An online survey was distributed to coaches registered at the Football Association of the Czech Republic (FAČR). A total of 235 participants completed the entire survey. Inclusion criteria were to be part of FAČR and coach a football team in the Czech Republic of categories higher than U-16. The sample size for the present study follows the previous one with a similar design and purpose in coaches from football (14). All participants signed informed consent stating their voluntary participation. The study was approved by the University of Masaryk University Ethics Committee (EKV-2022-054).

The average age of participants was 43.8 years. The sample consisted predominantly of male coaches (97%), with only six female participants (3%). Despite the low representation of female coaches, their inclusion on the study provides information into underrepresented perspectives in Czech football coaching.

The study presents a cross-sectional design to investigate Czech football coaches' monitoring practices and perspectives regarding training load and physical fitness evaluation. A survey was developed to cover the study's aims and administered online. Before the data collection, with the consent of the FAČR, the research team promoted an online meeting with coaches associated with FAČR to explain the main aim of the study and answer possible questions. Subsequently, the survey link (built on Google Forms) was disseminated to coaches via email linked with the FAČR. The survey was opened for answers during a 2-week period (March 2024).

The survey was specifically developed for the coaches in the Czech language, based on extant literature (8, 14, 15) and the research team's expertise on the topic of football coaching. It was structured to address three primary objectives: (i) describe the methods coaches use to monitor training load and physical fitness; (ii) investigate potential barriers to effectively monitor training load; (iii) verify coaches’ preferred sources of information on training load methods. After finishing the first draft, the authors independently revised and adjusted the survey when necessary. Comprising 23 items, the survey predominantly featured closed-ended questions (e.g., Likert scale), to facilitate the participants' answers. Most questions incorporate the option “other”, allowing respondents to provide additional responses not listed. Five-section were created as follows:

Considering the nature of the study, descriptive frequency analysis was conducted to profile the participants. Findings for each survey question were presented as absolute frequency counts and percentage of respondents. Where relevant, results were aggregated to represent the percentage of respondents within specific group (e.g., coach level and role), enhancing the interpretability of the data. All analyses were performed using JAMOVI (version 2.3.28) software and graph visualizations on GraphPad (version 5.0).

Overall, the survey results indicate that the majority of respondents reported monitoring training load using objective (n = 142; 60.4%) and subjective measures (n = 78; 33.2%), in each training and match (n = 124; 56.5%). Figure 1 illustrates the frequency with which respondents utilized the parameters for monitoring training load. Regarding data storage practices, among those respondents who reported monitoring training load (n = 220), there was more frequent use of paper records and special software (Figure 1A).

When monitoring external load, training diaries emerged as the most commonly used tool (Figure 1B). At the same time, heart rate (HR) monitoring predominates for assessing internal load, with 45% of respondents utilizing this method and 42.7% opting not to monitor internal load (Figure 1C). Biochemical parameters were used by only 3.8% of respondents, with 1.7% incorporating lactate measurements. Regarding the physical fitness evaluation, endurance and speed tests were the most frequently employed at 57.4% and 48%, respectively. Notably, 21.7% of respondents indicated that they did not use any formal tests for physical fitness evaluation (see Supplementary Material S2, Table 2).

Table 2 displays the results of training load monitoring and physical fitness evaluation according to the coach's role in the team. On average, all SC coaches don't monitor players' internal load, only a small percentage of the head coaches (4.6%) use biochemical parameters. Interestingly, 10% of head coaches and assistant coaches don't use any test to assess the players' physical fitness.

Table 3 summarizes the results based on the respondent's coaching levels. Amateur team coaches reported a high reliance on subjective load monitoring (40%), paper records for data storage (43.5%), training diaries for the external load monitoring (47.4%) and notable lack of physical fitness testing (13.4%) compared to elite and high-performance counterparts. In contrast, elite coaches demonstrated greater use of advanced tools, with 63.3% utilizing specialized software for data storage and 38.8% employing GPS for monitor external load monitoring, though 48% reported not monitoring internal load—a higher percentage than both amateur and high-performance coaches.

Figure 2 provides the respondents' responses regarding the primary barriers to monitoring training load as well as the primary source of information on monitoring training load they searched for.

Resource constraints were the most reported barrier (74.5%), with variations across the coaching levels and roles. Elite coaches primarily cited human resource limitations (52.8%), while amateur coaches emphasized equipment and financial challenges. Among coaching roles, head coaches (46.4%) and assistant coaches (41.2%) identified resource availability as their main obstacle, whereas SC coaches (75%) and others highlighted human resource issues (Table 4, Figure 2A).

The FAČR emerged as the primary channel for accessing information on training load monitoring, reported by 61.7% of respondents. Blogs and websites followed closely, utilized by 54.5%, with YouTube (38.7%) and social networks (37%) also serving as significant sources (Figure 2B). Notably, this information-seeking pattern was consistent across coaching levels and role, reflecting a similar resources. In the “other” category, coaches mentioned academic books, peer-reviewed articles, and internal educational initiatives, such as internships at other clubs or abroad, as alternative sources (Table 5).

The participants in the study were predominantly male head coaches holding UEFA B licenses who primarily coached adult and amateur football teams. Generally, these coaches exhibited a frequent engagement in monitoring training load, even though primarily through simple methods such as training diaries for tracking ETL and relying on paper records for data storage. Despite recent advancements in football technologies, particularly in the domain of monitoring external load parameters and the propagation of specialized software, which aids in training monitoring and leverages machine learning for injury risk prediction (16), adoption among coaches, especially those in amateur teams, remains limited. However, coaches at the elite level and strength and conditioning coaches in our study displayed a greater propensity toward embracing these technological approaches.

Coaching education initiatives could play a significant role in addressing these knowledge gaps and barriers. For instance, offering workshops or certifications focused on affordable and easy-to-implement monitoring techniques, such as RPE, could help no approximate the gap between amateur and elite coaching practices. RPE, in particular, provides a low-cost yet validated method for monitoring training intensity, and could help coaches who currently lack access to advanced technologies.

Differences in the monitoring of ETL parameters were evident among respondents when stratified by coaching level. Elite-level coaches demonstrated a higher propensity for utilizing GPS tracking devices, whereas amateur coaches leaned towards the more traditional method of training diaries. Indeed, using GPS devices has become a prevalent measure of training load among elite football teams (3, 12). The adoption of GPS technology in football has seen exponential growth, offering a robust means to quantify athletes' workload during both training sessions and matches.

This is attributed to its ability to capture locomotion metrics, including accelerations, decelerations, and power (17, 18), with longitudinal monitoring proving instrumental in injury prevention (19). However, the low adoption of advanced monitoring tools like GPS among amateur coaches highlights the financial and educational challenges they face. These limitations suggest a need for specific strategies to increase accessibility and understanding, such as subsidized equipment programs or partnerships with educational institutions to provide affordable training.

Regarding ITL monitoring, the most prevalent method among respondents was heart rate measurement, although a considerable percentage reported not using any method. As documented in the literature, popular ITL monitoring methods in football include heart rate and perceived exertion (RPE) (3, 12, 14). RPE has gained widespread acceptance due to its affordability and validity compared to physiological parameters (20). However, its subjective nature poses a limitation, relying on the athlete's perception. Nevertheless, RPE is a valuable tool to indicate the alignment between coaches' programmed training sessions and athletes' perceived exertion levels. Studies have indicated a higher agreement between coaches and athletes in sessions with moderate and high effort than those with low effort (21).

Moreover, the Weston (2018) (14) study highlighted that even in elite teams, subjective coach perception was the most prevalent method for training load monitoring among coaches, sports scientists, and fitness coaches. Incorporating RPE into coaching education initiatives and emphasizing its practicality could address knowledge gaps among amateur coaches, offering a viable and accessible method for training load monitoring. This approach could help amateur coaches overcome barriers related to cost and lack of technical expertise.

Load monitoring has been extensively explored over time, with recent attention focusing on the need for valid metrics to accurately quantify the intensity of training sessions or matches (22). However, the absence of standardized methods or validated classifications leaves the load monitoring process under the control of individual coaches' understanding. As previously noted, the standardization and classification of measures could significantly improve coaches' confidence in the validity and utility of these methods (3). Nevertheless, selecting an appropriate methodology may be contingent upon logistical considerations within the team's operational framework. The prerogative to determine the suitable monitoring tools or techniques should lie within sports professionals engaged in the field (1).

The study also explored the physical fitness practices employed by coaches, focusing on the types of physical tests utilized. Endurance, strength and speed tests emerged as the most commonly used by the coaches. Physical tests are crucial in football, facilitating individualized training prescriptions, performance monitoring, and injury risk prediction (23). Intriguingly, some coaches indicated not performing physical tests. In a previous study, coaches acknowledged the importance of monitoring athletes' fitness levels; however, they also highlighted the complexity associated with understanding and implementing such testing within practical contexts (9).

Adopting personalized testing batteries could provide valuable guidance to coaches, particularly strength and conditioning coaches, in efficiently applying specific tests to assess different components of fitness. Football-specific tests can be conducted with minimal equipment, administered on a football field, and integrated seamlessly into team warm-ups within a single day (24), improving the possibility of being used by coaches from different levels.

The survey findings reported significant challenges coaches faced in monitoring training load, with resource constraints, including equipment availability, identified by 74.5% of respondents. Additionally, 51.9% highlighted human resource limitations, emphasizing the need for competent and sufficient team members to support monitoring efforts. Interestingly, distinctions in the barriers came out based on coaches' positions and competitive levels. Head and assistant coaches primarily cited resource scarcity, while SC coaches and other coaches’ roles emphasized human resource constraints. Moreover, elite coaches focused on human resource challenges, whereas high-performance and amateur coaches highlighted resource limitations, underscoring the diverse contexts within coaching structures and competitive tiers. Similarly, elite practitioners from Akenhead and Nassis's (12) study also reported the limited human resources as the greatest barrier to training load effectiveness.

Lastly, the study also investigates coaches' preferred sources for monitoring training load. The predominance of established governing bodies, such as the Football Association (FAČR), as primary sources highlighted the trust coaches place in the institution. Nevertheless, the findings also pointed out the emerging impact of digital platforms. The embrace of blogs, websites, YouTube, and social networks demonstrated the dynamic and digitally driven sources of knowledge acquisition among coaches. When offering valid and reliable content, social media platforms serve as important tools for facilitating information exchange and learning within the coaching community. Furthermore, including the “other” category in the question provided answers like academic literature and participation in internships, which can support the relevance of both digital and traditional channels for coaches' knowledge enhancement. Sports scientists must disseminate academic concepts regarding training load through social media platforms to promote comprehension among coaches across all levels (6).

The study is pioneering in describing the methodologies and viewpoints of football coaches in the Czech Republic regarding training load monitoring. However, some limitations need to be highlighted. The sample was gathered through email dissemination targeting coaches from the Czech Football Association, utilizing a convenience sampling method that may not fully represent all coaching levels and positions. It was possible to notice that there was an overrepresentation of respondents from amateur levels, with a scarcity of SC coaches and female coaches. Additionally, the build the survey with Google Forms was chosen for its accessibility, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness, enabling efficient distribution, however, limitations include potential sampling bias due to reliance on internet access and the variability of self-reported data, particularly for complex questions.

The study utilized a non-validated survey instrument, potentially introducing biases in respondent answers and challenges in translating terms from English to Czech. These limitations indicate the need for future research to employ validated and reliable survey instruments, allowing for comprehensive data collection and facilitating meaningful comparisons within the literature. Finally, study's cross-sectional design limits causal inferences as it captures data at a single point in time, preventing the ability to assess changes or causal relationships over time.

In Czech football, coaches generally monitor the training load, however with lack comprehensive information on monitoring ITL and physical tests. Integrating different measures of load monitoring can improve insight into players' performance and reduce fatigue and injury risks. Similarly to findings from Weston (14), our study suggests that in cases where club resources constrain technological use, educating coaches on cost-effective, reliable measures of ITL such as RPE and physical tests can ensure effective load monitoring across all team levels and coaching positions (head coaches, assistant coaches and strength and conditioning). Increasing information about training load monitoring could be achieved through initiatives like workshops, e-books, and other educational resources, especially for the Football Association together with sports scientists to facilitate the educational process.