Several examples have already been reported by Plakias et al. (2023) in their scoping review on football teams’ playing styles. Specifically, the authors highlight cases in which researchers assigned labels to extracted components that do not adequately reflect the variables that load on them. For example, in the study by Gómez et al. (2018), two factors were labeled as set pieces and free kicks, although they in fact referred exclusively to attacking set-pieces and attacking free kicks, respectively. Furthermore, Factor 4 was labeled counter-attack, despite the fact that one of its loading variables is lost balls, which are not related to a team’s own counter-attacks but rather to the opponent’s play. Therefore, it should either have been clarified that the label refers to the game as a whole (and not to the style of a single team) or, if the intention was to describe only one team’s style, a more appropriate term such as transitions should have been used, as it encompasses both offensive and defensive counter-attacking situations. Similarly, in the study by Lago-Peñas et al. (2017), Factors 4 and 5 were both given the general label transitional play, even though their variables correspond to different phases of the game: Factor 4 is associated with defensive transitions (as indicated by the presence of the variable lost balls), whereas Factor 5 pertains to offensive transitions (as indicated by the presence of the variable picking up free balls). Finally, Ruan et al. (2022) labeled Factors 6 and 8 as defense of goalkeepers, despite the fact that they are not the same. As the authors themselves reported, the two factors yielded different values across various teams.

Recently, in the article by Peng et al. (2025) entitled “Evolution of playing styles in UEFA European championships: trends from 2012 to 2024,” there are two points of concern regarding the labeling of factors. Specifically, Factor 1, which includes the variables Total shots, Key passes, Shots on target, Shots from the penalty area, and Shots from outside of the box, is labeled as “Direct Attacking.” However, none of these variables inherently indicates a direct style of play. They primarily reflect a team’s capacity to generate final attempts, regardless of whether the team employs a direct or possession-based approach. Similarly, Factor 3 is labeled “Wide Play,” but it includes Passes at final third, a variable that is not exclusive to wing play and can equally occur through central channels. This broad variable does not, by itself, suggest width-oriented tactics.

All these situations, summarized in Table 1, highlight the importance of ensuring that factor labels are conceptually aligned with both the statistical structure of the data and the tactical realities they aim to represent. Without this alignment, the resulting interpretations risk being misleading for both the scientific community and applied practice.

Incorrect or ambiguous labeling of factors in football playing style research can have multiple adverse consequences. From a scientific perspective, misleading labels distort the theoretical understanding of tactical situations, reducing the validity and reliability of the findings. Researchers may also draw incorrect inferences about a team’s style of play, which can hinder the comparability of results across studies. Furthermore, poor labeling undermines the reproducibility and transparency of research, as future studies may adopt or replicate inaccurate terminology, perpetuating conceptual confusion rather than contributing to a unified framework of football tactics. For practitioners, such as coaches and performance analysts, misinterpreted factor labels can result in misguided tactical decisions, inappropriate training focus, or flawed match preparation.

To minimize the risks associated with poor factor labeling, researchers should adopt a set of rigorous and transparent practices. First, the interpretation of factors should be firmly grounded in both the statistical structure of the data (e.g., high-loading variables, factor correlations) and the theoretical framework of football tactics. Furthermore, researchers are encouraged to align their labeling strategies with standardized terminology where possible, fostering consistency across studies and enabling the development of a shared conceptual framework for playing style analysis. Avoiding overly broad or ambiguous labels is crucial; terms should reflect the common tactical meaning of the variables rather than arbitrary or misleading descriptors. Finally, achieving all the above will be facilitated by cross-validation of factor labels through expert panels (including coaches, performance analysts, and sport scientists), which can help ensure that the chosen terms accurately represent the underlying constructs.

In addition, transparency in reporting is essential. Researchers are encouraged to provide full factor loading matrices (e.g., in supplementary materials) to allow readers to evaluate the basis of factor interpretation. Furthermore, future studies could employ confirmatory factor analysis to examine whether the proposed interpretations of playing style factors remain consistent across different datasets or competitions.

The author would like to thank and congratulate the researchers and journals whose work is reviewed and discussed in this manuscript.

The author acknowledges the use of ChatGPT (OpenAI) solely for improving the clarity and quality of the English language. (Please adjust this statement as needed)

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or a claim its manufacturer may make, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.