16 S21, 2000 13. Martens R, Vealey RS, Burton D: Competitive Anxiety in Sport. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics Publishers, 1990 14. Petrie TA: Coping skills, competitive trait anxiety, and playing status: Moderating effects on the life stress-injury relationship. J Sport Exerc Psychol 15: 261274, 1993 15. Pilz GA: Fair-Play-Cup Niedersachsen. FIFA-Magazine 46: 1112, 1997 16. Pilz GA: Performance sport: Education in fair play? (Some empirical and theoretical remarks). Int Rev Soc Sport 30(3 4): 391 418, 1995 17. Rider SP, Hicks RA: Stress, coping, and injuries in male and female high school basketball players. Percept Mot Skills 81: 499 503, 1995 18. Roberts WO, Brust JD, Leonard B, et al: Fair-play rules and injury reduction in ice hockey. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 150: 140 145, 1996 19. Schwenkmezger P, Hodapp V, Spielberger D: Das State-Trait-Argerausdrucks-Inventar. Bern, Verlag Hans Huber, 1992 20. Smith RE, Schutz RW, Smoll FL, et al: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of sport-specific psychological skills: The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28. J Sport Exerc Psychol 17: 379 398, 1995 21. Smith RE, Smoll FL, Ptacek JT: Conjunctive moderator variables in vulnerability and resiliency research: Life stress, social support and coping skills, and adolescent sport injuries. J Pers Soc Psychol 58: 360 370, 1990 22. Spielberger CD: State-Trait-Anger-Expression Inventory (STAXI). Odessa, FL, Psychological Assessment Resources, 1988 23. Taimela S, Kujala UM, Osterman K: Intrinsic risk factors and athletic injuries. Sports Med 9: 205215, 1990 24. Taimela S, Osterman L, Kujala U, et al: Motor ability and personality with reference to soccer injuries. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 30: 194 201, 1990 25. Thompson NJ, Morris RD: Predicting injury risk in adolescent football players: The importance of psychological variables. J Pediatr Psychol 19: 415 429, 1994 26. Tumilty D: Physiological characteristics of elite soccer players. Sports Med 16: 80 96, 1993 27. Watson RC, Singer CD, Sproule JR: Checking from behind in ice hockey: A study of injury and penalty data in the Ontario University Athletic Association Hockey League. Clin J Sport Med 6: 108 111, 1996