MEDICAL GOVERNANCE AND CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING DURING FIFA INTERNATIONAL WINDOWS IN ELITE FOOTBALL MEDICINE

INTRODUCTION

The elite football medicine physician bears primary responsibility for the comprehensive health, safety, and performance optimization of professional footballers. Establishing trust with players, performance and technical staff, and the executive board is essential, while simultaneously navigating complex ethical challenges related to confidentiality and external pressures to expedite player availability for matches.

The demands of high-performance professional football require a specialist medical practice that integrates performance optimization, physiotherapy, nutrition, data analytics, and direct engagement with sport association executive boards. The football physician’s role extends beyond injury treatment to encompass prevention strategies, load management, clinical decision-making, and institutional mediation between technical and organizational interests.

Although club and national team physicians share the same fundamental roles and responsibilities in medical governance (e.g., protecting player’s health, applying evidence-based practice, promoting player-centered care, and making ethical decisions), they operate in radically distinct contexts. In the club setting, the focus is longitudinal, preventive, and continuous, involving daily monitoring, integrated load management, and sustained performance optimization throughout the entire competitive season. In contrast, national team physicians work in short and episodic cycles, prioritizing rapid fitness assessments, immediate risk management, and critical decision-making often based on incomplete information.

Medical handovers are fundamental to continuity and safety in patient care¹. The temporal and structural differences necessitate complementary yet coordinated approaches to ensure seamless continuity of care and to minimize clinical vulnerabilities during transitions between club and national team environments. These transitions represent periods of heightened clinical vulnerability, primarily due to inter-institutional communication failures and the lack of standardization in medical and performance data. The absence of formal handover protocols significantly increases the risk of injury recurrence and inappropriate return-to-play decisions¹.

This article offers a comparative analysis of the primary roles of sports physicians in professional football clubs and national teams, with particular emphasis on the distinctive features of clinical decision-making in response to players’ medical status and the institutional factors that shape these decisions.

DISCUSSION

Temporal disparity constitutes one of the primary divergences between the two settings—clubs and national teams (Table 1). In clubs, the extended time horizon of care enables physicians to implement robust preventive strategies throughout the entire season, including systematic monitoring of external and internal training loads, periodic functional assessments, and early interventions for signs of accumulated fatigue. In this environment, decision-making tends to be more conservative and long-term oriented, prioritizing the player’s physical integrity as a strategic club asset.

In contrast, national team camps are characterized by short durations and involve players from diverse clubs, posing significant logistical and informational challenges. The national team physician is expected to perform rapid assessments and screenings, interpret reports from multiple clubs, and determine competitive eligibility within compressed timelines. In these scenarios, decision-making is heavily influenced by the quality of clinical handovers², the clarity of prior medical recommendations, and the presence of standardized inter-institutional communication protocols.

Another critical aspect pertains to governance and potential conflicts of interest between clubs and national teams. The comparison between medical practice in clubs and national teams reveals both operational differences and profound distinctions in clinical decision-making. While clubs adopt a patrimonial protection and seasonal planning perspective, national teams often operate under pressure for immediate results.

Differences in role expectations between club and national team physicians can generate inherent friction during FIFA international windows, particularly when players arrive with recent match exposure, residual fatigue, or unresolved symptoms. Studies have shown that match congestion³ —especially ≥2 matches per week—substantially elevates injury risk (Images 1 and 2), with club and international matches constituting a continuous physiological load despite separate institutional governance. Failure to incorporate club match exposure into national team decision-making may contribute to increased rates of muscle injuries during tournaments.

The national team’s commitments can involve extensive international travel, which limits structured training and recovery opportunities within an already congested club calendar (Figure 1). These factors can substantially increase each player’s psychological and physiological stress, thereby restricting their competitive performance⁴. Individual players may face up to 10 consecutive weeks of fixture congestion, encompassing both domestic and international matches.

Currently, player preparation is often not confined to either the club or national team alone, and the lack of control over each player’s overall environment is often more prevalent than anticipated. Moreover, as elite players’ financial resources increase, it has become common for them to engage specialized personal support staff (e.g., strength and conditioning coaches, nutritionists, and sports psychologists) to optimize their individual preparation⁵. This practice creates additional complexity in the relationships among the club medical/performance team, the player’s private staff, and the national team medical department, potentially complicating communication, data sharing, clinical decision-making, and alignment of management strategies.

Shared decision-making (SDM) does not diminish clinician responsibility; rather, it requires clear risk communication, proportionality, and thorough documentation. Poorly implemented SDM, particularly under the intense pressures of national team environments, may exacerbate injury risks. From a medico-legal perspective, structured SDM documentation provides critical protection in the event of adverse outcomes, even when decisions are fully evidence-based.

COMMUNICATION

The quality of internal club communication correlates directly with lower injury incidence, higher training attendance, and greater match-day availability⁶. Effective communication—centered on solid information exchange, principled clinical decision-making, and medico-legal safeguards—entails the establishment of a shared language and mutual understanding between physicians and head coaches/technical staff, thereby facilitating transparent dialogue on player health status, load management, and injury risks. While national team physicians assume responsibility for players during international breaks, they should collaborate closely with club medical staff—particularly before and upon arrival at camp when players present with pre-existing injuries or elevated fatigue levels¹.

Heads of medical and performance departments from the 32 national teams following the FIFA 2018 World Cup reported i) communication, ii) willingness to share information, and iii) quality/completeness of information as the main challenges when joining international windows². In the elite football environment, effective handover between club and national team medical departments should prioritize clinical objectivity, standardization of language, detachment from external political or performance-related pressures, and mandatory official documentation—including date and signature—to ensure continuity of care, minimize miscommunication risks, and uphold medico-legal accountability.

The transfer of health and performance data between clubs and national football teams during FIFA international dates requires consensus on essential information. In the above-mentioned study, national team practitioners identified key medical information to be shared, including injury epidemiology, screening protocols, and treatment strategies, as well as performance information encompassing training/match loads, fatigue monitoring, wellness metrics, and current exercise programs. These data should inform individualized player plans and guide national team selection decisions².

Inter-institutional cooperation between clubs and national teams is essential. Improved information sharing is expected to enhance team performance, mitigate injury risks during both club seasons and international windows, and support evidence-based, player-centered clinical decision-making in elite football medicine.

DECISION MAKING

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process in which clinicians and patients jointly formulate healthcare decisions informed by the best available evidence while incorporating the patient's preferences and values⁷. In sports medicine, particularly elite football, SDM extends beyond the clinician–player dyad to encompass additional stakeholders such as coaches, performance staff, clubs, and national federations (Figure 2).

However, SDM is often challenged by limited high-quality scientific evidence in this domain, highlighting the need to prioritize adherence to clinical guidelines over unsubstantiated clinical judgment or personal experience. A skilled club physician therefore grounds their facilitation of this process primarily in current best evidence rather than solely in their sports background⁸ or anecdotal expertise.

In elite football, these complexities are exacerbated by inherent contextual factors, including tight match schedule that restrict comprehensive deliberation and data integration, as well as intense external pressures from coaches, technical staff, and stakeholders. In such contexts, decisions regarding injury risk, return to play (RTP), and match participation require nuanced, multifaceted assessment, as misguided decisions can carry significant financial and contractual implications for the player, clubs, and federations.

International windows—particularly FIFA World Cup Qualification tournaments—represent high-stress periods for football medicine staff, marked by match congestion, emotional intensity, and heightened public scrutiny. Shared decision-making (SDM) in these settings should be prospectively planned, inherently conservative, and rigorously insulated from external influences. When implemented effectively, SDM safeguards players’ long-term health, upholds ethical integrity, promotes transparency, and substantially mitigates medico-legal vulnerability.

Successful SDM during international windows, including FIFA international dates, relies on strong club–national team collaboration (Images 3–6), precise understanding of injury-specific risks, and the clinical courage to uphold evidence-based medical principles despite intense performance and institutional pressures.

Several factors can influence medical decisions regarding the selection and utilization of football players with borderline physical fitness, requiring the physician to exercise a high degree of ethical independence and diplomatic skill. The team doctor holds a leadership position in managing relationships with multiple stakeholders and understanding the complex context surrounding the player⁹.  Team doctors should cultivate trustworthy and respectful relationships, establish clear roles within the medical team, and uphold ethical values.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

To mitigate clinical vulnerability during FIFA international windows and enhance continuity of care between clubs and national teams, the authors recommend some practical measures. First, club and national team staffs should agree on a minimum standardized dataset for medical handover, including injury diagnosis, imaging summary, stage of rehabilitation, objective functional test results, current pain and symptom profile, and clear medical restrictions. Second, standard terminology should be used across institutions, particularly for RTP-related concepts (e.g., return to training, return to play, and return to competition) —in our practice it is still very common to face only one term (RTP) to any stage of rehabilitation. Third, national teams should adopt risk stratification approach, assessing clinical findings, combining recent matches exposure, recent load, and objective criteria to support transparent decision-making. Finally, shared decision-making (SDM) should be formally documented, including risk communication, athlete preferences, agreed restrictions, and final accountability, thereby strengthening ethical integrity and medico-legal protection for all parties.

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in medical governance and operational contexts, club and national team physicians share the same core responsibilities: protecting players’ health, applying evidence-based practice, delivering player-centered care, and upholding ethical standards. Effective communication—particularly through standardized medical handovers—and inter-institutional cooperation between clubs and national teams are essential to mitigate injury risks, ensure continuity of care, support informed clinical decision-making, and ultimately enhance both individual player welfare and competitive performance outcomes in elite football.

Flavio Cruz MD, MSc

UAE FA 1st Team Doctor

1st Team Medical Department

Diego Fadeuille PT

UAE FA 1st Team Physiotherapist

Physiotherapy Department

Antonio Pierin PT

UAE FA Head Physiotherapist

Physiotherapy Department

United Arab Emirates Football Association

Contact: flavio.cruz@uaefa.ae

References

1. Weiler R, Collinge R, Ewens J, Gouttebarge V, Massey A, Bennett P, et al. Club, country, and clinicians united: ensuring collaborative care in elite sport medical handovers. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55(24):1383-5. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104146. Epub 2021 Jun 25. PMID: 34172457; PMCID: PMC8639924.
2. McCall A, Davison M, Massey A, Oester C, Weber A, Buckthorpe M, et al. The exchange of health and performance information when transitioning from club to National football teams: a Delphi survey of National team practitioners. J Sci Med Sport. 2022;25(6): 486-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2022.03.011. Epub 2022 Mar 24. PMID: 35397983.
3. Dupont G, Nedelec M, McCall A, McCormack D, Berthoin S, Wisløff U. Effect of 2 soccer matches in a week on physical performance and injury rate. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Sep;38(9):1752-8. doi: 10.1177/0363546510361236. Epub 2010 Apr 16. PMID: 20400751.
4. Julian R, Page RM, Harper LD. The Effect of Fixture Congestion on Performance During Professional Male Soccer Match-Play: A Systematic Critical Review with Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2021 Feb;51(2):255-273. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01359-9. PMID: 33068272; PMCID: PMC7846542.
5. Silva JR, Buchheit M, Hader K, Sarmento H, Afonso J. Building Bridges Instead of Putting Up Walls: Connecting the "Teams" to Improve Soccer Players' Support. Sports Med. 2023 Dec;53(12):2309-2320. doi: 10.1007/s40279-023-01887-0. Epub 2023 Jul 22. PMID: 37480484; PMCID: PMC10687197.
6. Ekstrand J, Lundqvist D, Davison M, D'Hooghe M, Pensgaard AM. Communication quality between the medical team and the head coach/manager is associated with injury burden and player availability in elite football clubs. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53(5):304-8. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099411.
7. Paul DJ, Jones L, Read P. Shared Decision-Making: Some cautionary observations in the context of elite sport. Sports Med Open. 2022 Mar 30;8(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s40798-022-00413-2. PMID: 35355148; PMCID: PMC8967937.
8. Cruz F, Meira F. Shared decision-making in the return to play process and risk management in football medicine. Aspetar Sports Med J. Oct 2022 [cited 2026 Feb 2]. Available from: https://journal.aspetar.com/en/archive/volume-11-targeted-topic-sports-science-in-football/shared-decision-making-in-the-return-to-play-process-and-risk-management-in-football-medicine
9. Bolling C, Ekstrand J, Waldén M, Bengtsson H, Davison M, Verhagen E, et al. ‘Good communication and good team building, it’s half of the work in managing a player’: how team doctors perceive communication in the European professional men’s football context. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine. 2025;11: e002392.