Gaelic games · Sport-specific research
Gaelic football survey finds fewer than half report consistent match mouthguard use
Two 2025 surveys and official rules frame questions about consistent equipment use.
Study publication:
The April finding
Burke and colleagues’ April survey finds incomplete consistency in adult Gaelic football match mouthguard use, with discomfort and breathing or speaking difficulties among perceived barriers.
Its conflicting training percentages are not used here. The sample excludes children and measures reported behaviour, without testing prevention.
What the sport’s rule requires
The GAA’s official guidance states that mouthguards have been mandatory in all grades of Gaelic football games and practice sessions since 1 January 2014. It identifies individual players as responsible for wearing them and says players can be sent off for non-compliance during a game. The rule establishes the expected conduct within the sport; a survey of behaviour answers the separate question of what respondents say they actually do.
Official guidance also describes a medical exemption process and addresses the relationship between compliance and the player injury scheme. Those provisions are relevant context for administrators and players, although this report does not adjudicate an individual claim or exemption. The important comparison is between the published requirement and the April study’s finding of incomplete consistency among its adult respondents.
A second 2025 study provides context
A different PLOS ONE paper, published on 29 January, surveyed 394 athletes in Turkey: 316 from combat sports and 78 from team sports. Özkal Eminoğlu and colleagues reported mouthguard use by all combat-sport respondents, compared with 29.5% of the team-sport group. The participants answered a 28-question survey covering knowledge, usage and maintenance; this was another cross-sectional examination rather than a trial of injury prevention.
The Turkish study’s figures cannot be pooled with the Gaelic football results as though the two samples had identical sporting rules or questions. They cover different populations and sporting contexts. They nevertheless provide a useful comparison about reported equipment use, while both papers leave open how observed behaviour, equipment characteristics and local requirements would affect outcomes in a prospective study.
Analysis: where the research points next
The editorial implication is that a written rule and a readily understood purpose do not guarantee consistent behaviour. A stronger evaluation would combine direct observation with information about the equipment being used and would measure whether a defined change improves adherence. It would separate comfort, communication and practical enforcement questions instead of assuming that every reported barrier has the same cause.
Analysis should also distinguish outcomes that a study actually measures from outcomes that may motivate a sporting rule. A behaviour survey cannot supply the same evidence as a prospective comparison of injury rates. Researchers designing a follow-up would need to define their question and outcome before choosing an intervention, observation method or questionnaire. They would also need to explain how representative recruitment and incomplete responses affect interpretation. Practical comparisons should make those measurement choices visible before a headline percentage is interpreted. These are questions for further evaluation, rather than conclusions about individual dental treatment or the superiority of a product.
This research report is for education and professional discussion. Personal diagnosis, treatment and return-to-sport decisions require a qualified clinician.
Original sources
Read the underlying records.
Explore the official results, organiser reports or original research behind this story.