How Much Muscle Is Too Much Muscle in Football?

There is one topic in football guaranteed to provoke strong opinions from players, coaches, and performance specialists alike: muscle. Specifically, how much of it should a professional footballer be carrying?

The debate flared again recently when West Ham United head coach Nuno Espírito Santo told reporters he had banned winger Adama Traore from lifting weights.

“It’s incredible — his muscles — it’s genetics,” Nuno said. “I’ve told him to stay out of the gym. It’s one of the things he needs to realise. It’s enough weight that he carries. He’ll do prevention work in the gym, but he’s not in there lifting weights.”

In the same breath, Nuno highlighted the opposite problem in his squad: 18-year-old defender Airidas Golambeckis, an under-21s player who Nuno described as someone who absolutely needs to add muscle. “We have to get weight on him! He’s the one who needs some muscle.”

The contrast encapsulates one of the most nuanced and frequently misunderstood debates in elite sport. Muscle mass is clearly important for the physical demands of the modern game. But is there a point at which it becomes a hindrance rather than a help? And if so, where exactly is that line?

The Evidence From the Players Themselves

Traore’s extraordinary physique has always been the defining feature of his playing career — accentuated by his habit of applying baby oil to his arms before matches to make it harder for opponents to grab hold of him. But he is far from the only top-level player to have navigated the muscle question directly.

Romelu Lukaku addressed the issue explicitly after the 2018 World Cup, when he returned to Manchester United having built considerable muscle mass during the international tournament.

“In the Premier League, I cannot play with the same amount of muscle as international football,” he told reporters. “When I came back, I knew straight away, ‘Nah, I cannot play in this style like this.’ I had to lose muscle, basically. So you just stay out of the gym, drink a lot of water, and eat a lot of veg and fish, and it helps.”

At the other end of the spectrum, Florian Wirtz has looked increasingly at home at Liverpool since adding weight following his summer transfer from Bayer Leverkusen — the additional muscle helping him cope with the Premier League’s physical demands. Similarly, Dominic Calvert-Lewin used the Covid-19 lockdown period to pack on muscle during his time at Everton, transforming a naturally gangly frame into one better equipped to compete at the top level.

The ‘Goldilocks Zone’: What the Experts Say

Tristan Baker, head of performance at Go Perform, uses the concept of a “Goldilocks zone” — a sweet spot in body composition that allows a footballer to meet the full range of demands placed on them during a match.

“Those body types and shapes are what can perform best in the demands of the modern game,” Baker says. “They need to be able to sprint, twist, turn and effectively run continuously for 90 minutes. They cover 10 kilometres, sometimes even more, in a 90-minute game. And that’s at intermittent speeds.”

Baker assesses whether a player is in that zone by examining how they move — specifically, through the lower-leg complex.

“I pay attention to the lower-leg complex — the foot, the ankle — that should act as a tightly coiled spring. They should be quite reactive off the floor. If someone’s quite heavy, it ends up compressing that, so their heel will drop rather than be in an elevated position as they sprint or change direction.”

He uses a memorable analogy to illustrate the difference: “You want to be more like a race-car suspension than a slinky — two springs at the opposite end of the spectrum.”

If a player adds muscle or fat mass without developing the corresponding stiffness and reactivity in the lower leg, they shift toward the slinky end — “a spring that compresses quite easily. They’re not able to change direction, turn, jump or sprint as effectively.”

The Real Determinant: Force Production, Not Muscle Mass

One of the most persistent misconceptions in football is that adding muscle automatically makes players slower. Daniel Booth, high-performance coach and co-founder of Myolab, argues this fundamentally misunderstands what actually drives sprinting and acceleration.

“The key variable is not muscle mass itself,” Booth explains. “It’s force production relative to body mass, and how quickly that force can be expressed.”

Problems arise only when body mass increases without a corresponding improvement in force production. If the increase in mass comes alongside genuine gains in power and speed qualities, that muscle is functional — an asset rather than a burden.

“So the ‘line’ is not defined by how muscular a player looks,” Booth says. “It’s determined by whether their strength and power qualities improve in proportion to their body mass.”

In football, the performance outputs that matter most include:

If a player gains muscle and those outputs improve or remain stable, the additional mass is clearly contributing to performance. If body mass increases but acceleration slows and power outputs drop, that signals the force-to-mass ratio has declined — and that is the true definition of carrying too much.

Building Strength vs Building Muscle: They Are Not the Same

An important practical distinction exists between training for strength and training for muscle mass — and elite conditioning staff manage this carefully.

Sam Pepys, a strength and conditioning coach who has worked with Luton Town and Crystal Palace, explains the difference.

“Building strength is about higher intensity — lifting higher percentages of your one-rep maximum or higher numbers from a perceived exertion perspective. Then, having much longer rest periods so that the muscle has time to recover between working sets.”

For hypertrophy — the process of actually building new muscle tissue — the approach shifts significantly.

“For muscle building, the volume would be higher, to place more metabolic stress on the muscle, and rest periods would be shorter.”

This means it is entirely possible to develop a player’s strength without significantly increasing their muscle mass, provided the training programme is correctly designed. The two outcomes are related but not inseparable.

Where Muscle Grows Also Matters

The location of added muscle mass is as important as the quantity. While it is impossible to choose where the body loses fat, conditioning staff can target specific muscle groups for development — and in football, that matters enormously.

Neil Parsley, an elite performance coach who has worked with British Cycling, describes the general build of the modern footballer as “very strong, muscular legs and a very strong core” but relatively lean in the upper body.

“They’ve got to be strong for the duels, but they can’t carry additional mass,” he says.

The reason additional upper-body mass is problematic comes down to two interconnected factors. First, the demands of top-flight football have become increasingly intense at the highest levels — the amount of high-speed running required is ever-growing. Second, maintaining muscle during a ten-month season is extraordinarily difficult.

“The average body weight of players increases as you go down the divisions,” Parsley notes. “As you go up the divisions, the high-intensity running and sprint distance goes up, but body weight goes down.”

The sheer volume of high-intensity work strips muscle from players during the season, meaning performance teams are often fighting simply to preserve what players already have.

“When you’re running 10 to 11km a match and doing 1,000 metres of high-speed running, that strips muscle off you. That’s why, as soon as they come in after training, they eat, they supplement, then they take more supplements before they go to bed. Protein helps recovery, but it also helps them to keep hold of the muscle mass they’ve got.”

Pepys is direct about the limited relevance of certain muscle groups: “Having additional muscles in your biceps is not that relevant for football.” He also notes that unnecessary mass can increase impact and stress on joints and marginally raise oxygen uptake and heart rate — “fractional increases, but when we’re looking at it in the grand scheme of things, it’s still impact.”

Genetics, Training Load, and the Limits of External Manipulation

Perhaps the most important perspective on this debate comes from Dr Nessan Costello, a performance nutritionist who argues that body composition in elite sport is fundamentally an output — the result of training load, diet, and genetics — rather than an input to be manipulated directly.

“In elite footballers, two of those factors are largely fixed,” Costello explains. “The training load required to compete at the highest level, which is non-negotiable, and genetics, which strongly influence individual body type and muscle mass. In many cases, these are the very traits that helped that athlete reach elite sport in the first place.”

Those two factors are also the most powerful drivers of body composition. Attempting to override them — particularly in a player like Traore, who trains at elite intensity and is genetically predisposed to carrying significant muscle — carries real risks.

“Achieving that typically requires a large energy deficit and/or sub-optimal protein intake, encouraging the body to break down its own muscle tissue to meet energy demands. From a performance perspective, that approach makes little sense.”

Costello’s conclusion is pointed: “If an elite footballer trains appropriately and eats well, their body will usually settle into a composition that supports their health and performance. Trying to impose an externally defined physique on top of that can be not only misguided, but potentially harmful.”

In 2021, UEFA’s own consensus statement on nutrition at elite levels reached a similar conclusion, stating that “there is no single value for either body mass or fat mass against which targets or judgements should be made.”

Traore: The Exception That Proves the Rule

Baker returns to Traore when asked to consider the outer limits of the debate. The West Ham winger is, by any conventional measure, an outlier — his muscle mass far exceeds what most performance specialists would prescribe for a wide player. And yet he remains extremely fast.

“He’s also extremely fast. So he’s not that person who’s soft and spongy through the Achilles and the ankle. He doesn’t look like a slinky. He’s more like that stiff-spring-like athlete,” Baker says. “That’s the nice thing about elite sport. It throws up these people that are exceptions to a general rule.”

The broader lesson, as Booth frames it, is that the ideal amount of muscle is never universal.

“It’s position-specific and athlete-specific. The ideal amount of muscle mass isn’t defined by how muscular a player looks — it’s whether the mass they carry is functional, contributing to force production, speed and resilience, or simply adding weight without improving performance.”

Adding or removing muscle, he concludes, is rarely the end goal in itself. The goal is always developing the physical qualities that best support that specific player’s position, body structure, and the demands placed on them week after week in the modern game.

Read More: Why an Achilles Rupture Is Football’s Most Devastating Injury: One in Five Never Return the Same

FAQs