SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Spor ve Egzersiz Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 3

Does Functıonal Mobılıty of Soccer Players Affect Theır Performance Parameters?

Futbolcuların Fonksiyonel Hareketliliği Performans Parametrelerini Etkiler mi?

Bahaüddin Türkarslan(YILDIRIM BEYAZIT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0000-8125-0041
Gökhan Deliceoğlu(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8650-3538
Çağlar Soylu(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GÜLHANE SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-1524-6295
Pages
532–541
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results showed significant differences in agility (p=0.049, Cohen's d=0.79) and all Y-Balance directions (p<0.05, d=0.79-0.83).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The study aimed to examine the impact of total Functional Movement Screen (FMS) scores on athletic performance metrics among amateur soccer players (aged 17-19 years).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data collected encompassed age, body weight, height, body mass index (BMI), agility, vertical jump, 10-m and 30-m sprint times, foot reaction time, and dynamic balance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results showed significant differences in agility (p=0.049, Cohen's d=0.79) and all Y-Balance directions (p<0.05, d=0.79-0.83).
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Futbol · Postüral Denge · Hareket

Abstract

The study aimed to examine the impact of total Functional Movement Screen (FMS) scores on athletic performance metrics among amateur soccer players (aged 17-19 years). Thirty licensed male amateur soccer players were included. Data collected encompassed age, body weight, height, body mass index (BMI), agility, vertical jump, 10-m and 30-m sprint times, foot reaction time, and dynamic balance. Participants were grouped based on FMS scores into FMS risk-present (FMSRV, score ≤14; n=14) and FMS risk-absent (FMSRY, score ≥15; n=16). The FMS evaluated seven movement patterns: Deep Squat, Hurdle Step, Inline Lunge, Shoulder Mobility, Active Straight-Leg Raise, Trunk Stability Push-Up, and Rotary Stability, scored from 0-3, with a total range of 0-21. Performance tests included the T-Agility Test for agility, Optojump for vertical jump, Y-Balance Test for dynamic balance, photocell gates for sprints, and Light-Trainer for foot reaction time. Reliability measures for tests were high (ICC 0.68-0.99). Results showed significant differences in agility (p=0.049, Cohen's d=0.79) and all Y-Balance directions (p<0.05, d=0.79-0.83). No significant differences were found in 10-m sprint (p=0.352), 30-m sprint (p=0.265), vertical jump (p=0.508), or foot reaction time (p=0.436). Individual FMS patterns revealed significance in Shoulder Mobility (p=0.046, d=-0.77), with trends in Hurdle Step (p=0.063) and Active Straight-Leg Raise (p=0.066). These findings suggest FMS scores influence integrated tasks like agility and balance but not isolated power or speed metrics. Lower scores indicate movement deficiencies potentially affecting soccer-specific skills. Implementing FMS could guide targeted training to enhance performance and reduce injury risk in amateur athletes.

Özet

Bu çalışma, amatör futbolcuların (17-19 yaş arası) toplam Fonksiyonel Hareket Analizi (FMS) skorlarının atletik performans metrikleri üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Çalışmaya 30 lisanslı erkek amatör futbolcu dahil edilmiştir. Toplanan veriler yaş, vücut ağırlığı, boy, vücut kitle indeksi (BKİ), çeviklik, dikey sıçrama, 10 m ve 30 m sürat zamanları, ayak reaksiyon süresi ve dinamik dengeyi kapsamıştır. Katılımcılar FMS skorlarına göre FMS risk-var (FMSRV, skor ≤14; n=14) ve FMS risk-yok (FMSRY, skor ≥15; n=16) gruplarına ayrılmıştır. FMS, yedi hareket paternini değerlendirmiştir: Deep Squat, Hurdle Step, Inline Lunge, Shoulder Mobility, Active Straight-Leg Raise, Trunk Stability Push-Up ve Rotary Stability, 0-3 puan aralığında skorlanmış, toplam 0-21 aralığındadır. Performans testleri T-Çeviklik Testi (çeviklik), Optojump (dikey sıçrama), Y-Denge Testi (dinamik denge), fotosel kapıları (süratler) ve Light-Trainer (ayak reaksiyonu) içermiştir. Testlerin güvenilirliği yüksektir (ICC 0.68-0.99). Sonuçlar çeviklikte anlamlı fark göstermiştir (p=0.049, Cohen's d=0.79) ve tüm Y-Denge yönlerinde (p<0.05, d=0.79-0.83). 10 m süratte (p=0.352), 30 m süratte (p=0.265), dikey sıçramada (p=0.508) veya ayak reaksiyonunda (p=0.436) anlamlı fark bulunmamıştır. Bireysel FMS paternlerinde Shoulder Mobility'de anlamlılık (p=0.046, d=-0.77), Hurdle Step (p=0.063) ve Active Straight-Leg Raise'de (p=0.066) eğilim görülmüştür. Bu bulgular FMS skorlarının çeviklik ve denge gibi entegre görevleri etkilediğini, ancak izole güç veya hız metriklerini etkilemediğini göstermektedir. Düşük skorlar futbol spesifik becerileri etkileyebilecek hareket eksikliklerini işaret eder. FMS'nin rutin kullanımı performans artışı ve yaralanma riskini azaltmak için hedefli antrenmanlara rehberlik edebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Türkarslan, B., Deliceoğlu, G., Soylu, Ç., *, B. T. (2025). Does Functıonal Mobılıty of Soccer Players Affect Theır Performance Parameters?. Türk Spor ve Egzersiz Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 3, 532–541. https://doi.org/10.15314/tsed.1743012

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Atalay G, Sözen H, Karahan M. The relationship between functional movement screen scores and performance in university football players. J Hum Kinet. 2020;74:257–65. doi:10.2478/hukin-2020-0031
  2. Beardsley C, Contreras B. The functional movement screen: a review. Strength Cond J. 2014;36(5):72–80. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000074
  3. Bennett H, Chalmers S, Milanese S, Fuller J. The association between Y-balance test scores, injury, and physical performance in elite adolescent Australian footballers. J Sci Med Sport. 2022;25(4):306–11. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2021.11.041
  4. Bonazza NA, Smuin D, Onks CA, Silvis ML, Dhawan A. Reliability, validity, and injury predictive value of the functional movement screen: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(3):725–32. doi:10.1177/0363546516645537
  5. Bondarev D, Achkasov E, Andronov O, et al. Evaluating the association of various movement screening tools with injury prediction in soccer athletes: a systematic review. Scand J Sport Med. 2023;23(3):3–12. doi:10.1016/j.scjsm.2023.03.001
  6. Campa F, Petri C, Di Michele R, et al. Convergent validity of the functional movement screen regarding stability and joint mobility: a systematic review. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2024;38:74–82. doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.03.002
  7. Campos-Vázquez MA, Martínez A, Rojas-Valverde D, et al. Testing in football: a narrative review. Sports. 2024;12(11):307. doi:10.3390/sports12110307
  8. Chang WD, Chou LW, Chang NJ, Chen S. Comparison of functional movement screen, star excursion balance test, and physical fitness in junior athletes with different sports injury risk. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:8690540. doi:10.1155/2020/8690540
  9. Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train. 2007;42(2):311–9.
  10. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function – part 1. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2006;1(2):62–6.
  11. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom BJ, Voight M. Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function – part 1. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(3):396–409.
  12. Del-Vecchio FB, Gondim DF, Arruda ACP. Functional movement screening performance of Brazilian jiu-jitsu athletes: differences considering practice time and combat style. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(8):2341–7. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001324
  13. Dorrel BS, Long T, Shaffer S, Myer GD. Evaluation of the functional movement screen as an injury prediction tool among active adult populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Health. 2015;7(6):532–7. doi:10.1177/1941738115607445
  14. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
  15. Fousekis K, Tsepis E, Vagenas G. Intrinsic risk factors of noncontact ankle sprains in soccer: a prospective study on 100 professional players. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(8):1842–50. doi:10.1177/0363546512445871
  16. Fousekis K, Tsepis E, Vagenas G. Lower limb strength in professional soccer players: profile, asymmetry, and training age. J Sports Sci Med. 2010;9:364–73.
  17. Frost DM, Beach TA, Callaghan JP, McGill SM. Using the functional movement screen to evaluate the effectiveness of training. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(6):1620–30. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318234ec59
  18. Günaydın ÖE, Tunay VB, Baltacı G. Profesyonel futbolcularda sezon başı ve sezon sonu propriyosepsiyon, fonksiyonel endurans ve koordinasyon testlerindeki değişikliklerin karşılaştırılması. J Exerc Ther Rehabil. 2016;3(1):1-8.
  19. Han X, Li L, Chen J, Xu W, Trybulski R, Clemente FM. Comparing the effects of small-sided and medium-sided soccer games on physical fitness adaptations in untrained men: a randomized controlled study. J Sports Sci Med. 2025;24(1):142–53. doi:10.52082/jssm.2025.142
  20. Hawkins RD, Hulse MA, Wilkinson C, Hodson A, Gibson M. The Football Association Medical Research Programme: an audit of injuries in professional football. Br J Sports Med. 2001;35(1):43–7. doi:10.1136/bjsm.35.1.43
  21. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155–9. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
  22. Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight ML. Can serious injury in professional football be predicted by a pre-season functional movement screen? N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2007;2(3):147–55.
  23. Kraus K, Schütz E, Taylor WR, Doyscher R. Efficacy of the functional movement screen: a review. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(12):3571–84. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000556
  24. Loudon JK, Reiman MP, Sylvain J. The effectiveness of core stabilization training in dynamic balance and athletic performance: a systematic review. Phys Sportsmed. 2014;42(3):29–36. doi:10.3810/psm.2014.09.2077
  25. Marques VB, Campoy FA, Dias GA, et al. The Functional Movement Screen (FMS™) in elite young soccer players between 14 and 20 years: composite score, individual-test scores and asymmetries. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2025;20(2):145–56. doi:10.26603/ijspt20250145
  26. Meloni A, Bianchini L, Ferrari R, et al. An intermittent recovery test for soccer players: a validation study. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2025;65(3):341–6. doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.24.16105-1
  27. Mohammadi H, Daneshmandi H, Alizadeh MH, Shamsoddini A. Investigating the validity and reliability of the functional movement screen for injury prevention in team sports. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2025;17:1152. doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01152-z
  28. Mokha M, Sprague PA, Gatens DR. Predicting musculoskeletal injury in NCAA Division II athletes from asymmetries and individual-test vs composite FMS scores. J Athl Train. 2016;51(4):276–82. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-51.2.07
  29. Multhuaptff W, Fernández Peña E, Moreno Villanueva A, Soler López A, Rico González M, Clemente FM, Bravo Cucci S, Pino Ortega J. Concurrent-validity and reliability of photocells in sport: A systematic review. J Hum Kinet. 2024;92:53–71. doi:10.5114/jhk/174285
  30. Okada T, Huxel KC, Nesser TW. Relationship between core stability, functional movement, and performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(1):252–61. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b7b7a6
  31. Parchmann CJ, McBride JM. Relationship between functional movement screen and athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(12):3378–84. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318234e828
  32. Plakias S, Dedeoğlu M, Arslan F, Clemente FM. Factors affecting the running performance of soccer teams in the Turkish Super League. Sports (Basel). 2024;12(7):196. doi:10.3390/sports12070196
  33. Plisky PJ, Rauh MJ, Kaminski TW, Underwood FB. Star excursion balance test as a predictor of lower extremity injury in high school basketball players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(12):911–9. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2244
  34. Schneiders AG, Davidsson A, Hörman E, Sullivan SJ. Functional movement screen normative values in a young, active population. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2011;6(2):75–82.
  35. Scudamore EM, Stevens SL, Fuller DK, Coons JM, Morgan DW. Functional movement screen items predict dynamic balance under military torso load. Mil Med. 2020;185(3-4):493–8. doi:10.1093/milmed/usz310
  36. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3-4):591–611. doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
  37. Smith CA, Chimera NJ, Warren M. Association of Y balance test reach asymmetry and injury in Division I athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(7):136–41. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182923a72
  38. Smith LJ, Creps JR, Bean R, Rodda B, Alsalaheen B. Performance of high school male athletes on the functional movement screen. Phys Ther Sport. 2017;27:17–23. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.07.001
  39. Turner AN, Buttigieg C, Marshall G, Noto A, Phillips J. The importance of movement screening for reducing injury risk. Strength Cond J. 2011;33(1):10–7.
  40. Vurmaz MO, Adalı H, Bingül BM. Kadın futbolcuların çeviklik ve reaksiyon özelliklerinin mevkilere göre karşılaştırılması. İnönü Univ J Phys Educ Sport Sci. 2024;11(1):27–37. doi:10.25321/jpes.1461372
  41. Woods C, Hawkins RD, Maltby S, Hulse M, Thomas A, Hodson A. The Football Association Medical Research Programme: an audit of injuries in professional football: analysis of hamstring injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38(1):36–41. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2002.002616