Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective analysis reveals significant insurance costs and unique injury patterns in amateur soccer players, highlighting prevention strategies.
This national retrospective analytical cross-sectional study investigated the injury characteristics and insurance costs associated with ankle sprains in Australian amateur soccer (football). Three years of insurance records (2018-2020) were analysed to describe claim characteristics, costs, and mechanisms of injury, stratified by sex and age group (junior: 7-17 years; senior: 18-34 years; veteran: 35+ years). Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages and compared using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests, while cost data were reported as means ± standard deviation (SD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Across three football seasons, 749 ankle sprain claims were reported, with a total insurance cost of AU$1,727,858 and a mean cost of AU$2,307 per claim. Indirect costs (AU$1,117,711) accounted for 65% of total expenditure and were six-fold higher than direct medical costs. Male players were responsible for 80% of total costs, reflecting higher claim numbers, while senior players (18-34 years) contributed 74% of the financial burden. Syndesmosis sprains were uncommon (3%) but had the highest mean cost (AU$7,690). Direct contact (56%) was the most common injury mechanism, although non-contact sprains incurred higher mean costs. No significant sex-based differences were observed in injury characteristics; however, junior players sustained proportionally more tackle-related sprains and fewer non-contact sprains than senior or veteran players. Ankle sprains impose a substantial economic burden within the insurance-covered costs captured in this dataset in amateur football, driven primarily by indirect costs. The disproportionate cost of syndesmosis and non-contact injuries identifies key areas for prevention and provides data for future economic evaluations in football.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ross et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: