GPS Vests in Kids’ Football.. Are They Helping?
The pro’s wear GPS Vests…so should young kids do the same?
Parents understandably might think:
“If the pros use it, it must be good for my child too.”
But here’s the truth:
GPS vests tell you almost nothing meaningful about a young child’s football performance and in many cases, they lead to bad coaching decisions, unnecessary anxiety, and misplaced priorities.
This post explains why and it’s backed by actual scientific evidence.
What does GPS data actually tell you?
Imagine this:
Game 1: your child runs 8km and makes 17 sprints
Game 2: they run 6.5km and make 14 sprints
What does this tell you?
Not much at all.
Does it show which game your child played better in? No.
Does it reveal anything about the quality of their football decisions? No.
Does it tell you how many good passes, dribbles, tackles, or creative actions they made? No.
Does it measure teamwork, positioning, problem-solving, or confidence? No.
Because GPS vests don’t measure football. They measure movement – which is not the same thing.
Running more doesn’t mean playing better
One of the biggest myths in junior football is:
“More running = better performance.”
This simply isn’t true.
The research shows very clearly:
Teams were most likely to win when they had high readiness (fitness + freshness) AND ran less.
Running more was associated with drawing or losing.
Even elite coaches know this. Pep Guardiola famously said:
“If we run more, it means we are playing badly. When we play well, we run less.”
Why?
Because running is not a football action.
It is just the byproduct of a football action.
Players don’t decide
“Today I will run 9km.”
They decide (or are forced by the opponent) to press, recover space, counterattack – and those actions involve running.
Some games require more running. Some require less.
It depends on:
Opponent style
Tactical context
Game state (are we winning/drawing/losing)
Pitch conditions
Formation
Momentum
Players cannot pre-program their running numbers like a gym workout.
Football determines the running, not the other way around.
How GPS leads to bad coaching
Here is a real scenario:
“We ran 13km last week and won.”
“This week we ran 11km and lost.”
“We must run more! I’ll make the kids do extra running in training.”
This is exactly the kind of thinking the research warns against:
“Running volume should be dropped as a key performance indicator…match success is linked to the quality and sustainability of football actions, not distance covered. – Mandorino et al., 2025
Yet many coaches – especially those who want to look “professional” – do exactly this.
And children suffer for it:
More pointless fitness running
Less time playing football
Less fun
More pressure
More misunderstandings about what “good performance” is
GPS numbers should never dictate grassroots coaching.
Humans love measurement but that doesn’t make the measurement meaningful
There is a natural human tendency:
If we can measure it, we start to think it matters.
But in junior football, the most important skills are the ones you can’t put neatly into a spreadsheet:
Awareness
Creativity
Confidence
Decision-making
Communication
Scanning
Balance
Timing
Understanding space
GPS vests don’t measure any of these.
But because the vests feel “professional,” people assume they must be valuable.
That is how gimmicks take root.
Even at the top level, running is not the point
Pep Guardiola also uses Lionel Messi as an example.
Messi famously spent long periods walking – scanning, observing, waiting – before exploding into decisive football actions.
Some players have reported that they were “punished” with extra running after matches because their GPS numbers didn’t hit certain targets, even though they had played brilliantly.
This is a perfect illustration of how GPS metrics misunderstand football.
GPS vests are often inaccurate and this creates even bigger problems
Parents are often unaware that GPS vests:
Differ massively between brands
Can vary hugely within the same brand
Can give different readings worn side-by-side
Sometimes record incorrect distances and speeds
Often cannot track short, sharp movements validly
Perform poorly with children, whose movement patterns are unpredictable
The research world knows this.
Sports scientists know this.
Elite clubs know this.
But the average grassroots coach might see a vest…and think “performance analysis.”
Imagine:
A child plays brilliantly
The GPS vest records lower distance due to error
Coach forces them to do extra running
This happens and it is completely unfair and completely avoidable.
So might GPS vests used in children’s football?
Three reasons:
1. They look professional
Parents see them and think their child is getting “elite-level development.”
2. Coaches want to appear modern
Even when they don’t understand the data.
3. It’s a marketable gimmick
Selling an image of professionalism is easier than delivering the reality of good coaching.
Meanwhile, evidence clearly shows that:
Running metrics are poor indicators of football performance and should not be used as key KPIs – Mandorino et al., 2025
What really matters in children’s football?
Not kilometres.
Not sprint counts.
Not gadgets.
But:
Enjoyment
Confidence
Skill
Technique
Creativity
Problem-solving
Relationship with teammates
Love of the game
No GPS vest measures any of that.
Final Message to Parents
If somewhere advertises “We use GPS vests!” as a selling point or wants to conduct ‘sprint tests’ etc etc
Pause.
Think.
Ask questions.
Because:
• They don’t measure football intelligence
• They don’t measure technical quality
• They don’t measure creativity
• They don’t predict performance
• They are often inaccurate
• And the research shows running more does not mean playing better
GPS vests may look impressive but for children’s football?
They are mostly a distraction, a gimmick, and a misunderstanding of what really matters.
Your child does not need a GPS vest.
They need a ball, teammates, and a great environment to learn and enjoy football.
Research paper: Sport Performance & Science Reports article “Time to Drop Running as a KPI in Football” by Mandorino, Lacome, Verheijen, & Buchheit (2025).
