Coach–athlete sexual relationships: if no means no does yes mean yes?

Abstract

Coach–athlete romantic relationships and consensual sexual relations are commonly accepted among coaches and athletes, although a growing number of sport organisations discourage or prohibit such relationships. In research, coach–athlete sexual relationships are lumped together with sexual abuse, suggested to harm athletes' well-being, performance, athletic career and team dynamics, and to inherently constitute an abuse of power, trust and ethics. In addition, mistrust of coaches' motives, related to physical touch and fear of sexual misconduct, has resulted in a growing anxiety among coaches. This paper highlights and critically discusses research conceptualisations, contextual understandings and critical issues surrounding coach–athlete sexual relationships, on which there is no comprehensive research outside the sexual abuse context. Studies of authority–subordinate romantic relationships in other social settings have reported that such relationships facilitate both positive and negative characteristics and outcomes. To prevent and reduce harm and to promote well-being, functionality and safe practice in coach–athlete sexual and non-sexual relationships, I suggest that comprehensive research outside the sexual abuse context is required. In addition to the previous research focus on harmful and abusive relationships, coach–athlete sexual relationships that are experienced as consenting and mutually fulfilling by the involved parties need further examination.

Keywords:

• Sexual relationship
• Romantic relationship
• Sexual abuse
• Coach–athlete relationship

Notes

1. In this paper these various relationships are summarised as ‘sexual relationships’ if no specific sexual relationship is referred to. These sexual relationships share two common denominators: they involve a sexual component and are legal.

2. The term ‘sexual abuse’ has mainly been adopted in this paper. Some prefer the term ‘sexual exploitation’, while ‘sexual harassment’ is widely used and, more rarely, ‘sexual violence’ and ‘sexual assault’. The difference between these terms is often understood as a continuum (Brackenridge, 2001a).