Physical match demand in the FIFA World Cup: An analysis of the 2018 (Russia) and 2022 (Qatar) editions

Abstract

The 2022 Qatar World Cup was conducted under unique circumstances, setting it apart from previous editions due to schedule and rule modifications. This study aimed to evaluate the physical demand of teams in terms of running disparities between the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Match performance data were obtained from the official websites of the 2018 Russia World Cup (n = 988 observations) and the 2022 Qatar World Cup (n = 826 observations). Match outcomes included losses (n = 729 player observations), draws (n = 339 player observations), or wins (n = 746 player observations). Players in all positions covered a greater distance during the 2022 World Cup compared to the 2018 edition. When examining the interaction between Cup and Outcome, only total distance covered (F = 5.831, p = 0.003) and distance covered walking (F = 15.488, p < 0.001) showed statistical differences. These findings elucidate that more total distance was covered during draws, with higher values observed in the 2022 World Cup. Thus, the study concludes that the 2022 Qatar FIFA World Cup presented a higher physical match demand compared to the 2018 Russia FIFA World Cup.

Keywords

High-speed running optical tracking system performance analysis rule modifications soccer

Introduction

Match analysis has been used for a long time in the sports science area.¹ This tool describes match performances using individual and team data, indicating higher or lower values linked to on-field achievements.² In football, performance is associated with physical, technical, and tactical actions.³

Several studies about physical demand of football players are typically conducted during FIFA World Cups.^4–14 Over time, it has been shown that various unique factors can influence physical demand, such as changes in rules,^10,15 players’ genotype, load monitoring, and cooperation among coaches and sport scientists could be some of these contributing factors.⁶ For example, rule changes, such as the implementation of VAR (Video Assistant Referee), may have reduced the number of high-velocity actions in 2018 World Cup,¹⁰ as well as the distance covered (total and per minute) in La Liga matches.¹⁶ These findings may be related to the game's dynamics with VAR intervention. However, total distance covered was higher with VAR in World Cup matches,¹⁷ indicating the complexity of analysing rule changes.

The 2022 Qatar World Cup was conducted under unique conditions that may distinguish it from previous editions, with changes in the schedule and rules. After the COVID outbreak, concerned with reducing physical load and minimizing the risk of injuries, the International Board promoted a change increasing the number of substitutions, from 3 to 5 players for each team who can be switched.¹⁸ This change helped teams to maintain or increase physical match demand.^15,19,20 The increased substitution options and the utilization of more rested players during the match may be related to this scenario.^19,20

Another unique aspect of the 2022 Qatar World Cup was its scheduling during November and December, aimed at avoiding high temperatures during the Northern Hemisphere summer in Qatar. Consequently, most of the athletes were in the midst of the clubs’ calendar season, unlike previous World Cups. This alteration in the calendar alone could influence players’ physical demand, as various studies suggest that the accumulation of matches over a short period and the fatigue generated by the players at their club leagues may lead to incomplete recoveries.^6,21–23

Given the unique conditions of Qatar World Cup compared to previous editions, it allows for the examination of the substitution rule change and the impact of calendar season changes on physical demand, potentially informing improvements for future events. Additionally, it may assist clubs in developing training protocols for competitions based on the substitutions management and the timing of matches throughout the year. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the physical demands of matches from the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. It was hypothesized that there would be higher physical demand for the 2022 World Cup due to the impact of the substitution's rules change and period of the football season.

Material and methods

Match data

Match performance data were retrieved from the official website of 2018 Russia World Cup and 2022 Qatar World Cup. Sixty-one matches were analysed in the 2018 World Cup (n = 988 players observations), since three matches (i.e., Colombia vs Japan; Egypt vs Uruguay; Peru vs Denmark) were excluded from analysis due to FIFA reports not providing one of the dependent variables. In the 2022 Qatar World Cup, sixty-four matches were analysed (n = 826 players observations). Only performances of players who completed the entire match were included.

Dependent variables

Match running performance

For the 2018 World Cup, the data provider company utilized a real-time optical tracking system (STATS, SportVU). This system operated at 25 frames per second, with each frame providing the player's coordinates on the field (x and y). A recent study reported acceptable positional accuracy of this tracking system (56 ± 16 cm) compared to the goal-standard system (VICON motion capture system).²⁴ For the 2022 World Cup, games were analysed using a multicamera computerised tracking system (TRACAB, Chyron Hego).

Running performance variables (dependent variables) measured in meters (m) included: total distance covered (TD), distance covered walking (Z1: 0–7.0 km·h⁻¹), distance covered in moderate speed running (Z2: 7.1–15.0 km·h⁻¹), distance covered in high speed running (Z3: 15.1–20.0 km·h⁻¹), distance covered in very high speed running (Z4: 20.1–25.0 km·h⁻¹), and distance covered sprinting (Z5: > 25.0 km·h⁻¹). In addition, recorded were the frequency of sprints (i.e., number of actions above 25.0 km·h⁻¹) and top speeds achieved during play (km·h⁻¹).

Independent variables

Player position

The playing positions were analysed differently for each World Cup by the data provider company. In the 2018 World Cup, the positions analysed were goalkeeper, central defenders, external defenders, central midfielders, external midfielders, and forwards. In contrast, for the 2022 World Cup, the positions were grouped into goalkeeper, defender, midfielder, and forward. To ensure consistency, we combined central and external defenders, as well as central and external midfielders. Consequently, our analysis focused on four playing positions: 1) goalkeepers (GK = 247 players’ observations), 2) defenders (DF = 827 players’ observations), 3) midfielders (MF = 549 players’ observations) and 4) forwards (FW = 191 players’ observations). In the 2018 Russia World Cup were analysed 122 goalkeepers, 430 defenders, 337 midfielders, and 99 forwards players’ observations, while in the 2022 Qatar World Cup were analysed 125 goalkeepers, 397 defenders, 212 midfielders, and 92 forwards players’ observations.

Match outcome

Match outcome was the result of each match, including matches losses (n = 729 players’ observations), draws (n = 339 players’ observations) and wins (n = 746 players’ observations). During playoffs, matches with decision by penalties, the outcome was considered as a draw. In the 2018 Russia World Cup and 2022 Qatar World Cup, four and five matches were decided by penalties, respectively.

Team formation

Playing formation was determined by two researchers and qualified coaches by the Brazilian Soccer Confederation according to player distribution over the entire 90-min of match-play (i.e., tactical line-up and actual formation reported by FIFA. A total of six playing formations were analysed: i) 1‒4‒2‒3‒1 (n = 585 players observations); ii) 1‒4‒3‒2‒1 (n = 99 players observations); iii) 1‒3‒4‒3 (n = 174 players observations); iv) 1‒4‒3‒3 (n = 462 players observations); v) 1‒4‒4‒2 (n = 239 players observations); and vi) 1‒3‒5‒2 (n = 158 players observations). Two playing formations were excluded owing to insufficient sample sizes (i.e., 1‒5‒3‒2, n = 60 players observations; 1‒5‒2‒2‒1, n = 37 players observations).

Statistical analysis

Data normality was verified using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and homogeneity of variance was used Levene test. Data were presented as mean and standard deviation. We used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the number of substitutions and physical demands during 2018 Russia World Cup and 2022 Qatar World Cup. In addition, we calculated the effect size (ES), and we adopted Cohen's criteria for interpreting these analyses (>0.2 small; > 0.50, moderate; > 0.80 large; > 1.30 very large). We performed two-way analyses of variance (World Cup [2018 and 2022] factor; and Position [GK, DF, MD and FW], Match Outcome [Loss, Draw and Win], Team formation [1‒4‒2‒3‒1, 1‒4‒3‒2‒1, 1‒3‒4‒3, 1‒4‒3‒3, 1‒4‒4‒2 and 1‒3‒5‒2] factors) to compare the physical demands during the match. All null-hypothesis statistical analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). For all statistics, we set the significance level at 5%.

Results

The total number of substitutions during the 2018 and 2022 World Cups (considering the matches analysed here) were 375 and 586 substitutions, respectively. In addition, Figure 1 shows that the mean of substitutions was significantly (p < 0.05, ES = -2.92) higher for 2022 World Cup (9.2 ± 1.4) compared to 2018 World Cup (5.9 ± 0.8). Table 1 shows that the total distance covered increased from the 2018 to the 2022 World Cup, with zones 1, 2 and 4 also showing increases in 2022. The number of sprints and top speeds achieved by players in the 2022 World Cup has significantly increased compared to the 2018 World Cup.

Figure 1.

Comparison between 2018 Russia FIFA World Cup and 2022 Qatar FIFA World Cup for number of substitutions.

Table 1.

Means and standard deviation for physical demands during 2018 Russia FIFA World Cup and 2022 Qatar FIFA World Cup.

Variables	FIFA World Cup		Δ%^§	p-value*	ES
Variables	2018	2022	Δ%^§	p-value*	ES
Total Distance (m)	9334.4 ± 2363.9	9734.4 ± 2431.6	+4.3	<0.001	0.17
Distance Z1 (m)	3748.4 ± 1089.2	3870.1 ± 536.2	+3.3	<0.001	0.14
Distance Z2 (m)	3835.3 ± 1414.9	3998.1 ± 1545.7	+4.3	<0.001	0.11
Distance Z3 (m)	1185.1 ± 630.6	1174.2 ± 580.6	−0.9	0.797	0.02
Distance Z4 (m)	461.7 ± 233.8	512.2 ± 272.9	+11.1	<0.001	0.20
Distance Z5 (m)	168.7 ± 123.5	179.9 ± 144.4	+6.6	0.508	0.08
Sprints	27.4 ± 14.5	40.1 ± 20.5	+46.3	<0.001	0.73
Top Speed (km·h⁻¹)	27.4 ± 4.4	30.2 ± 3.3	+10.2	<0.001	0.71

*Mann-Whitney. ^§Positive values in favour of 2022 World Cup.

Table 2 presents comparative data from the 2018 to the 2022 World Cup by player positions. All player positions (GK, DF, MD and FW) exhibited greater distances covered during the 2022 compared to the 2018 World Cup. In both tournaments, MD covered greater distances than GK, DF and FW. A significant interaction was observed for distance zones (Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4), indicating that during the 2022 World Cup, higher distances were covered in speeds zones: Z1 (0–7.0 km·h⁻¹) for GK, Z2 (7.1–15.0 km·h⁻¹) for DF and MD, Z3 (15.1–20.0 km·h⁻¹) for MD and FW, Z4 (20.1–25.0 km·h⁻¹) for DF, MD and FW compared to the 2018 World Cup. Additionally, significant interactions were observed for sprints (F = 33.846, p < 0.001) and top speed (F = 36.674, p < 0.001). During the 2022 World Cup, a higher number of sprints were performed by DF, MD and FW compared to 2018 World Cup, and top speeds achieved during matches were higher for all positions in 2022. Regarding player positions, as expected, MD and FW reached a higher number of sprints in both competitions. Conversely, regarding top speeds achieved during matches, DF exhibited similar results to MD and FW.

Table 2.

Means and standard deviation for physical demands to players positions during 2018 Russia FIFA World Cup and 2022 Qatar FIFA World Cup.

Variables		Positions				p-value
Variables		GK	DF	MD	FW	Cup	Position	Cup*Position
Total Distance (m)	2018	4179.7 ± 796.7^b,c,d	9638.9 ± 1089.6^a,c,d	10675.7 ± 1569.0^a,b,d	9798.9 ± 1404.1^a,b,c	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.118
Total Distance (m)	2022	4458.8 ± 820.7^b,c,d	9897.6 ± 1078.1^a,c,d	11002.5 ± 1519.9^a,b,d	10136.6 ± 1356.9^a,b,c	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.118
Distance Z1 (m)	2018	3300.7 ± 605.2^A,b,c,d	3884.1 ± 1520.2^a,c	3685.6 ± 485.9^a,b,d	3924.7 ± 440.4^a,c	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.041*
Distance Z1 (m)	2022	3674.3 ± 545.4^B,b,d	3922.8 ± 449.5^a	3761.2 ± 555.4^b,d	4159.9 ± 655.3^a,c	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.041*
Distance Z2 (m)	2018	787.4 ± 450.4^b,c,d	4013.3 ± 700.7^A,a,c	4703.0 ± 858.3^A,a,b	3864.9 ± 971.4^a,c	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.010*
Distance Z2 (m)	2022	912.1 ± 297.9^b,c,d	4335.0 ± 647.5^B,a,c,d	5173.3 ± 927.9^B,a,b,d	4028.9 ± 960.7^a,b,c	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.010*
Distance Z3 (m)	2018	127.9 ± 157.22^b,c,d	1170.6 ± 564.4^a,c,d	1575.6 ± 403.2^A,a,b,d	1221.9 ± 324.4^A,a,c	0.004*	<0.001*	0.011*
Distance Z3 (m)	2022	113.3 ± 54.12^b,c,d	1182.5 ± 263.2^a,c,d	1710.9 ± 400.6^B,a,b,d	1342.9 ± 364.0^B,a,b,c	0.004*	<0.001*	0.011*
Distance Z4 (m)	2018	28.3 ± 63.2^b,c,d	463.9 ± 163.2^A,a,c,d	585.5 ± 176.7^A,a,b	564.5 ± 156.2^A,a,b	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*
Distance Z4 (m)	2022	28.3 ± 24.3^b,c,d	534.8 ± 176.5^B,a,c,d	678.9 ± 186.7^B,a,b	687.9 ± 196.1^B,a,b	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*
Distance Z5 (m)	2018	6.2 ± 22.9^b,c,d	178.9 ± 101.8^a,d	193.8 ± 126.1^a,d	238.8 ± 113.2^a,b,c	0.008*	<0.001*	0.089
Distance Z5 (m)	2022	3.7 ± 10.3^b,c,d	202.6 ± 132.1^a,d	197.8 ± 125.5^a,d	280.5 ± 143.6^a,b,c	0.008*	<0.001*	0.089
Sprints	2018	1.6 ± 4.6^b,c,d	27.9 ± 10.7^A,a,c,d	33.6 ± 11.6^A,a,b	35.1 ± 10.2^A,a,b	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*
Sprints	2022	2.7 ± 2.1^b,c,d	42.8 ± 13.4^B,a,c,d	51.2 ± 12.8^B,a,b	53.7 ± 14.4^B,a,b	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*
Top Speed (km·h⁻¹)	2018	17.9 ± 4.5^A,b,c,d	28.7 ± 2.3^A,a	28.6 ± 2.3^A,a,d	29.4 ± 2.3^A,a,b,c	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*
Top Speed (km·h⁻¹)	2022	23.9 ± 2.6^B,b,c,d	31.3 ± 1.8^B,a	30.9 ± 1.9^B,a,d	31.9 ± 1.9^B,a,c	<0.001*	<0.001*	<0.001*

GK = Goalkeeper; DF = Defender; MD = Midfielder; FW = Forward. *p < 0.05. A ≠ 2022; B ≠ 2018; a ≠ GK; b ≠ DF; c ≠ MD; and d ≠ FW.

In Table 3, the physical demands data between the 2018 and 2022 World Cups regarding match outcomes are presented. Distance covered in Z3 is the only exception, showing no statistical differences (p > 0.05) between World Cups. However, when analysing the interaction Cup*Outcome, only total distance covered (F = 5.831, p = 0.003) and distance covered in Z1 (F = 15.488, p < 0.001) presented statistical differences. This indicates that more total distance was covered during draws, with higher values for the 2022 World Cup. In addition, more meters were covered at Z1 during draws for both World Cups, with higher values again noted for the 2022 World Cup.

Table 3.

Means and standard deviation for physical demands to match outcome during 2018 Russia FIFA World Cup and 2022 Qatar FIFA World Cup.

Variables		Match Outcome			p-value
Variables	World Cup	Loss	Draw	Win	Cup	Outcome	Cup*Outcome
Total Distance (m)	2018	9355.7 ± 2433.1	9180.8 ± 2151.4^A	9365.6 ± 2366.7	<0.001*	0.086	0.003*
Total Distance (m)	2022	9477.2 ± 2330.9^b	10347.0 ± 2745.6^B,a,c	9610.3 ± 2262.8^b	<0.001*	0.086	0.003*
Distance Z1 (m)	2018	3775.1 ± 1562.9^b	3552.1 ± 363.8^A,a,c	3788.7 ± 536.9^b	<0.001*	0.210	<0.001*
Distance Z1 (m)	2022	3731.0 ± 388.5^b	4138.9 ± 800.3^B,a,c	3840.8 ± 378.9^b	<0.001*	0.210	<0.001*
Distance Z2 (m)	2018	3864.5 ± 1428.7	3813.2 ± 1344.8	3813.9 ± 1427.1	0.007*	0.212	0.125
Distance Z2 (m)	2022	3918.9 ± 1482.6	4255.1 ± 1716.2	3918.4 ± 1482.9	0.007*	0.212	0.125
Distance Z3 (m)	2018	1197.1 ± 546.8	1196.6 ± 557.0	1169.4 ± 725.6	0.895	0.317	0.415
Distance Z3 (m)	2022	1143.0 ± 544.7	1248.9 ± 636.1	1158.8 ± 576.7	0.895	0.317	0.415
Distance Z4 (m)	2018	468.5 ± 231.0	462.2 ± 240.3	454.7 ± 234.6	<0.001*	0.936	0.711
Distance Z4 (m)	2022	506.7 ± 267.1	518.0 ± 277.4	514.0 ± 276.7	<0.001*	0.936	0.711
Distance Z5 (m)	2018	169.1 ± 118.7	160.5 ± 117.6	170.9 ± 130.2	0.040*	0.982	0.543
Distance Z5 (m)	2022	177.7 ± 144.5	186.3 ± 145.2	178.3 ± 144.1	0.040*	0.982	0.543
Sprints	2018	27.8 ± 14.3	27.0 ± 14.7	27.0 ± 14.6	<0.001*	0.835	0.505
Sprints	2022	39.4 ± 20.2	41.3 ± 21.1	39.9 ± 20.4	<0.001*	0.835	0.505
Top Speed (km·h⁻¹)	2018	27.5 ± 4.2	27.3 ± 4.8	27.3 ± 4.4	<0.001*	0.917	0.815
Top Speed (km·h⁻¹)	2022	30.2 ± 3.4	30.2 ± 3.4	30.2 ± 3.2	<0.001*	0.917	0.815

*p < 0.05. A ≠ 2022; B ≠ 2018; a ≠ Loss; b ≠ Draw; and c ≠ Win.

Regarding team formation, it is possible to observe from Table 4 that statistical differences (p < 0.05) were only found between World Cup analyses, independent of and not related to team formation variables. Total distance covered, distance covered at Z4, Z5, number of sprints and top speed achieved all showed higher values at the 2022 World Cup.

Table 4.

Means and standard deviation for physical demands to team formation during 2018 Russia FIFA World Cup and 2022 Qatar FIFA World Cup.

Variables		Team Formation						p-value
Variables		1-4-2-3-1	1-4-3-2-1	1-3-4-3	1-4-3-3	1-4-4-2	1-3-5-2	C	TF	C*TF
TD (m)	2018	9399.4 ± 2387.9	9101.6 ± 2423.8	9241.2 ± 2089.9	9233.1 ± 2400.7	9103.5 ± 1984.3	9531.9 ± 2651.3	0.011*	0.287	0.764
TD (m)	2022	9571.9 ± 2327.8	9275.7 ± 2244.2	9807.9 ± 2537.7	9912.8 ± 2473.5	9379.9 ± 2262.6	10027.6 ± 2662.3	0.011*	0.287	0.764
Z1 (m)	2018	3715.1 ± 536.1	4107.8 ± 3427.2	3664.3 ± 403.7	3685.9 ± 488.2	3689.9 ± 416.3	3849.5 ± 607.8	0.105	0.060	0.578
Z1 (m)	2022	3867.8 ± 427.6	3959.5 ± 361.7	3816.7 ± 470.0	3932.9 ± 605.9	3714.4 ± 357.5	3987.3 ± 727.9	0.105	0.060	0.578
Z2 (m)	2018	3870.6 ± 1438.7	3523.9 ± 1436.3	3823.0 ± 1268.1	3831.5 ± 1359.5	3703.4 ± 1278.6	3937.8 ± 1475.5	0.075	0.362	0.897
Z2 (m)	2022	3872.9 ± 1479.5	3698.9 ± 1334.1	4116.0 ± 1618.7	4056.2 ± 1582.2	3875.3 ± 1498.4	4091.4 ± 1661.7	0.075	0.362	0.897
Z3 (m)	2018	1214.9 ± 727.3	1132.6 ± 562.3	1164.9 ± 487.9	1162.8 ± 538.3	1123.4 ± 498.2	1199.9 ± 580.0	0.725	0.363	0.643
Z3 (m)	2022	1145.7 ± 570.2	964.7 ± 459.8	1198.5 ± 605.7	1198.6 ± 594.7	1137.3 ± 549.4	1269.9 ± 616.6	0.725	0.363	0.643
Z4 (m)	2018	470.8 ± 238.6	466.0 ± 248.1	457.6 ± 236.6	471.2 ± 219.2	429.1 ± 209.9	458.2 ± 244.8	0.009*	0.445	0.961
Z4 (m)	2022	508.4 ± 279.1	466.9 ± 278.3	505.3 ± 277.1	532.3 ± 279.3	485.0 ± 245.5	511.8 ± 281.4	0.009*	0.445	0.961
Z5 (m)	2018	170.1 ± 122.6	177.8 ± 131.1	176.8 ± 138.4	176.8 ± 110.1	141.8 ± 104.3	179.8 ± 141.9	0.449	0.210	0.745
Z5 (m)	2022	177.1 ± 151.4	185.4 ± 150.8	171.5 ± 140.0	192.9 ± 146.8	168.0 ± 134.8	167.4 ± 139.9	0.449	0.210	0.745
Sprint	2018	27.8 ± 14.7	27.2 ± 15.6	27.4 ± 14.9	28.4 ± 13.8	25.5 ± 12.7	27.5 ± 15.31	<0.001*	0.431	0.992
Sprint	2022	39.8 ± 20.8	37.5 ± 21.9	39.5 ± 20.5	41.6 ± 20.9	38.2 ± 19.1	39.6 ± 20.5	<0.001*	0.431	0.992
TS (km·h⁻¹)	2018	27.3 ± 4.6	27.4 ± 4.6	27.8 ± 4.2	27.6 ± 4.9	27.2 ± 4.5	27.8 ± 4.1	<0.001*	0.065	0.266
TS (km·h⁻¹)	2022	30.2 ± 3.5	30.2 ± 3.4	30.1 ± 3.2	30.3 ± 3.3	30.3 ± 3.3	32.9 ± 22.1	<0.001*	0.065	0.266

TD = Total Distance; Z = Zones of distance covered in different speeds; TS = Top Speed; C = Cup; TF = Team Formation. *p < 0.05.

Discussion

Our aim in the present study was to compare the match physical demands from the 2018 to the 2022 World Cups. We found that total distance covered, distance covered in different speeds zones, number of sprints, and top speed achieved during matches were higher in the 2022 compared to the 2018 World Cup. It is noteworthy that the 2022 World Cup provided some unique conditions. In comparison with previous editions, the number of substitutions changed from 3 to 5 players for each team, and the competition was held during November and December, whereas the previous editions occurred during June and July, in the middle and the end of the club's calendar season, respectively.

Previous studies aimed to compare physical demand during matches with new rule of five substitutions and matches with three substitutions per team.^19,20 López-Valenciano et al.¹⁹ observed Spanish professional players (LaLiga Santander, seasons 2019–2020 and 2020–2021) and found that after the new substitution rule, players enhanced their running performance and teams covered greater distances at speeds ≥21 km·h⁻¹. Ruscello et al.²⁰ observed Italian players (Italian League Serie A, seasons 2017–2018, 2018–2019, 2020–2021 and 2021–2022), and showed an increase in sprinting performance. Similar results were found in the present study, with total distance covered, distance covered in different speeds (Z1, Z2 and Z4), number of sprints, and top speed presenting higher values during the 2022 World Cup (five substitutions rule) than the 2018 World Cup (three substitutions rule). Interestingly, we analysed only players who completed the match, and similarly López-Valencio et al.,¹⁹ we found improvements in running performance only for starting players, suggesting that the new substitution rule can collectively increase the distance covered at high speeds, thus leading the match to a higher demand. On the other hand, careful analysis must be taken regarding the approach by Bradley,²⁵ who noted much longer game durations compared to Russia 2018. Nonetheless, when the data were adjusted based on the number of minutes played, tournament differences still stood at 9–12% at higher intensities in his analysis. The improvement in physical performance may be related to the possible game strategy enabled by the five substitutions, allowing coaches to keep players well-rested during regular playing time.¹⁹

In addition, the World Cup being held in the middle of the calendar season (Europe Leagues) for the most players is an important factor to consider. Seasonal variations in physical demand have been reported.^26–29 In the Bundesliga, the total distance covered by players decreases significantly towards the end of the season compared to the beginning and middle of the season.²⁷ Morgans et al.²⁸ also showed that the total distance covered by players from England Championship League (ECL) was higher during the middle than at the end of the season. Furthermore, for the ECL, higher sprint distance, sprint frequency, high intensity distance, and high intensity frequency were observed during the beginning of the season compared to the middle and end of the season.²⁹ The reduction in performance towards the end of the season can be attributed to accumulated fatigue and short recovery time between matches due to congested competitions schedules.^27,29,30 With that perspective, since the Qatar World Cup was held during the middle of the Europe season (where most of the players who reached the final stages played), competitive congestion seems not to have negatively influenced performance.²³ Therefore, part of the higher physical demand reached by players during the 2022 FIFA World Cup compared to 2018 edition can be attributed to the timing of the competitions (mid-season vs end of season), allowing even higher metrics.²³

In addition, large effect sizes were observed for number of sprints and top speed, indicating higher values for 2022 FIFA World Cup than 2018 edition. The new rule allowing five substitutions appears to increase high-intensity stimuli during matches.^19,20 Therefore, coaches may be able to reduce players’ physical stress throughout the season, and training plans could be designed considering the increased rotation of players during matches (i.e., the possibility of five substitutions). Consequently, there may be an increase in high-intensity demands during both training and matches in this new scenario.

Several studies have been demonstrated the match physical demands of player positions.^30–34 In general, midfielders and forwards exhibit higher physical demand during football matches than defenders. For the 2022 World Cup, it was identified here and by Bradley³⁴ that total distance covered, distance covered in different speeds zones, number of sprints, and top speed achieved during matches were higher for midfielders and/or forwards compared to defenders in both FIFA World Cup editions. However, in our analysis of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, all positions showed higher values for the number of sprints and top speed achieved during matches compared to 2018 FIFA World Cup. These results indicate an increase in high-intensity performance during the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Additionally, Santos et al.³⁵ suggested that goalkeepers have recently played an important role in the football matches. Besides their critical relevance in the defensive actions of the team, goalkeepers also participate in the offensive process through effective short and long passes.³⁵ Keep this in mind, nowadays the goalkeeper plays a key role in determining the outcome of a match, through both individual and collective actions. Therefore, this role requires the enhancement of technical skills and the development of the ability to apply them effectively within the tactical context of the game.³⁶ In other words, a goalkeeper's offensive actions often involve receiving late passes from teammates and using foot-based technical skills to support team offensive construction, particularly along the side flanks.³⁷ This evolution can help to explain the increase in top speed reached by goalkeepers from the 2018 to the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

The present study observed a small impact of match outcome on physical demand in both World Cups. Only total distance covered and distance covered in the Z1 (0–7.0 km·h⁻¹) showed higher values when the match finished in a draw compared to losses and wins in the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Therefore, although higher values were observed for physical parameters in the 2022 FIFA World Cup compared to the 2018 edition, teams that won, lost or drew had similar values for these parameters in both competitions. The higher total distance covered for matches finished in a draw, can be related to other studies have shown effect of match outcomes on the physical demand.^38,39 When a team is winning, it is suggested that players may not utilize their maximum physical capacity. In contrast, when a team is losing, higher physical demands are often observed as players intensify their efforts to recover from an unfavourable result.^39,40 Additionally, we suggest that when the score is level, both teams are likely to push for a win, resulting in increased physical demands during the match. Factors other than physical demand, such as goal efficiency and pass accuracy, may have a greater influence on match success.⁴¹ Therefore, caution is necessary when analyzing the mutual influence of match outcomes on running performance indicators.

Team formation did not affect the physical demand in either FIFA World Cups. According to Aquino et al.,⁴² in the 2018 FIFA World Cup, team formation affected ball possession and social network analysis (i.e., in degree, out degree, betweenness centrality, clustering coefficients, density and completed passes). Bradley et al.⁴³ analysed the English FA Premier League (season 2006–07) and concluded that physical demand was not affected by team formation. However, the authors demonstrated that high-intensity running performance could be influenced by team formation, depending on whether teams were in possession of the ball or not. Noteworthy, the choice of team formation and the level of ball possession (low, medium, high or very high percentage) can influence the physical variables, such as TD, high speed running distance and high metabolic load distance (distance covered with a power consumption above 25.5 W/kg).⁴⁴ In the present study, the absence of an effect of team formation on physical demands may be associated with the lack of ball possession analysis.

In this study, a limitation was that different data providers were used in the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup (SportVU and TRACAB, respectively). Therefore, comparisons of the physical demands between World Cups should be analysed with caution, however both systems used multi-camera optical tracking operating at 25 Hz, so software change should not impair analyses, since differentiation for speed zones were used the same in both tournaments with the aim to compare them.⁴⁵ Changes were made to improve and contextualize the tactical team and players behaviours’, which was not the direct aim of this analysis. Furthermore, we did not consider the influence of match importance (e.g., group phase or play-offs), weather conditions, score-line progression and quality of the opposition in our analysis.

Considering the present findings, future studies could integrate technical-tactical metrics, such as ball possession and pressing intensity with analyses of how team formation influences physical demands. Additionally, future research may benefit from incorporating technical and tactical analyses aimed at comparing different FIFA World Cup editions. The use of multivariate models will also be critical for controlling potential confounding variables, such as match importance, weather conditions, score-line progression, and opponent quality.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated that 2022 Qatar FIFA World Cup exhibited higher physical match demands than the 2018 Russia FIFA World Cup. This difference may be attributed to the new substitutions rule, which changed from three to five substitutions per team, and competition date, as the Qatar Cup and Russia Cup were held in the middle and end of the European Leagues’ seasons, respectively. All player positions showed higher values for physical match demands in the 2022 FIFA World Cup compared to the 2018 edition. Noteworthy, in the 2022 FIFA World Cup, goalkeepers appeared to increase their participation in matches, as higher physical demands were observed compared to the 2018 FIFA World Cups. Finally, match outcome and team formation had a small impact on physical match demands.

Footnotes

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Mendeley Data Repository at .

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We would like to thank Secretaria Nacional do Futebol e Direitos do Torcedor of Ministério do Esporte for supporting this project through the Programa Academia e Futebol (TED N° 9/2021/SNFDT/MC/SEESP, process number 71000.003446/2021-77).

ORCID iDs

Rodolfo André Dellagrana

Guilherme Moreira Caetano Pinto

Hugo Alexandre de Paula Santana

Rodrigo Aquino

References

Reep

Pollard

Benjamin

. Skill and chance in ball games. J R Stat Soc Series A 1971; 134: 623–629.

Clemente

Couceiro

Martins

, et al. Team's performance on FIFA U17 world cup 2011: study based on notational analysis. J Phys Educ Sport 2012; 12: 13–17.

Moura

Martins

LEB

Anido

, et al. A spectral analysis of team dynamics and tactics in Brazilian football. J Sports Sci 2013; 31: 1568–1577.

Duk

Min

Kawczyński

, et al. Endurance and speed capacity of the Korea republic football national team during the world cup of 2010. J Hum Kinet 2011; 30: 115–121.

Rumpf

Silva

Hertzog

, et al. Technical and physical analysis of the 2014 FIFA world cup Brazil: winners vs. Losers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2016; 57: 1–15.

Chmura

Andrzejewski

Konefal

, et al. Analysis of motor activities of professional soccer players during the 2014 world cup in Brazil. J Hum Kinet 2017; 56: 187–195.

Peñas

Dellal

Owen

, et al. The influence of the extra-time period on physical performance in elite soccer. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2015; 15: 830–839.

Qing

Miguel

Gómez

, et al. Technical and physical match performance of teams in the 2018 FIFA world cup: effects of two different playing styles. J Sports Sci 2019; 37: 2569–2577.

Tuo

Wang

Huang

, et al. Running performance of soccer players during matches in the 2018 FIFA world cup: differences among confederations. Front Psychol 2019; 7: 1044.

10.

Oliveira

MAC

Dambroz

Santos

, et al. VAR Implementation and soccer team performance: a comparison between the 2014 and 2018 world cups. J Phys Educ Sport 2021; 21: 3208–3213.

11.

Kołodziejczyk

Chmura

Milanovic

, et al. How did three consecutive matches with extra time affect physical performance? A case study of the 2018 football men’s world cup. Biol Sport 2021; 38: 65–70.

12.

Chodor

Chmura

, et al. Impact of climatic conditions projected at the world cup in Qatar 2022 on repeated maximal efforts in soccer players. PeerJ 2021; 9: 1–18.

13.

Konefał

Chmura

Charmas

, et al. Lactate threshold and psychomotor fatigue threshold in hot conditions: suggestions for soccer players participating in the Qatar world cup 2022. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19: 17028.

14.

Ortega

Simón

MAM

. High-intensity physical performance parameters in soccer. Trends Sport Sci 2022; 29: 51–56.

15.

García-Aliaga

Martín-Castellanos

Marquina Nieto

, et al. Effect of increasing the number of substitutions on physical performance during periods of congested fixtures in football. Sports 2023; 11: 25.

16.

Ponce-Bordón

Lobo-Triviño

Rubio-Morales

, et al. The effect of the video assistant referee system implementation on match physical demands in the spanish LaLiga. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023; 19: 5125.

17.

Costa-Oliveira

Dambroz

Santos

, et al. VAR Implementation and soccer team performance: a comparison between the 2014 and 2018 world cups. J Phys Educ Sport 2021; 21: 3208–3213.

18.

FIFA - Fédération Internationale de Football Association. Five-substitute option extended into 2021 in response to COVID-19 pandemic (fifa.com), https://www.fifa.com/media-releases/five-substitute-option-extended-into-2021-in-response-to-covid-19-pandemic. (2020, accessed 10 april 2023).

19.

López-Valenciano

Moreno-Perez

Campo

RLD

, et al. The five-substitution option enhances teams’ running performance at high speed in football. Int J Sports Med 2023; 44: 344–351.

20.

Ruscello

Tozzi

Apollaro

, et al. Effects of the new COVID-19-induced rule on substitutions and performance in Italian elite soccer. Sports 2023; 11: 208.

21.

Reilly

Drust

Clarke

. Muscle fatigue during football match-play. Sports Med 2008; 38: 357–367.

22.

Fowler

Duffield

Valle

. Effects of domestic air travel on technical and tactical performance and recovery in soccer. Int J Sport Physiol Perform 2014; 9: 378–386.

23.

Branquinho

Forte

Thomatieli-Santos

, et al. Perspectives on player performance during FIFA world cup Qatar 2022: a brief report. Sports 2023; 11: 174.

24.

Linke

Link

Lames

. Football-specific validity of TRACAB’s optical video tracking systems. Plos One 2020; 15: e0230179.

25.

Bradley

. ‘Setting the Benchmark’Part 2: contextualising the physical demands of teams in the FIFA world cup Qatar 2022. Biol Sport 2023; 41: 271–278.

26.

Bishop

Abbott

Brashill

, et al.

Seasonal variation of physical performance, bilateral deficit, and interlimb asymmetry in elite academy soccer players: which metrics are sensitive to change?

J Strength Cond Res 2023; 37: 358–365.

27.

Chmura

Konefal

Wong

, et al. Players’ physical performance decreased after two-thirds of the season: results of 3 consecutive seasons in the German first Bundesliga. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16: 2044.

28.

Morgans

Adams

Mullen

, et al. Technical and physical performance over an English championship league season. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2014; 9: 1033–1042.

29.

Morgans

Adams

Mullen

, et al. Changes in physical performance variables in an English championship league team across the competitive season: the effect of possession. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2014; 14: 493–503.

30.

Mohr

Krustrup

Bangsbo

. Match performance of highstandard soccer players with special reference to development of fatigue. J Sport Sci 2003; 21: 519–528.

31.

Di Salvo

Baron

Gonzalez-Haro

, et al. Sprinting analysis of elite soccer players during European champions league and UEFA cup matches. J Sport Sci 2010; 28: 1489–1494.

32.

Rampinini

Coutts

Castagna

, et al. Variation in top level soccer match performance. Int J Sport Med 2007; 28: 1018–1024.

33.

Gregson

Drust

Atkinson

, et al. Match-to-Match variability of high-speed activities in premier league soccer. Int J Sport Med 2010; 31: 237–242.

34.

Bradley

. ‘Setting the Benchmark’Part 1: the contextualised physical demands of positional roles in the FIFA world cup Qatar 2022. Biol Sport 2023; 41: 261–270.

35.

Santos

Espada

, et al. T-pattern analysis of offensive and defensive actions of youth football goalkeepers. Front Psychol 2022; 13: 957858.

36.

López-Gajardo

González-Ponce

Pulido

, et al. Analysis of the football goalkeeper’s technical-tactical actions in competition. Rev Int Med y Ciencias la Act Fis y del Deport 2020; 20: 577–594.

37.

Santos

Sousa

Pinheiro

, et al. Analysis of offensive and defensive actions of young soccer goalkeepers. Hum.Mov 2022; 23: 18–27.

38.

Castellano

Blanco-Villaseñor

Alvarez

. Contextual variables and time-motion analysis in soccer. Int J Sport Med 2011; 32: 415–421.

39.

Lago

Casais

Dominguez

, et al. The effects of situational variables on distance covered at various speeds in elite soccer. Eur J Sport Sci 2010; 10: 103–109.

40.

Bloomfield

Polman

O’Donoghue

. Effect of score-line on intensity of play in midfield and forward players in FA premier league. J Sports Sci 2005; 23: 191–192.

41.

Kahlouche

. Match-related technical performance of qualified and eliminated teams in the group stage of Qatar 2022 world cup. Trends Sport Sci 2023; 30: 119–125.

42.

Aquino

Machado

Clemente

, et al. Comparisons of ball possession, match running performance, player prominence and team network properties according to match outcome and playing formation during the 2018 FIFA world cup. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2019; 19: 1026–1037.

43.

Bradley

Carling

Archer

, et al. The effect of playing formation on high-intensity running and technical profiles in English FA premier league soccer matches. J Sport Sci 2011; 29: 821–830.

44.

Morgans

Radnor

Fonseca

, et al. Match running performance is influenced by possession and team formation in an English premier league team. Biol Sport 2024; 41: 275–286.

45.

FIFA - Fédération Internationale de Football Association. The FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 provided a striking demonstration of how the physical demands of elite football have evolved in recent years. For the very first time, FIFA have produced a series of articles analysing these changes. Why and how this analysis was carried out is explained below. https://www.fifatrainingcentre.com/en/fwc2022/physical-analysis/background-and-method.php (2023, accessed 08 april 2025).