Does warming up prevent injury? Trials of certain structured programs practiced repeatedly across a soccer season found fewer injuries for some outcomes; that does not establish the effect of one ordinary warm-up.
The distinction is between preparing for today’s activity and following a training program over time. The research below answers those questions with different levels of certainty.
Three questions that need different answers
| Question | What the evidence can answer | Practical reading |
|---|---|---|
| Will five minutes of movement before today’s workout prevent an injury? | That immediate effect is still uncertain. Most prevention trials studied programs repeated over weeks or months, not an isolated session. | Do not interpret a season-long trial as proof of immediate protection from a single session. |
| Can a structured warm-up program reduce injuries across a season? | In soccer, trials of the FIFA 11+ and related neuromuscular programs found lower rates for some injury outcomes. | Check the actual program, population, comparison and injury definition before applying its result. |
| Does a lower team injury rate guarantee protection for me? | No. Trials compare groups and report injury rates, not individual guarantees. | A group-level result cannot establish your individual risk. |
A 2006 review of five randomized warm-up studies found three with a significant injury reduction and two without one. Its authors said the evidence then leaned toward benefit but was insufficient to endorse or discontinue a routine warm-up as an injury-prevention rule.
Why a warm-up and an injury-prevention program are different questions
A casual warm-up may include easy movement and practice at a lower intensity before the main activity. A structured program such as the FIFA 11+ replaces the usual soccer warm-up with a specific sequence of running, strength, balance and movement-control work.
That sequence is repeated during a season, so the trials test a combined training exposure plus pre-session routine. A 2026 scientific Viewpoint argues that those studies cannot isolate the acute protection from one session because the repeated practice and the comparison team’s usual warm-up are separate issues.
The Viewpoint is a study-design argument, not a trial finding that one warm-up is useless. Its useful question is simple: did an intervention change what athletes did today, what they practiced all season, or both?
The Viewpoint cites a trial in which every team used FIFA 11+ before training, while some teams also did ten extra minutes of 11+ exercises afterward. The extra-work group had fewer injuries, but that design cannot separate exercise timing from the larger exercise dose.
The authors propose an equal-dose before-versus-after comparison as a future test. They do not present that comparison as a completed trial.
What the soccer trials actually measured
| Study and population | Program and comparator | Result that matters | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soligard 2008: 1,892 girls ages 13 to 17 in 93 clubs analyzed over one soccer season. | Revised FIFA 11+ style comprehensive warm-up versus clubs’ usual practice. | Primary lower-extremity injury rate ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.03, which did not reach statistical significance. Secondary outcomes favored the program: all injuries 0.68, overuse injuries 0.47 and severe injuries 0.55. | 125 clubs were randomized, but 93 contributed to the final analysis. The positive secondary outcomes do not erase the primary result. |
| Thorborg 2017: systematic review of six soccer trials. | Four studies used the FIFA 11+; two used the older FIFA 11. | Pooled overall injury incidence rate ratio was 0.61 for FIFA 11+ and 0.99 for the older FIFA 11. | Program versions differed, so “a warm-up” is too broad a treatment label. |
| Waldén 2012: 4,564 adolescent female soccer players. | Neuromuscular warm-up program versus usual team training across a season. | Seven ACL injuries occurred in the program group versus 14 in controls. The unadjusted intention-to-treat Cox analysis estimated a rate ratio of 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.85. | The 64% relative reduction comes from the model, not simply dividing the raw event counts. ACL events were few. |
| Silvers-Granelli 2015: 65 randomized men’s college soccer teams. | FIFA 11+ versus usual warm-up over a season. | Overall injury rates were 8.09 versus 15.04 per 1,000 athlete exposures, an incidence rate ratio of about 0.54. | This measured a specific collegiate soccer setting, not all athletes or every injury type. |
A correction to the original version of this article: Soligard’s 2008 study tested the revised 11+ program, not the earlier “The 11.” The older program had a different evidence record, which is why the names matter.
The Soligard paper’s primary outcome was lower-extremity injury, and its confidence interval included no effect. Reporting only its roughly 32% lower overall injury rate would give readers an incomplete answer.
Can you apply these results outside soccer?
The soccer studies are strongest for the people, programs and outcomes they actually tested. The results do not tell a runner, basketball player or recreational lifter their personal risk reduction from a different warm-up.
The trials also tested bundles of exercises, so they do not tell us which single component caused the difference. Claims that dynamic movement alone beat static stretching, or that one landing drill supplied most of the benefit, need separate evidence.
Repeated participation matters because a season-long program cannot be evaluated if it is rarely done. Still, the 2017 review did not establish a simple rule that higher adherence explains every trial’s result.
How to read a warm-up injury claim
Before using a percentage from a study, write down four facts: who was studied, what program was assigned, what the comparison group did, and which injury outcome was measured. An impressive number becomes less useful if any of those facts changes.
For example, a trial of an organized soccer program across a season cannot tell a recreational lifter how much a five-minute warm-up changes the risk of today’s workout. That is an applicability limit, not proof that preparing for the workout is pointless.
The same care applies to the outcome itself. All injuries, lower-extremity injuries, and ACL injuries are different endpoints; a favorable result for one does not automatically apply to the others.
A blank team implementation record
If a team has selected a program with qualified guidance, a simple record can show what actually happened. It cannot predict which individual will be injured or replace the program’s instructions.
| Date and session | Exact program/version | Completed or changed work | Question for the responsible coach |
|---|---|---|---|
| ________ | ________ | ________ | ________ |
For a fictional example, a team might record that a session used only part of a named program because the training location changed. That is useful context, but it should not be counted as proof that the complete studied intervention was delivered.
Routine injury surveillance and exposure records require their own definitions and procedures. This short implementation note is not a substitute for a defined research or injury-monitoring system.
Questions readers often ask
Is stretching alone enough to prevent injury?
These trials did not test stretching as a complete substitute for the 11+. The 2006 review excluded studies of stretching alone, so its conclusion cannot settle that separate question.
How often should a team do the 11+?
Use the frequency and progression in the selected, studied protocol with an appropriate coach or clinician. The evidence does not justify a universal “two to three times weekly” minimum for every age, sport and program.
Does the program prevent every ACL tear?
No. Waldén’s trial found fewer ACL injuries at the group level, with seven versus 14 observed events and a favorable unadjusted intention-to-treat rate ratio, but individual injuries still occurred.
What to take from the evidence
Some structured injury-prevention programs have evidence for particular sports and groups. Their repeated use is a different intervention from one ordinary session of preparation.
Keep the question specific: which program, which people, which comparison, and which injury outcome? That produces a more useful answer than either “warm-ups prevent injuries” or “warm-ups do nothing.”
Get the next evidence check.
Five practical fitness stories worth your time, every Friday.
One email a week. No product pitches. Unsubscribe in one click.
References
- Fradkin, A. J., Gabbe, B. J., and Cameron, P. A. (2006). Does warming up prevent injury in sport? Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9, 214 to 220. PubMed record.
- Soligard, T., et al. (2008). Comprehensive warm-up programme to prevent injuries in young female footballers. BMJ, 337, a2469. Original trial.
- Thorborg, K., et al. (2017). Effect of specific exercise-based football injury prevention programmes on the overall injury rate in football. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 51, 562 to 571. PubMed record.
- Waldén, M., et al. (2012). Prevention of acute knee injuries in adolescent female football players. BMJ, 344, e3042. Original trial.
- Silvers-Granelli, H., et al. (2015). Efficacy of the FIFA 11+ injury prevention program in the collegiate male soccer player. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 43, 2628 to 2637. Full study.
- Afonso, J., Warneke, K., Lohmann, L. H., Pizzari, T., and Boullosa, D. (2026). Does the warmup really reduce injury risk? Why we need new approaches to confidently answer this question. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 29, 259 to 261. Viewpoint.
Health note: This article explains sports injury research, not an individualized prevention or rehabilitation plan. If you have pain, a recent injury, or a medical condition, ask a qualified health professional before changing your training.
