## 1 Introduction  
Being able to run as fast as possible over a given distance is a key performance factor in many sports. For a 100 m sprinter, this directly defines overall performance. Sprint performance is also crucial in team sports (e.g., soccer, rugby) as this ability can be decisive for example in goal-scoring situations [1, 2]. This ability is related to mechanical power (i.e., change in kinetic energy of the overall body over time) that can be produced in the horizontal direction during acceleration [3, 4]. The ability to produce horizontal velocity and horizontal external force during sprint acceleration may be described by the linear sprint force-velocity relationship, which allows the force capacities expressed at different running speeds to be determined [4, 5]. This relationship can be established from measurements made with laboratory tools such as force platforms [3, 4, 5]. In field practice, this force-velocity relationship can also be established using a simple calculation method that uses the running speed over the entire acceleration phase [3, 4, 5]. Using this approach, the force-velocity profile can also be measured using field tools such as a radar and, more recently, global positioning system (GPS) devices, which are now often used in sports [6, 7, 8]. Most elite clubs are equipped with GPS systems with technical characteristics such as sampling and analysis frequency, which can differ significantly (e.g., Catapult(r) 10 Hz;StatSports(r) 10 Hz; GPEXE(r) 20 Hz; K-Sport(r) 50 Hz, WIMU(tm), Fittogether(r). This allows staff members to better quantify athletes' physical performance and training loads [9]. However, not all GPS systems are made equal (i.e., electronic design and signal processing), and the validity and reliability of any given specific system used must be verified before the force-velocity profile can be confidently analyzed. The concurrent validity and the reliability of a GPS system are two of the most important parameters which, once verified, bring confidence about the GPS data measured [10]. Several studies, reviewed in 2016, have already tested the concurrent validity and reliability of GPS systems (various models of GPS from Catapult(r), GPSports(r) and WIMU(tm) for distance, speed and acceleration measurements [11; 12], and they suggested that all the GPS devices studied in this review could accurately measure the distance covered, and had sufficient intra-unit reliability to allow multiple comparisons with the same device. Subsequent studies have supported the use of raw GPS data to extrapolate the mechanical properties of sprint acceleration, analyzing the concurrent validity against radar, laser devices or timing gates. In 2017, [PERSON] et al. [6] showed that GPS (GPEXE(r), Exelio srl, Udine, Italy, 20 Hz and SPI proX, GPSports(r), Canberra, Australia, 5 Hz) were not recommended for measuring sprint acceleration mechanical outputs, because although the GPEXE(r) 20 Hz had overall better results, both systems remained less reliable (mean GPS 20 Hz bias [\(-\)7.9-9.7%]; mean GPS 5 Hz bias [\(-\)5.1-2.9%]; typical error GPS 20 Hz [1.6-8.3%]; typical error GPS 5 Hz [3.9-19.2%]; correlation coefficient GPS 20 Hz [0.56-0.84]; correlation coefficient GPS 5 Hz [0.35-0.41]) than the reference devices (radar or laser). Years later, another study showed that GPS (Apex, StatSports(r), Dublin, Ireland, 18 Hz) could be used instead of the radar to establish a force velocity profile, as the risk of error (intra-class correlation (ICC) [0.94-0.98]; typical error [2-5.6%]) between the two GPS units was low [7]. More recently, in the study conducted by [PERSON] et al. [8], moderate to nearly perfect correlations (0.48-0.96) were observed between GPS force-velocity variables (Vector S7, Catapult(r), Melbourne, Australia, 10 Hz) and the radar (Stalker Pro II(r) Sports Radar Gun, Plano, TX, USA, 46.875 Hz).