Parent-created educational practices and conditions for players’ political socialisation in competitive youth games: a player perspective on parents’ behaviour in grassroots soccer.

ABSTRACT

By recognising young athletes as active socialising agents in their own right and how they experience parents’ behaviour, the article contributes knowledge about parent-created educational practices and conditions for players’ political socialisation in competitive youth games in grassroots soccer. Parents play an important role in the creation of educational practices and the conditions for young people’s political socialisation in sport. Young people’s formation of political identities, values, attitudes and norms, their adaption to, learning about and sometimes changes in the political culture of a community are dimensions that have hitherto not been explored to any great extent in youth sport research. Three types of educational practices are identified in which the conditions for political socialisation are shown to be marked by social cohesion, security and respectability; group segregation, selfishness and manipulation; disrespect, hostility and blame.

KEYWORDS:

• Competitive youth games
• educational practice
• political socialisation
• parents
• grassroots soccer

Introduction

Sport is a major education and socialisation arena for young people. A less empirically explored dimension in this arena is that of political socialisation, i.e. the process in which individuals form political identities, values, attitudes, norms and behaviour and adapt to, learn about and sometimes even change the political culture of their communities (Andersson, 2015). In youth sport, political socialisation occurs in processes of decision-making, when the organisation of human togetherness (e.g. creating and maintaining teams) is actualised and when feelings and affections of inclusion and exclusion (e.g. players’ feelings of participation or feelings of non-player value) and the divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them’ (e.g. teammates/opponents) occur (cf. Mouffe, 2013). Parents, together with coaches, are primary agents in these processes. In recent decades, along with attitudinal shifts in parenthood and parents’ influence on their children in western society, ‘parental involvement in organized youth sports has intensified substantially’ (Strandbu, Stefensen, Smette, & Renslo Sandvik, 2019, p. 66). Parents’ involvement in youth sports is normal, in that it is ‘a way to connect to the child emotionally and to further the child’s development’ (Stefansen, Smette, & Strandbu, 2018, p. 162) and an important aspect of the parental fostering of good citizens (Lauer, Gould, Roman, & Pierce, 2010).

Parents have different roles in their children’s sporting activities and are vital for enabling children to participate (Romani, 2019), given that they function as providers of financial, logistical, emotional and social support and encouragement. Johansen and Green (2019), for example, have identified two types of parenting practices: emotional support and instrumental support. Emotional support means that parents are present (in person) and give feedback after the game, whereas instrumental support means ensuring ‘that their children could take part or attend the sports’ (p. 433). Parents influence their children’s experiences and enjoyment of sport, their self-perception, perceived competence, self-confidence, self-esteem, competitive anxiety, fear of failure, moral and social norms of sporting behaviour and the quality and characteristics of sportspersonship (Elliott & Drummond, 2017; Holt & Knight, 2014; Holt, Tamminen, Black, Sehn, & Wall, 2008; Sánchez-Miguel, Leo, Sánchez-Oliva, Amando, & García-Calvo, 2013). Accordingly, ‘parents play a major role in shaping children’s attitudes, values and beliefs in and through sport’ (Elliott & Drummond, 2013, p. 38).

Parents’ behaviour in youth sport can be viewed as role-modelling actions that influence athletes’ observational learning and communicate what is regarded as important and valuable. In competitions, parents’ behaviour is frequently observed and imitated by young athletes ‘placing a dual importance on not only the perceived etiquettes and decorum appropriate to the sport setting, but also their transferability to the wider community context’ (Elliott & Drummond, 2013, p. 37). Both prosocial and antisocial behaviour (e.g. derogatory remarks, displaying winning-at-all-cost mentalities, or demonstrating values of equality and participation) occurs in the interactions between athletes, coaches and parents (Leo, Sánchez-Miguel, Sánchez-Oliva, Amado, & García-Calvo, 2015). In this way, parents’ behaviour can be viewed as a socio-political enterprise, i.e. a value- and attitudinal-based, relational, social and political communication and information process that promotes actions, learning and development in which social organisation and interpersonal relations are at stake. Accordingly, political socialisation is manifest in parenting and is dependent on and influenced by the parents’ political and moral values and priorities. A comprehensive and important arena for political socialisation and parenting in youth sport is soccer.

In youth soccer the experiences and perspectives of the players are marginal and the opportunities for players to influence practices and policies are limited (O’Gorman & Greenough, 2016; Walters, Payne, Schluter, & Thomson, 2015). ‘To date, most studies on parental involvement in youth sport have drawn on data from parents, not adolescents themselves’ (Strandbu, Stefansen, Smette, & Renslo Sandvik, 2019, p. 67). In order to understand the players’ thoughts and experiences, we have to listen to their views and perspectives. It is therefore crucial to explore how young athletes perceive and interpret their parents’ behaviour, ‘rather than the behaviors per se’ (Holt & Knight, 2014, p. 57), or what parents claim to do and think (Babkes & Weiss, 1999). What parents regard as social support and encouragement may be perceived as displeasure and pressure to perform. It is also important to remember that young athletes are not and cannot be treated as passive agents and objects of socialisation. Rather, they should be recognised as active and important socialising agents in their own right (Andersson, 2015).

How parents act towards their own children, other players, opponents and the referee in a competitive game creates educational practices and conditions in youth sport that can influence the players’ political socialisation. The aim of this article is to contribute knowledge about parent-created educational practices and conditions for players’ political socialisation in competitive youth games within the context of grassroots soccer in Sweden:

• What kinds of parent-created educational practices occur in competitive games of grassroots youth soccer?

• What are the conditions for players’ political socialisation in these educational practices?

In Sweden, youth soccer is guided by national and international policies that promote values such as equality, participation, learning and development (David, 2005; Eliasson, 2011). By means of an empirical study, the research questions are explored by listening to young players’ own views and perspectives.

Background

Parents see sport as way of a practising cultivation and character building, preparing children to compete (in life), as a social inclusion possibility, as a way of dealing with social worries and as an opportunity for their children to feel competent (Stefansen et al., 2018). Sport is thus an arena for fostering and maintaining a close relationship with and a shared commitment between child and parent, as well as a way to ‘feel connected to the child and part of his or her life world’ (Stefansen et al., 2018, p. 167). Organised sport is also seen as a children’s right, an important part of a proper childhood and an individual and social development arena in which parents have a moral duty to engage. For example, athletes who regard their competence, enjoyment and intrinsic motivation as high often have parents who give frequent positive responses and have positive beliefs about their competency (Babkes & Weiss, 1999).

Harwood and Knight report that ‘approximately two-thirds of parents’ behaviors are appropriate or positive, while approximately one third of behaviors are negative or inappropriate’ (2015, p. 28). The most commonly reported form of angry behaviour (Omli, LaVoi, & Wiese-Bjornstal, 2008) is shouting at the referee, followed by coaching from the touchline. Swearing, encouraging players to play rough and outside the rules and embarrassing behaviour also appear. In contrast, when young athletes are asked what kinds of parental behaviour they prefer, the picture is different: parents should

(a) tell you that you did a good job, (b) clap after your team does something good, (c) encourage you while you are playing, (d) encourage you after the game if your team lost, (e) control their emotions, and (f) say “good try” if you make a mistake. (Omli et al., 2008, p. 31)

Parents’ praise and understanding are key elements in supporting the life skills development of young players in soccer, such as teamwork, interpersonal communication, leadership and goal setting (Mossman & Cronin, 2019). The article approaches the above types of parental behaviour from an educational and political socialisation perspective.

Political socialisation is a dimension that has not yet been explored to any great extent in youth sport research. In youth soccer research, the dimension has been examined in connection with gendered socialisation (Eliasson, 2011), socialisation and ideology in coaching practice (Cushion & Jones, 2014), team selection (Walters et al., 2015) and citizenship development (Parker, Morgan, Farooq, Moreland, & Pitchford, 2019). Even though sport competitions offer a unique context for the study of parenting, the specific dimension of political socialisation is still minimal, which is why related studies of parental behaviour in competitive games are presented below and used as a background.

Political socialisation and the role of parents in youth sport

Parents’ behaviour and attitudes have socio-political consequences for the behaviour of young athletes and influence how social organisation and interpersonal relations are played out. Young athletes are more likely to show concern for their opponents if their parents encourage the mastery of skills, do not put pressure on them to win or outperform others and emphasise that mistakes are part of learning (LaVoi & Babkes Stellino, 2008). High levels of a parent-initiated learning/enjoyment climate are related to ‘lower levels of acceptance of cheating and acceptance of gamesmanship attitudes and higher levels of keep winning in proportion’ (Wagnsson, Stenling, Gustafsson, & Augustsson, 2016, p. 112). If players perceive that significant others accept antisocial actions, they will be more likely to adopt antisocial behaviour themselves (Leo et al., 2015).

Omli and Wiese-Bjornstal (2011) have identified three types of parent roles in competitive games: the supportive parent, the demanding coach and the crazed fan. The supportive parent (preferred by the players) is characterised by attentive silence, for example sitting down quietly, controlled emotions, cheering, praise, encouragement and empathy. The demanding coach gives instructions, advice and critical encouragement. The crazed fan is characterised by behaviour such as arguing, blaming, derogatory comments, disruption and shouting. The roles could be argued to represent three different socio-political logics influencing youth political socialisation, ranging from inclusion and solidarity, instruction and demand to disrespect and hostility.

Holt et al. (2008) have identified different types of parents’ comments in competitive games of youth soccer, ranging on a continuum from supportive to controlling. One of the most prevalent types, praise/encouragement, refers to general support and encouragement such as cheering (cf. Mossman & Cronin, 2019). Performance contingent feedback involves intentions to improve a player’s performance by giving encouraging feedback. A common comment, instruction, involves direct commands to provoke action, or to draw attention to what a player should have done. Negative comments include general negativity, while derogatory comments directed towards children (often in the opposing team) include laughing at their mistakes and telling them how bad or weak a player they are. These comments actualise socio-political norms and are action indicatives that to differing degrees try to influence the players in their actions on the pitch, whilst also signalling what and who are regarded as valuable.

Sagar and Lavallee (2010) have identified three categories of parental sport socialisation practices (punitive behaviour, controlling behaviour and high expectations) that contribute to players’ fear of failure, thus implicitly communicating that a child’s value as a person is dependent on his or her contribution and performance. High parental expectations are characterised by expecting an athlete to invest maximum effort, avoid mistakes, win, succeed and provide return for investment. The research findings presented above illustrate the political socialisation dimension in competitive youth games and give examples of different traits of educational practices.

Educational practice and the political dimension of competitive games

An educational practice is a socially established, coherent and complex socialisation, learning and communication activity involving certain kinds of relationships and goals between the participants (cf. Hardman, Jones, & Jones, 2010). Given that ‘every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after’ (Dewey, 1997/1927, p. 35), a parent-created educational practice can have at least two educational characteristics – educative and mis-educative. The practice is educative when it extends and enables richer experiences in the future, for instance under conditions in which players are allowed to take action, communicate, collaborate, work to achieve mutual goals and use social skills, and not only undergo or suffer the consequences of certain parent behaviour. A practice is mis-educative when it arrests, restricts and distorts the growth of further experiences, thereby producing a lack of sensitivity and responsiveness from the players. This means that the possibilities of ‘having richer experience in the future are restricted’ (Dewey, 1997/1938, pp. 25–26), e.g. when players are directed in the game and not allowed to make mistakes or their own decisions. An educational practice is often guided by educational principles, the foundation for what is considered valuable and desirable when directing and using actions that make certain experiences, processes of learning and development possible. In this way, educational principles function as action foundations when considering suitable courses of action in educational contexts.

All social institutions are constituted by the political, in which different needs, life views, perspectives and preferences force humans to make choices between competing alternatives, thereby grouping people to fight for what they believe should be the social order and way of life (Mouffe, 2013). The social is a product of the political, i.e. something that has been agreed on or taken for granted. When the political is revealed in the social, a socio-political situation is created in which social organisation and interpersonal relations are at stake. This becomes explicit in the actions of participants in competitive games where victory or defeat is a stake and where there is always an inbuilt conflict as to who should win, which in turn constitutes the lifeblood of the game. In this way, an educational practice also includes different socio-political principles, i.e. action foundations for social organisation and interpersonal relations that are considered valuable and/or prioritised as valuable in action and competition.

Method

The study is part of a research project called Educating for fair play? In this project, the behaviour of parents and coaches in three grassroots soccer clubs in Sweden was explored during the season of 2017. Three small clubs, one located in a rural area (1,000 inhabitants), one in a smaller suburb (4,000 inhabitants) and one in a town (26,000 inhabitants), were selected due to their willingness to participate, their reputation as good educational environments and the fact that they represented different socio-geographical contexts. The clubs were chosen as a favourable case with strategic importance in relation to the studied phenomenon. If the parents’ behaviour is valid for this case, it is likely to be valid for other cases too, and vice versa (cf. Flyvbjerg, 2006). It should also be noted that factors such as the relationship between parenting and coaching practice, club and team culture, different actors (coaches, players, parents, officials etc.), national, regional and local cultures and regulations and policy documents (cf. Cushion & Jones, 2014) influence the study. Educational practices and political socialisation are multifaceted and complex and are dependent on the different participants and the participant-environment configuration. The study has only focused on parent behaviour that was experienced by the players taking part in the project and observations of parents’ actions. The result should therefore be understood accordingly.

A total of twelve teams (six girls’ teams and six boys’ teams) with participants between the ages of 10–16 years, approximately 200 in total, took part in the study. Two competitive games in each team were observed (a total of 24 games) using a qualitative observation protocol focusing on the educational environment of competitive games. With a parent focus, the protocol included observations of the verbal and bodily communications of parents, the players’ reactions, the physical placement of parents, parents’ use of instructions, questions, comments and feedback, the reinforcement of players’ behaviour and the following of rules. Both league and cup games were observed. In Sweden, no competition tables are used before the age of 13. 50 per cent of the games under study belong to this competitive agenda, while 50 per cent belong to a competitive agenda in which the teams are ranked and the winners crowned.

Twenty-four pair interviews were conducted directly after each game with a total of 24 girls and 24 boys. A typical interview lasted for 15 min, the shortest being seven minutes and the longest 34 min, amounting to a total of six hours of interviews. The players answered the same set of questions about good and bad parental (and coach) behaviour, follow-up-questions (e.g. why do you think that? how do you feel? can you give some examples?). Situations observed in the game were also addressed. Accordingly, the players’ perspectives were in focus in terms of what kind of behaviour they preferred or did not prefer from parent spectators (cf. Omli & Wiese-Bjornstal, 2011). The interviews ended by asking whether they had experienced any parental behaviour that they had felt very strongly about. Pair interviews were chosen in order to make the interviewees feel safe and to create a more conversation-like atmosphere in which they could express their thoughts and experiences. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Research ethics

Considering that competitive games are public events, informed consent was given as far as was possible. Active informed consent was given by all the players, coaches and parents in the twelve teams from the three clubs. The players and their parents provided the coaches with written informed consent and the coaches confirmed a collective informed consent for their team via e-mail correspondence with the researcher. Passive informed consent was given by the opposing teams via e-mail. This medium, together with an information letter, was also used to inform each team’s coach about the research project. The coaches confirmed that they had distributed the information to the players and their parents and that they had agreed to participate in the study. Referees were contacted and informed in advance, all of whom verbally consented to participate. The study did not involve any sensitive personal data such as race, ethnic origin, religious beliefs and sexuality, and was carried out in accordance with Swedish ethical research regulations.

Analysis

In accordance with Patton (2015, p. 526), the aim of the article – to contribute knowledge about parent-created educational practices and conditions for players’ political socialisation in competitive youth games within the context of grassroots soccer in Sweden – has been used to drive the analysis. Informed by theory, the content analysis has been used to identify, organise and categorise the content of the empirical data, which consists of four phases.

In phase I the interviews were transcribed verbally into text. The transcripts, including observation data, were thoroughly and systematically re-read in order to understand and become more familiar with the content. In phase II, parent-created educational practices of competitive games were identified using the following analytical and theoretically informed question: What kinds of educative and mis-educative parent actions are expressed? In this phase, the data was categorised and coded, i.e. meaningful units in terms of key concepts and expressions that were empirically close to the data. Examples of these were instructing the players how to act, being quiet, not influencing players’ decision-making, only applauding the home team, harassing opponent players, applauding both teams etc. These were then clustered and categorised to form themes of educational practices and sub-themes describing the educational principles constituting each educational practice. In phase III, the socio-political dimension of the educational practices identified in phase II were discerned using the following analytical and theoretically informed question: What are the main socio-political principles guiding the educational practice? In phase IV, the findings were verified, concluded and summarised in relation to the empirical data.

Results

The findings consist of three main educational practices – work together and play the game, inform to win and control and downgrade. Each main practice consists of educational principles and conditions for political socialisation. In the excerpts the players are anonymised by means of a coding scheme, e.g. G12A:1 (Girl A, aged 12, interview 1), B16B:10 (Boy B, aged 16, interview 10), O1 (Observation 1), R (Researcher). Interview data and observational data are used as representative examples to illustrate and support the findings.

Educational practice I: work together and play the game

This educational practice includes players’ enjoyment, their focus on playing the game and doing their best together, being supported and helping players to develop. Here, parents’ voices are glad and positive and there is a focus on good performances, praising fair play actions, confirming and supporting everyone in the home team and giving extra support and encouragement to individuals with difficulties. Positive actions are reinforced through feedback, often by using the player’s first name. Players are allowed to make mistakes and are encouraged to try again when they fail. Players make their own decisions on the pitch, learn to cooperate and make a collective effort. The educational practice is constituted by four principles:

• act consistently and enjoyably,

• observe and praise with accuracy,

• encourage effort and hard work, and

• create a mutual competitive environment.

Principle 1: act consistently and enjoyably

Here the behaviour is consistent and includes giving individual and collective praise to the home team and cheering and supporting regardless of the score: parents praise all the players by using their first names (O1), parents commonly express praise to the whole team: ‘Good girls!’ (O2).

R:

Do they (parents) do different things depending on whether you are winning or losing?

B11:

3: No, they always do the same thing. For example, if I win the ball they’ll shout ‘Well done B11!’ regardless of whether we’re winning or losing. I don’t think they care that much about the score.

B10:

3: No. Mum usually says ‘the main thing is that you had fun’.

R:

Is there any difference in parents’ behaviour in relation to the score?

G12A:

4: No, there’s no difference.

G12B:

4: No, they always praise and encourage us. Even if we do something like miss a goal (note: which the player did in the observed game), they will say that we did well and that we tried.

The referee’s decisions and rules are accepted without comment: a couple of incidents on the pitch are ignored by the referee, but the parents do not comment on them (O3). Players are allowed to make their own decisions on the pitch, i.e. the parents do not instruct the players or try to influence the game. The coaching is left to the coach and it is accepted that the parenting and coaching roles are different.

Principle 2: observe and praise with accuracy

Parents are present and relaxed, observe the game, are quiet and use their voices and body movements carefully and calmly: the parents mostly sit down, are relaxed and sometimes applaud and give praise (O4).

G16:

5: I mean, they don’t have to be generally disruptive so that they stand there and shout all the time.

Support is mainly shown by being attentive. The players and the team are praised on well-chosen occasions, often in crucial situations when the score is even, scoring when the opponents are in the lead, or when performing well: in a crucial situation parents who have been silent for a while applaud loudly when their team’s goalkeeper prevents the ball entering the net (O16).

G12A:

18: Well, they don’t shout all that much.

G12B:

18: No, they mostly stand there and watch.

R:

So as a rule your parents are mostly quiet?

Players:

mm.

G12A:

18: When we score a goal they shout ‘Oh good!’

G12B:

18: Yes

G12A:

18: Or when we are about to do something well.

Principle 3: encourage effort and hard work

The balance between praise and encouragement is related to the score. Team performances, attempts, efforts and hard collective work are praised, thus emphasising that hard work is more important than the score: the opponents score and parents encourage the team to keep going, ‘It doesn’t matter. Come on!’ (O3).

B10:

3: If the opponents score, they’ll be energised. They won’t give up, they’ll just keep going. ‘Come on team X, you can do it!’

Extra support is given in crucial situations when the team has setbacks. Individual players’ attempts and efforts are encouraged and support is given when mistakes are made: a player misses a pass, puts her hands in front of her eyes and a parent comments, ‘Bad luck, good try!’ (O5).

G10:

2: When you miss or whatever you’ll probably feel a bit fed up. But then they perhaps shout like this: ‘Well done, it was close. Good try’. They try to energise you which makes you feel better and helps you to continue without feeling down.

Principle 4: enable a mutual competitive environment

A holistic perspective on the competitive environment includes the opponents, praising good performances and encouraging both teams (in attack and defence): players from both teams are applauded for good performances (O2).

R:

So, if the opponents score, will your parents still applaud?

G10A:

2: Yes, they’ll applaud in appreciation of a good performance, so as not to offend anyone.

G10B:

2: … they don’t want to offend the opposing team.

B16A:

10: They applaud and … well yes. It’s important for them to act the same way towards both teams.

When the home team is superior humble actions are visible, such as celebrating scoring or performances respectfully, without downgrading the opponents. Fair play attitudes and the well-being of all are encouraged: if an opponent is injured the team gives the ball back to the opponents and the parents applaud (O23).

Conditions for political socialisation: social cohesion, security and respectability

The conditions are characterised by social cohesion, security and respectability. Individuals are included as autonomous equals and treated with dignity and humility based on their needs, regardless of ability. Rules are followed and opponents are treated in a friendly manner and with respect.

Educational practice II: inform to win

Here the emphasis is on winning, with a focus on the home team in which the players are pressured to succeed. The team is cheered loudly when winning. Praise and support are given to the home team, but the opponents are largely ignored. However, opposing players might be reprimanded for playing unjustly and roughly, or the referee shouted at if a parent’s own child is injured and a wrong referee decision suspected. Spontaneous reactions are expressed in unfavourable events for the home team and the rules of the game are interpreted in favour of the team. Players are allowed to act in an unsportspersonlike way and parents act as an extra referee or coach in order to influence the play. Suggestions for players’ actions and information and hints to players about game situations are common. This practice is marked by a winning-oriented, short-term education for the home team. The educational practice is constituted by two principles:

• give support in decision-making, and

• favour the home team.

Principle 1: give support in decision-making

Proactive actions are used to influence the game, such as acting as an extra referee or coach, telling the referee or the players how to act and making them aware of what is happening in different situations: a parent shouts the name of a player, the player turns around, looks up and starts to run (O24). Players are informed and given hints about situations, prepared and directed towards preferable actions: a parent shouts to the players to start communicating, ‘Come on lads, talk to each other!’ and ‘Mind your back!’ (O23).

G16:

19: When they shout things like ‘Yellow card!’ I don’t like that, it’s up to the referee and they are just spectators.

Spontaneous reactions occur, often when the home team is at a disadvantage. The rules of the game are used as tools to favour the home team and reduce the benefits for the opponents.

G12:

1: They complain about the referee. It’s been like that in a lot of matches, especially in cup ties when some parents get very angry at the referee and question his decisions. Even in cases for example when something happens to a player in our team and the referee doesn’t blow for a free kick. If that happens they want to influence the decision, but it’s the referee’s verdict that counts. The referee makes the decisions, not the parents.

When pushing for a win, the players are allowed to act in unsportspersonlike ways if needed, i.e. antisocial behaviour is indirectly supported by the parents when they do not react to their own children’s unsportspersonlike actions.

Principle 2: favour the home team

Only the home team is praised and supported with no comments about or towards the opponents: the parents only applaud good performances by the home team (O2).

R:

Only cheer for your team?

G16:

16: Yes, our spectators.

G14:

16: They’re not supposed to cheer … 

G16:

16: They should cheer for our team.

G14:

16: They shouldn’t boo the opponents, but they don’t need to applaud when they score.

Extra support is given when the score is even and in crucial matches, e.g. against local teams or in cup finals: at the end of the second half of an even local derby match a parent shouts ‘Come on team X, let’s score a goal, let’s score a goal!’ (O17). The team is loudly cheered on, e.g. with songs and chants and everyone is happy when the team is winning. Instructions and suggestions are readily given and sometimes praise and hints are given during ongoing actions and players are given feedback after a good performance.

B12B:

23: If someone has an opponent to cover, but is about a metre behind and looking at something else and doesn’t notice that player, parents can make them aware of it.

R:

Yes, ok. Do they help a bit in the game?

B12B:

23: Yes.

B12A:

23: But not too much.

B12B:

23: Not shouting.

Conditions for political socialisation: group segregation, selfishness and manipulation

The conditions are characterised by group segregation, only focusing on the home team and selfishness, where social conventions (rules of the game) are means for own interests in which perceived unfairness towards the own group should be challenged. Individuals are manipulated in order to make the correct decisions to win, which is regarded as the only option.

Educational practice III: control and downgrade

The game is viewed as a combat to outperform the opponents and gain results. The referee is treated as serving the interests of the home team. Players and the team are instructed and pushed around by the parents. Instructions are given individually (often to a parent’s own child) by combining praise with action-oriented instructions, pushing players to try even harder. When the home players are treated unfairly or roughly, strong reactions often result. The team is also given loud collective instructions and pushy advice to act in specific ways. The educational practice is result-oriented, involving values of instruction, domination, performance and outcomes. The educational practice is constituted by two principles:

• reduce the opportunities for others to succeed, and

• command the home team’s players.

Principle 1: reduce the opportunities for others to succeed

Here actions are mainly directed towards officials and opponents, harassing and undermining the referee, downgrading opponents and being hostile to the opponents’ parents. The referee is shouted at and complaints are made when the referee makes controversial decisions: close to the touchline a parent loudly questions an offside decision by the referee, ‘No, no!’ (O22). Opponents are addressed in a derogatory fashion, e.g. by letting them know how weak and slow they are and how rough and unsportspersonlike they play: in a duel between two players a parent shouts to the player in the home team, ‘You are the quickest, don’t give up!’ (O4).

G10B:

2: Once when I was playing a parent shouted, ‘Take the ball now. Take it from, I was then number nine, take it from nine, she’s not so good’. It was when I was a bit younger but I can still feel it inside, you don’t want to hear such things, that you are no good.

There are arguments and squabbles with the opponents’ parents and if necessary the game is obstructed, e.g. by taking the ball, walking onto the pitch, or arguing with the referee.

B16B:

14: If there is a throw-in they kick the ball away. So it takes longer. I’ve experienced that a couple of times.

B16A:

14: Act in an unsportspersonlike way and … shout at the opponents’ parents. Well, perhaps not shout, but end up in conflict with the opponents’ parents.

Negative comments, uninvolved presence and making everyone aware of their mistakes and poor performances also occur.

G11B:

8: It’s like they don’t support you. They just stand there and say ‘Oh but you could have done better’ and it’s like … well, they don’t support you.

Principle 2: command the home team’s players.

There is a strong focus on the home team and one’s own child. Players in the home team are harassed and blamed if they do not contribute to winning the game or perform well.

G15B:

12: We already know what we’ve done wrong or when we’ve made a mistake. Everybody make mistakes, and it feels a bit tough if a parent shouts ‘Come on then!’ and sighs, when we already know. It gets to you a bit.

Their own children are dictated to and controlled in ongoing match situations: a parent walks along the touchline following the game and shouts ‘Throw along the touchline’ and ‘Defend!’ (O7). Anger is shown if the child doesn’t put enough effort into the game or performs badly.

G12B:

4: It could be that the opponents’ parents shout a lot. Say bad things to the referee and to us players. They can also be very aggressive towards their own children as well. Instructing them to do things in a specific way and being very disappointed and stuff like that.

Players in the home team are sometimes corrected and directed: a parents shouts, ‘X, stay down there now’ which the player then does (O18).

B16:

21: Yes, some parents in the other team stand on the touchline and act like coaches. It really annoys me.

In crucial situations the players are often told how to act: at the end of the second half in the final a parent shouts to a player in the corner with the ball, ‘Just hold the ball X (name of player), keep hold of the ball!’ (O19).

Conditions for political socialisation: disrespect, hostility and blame

The conditions are characterised by disrespect, hostility and blame. Individual value varies with player ability and individuals are regarded as tools to achieving the goals of others. People outside the home group are regarded as enemies, obstacles for group domination and the fulfilling of own goals and interests.

Discussion

The three ideal types of educational practices that have been identified could occur in the same soccer game and are related to the competitive principle and inherent conflict in competitive sport – to secure victory (cf. Jones & McNamee, 2000). According to the results, parents’ ways of dealing with this conflict could be described and understood in relation to two competition logics involving socio-political principles and influencing the types of educational practices created. I have chosen to call these logics compete respectfully and win at all cost (cf. Clifford & Feezell, 2010; Daniels, 2007). Both logics affect players’ political socialisation and what they actually learn as players and young members of the community. The educational practice of work together and play the game is encouraged by the first logic. Inform to win moves between the two, while control and downgrade are encouraged by the second logic.

Compete respectfully is about striving to win and learn. Opponents are essential for competition and need to be respected and treated as ‘friendly enemies’ who make it possible to test and develop player- and team ability, with the referee as a co-creator who makes the game possible. This logic facilitates educational practices marked by enjoyment, equal possibilities to participate, respect for others, social conventions and rules of the game. Players are cared for and valued as individuals separated from their performances, are praised and shown understanding (cf. Mossman & Cronin, 2019). There is a sensitivity and understanding of the needs of others and all players have equal opportunities to develop. Players are supported to feel competent and to work hard together, encouraged to focus on the task of playing and to regard mistakes as part of learning (cf. LaVoi & Babkes Stellino, 2008). As shown in work together and play the game, cooperation, autonomy, inclusion, equality and respect are fostered when players are able to develop a sense of belonging, feel secure in a permissive and safe social environment, learn to acknowledge each other and take responsibility for the well-being of others. An educational practice that is encouraged by compete respectfully will therefore fuel educative actions promoting equality, long-term solutions, cooperative learning, respect and fair play, where players’ feelings, interests and needs are acknowledged.

Win at all cost is about winning and showing superiority. Opponents threaten the group’s identity (cf. Mouffe, 2013), are treated as enemies and the referee is regarded as an obstacle to overcome. This logic risks encouraging educational practices marked by shouting, unfair treatment of others and anti-social behaviour (cf. Leo et al., 2015). Players risk being treated on the basis of their ability, while responsiveness and care for the well-being of others are reduced and where short-term solutions, fear of failure, punishment and guilt become standard practice (cf. Sagar & Lavallee, 2010). Such reactions are provoked by parents directing and giving orders to the players on the pitch, humiliating them for making mistakes, losing or performing badly. As shown in control and downgrade, players are socialised to follow instructions, listen and let others make decisions for them, focus on the outcome, avoid mistakes and do what is necessary to win. An educational practice encouraged by a win at all cost logic will therefore fuel mis-educative actions promoting inequality, rivalry, self-interest, punishment, guilt and unfair play.

Inform to win moves on a continuum between the two competition logics, balancing an educative and mis-educative characteristic in which players’ performances in the home team are supported and those of the opponents neglected. The focus here is on success and winning, thus marginalising long-term educational processes. Even though players are allowed to make their own decisions in the game, they are more often than not influenced in their decision-making by parents. In this type of practice, the players learn to be manipulated and that others make the right decisions for them.

Although winning is important to young athletes, it is ‘less important than having fun in a conflict-free environment’ (Omli & Wiese-Bjornstal, 2011, p. 709). In work together and play the game, parents deal with the conflict of winning by a mutual and shared frame of respect and equality and promoting players’ learning and long-term educational processes. In inform to win, parents deal with the conflict of winning by only focusing on and supporting the home team and arguing against the referee’s unfavourable decisions. In control and downgrade, the conflict is played out in moral registers in terms of treating the opponents as ‘evil’ and enemies to crush (cf. Mouffe, 2013), which represents an example of uncaring behaviour and a lack of concern and care for others (cf. Omli & LaVoi, 2012). In both these practices learning is confused with achievement and performance outcome, i.e. they are mis-educative to different degrees, and aim at supporting the players’ success by using them instrumentally. Just because a player follows orders and the action results in a goal being scored, it does not mean that the player has learned anything or that the team has improved. Why? Because the decision-making was done by the parents, not by the player. Accordingly, actions like this arrest, restrict and distort players’ further experiences and learning. Instead, players should be allowed to make their own decisions and make mistakes in order to learn. Wagnsson et al. (2016) argue that parents should play down the importance of results and winning and instead promote mistakes as part of learning, ‘in order to facilitate healthy moral development of their children and further to promote fair-play and sportsmanship ideals in youth sports’ (p. 114), i.e. create an educational practice in the competitive game that is educative.

The study has only focused on what parents do, not why they do what they do. Possible explanations have been identified elsewhere, for example that ‘parents “project” their own desires and wishes for success onto their children’ (Holt & Knight, 2014, p. 64), that ‘the goals parents and children adopt subsequently influence how parents are involved’ (Knight, Berrow, & Harwood, 2017, p. 93), or that parents empathise with their child and the emotional intensity associated with the characteristics of the game (Holt et al., 2008). Emotional intensity could explain why players report parents as behaving more intensely and pushy in cup matches, finals and local derby matches. For the future, it would be relevant to explore how political socialisation evolves and why, and to investigate what takes place in the encounter between the participants (parents, players, coach etc.) and their socio-political culture. This would contribute knowledge about how and why political socialisation processes and co-created educational practices are formed in the ways they are in competitive games.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.