Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Precompetition medical assessment of referees and assistant referees selected for the 2010 FIFA World Cup
  1. Mario Bizzini1,
  2. Christian Schmied2,
  3. Astrid Junge1,
  4. Jiri Dvorak1,3
  1. 1FIFA Medical Assessment and Research Centre (F-MARC) and Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland
  2. 2Cardiovascular Centre, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  3. 3Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), and Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mario Bizzini, Schulthess Klinik, F-MARC, Lengghalde 2, CH-8008 Zurich, Switzerland; mario.bizzini{at}


Background Several proposals for preparticipation screening to detect risk factors for sudden cardiac death in sports have been published, but referees have been neglected in this respect.

Methods A standardised precompetition medical assessment (comprising a general physical, orthopaedic and cardiac examination and blood analysis) was performed in all 90 referees and assistant referees selected for the 2010 Fédération Internationale de Football Association World Cup.

Results More than a third of the referees showed at least one pathological finding in cardiac examinations; however, all follow-up examinations proved to be normal. The relatively high prevalence of pathological findings in the blood analysis and the orthopaedic examination can be attributed to the average age of the referees and none of them was performance limiting.

Conclusions Considering their risk of occult ischaemic heart disease, a precompetition medical assessment including an exercise ECG is recommended in elite male football referees.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Funding The authors thank FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) for the funding of the study.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed