New Research on Heading in Football: Progress in Measurement, But Questions Remain

The recent British Journal of Sports Medicine paper by Townsend et al. (2025) marks a significant step forward in our understanding of heading exposure during football training. For the first time, elite male and female footballers were monitored using instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) to capture the real-world frequency and intensity of headers, moving beyond laboratory estimates and self-report data that have long limited this area of research.

Across 63 professional training sessions, the study recorded nearly 1,500 heading events. The results revealed average peak linear accelerations of 18 g and rotational accelerations of ~1,000 rad/s², with female players consistently experiencing higher rotational accelerations than males. Crucially, match-like scenarios such as crosses and long balls produced the highest forces, while throw-ins, more common in training drills, resulted in lower impacts.

A step forward for football science

This research represents tangible progress. The methodology adheres to the Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP) framework, using a validated iMG technology (Protecht) to produce the most reliable dataset yet on heading in elite football. It provides an evidence base for training-load management and begins to inform guidance on limiting repetitive head impacts, a necessary foundation for future policy and practice.

The use of wearable technology across both men’s and women’s elite tiers should be recognised as a milestone for player welfare. For the first time, we can meaningfully quantify what a “typical” training exposure looks like, rather than relying on conjecture or extrapolation from match data.

But peak force understanding remains limited

While the study provides robust quantification of how often and how hard players head the ball, it stops short of answering the critical question; what do these forces mean for the brain?

The peak linear and rotational accelerations recorded remain well below concussive thresholds, yet our understanding of the cumulative or sub-concussive impact of repetitive exposure remains incomplete. Rotational acceleration, in particular, is thought to exert greater strain on neural tissues, but the clinical consequence of these training-related exposures remains speculative.

This is especially relevant for women’s football, where the study identified significantly higher rotational accelerations but could not determine why. Possible explanations include differences in neck strength, head-neck segment mass, or heading technique, all of which demand closer biomechanical and neuromuscular scrutiny.

The practical takeaway: neck strength and neuromuscular control matter

What this study reinforces, perhaps more than anything, is the need for targeted cervical spine conditioning as part of concussion-prevention and performance programmes.

Strong, well-coordinated neck musculature could reduce head acceleration by stabilising the head–neck complex at the moment of impact. In practical terms, this means progressive strength and proprioceptive training, ideally integrated into existing strength and conditioning or physiotherapy routines.

For female athletes, who may be more susceptible to higher rotational forces, this may carry even greater importance. Tailored neuromuscular interventions that improve timing, co-contraction, and dynamic control could be key to mitigating risk without compromising performance.

Progress made

Townsend et al. should be commended for delivering the most comprehensive quantification of training-related heading to date. Their findings are a clear advance in the ongoing effort to understand, and ultimately manage, the neurological load placed on footballers.

But quantification is not the same as comprehension. Until we better understand how these forces translate into brain strain, metabolism, and long-term neurodegenerative risk, our response must combine data-driven exposure management with proactive neck-control conditioning.

In short: progress has been made, but the science of protection is only just beginning.