Clubs and private trainers clash as behind-the-scenes sessions spark injury fears
Preston manager bans players from outside coaches after a loan signing sustained an ankle injury; private trainers are widely used but largely unregulated
A growing row between clubs and private trainers has flared into the open after Preston North End manager Paul Heckingbottom banned his players from working with outside coaches following an ankle injury sustained by a new loan signing in a private session.
The incident involved Daniel Jebbison, who missed Preston’s opening game of the season after picking up the ankle problem in a session with an external trainer. Heckingbottom said he was "really angry about that," and placed an immediate ban on players seeing private coaches while the club investigates. Jebbison has since returned to action.
Heckingbottom named the coach involved as Tom King, owner of King Performance Ideology (KPI), a private sports performance business that the Daily Mail reported counts players such as Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Caoimhín Kelleher among its clients. KPI and other specialists offer technical, fitness and strength-and-conditioning coaching to professional footballers, often outside normal club sessions.
Media reports and people inside the game say the use of private trainers among elite players is widespread. One source described the situation as a "minefield," and the Daily Mail reported that as many as 90 percent of top players use private coaches at some point. While many of these trainers are qualified and respected, clubs and officials have expressed concern about unregulated practitioners and the potential for sessions to conflict with club training programmes, leading to injuries and disputes over liability.
Managers and medical teams typically design individual conditioning and rehabilitation plans to align with match schedules and squad needs. Clubs say unsupervised or poorly coordinated sessions risk undermining those programmes, creating workload spikes or applying unfamiliar methods that could increase injury risk. The Preston case underlined those tensions when a player recruited to bolster the squad missed a competitive match because of an incident away from the club's control.
Beyond immediate fitness concerns, the disputes raise questions about insurance, contractual obligations and access. Clubs can restrict players' activities through contracts and medical protocols, but enforcing limits on private coaching has proved difficult. Some managers have resorted to blanket bans or require prior approval for outside work; others seek informal agreements with trusted trainers.
Private trainers argue they can complement club programmes by offering specialised expertise, personalised conditioning and recovery work that busy club schedules may not always accommodate. High-profile players often use private coaches during off-seasons or while rehabbing injuries away from the group environment. That dynamic has helped drive a market for boutique performance services, but it has also brought scrutiny when sessions have led to adverse outcomes.
The Preston episode is the latest public example of the broader, sometimes fraught relationship between clubs and the growing private sports-performance industry. As clubs prepare for long seasons with congested fixtures, the debate over how to manage players' outside training and who is responsible for regulating standards looks set to continue. For now, at least, Heckingbottom has taken a precautionary route, prioritising control over player preparation ahead of clarifying discussions with staff, players and private providers.