The gaps
Where the industry assumes research exists and it does not. Checked against each
organisation’s live site, August 2026.
The leagues publish almost nothingFifteen of the world's largest leagues publish no technical, medical or innovation research at all. Where a league publishes, it is financial — the DFL, LaLiga, the LFP's DNCG and the J.League are the honourable exceptions, and even they publish economics rather than football science.
MLS does not publish sports-science researchThis is the most common miscitation in the field. The substantial body of MLS injury literature — ACL, hamstring, adductor, meniscus — is academic research produced by universities and journals *about* MLS. The league itself publishes no public technical, medical or innovation report.
CONCACAF has activity, not publicationsCoaching conventions, Pro Licence pathway work, technical study visits — all real, all reported as news. There is no public research or technical library. Follow the feed; do not expect documents.
CAF publishes regulations, not researchCAF runs Technical Study Groups for its tournaments, but they report internally. No publicly downloadable CAF technical report could be found. The club licensing and medical regulations are the genuinely useful public output.
The Saudi Pro League publishes nothingEvery “Saudi Pro League report” in circulation is paid third-party market research. None of it is league output. Check the imprint before you cite it in a board paper.
No women's league anywhere publishes researchNot the WSL, the NWSL, Liga F or the Frauen-Bundesliga. The entire evidence base for the women's game is carried by UEFA, FIFA, FIFPRO, EFC and universities. That is a structural gap in the fastest-growing part of the sport — and the clearest open opportunity on this page.
The Spanish RFEF has no notable research programmeUnlike the FA, the FIGC, the KNVB and the RBFA. Spain's substantive public football research comes from LaLiga on the financial side and from universities on everything else.
The Norwegian FF does not publish research eitherNorway's global reputation in football injury research belongs to the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center — an independent academic centre that collaborates with football, not a federation department. Cite OSTRC, not the NFF.
The DFB-Akademie is not a research instituteIt is an excellent coach-education and knowledge-transfer platform with a strong football-meets-science positioning. It does not maintain a peer-reviewed publication series. Describing it as a research publisher overstates it.
The Premier League Annual Report is not researchIt is a business, community and governance report, and a good one. The EPPP academy audit methodology and category criteria are not published anywhere.
The ECA no longer exists under that nameIt is European Football Clubs. ecaeurope.com redirects. Any citation to “the ECA” after the rebrand needs updating — and there is no public “ECA Club Management Programme”; education is now EFC Campus, members only.
The World Leagues Forum is now the World Leagues Association — and publishes almost nothingNo publications library. Press releases and a calendar. The one substantive public artefact is a women's football report from 2021.
Most of the best national-association material is members-onlyKNVB's extranet, OFC Learn, EFC Campus. Public availability is the exception, not the rule — which is exactly why an independent, open library has a job to do.
Football’s knowledge is produced by governing
bodies, unions and universities — almost never by the leagues and clubs closest to the game.