Youth soccer, girls’ sports, and the problem we don’t want to name
If you’re a parent or coach in youth soccer right now, it probably feels like ACL injuries are everywhere.
Another player is out for the season.
Another surgery.
Another long rehab.
Recently, FIFA publicly referred to ACL injuries in women’s soccer as an “epidemic” and announced funding to investigate why so many female athletes are getting hurt. That statement sparked a lot of attention—and a lot of pushback—from coaches and practitioners who’ve been working in this space for years.
Because for many of us, this didn’t feel new.
Women and girls have been tearing their ACLs for as long as they’ve been playing soccer. Talk to women who played 10, 20, or 30 years ago, and you’ll hear the same stories. The difference now is visibility. There are more girls playing sport than ever before, the game is faster than it’s ever been, and—finally—we’re paying attention.
The real issue isn’t that ACL injuries suddenly appeared.
It’s that the demands of the game have changed, and the way we prepare girls has not.
The game evolved. Preparation didn’t.
Youth and women’s soccer today is faster and more intense than it was a decade ago. Match-analysis research shows that while total running distance hasn’t changed dramatically, players now perform more high-speed runs, sprint more frequently, and experience greater acceleration and deceleration demands during games. These changes increase the forces athletes must absorb and control — particularly during cutting and braking actions.
ACL injuries most often happen without contact—during cutting, decelerating, or landing from a jump. These are moments where the body must absorb and redirect very large forces in a very short amount of time.
That’s not a skill issue.
That’s a force-management issue.
And yet, while expectations on the field have increased, many girls are still not being physically prepared to handle those forces.
The uncomfortable truth: we still don’t train girls like athletes
This is the part of the conversation people tend to avoid.
In many youth sport environments, it is expected that boys lift weights. Strength training is normal. It’s encouraged. It’s seen as part of becoming a better athlete.
For girls, the message is often different.
There is more emphasis on skill work, more conditioning, more “fitness.” When strength training is included, it often looks like a group workout: circuits, light weights, high reps, constant movement. Everyone gets tired. Everyone feels like they “worked hard.”
But feeling tired and getting stronger are not the same thing.
Research in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and Strength and Conditioning Journal has consistently shown that meaningful strength gains require progressive overload—gradually increasing demands over time. Random circuits and low-load training may improve general fitness, but they do very little to improve the strength qualities that protect joints during high-speed sport actions.
We are asking girls to play a faster, more aggressive game without giving them the physical tools to tolerate it.
What the research actually shows about ACL risk
Female athletes have a higher risk of non-contact ACL injury than males in similar sports, with studies commonly reporting a 2–8 times greater risk in sports like soccer and basketball (Hewett et al., 2006).
That statistic is often used to suggest that biology is the main problem. But biology alone doesn’t explain everything.
Here’s the important part:
Structured strength and neuromuscular training can dramatically reduce ACL injury risk in female athletes.
Large reviews and meta-analyses have shown:
- ACL injury risk reductions of 40–50% or more in female athletes who participate in structured neuromuscular and strength-based training programs (Sugimoto et al., 2012; Myer et al., 2013).
- The greatest risk reduction occurs when programs include strength training, not just balance drills or warm-up routines.
This matters because many teams rely almost exclusively on short injury-prevention warm-ups. Those programs are helpful—but they are not enough on their own.
Trying to prevent ACL injuries without building real strength is like trying to prepare for a car crash by adjusting your seatbelt, but never reinforcing the frame of the car.
“Fitness” is not preparation
A common, well-intentioned mistake is assuming that conditioning equals protection.
Running more, doing circuits, or adding extra practices does not prepare athletes to absorb high forces safely. In fact, fatigue without increased capacity may increase risk.
Strength changes the body’s ability to:
- Decelerate the centre of mass
- Control joint positions under load
- Absorb and re-direct force
- Maintain mechanics late in games
These qualities don’t come from being busy. They come from progressive, well-coached strength training.
Girls don’t need watered-down versions of training.
They need age-appropriate versions of real training.
This needs to start earlier than most people think
Waiting until after injuries appear is too late.
Youth resistance training research has repeatedly shown that properly supervised strength training is safe, effective, and beneficial for children and adolescents (Faigenbaum et al., 2009). It improves strength, coordination, confidence, and movement quality.
For younger athletes, this doesn’t mean heavy weights. It means:
- Learning to squat, hinge, push, and pull
- Learning to land, stop, and change direction
- Gradually increasing load as coordination and maturity improve
Just as importantly, it normalizes the weight room as a place where girls belong.
That cultural shift matters. Confidence matters. Ownership of physical strength matters.
Biology isn’t destiny
Yes, there are biological factors that influence ACL risk: pelvic structure, ligament laxity, and hormonal fluctuations. These are real and should be acknowledged.
But biology does not explain why strength training can cut injury risk nearly in half.
If biology were the main driver, training wouldn’t make that much difference.
Preparation matters.
Capacity matters.
Systems matter.
Blaming biology without addressing training lets adults and organizations avoid responsibility for how athletes are prepared.
This is a systems problem, not a motivation problem
Girls are not weak.
They are not fragile.
They are not unmotivated.
They are underprepared for the forces they’re being asked to manage.
Until we stop treating strength training for girls as optional—or as a cosmetic add-on—we will keep seeing the same injuries, year after year, and calling them “unfortunate.”
They’re not unfortunate.
They’re predictable.
What parents and coaches should be asking
If you’re supporting a girl in soccer (or any field or court sport), it’s worth asking:
- Is she actually getting stronger over time?
- Is she being taught how to stop, land, and decelerate?
- Is strength training progressive, or just tiring?
- Is physical preparation valued as much as skill development or game/tournament play?
If those questions don’t have clear answers, the system needs to change.
The real goal
The goal isn’t just fewer ACL injuries.
The goal is better athletes—stronger, faster, more confident, and more resilient. Athletes who can tolerate the demands of the game, stay on the field, and enjoy long careers.
That requires us to stop avoiding this conversation and start training girls like the athletes they are.
References
- Bradley, P. S., et al. (2010). High-intensity activity profiles of elite soccer players at different performance levels. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(9), 2343-51.
- Bush, M., et al. (2015). Evolution of match performance parameters for various playing positions in the English Premier League. Human Movement Science, 39, 1-11.
- Datson, N., et al. (2017). Match physical performance of elite female soccer players during international competition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(9), 2379-87.
- Datson, N., et al. (2014). Peak physical demands of elite women’s soccer: Assessing playing position and post-goal locomotor patterns. International J Sports Sci & Coaching, 19(3), 999-1010.
- Faigenbaum, A. D., et al. (2009). Youth resistance training: Updated position statement. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(Suppl 5), S60–S79.
- Griffin, L. Y., et al. (2000). Noncontact ACL injuries: Risk factors and prevention strategies. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 8(3), 141-50.
- Harper, D. J., et al. (2019). High-intensity acceleration and deceleration demands in elite team sports competitive match play: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Sports Med, 49(12), 1923-47.
- Hewett, T. E., Myer, G. D., & Ford, K. R. (2006). Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female athletes: Part 1, mechanisms and risk factors. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 34(2), 299–311.
- Myer, G. D., et al. (2005). Neuromuscular training improves performance and lower-extremity biomechanics in female athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 19(1), 51-60.
- Sugimoto, D., et al. (2014). Evaluation of the effectiveness of neuromuscular training to reduce ACL injury in female athletes: A critical review of relative risk reduction and numbers-needed-to-treat analyses. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(14), 979–988.