In the present study, 96 teams’ performances across 48 matches in the group stage of the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 were analyzed. Teams scoring first won 62.5% of matches (p < 0.05), while goals were evenly distributed between halves (p > 0.05) and showed marginal variation across six 15 min intervals, peaking near the 30–45 and 75–90 min marks. Parametric analyses revealed a significant effect of match outcome on possession, with winning teams exhibiting higher average possession (53.3%) compared to losing and drawing teams. Non-parametric analyses identified significant differences between match outcomes for goals scored, attempts at goal, total and completed passes, pass completion rate, defensive line breaks, receptions in the final third, ball progressions, defensive pressures, and total distance covered. Winning teams scored more goals and registered more attempts on target than losing teams, although some metrics showed no significant difference between wins and draws. Logistic regression analysis identified attempts at goal on target, defensive pressures, total completed passes, total distance covered, and receptions in the final third as significant predictors of match success (AUC = 0.85), correctly classifying 80.2% of match outcomes. These results emphasized the crucial role of offensive accuracy and possession dominance in achieving success in elite football.

The aim of this study was to assess the validity and intra-session reliability of the MyJump 2 smartphone application for evaluating countermovement jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) performance in youth soccer players using the Chronojump contact mat system as a reference. Twenty-one male soccer players from an elite team (U14–U19) were randomly selected to participate in countermovement jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) assessments, with jump heights recorded simultaneously by both systems. Validity was examined through Bland–Altman analysis, Pearson and Spearman correlations and linear regression. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and Bland–Altman test–retest analysis. Results revealed minor systematic overestimation by MyJump 2 (+0.943 cm for CMJ; +1.042 cm for SJ). Strong correlations were found between MyJump 2 and Chronojump (r = 0.972 for CMJ; r = 0.955 for SJ), while ICCs exceeded 0.97 for both jump types, indicating excellent reliability. These findings support MyJump 2 as a valid and reliable alternative for vertical jump testing in adolescent and junior soccer players as an accessible and suitable tool for field-based performance monitoring regarding vertical jumping ability.

Introduction: Educational systems and related evaluation policies tend to change and adapt to the demands of society all over the world. In Greece, the latest education policy includes the update and adaption of the educational curricula and the introduction of evaluation of teachers and adult trainers on vocational education and training (VET). The evaluation of teachers and trainers involved in the Public vocational training Institutes (VTI) and specifically in the Specialties of Sports’ Coach through an effective evaluation process could identify the strengths and weaknesses of the trainers and create professional development opportunities within their knowledge of content, pedagogy, and curriculum. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of Physical Education Teachers who teach as Adult Trainers in public and private VTIs in the specialty of Sports Coach (e.g., Soccer Coach, Basketball Coach, Track and Field Coach, Tennis Coach, Strength and Conditioning Coach, AEROBICS Instructor), regarding their evaluation on VET. Methods: In this study, 102 participants (M = 44.9 ± 11.02 years old), 55 males (53.9%) and 47 females (46.1%) participated. A relevant questionnaire about Teachers’ Evaluation was adapted and used. Non-parametric statistical tests were applied and descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Results: The results showed different perceptions among some items of the questionnaire depending on the work institution - public / private VTIs (p ≤ 0.05), educational level (p ≤ 0.05) and teaching experience (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions: These results underscore the complexity and variability in perceptions of educational evaluation. These findings suggest the importance of considering various factors, such as institutional type, teaching experience, and educational level, in the design and implementation of evaluation systems to ensure they are effective, equitable, and conducive to professional growth.

The objective of this study was to compare technical–tactical, physical, and goal-timing indicators in the group stages of the FIFA World Cup 2022 and FIFA Club World Cup 2025 and to determine whether associations between performance indicators and match outcome differed between the tournaments. A retrospective observational analysis included 192 team-match observations from 96 group-stage matches. Goal distribution by match half was examined using a chi-square test, while 15 performance indicators were analysed using mixed-effects models with Tournament, Match Outcome, and Tournament × Match Outcome as fixed effects and random intercepts for Team ID and Match ID. Benjamini–Hochberg correction was applied separately to each effect family. Goal distribution by half differed between the tournaments, with a greater proportion of second-half goals in the FIFA World Cup 2022 and a more even distribution between halves in the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 (Cramér’s V = 0.135) After false discovery rate correction, significant Tournament effects were identified for final-third receptions, defensive pressures, and forced turnovers, while significant Tournament × Match Outcome interactions were observed for possession, total and completed passes, final-third receptions, and defensive pressures. Full-data negative binomial sensitivity analyses retained the three Tournament effects and all five interactions, although four Match Outcome classifications changed. Within the FIFA Club World Cup 2025, winners showed higher possession and passing volumes than losing teams, while final-third receptions and defensive pressures also differed according to tournament and match outcome context. These findings indicate that performance–outcome associations varied according to tournament context rather than reflecting a universal profile of success.

This study analysed the FIFA World Cup 2026 to identify performance indicators associated with match outcome, examine differences between group and knockout phases, and explore prediction using conventional and machine-learning approaches. All 104 matches were analysed, yielding 208 team appearances. Linear mixed-effects models evaluated 19 team-specific performance indicators with Match Result, Tournament Phase, Match Duration, and the Match Result × Tournament Phase interaction as fixed effects, while Match ID and Team were considered as crossed random intercepts and unsupported zero-variance components were removed. Match Result was significant for 15 of 19 team-specific indicators, with particularly strong evidence for goals, expected goals, attempts at goal on target, defensive pressures applied, and possession. No indicator showed a significant main effect of Tournament Phase in the primary linear mixed-effects models. The Match Result × Tournament Phase interaction observed for Goals in the primary Gaussian mixed model was not reproduced by the Poisson sensitivity model and was therefore not interpreted as robust. Total distance covered did not reach the 0.05 threshold for Match Result, F(2, 100.50) = 3.08, p = 0.0502, and Zone 4 distance was non-significant, F(2, 98.64) = 0.94, p = 0.396. Logistic regression showed discrimination (AUC = 0.816; accuracy = 0.736), with possession (OR = 1.041, p = 0.019) and attempts at goal on target (OR = 1.428, p < 0.001) independently associated with winning; mixed-effects sensitivity models estimated zero random-intercept variance for Match ID and Team. Two exploratory Random Forest classifiers were tuned exclusively within 83 training matches using repeated grouped five-fold cross-validation (10 repeats) and evaluated once on an untouched 21-match holdout set. The two-predictor model achieved holdout accuracy = 0.786, AUC = 0.793, and MCC = 0.520; the expanded 15-predictor model achieved accuracy = 0.714, AUC = 0.773, and MCC = 0.316. In the exploratory feature-importance analysis, attempts at goal on target and defensive pressures applied were the most prominent expanded-model features, whereas total distance covered had negligible permutation importance. Overall, success was associated primarily with attacking efficiency, possession control, passing, line-breaking, and final-third involvement rather than total running volume, while no consistent phase-related performance differences were detected after accounting for match duration.