Political socialization and the coach-created educational environment of competitive games: the case of grassroots youth soccer in Sweden

ABSTRACT

Grassroots youth soccer is a major education environment in which coaching not only influences the quality of young athletes’ performances, but also their political socialization. I.e. their formation of political identities, values, attitudes and norms, their adaption to, learning about and sometimes changes in the political culture of a community. Based on an empirical study exploring competitive games of grassroots youth soccer in Sweden, the article contributes knowledge about political socialization in coaching and the coach-created educational environment of competitive games. In particular, it offers a typology that can be used in research, coach education programmes and for practitioners to analyse and understand the socio-political dimension of coaching practice. Two main coaching approaches are identified, Growth (include all and focuses on the process) and Selective (optimizing the team and focusing on the results), constituted by different social and learning norms having specific political socialization and education consequences for the players.

Introduction

Youth soccer is a major educational environment and arena for young people’s political socialization, i.e. their formation of political identities, values, attitudes and norms, their adaption to, learning about and sometimes changes in the political culture of their community (e.g. club, team, local community).¹ Political socialization is visible in and a part of human social organization, which involves processes of decision-making, the organization of human togetherness (e.g. the team), feelings and affections of inclusion and exclusion (e.g. players’ feelings of non-participation) and divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them’ (e.g. teammates/opponents). As a site for political socialization, the coach-created educational environment influences the kind of athlete that is fostered as a player, a person and as a member of the community and the citizenship qualities that are learned.² This under-explored dimension of competitive games and coaching needs to be investigated in order to understand the social, political and educational consequences for young people playing soccer and, ultimately, the role of soccer in society. The article highlights the dimension of political socialization in coaching and the coach-created educational environment of competitive games in youth soccer.

The coach-created environment, the organizational club and team culture are key factors in athletes’ development, where the coach is a cultural leader who together with others develops and maintains the environment through cultural leadership.³ Research has shown that ‘coaches trained in providing positive feedback, technical instruction, and reducing the use of punitive actions are more likely to increase athletes’ self-esteem and contribute to a positive sport experience’.⁴ However, it has also been shown that coaches tend to create a more ‘disempowering environment in competition compared to in training’⁵ in which negative and controlling coaching strategies risk being used in competitions where there is pressure to win, to emphasize players’ abilities and skills and to encourage rivalry. This could be explained by the fact that winning and losing have consistently been used as important criteria to evaluate successful coaches⁶ and that the competitive principle of sport, the lifeblood of the game, to secure victory⁷ constitutes an inbuilt conflict that in turn creates a ‘hot’ situation in which the perspectives and feelings of young players can easily be forgotten by the coach. Thus, coaching is not only about technical and tactical skills development, but is also a moral and socio-political enterprise: a value and attitudinal based, relational, social, cultural and political communication, information, educational process that promotes actions, learning and development and where social organization and interpersonal relations are at stake.

Based on an empirical study in Sweden, the aim of the article is to contribute knowledge about political socialization in coaching and the coach-created educational environment of competitive games in grassroots youth soccer. The research questions are:

• Which socio-political coaching approaches are constituted in competitive games of grassroots youth soccer?

• What are the political socialization and educational consequences of these coaching approaches?

The article is situated within the research field of grassroots soccer coaching⁸ and youth grassroots soccer culture⁹ and focuses on the political socialization dimension of coaching and the coach-created educational environment in competitive games, in the national context of Sweden. As a site for democracy, social and moral fostering soccer has played, and still plays, an important role in the development of society in Sweden and Scandinavia.¹⁰ Today, Swedish grassroots soccer is mainly dependent on volunteers and amateurs, although this is now changing as a result of increased professionalization, commercialization and globalization. This is visible in the often conflicting relation between two central objectives: democratic fostering as association nurturing (the creation of citizenship through participation in associations) and sport itself as competition nurturing (the practice of creating the greatest sportspersons).¹¹ These objectives are critical determinants of the kind of political socialization that takes place in (Swedish) youth soccer.

Political socialization and the role of the coach in youth soccer

In a world context, soccer is shaped and reflected in politics, economics and culture and is often used as a political tool to improve health and communities.¹² In youth soccer there is an tendency to view children as workers, units of labour and commodities to be traded in multinational markets,¹³ where players are treated as ‘performance machines’ instead of being respected as people with needs, interests, dreams, wishes, feelings and agency. The experiences and perspectives of youth players are often marginal and their opportunities to influence policies and practices continues to be limited.¹⁴ Far too often youth sport largely exists to satisfy adults.¹⁵ Players’ lack of influence and being able to express their perspectives is problematic, especially since we know that young players’ enjoyment of soccer is mostly based on being with friends, collaborating with teammates, learning new skills and having a supportive coach,¹⁶ and that the lack of opportunity to play increases the risk of dropout.¹⁷ The social organization of youth soccer at a macro- and micro-level (game practice) is a political concern that not only affects the quality of young people’s participation in soccer, but also their growth as individuals and members of the community. A role that is highly influential in these processes is that of the coach.

The coach functions as a role model, expert and significant other and has a unique position to both influence the players and direct and influence the team’s ethical, social and political agenda. Coaching influences players’ moral judgements, actions and characters, sportspersonship and fair play attitudes, the moral and motivational climate, game and team behaviour, team identity, the fostering of psychological needs, emotions and well-being, team cohesion and empowering.¹⁸ The coach-created environment ‘is a key predictor of athletes’ welfare and the quality of their sport engagement’.¹⁹ A vital dimension of this environment is political socialization, which up to now has only been implicitly addressed in youth soccer research.

Allocation of playing time ‘implies inclusion and exclusion of individuals’.²⁰ A team with a performance-orientation climate and differences in skills is likely to be polarized and exclude less skilful players, who may then feel that they are no longer appreciated members of the team. This economic logic of allocating resources (playing time) where the expected profit is highest (specific players) increases exclusion and communicates to the players that they only are valuable when contributing to victory. Another example is team selection²¹ in which all players should have equal opportunities to learn, have fun and develop. Players who are not included in the team, have minimal playing time and always play in the same position are largely prevented from learning and developing, which conflicts with what young people regard as most important, namely enjoyment and equal opportunities to participate.²² In the coach-athlete relationship coaches can treat the players differently depending on their skills and ability to submit to the prevailing social system.²³ A related aspect is coaching efficacy beliefs, which is ‘the extent to which coaches believe they can affect the learning and performance of their athletes’²⁴ and especially beliefs in their “capabilities to influence the personal development and positive attitudes of their athletes”.²⁵ Social cohesion in soccer teams is another socializing aspect that directs players to place the interest of the team above personal interests, thereby creating a sense of in-group identity promoting values, such as collective responsibility, teamwork and discipline, cooperation, loyalty and inclusion/exclusion.²⁶ Further, in gendered socialization²⁷ it has been found that girls and boys relate to a male standard based on well-established ideas about different styles of soccer, where boys’ performances are placed above those of girls and where girls are always subordinate to boys regardless of performance. In coaching practice socialization contributes to forming social identities. Everyday coaching practices have been shown to be ideologically laden, thereby producing, reproducing and incorporating the players into prevailing ‘legitimate’ cultures constituted by values such as respect for authority, control, obedience and winning.²⁸ Participating in soccer can also shape the personal and social lives of young people, increase their levels of social and community engagement and contribute to citizenship development.²⁹

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. The aim of the project was to contribute knowledge about the educational environment of competitive games in grassroots youth soccer using a player and referee perspective on parent and coach behaviour. A total of twelve teams (six girls’ teams and six boys’ teams) with participants between the ages of 10 to 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 observing:

• coaches’ verbal and body language and the players’ reactions,

• the physical positioning of coaches and substitutes,

• coaches’ use of instructions, questions, comments, feedback etc.,

• coaches’ reinforcement of players’ behaviour and rule following and

• the allocation of playing time, such as when, who and how players were substituted.

Field notes were taken immediately before, during and shortly after each match based on the above observation points. Typical coach actions (verbal and physical) and player re-actions were documented in detail. Each protocol was concluded in terms of the social and learning norms observable in the match. Both league and cup matches were observed. In Sweden, no results or competition tables are used before the age of 13. 50 per cent of the games under study belong to this competitive agenda and 50 per cent to a competitive agenda where the teams are ranked and the winners crowned. A total of 35 coaches were involved – five female and 30 male coaches aged from 35–50, all of whom were voluntarily engaged parents. The teams usually had two or three coaches, one of them often acting as head coach.

Pair interviews were conducted directly after each game and amounted to a total of 24 interviews with 24 girls and boys respectively. A coach in each team asked two players whom he/she thought would like to participate and could express themselves in the type of situation. A typical interview lasted for 15 minutes, the shortest being 7 minutes and the longest 34 minutes, adding up to 6 hours in total. All the players answered the same set of questions:

1. How did you feel about the game?

2. When coaches do something good in a game, what do they do then?

3. When coaches do something bad in a game, what do they do then?

4. Have you reacted strongly to something that a coach has done during a game?

5. Would you like to add anything else in this context? Follow-up questions (e.g. why did you think that? How did you feel? Can you give some examples?) and situations observed in the game were also addressed and talked about.

Pair interviews were chosen in order to make the interviewees feel safe in a conversation situation and able to express their thoughts and experiences. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Analysis

The analysis was conducted as a two-phase process with five steps, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. The analysis process.

Phase I	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3
Identifying coaching approaches	Coaching situations	Socio-political actions	Coaching approaches
Phase II	Step 4	Step 5
Identifying consequences and corroborating the findings	Political socialization and education consequences	The socio-political coaching approach typology

The analysis model is based on political theory (agonism and antagonism),³⁰ the concepts of empowering and disempowering coach-created motivational climate.³¹

In step 1 the empirical data was reduced and categorized into agonistic and antagonistic coaching situations, each type consisting of two dimensions: social logic and learning logic. Social logic concerns aspects that regulate individuals’ interactions, communal relations and group organization, while learning logic concerns aspects of communication, participation, development and instruction. A scheme of criteria (see Table 2) was used to identify the situations in which the main rationality of the situation had to apply to the criteria.

Table 2. Agonistic and antagonistic coaching situations.

Coaching situation	Social logic	Learning logic
Agonistic	Rule following, friendliness, referee respect and acknowledgement, inclusion and participation on equal terms.	Encouragement and joy, player influence and participation, mutual communication, focus on own team, encouragement, positive feedback, cooperation and hard work.
Antagonistic	Rule breaking and bending the rules, hostility, referee disrespect and promotion of own interests, exclusion and participation on unequal terms.	Self-sufficiency, control and demand, opponent and referee focus, punishment, intimidation, blame and disappointment.

In step 2 coaches’ socio-political actions, involving incompatible options, aspects of inclusion and exclusion, social organization, interpersonal relations and learning, were identified in the data categorized in step 1.

In step 3 different coaching approaches and their socio-political norms and principles were qualified based on the types of action identified in step 2. A coaching approach should be understood as a context within which political socialization occurs and in which socio-political norms are relatively consistent action indicative units instructing an individual to behave and act in a specific way based on what is considered valuable and preferable in a specific situation and context. The norms constitute a social choreography orienting interpersonal relations in the process of socialization when social organization and interpersonal relations are at stake. Similar types of action were clustered together to form social and learning norms. Norms following the same rationality were categorized and the rationality of the norms was labelled in terms of socialization and education principles (the foundation for what is considered valuable and desirable when directing and using actions that make certain experiences, processes of learning, fostering and development possible), all forming a specific coaching approach.

In step 4 the consequences of the coaching approaches constructed in step 3 were explored by comparing and evaluating them against the empirical data. The overall analytical question was: What kind of political socialization and educational environment does each coaching approach create? Finally, in step 5 the findings were corroborated, summarized and concluded in a typology in which different types of coaching approaches with various configurations of the political socialization and coach-created educational environment are presented.

Research ethics

Informed consent was given as far as this was possible, given that competitive games are public events. Active informed consent was given by all the players, coaches and parents in the teams participating in the study, apart from one parent and player (from about 200 players). Passive informed consent was given by the opposing teams. The coaches were contacted via email and informed about the research project. Each coach confirmed that they had distributed the information to their players and parents. Referees were contacted and informed in advance and agreed to participate. Accordingly, all the participants (players, coaches, referees and parents) were informed about and were fully aware of the ongoing research during the matches. The researcher was clearly visible, sitting on a folding chair near the touchline observing and taking notes. 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.

The local and national context of the study is important. The study was conducted in 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). The clubs were selected based on their willingness to participate, their reputation of being inclusive, caring and socially supportive environments and that they represented three different socio-geographical contexts. Given that a single empirical case has its limitations, the clubs were altogether chosen as a favourable case with strategic importance in relation to the phenomena being studied. If the coaches’ behaviour is valid for this case, it is likely to be valid for other cases as well, and vice versa.³² It should also be noted that the relationship between coaching practice, club and team culture, different actors (coaches, players, parents, officials etc.), national, regional and local cultures and regulations, policy documents and the political socialization process is multifaceted.³³ Political socialization is a complex process that is carried forward by different participants (e.g. coaches, players, parents) and the participant-environment configuration. As the study has only focused on the behaviour and actions of coaches the results should be understood accordingly.

Empirical findings

Two main coaching approaches representing the dominant ways of understanding and acting in competitive games and constituting the main logic for the five sub-types of coaching are presented. In the excerpts the players have been anonymized by means of a coding scheme. For example, G12B:4 (Girl B, aged 12, interview 4) and B12A:23 (Boy A, aged 12, interview 23). When using O, e.g. O1, it means observation 1 and that R is the researcher.

Growth: include all and focus on the process

Coaching is characterized by inclusion, communication, dialogue, participation and strong and trustful social relations. The coach is caring, reliable and patient, acknowledges each player and balances the needs and interests of the team and the players. Building on the strengths of the players and the team, feedback is action oriented and regularly delivered by highlighting what has been performed successfully. Mistakes are used as resources for learning. Players are encouraged to do their best, cooperate, work together, follow the rules and act respectfully and caringly towards others. The approach consists of three sub-types.

Collective: act consistently with the team

Coaching is based on equality and consistency. Players are guaranteed the same conditions, resources and the same amount of playing time regardless of ability. Referees’ decisions are complied with without comment:

a player was about to score and got pushed in the back and missed the goal with no reactions from the coach (O5).

The rules of the game are followed and referees’ decisions are communicated to the players if needed. The coaching behaviour remains the same, regardless of the score:

the opponents scored and the coaches encouraged the team by shouting ‘it doesn’t matter, keep up the good work!’ (O2).

The entire body is used to communicate, e.g. by means of controlled, clear and well composed body movements. Communication with the players during the game often addresses the whole team, collective work is praised and the team is always in focus. In the interviews, several players describe why they like this kind of coaching approach, which is exemplified in the conversation below.

R:

I noticed that you made a lot of substitutions.

B12A/B:23:

Yes.

R:

Do you usually do that?

B12A/B:23:

Yes.

B12A:23:

We usually rotate the players

R:

Ah, regardless of the kind of match?

B12A:23:

Yes.

B12B:23:

Mm

R:

Even if it’s a final?

B12A:23:

Yes …

B12A:23:

… we rotate

R:

So that everybody can play for the same amount of time?

B12B:23:

Mm

B12A:23:

No-one is allowed to play more than anybody else.

R:

Ok. Is that something you’ve all agreed on and talk about in the team?

B12A:23:

No, it’s always been like that.

B12B:23:

Yes.

R:

What do you think about that?

B12B:23:

Well, it’s good.

B12A:23:

Very good, I think.

R:

How is it good?

B12A:23:

Well, so that everybody can play and have fun.

B12B:23:

Everybody feels involved.

The approach is characterized by the equal allocation of playing time, rule following, praising of collective work and the same coaching behaviour.

Situational: adjusting to the situation

The coaching is adjusted to the situation. Instructions are often informative and short, delivered at the right moment in the game, supporting the players for/in action, giving credit and encouraging continuing efforts:

‘X (name of player), take a step back. You should be in the middle’ (O8);

‘Well played and well run. It’s coming X. Hold on’ (O9).

Players are allocated an equal amount of playing time and are allowed to play in different positions. This is adjusted in relation to a player’s ability and needs and what is most appropriate in the game. Referees are supported and the coach helps the referee to communicate decisions when needed. If a referee makes an obvious mistake the coach uses dialogue to clarify the situation. The coach reacts to dangerous acts and incidents by trying to protect the players in both teams:

the coach yelled at the referee when a player was roughly kicked down ‘Hey referee! Hey!’ (O21).

When a goal is scored, celebration is balanced in relation to the situation in the game. The coaching approach was favoured by all the players in the interviews, as is shown in the conversation below.

R:

When the coach shouts positive things during the match, what might they be about?

B16:22:

Well, it might be when we do something that we’ve practised beforehand, if it was good build-up play that we’d been working on. Jumping over the ball and new forward runs that … he … or he says it in a way that makes everybody aware of it. That it’s good and that we should continue doing it. Positive things can also be when we make some kind of change. It’s also positive when it’s better for the team and for the game.

R:

What do you mean by making some kind of change?

B16:22:

One change could be to alter the formation or change the players’ positions so that perhaps a … . put a right-wing defender in a more offensive position or move more players up front depending on the score and how the game’s going. If we’re in possession of the ball or if we need to be on the defensive, kind of.

Here the approach is characterized by dialogic communication and well balanced actions that are adjusted to the situation, the needs of the players and the team.

Individual: adjusting to the individual

The coaching is focused and adjusted to the individual player. For example when informing a player about something or a situation, or when supporting a new and uncertain player in the ongoing action:

‘No, pass the ball into the open space there X. You’ve got plenty of space there’ (O17);

‘Keep on working, pass the ball to X, move in that direction’ (O15).

The allocation of playing time is adjusted in relation to the players’ physical and emotional states. The players’ names are used and they are addressed individually after and before situations in the ongoing game. Feedback is individualized and desirable behaviour is encouraged and supported. There are reactions to obviously wrong decisions by the referee and also when risky incidents occur. Players acting in an emotionally unstable way (e.g. try to injure the opponent etc.) are guided and supported, as observed in observation 20 and exemplified below.

A situation in which a player was obstructed by an opponent makes the player angry. Shortly after this the opponent tries to do the same thing again, but this time the player confronts him physically. After the game the player explains the situation in the interview.

R:

I saw that you were a bit angry in some previous situations.

B11:20:

Mm.

R:

And then it was as if something snapped

B11:20:

Yes.

R:

So you turned round and kicked him down.

B11:20:

Yes.

B10:20:

But he only acts like that when he gets very angry. When someone does something to him, isn’t that right?

B11:20:

Yes.

R:

What did your coaches do then?

B11:20:

Well, they told me to leave the pitch and switch with another player.

B10:20:

Mm.

B11:20:

So I went to the booth and sat there.

R:

Mm.

B11:20:

And then another coach came, although he wasn’t on duty today.

R:

Mm.

B11:20:

We’ve got a few coaches and so he went with me and talked to the other player.

R:

What did you talk about?

B11:20:

Well, we didn’t really talk, but we went to the other side of the pitch and met there and apologized to each other.

[…]

R:

Yes. How did you react when your coach told you to leave the pitch?

B11:20:

Well, I think it was a good thing to do because I might have got even angrier.

R:

Mm.

B11:20:

I might have hit him instead, so …

R:

Mm. So you calmed down a bit after that, did you?

B11:20:

Yes.

The approach is characterized by individualization in the sense that the coach communicates with the players individually and adjusts the coaching to help the player deal with different situations.

Selective: optimizing the team and focusing on the results

Players who contribute to the team winning are included and the coaching aims at optimizing the strength of the team by excluding subjectively inferior players and using fixed positions and start players. The coaching is adjusted to the present score and influenced by the number of setbacks and the players’ successful actions. Players are often informed, instructed and directed in ongoing actions. The instructions increase when the game is even. When mistakes and setbacks occur, powerful body movements, angry voices and harsh words are often used. The players are valued for their ability. The approach consist of two sub-types.

Calculated: act strategically to win

Coaching is a matter of strategic choices, planning and purposeful adjustments characterized by economic rationality. Resources and means are used as optimally as possible, e.g. letting less skilled players substitute each other or substituting players who are playing badly. Coaching aims at risk elimination:

A coach helped the player to minimise the risk of the opponents scoring by shouting ‘X (name of the player), out on the side!’ (O20).

Substitution is planned in advance and players often play in the same position. Players are time and again substituted before they have left the pitch and it is often decided beforehand who will take the free kicks, corners etc., thus making it possible for a handful of players to develop these skills:

The referee blows the whistle for a penalty and a player shouts to the coach, ‘Can I take it?’. The coach shouts back, ‘No, X (name of player) will take it’ (O20).

There is a strong focus on the game, players’ skills and the tactics. Social and moral issues are marginalized and players are left to fend for themselves, but are lectured if their behaviour affects the chances of winning. A referee’s decisions are seldom commented on, but the coach often acts as an extra referee trying to influence the game:

a coach shouted ‘Hey! Hand ball!’ The opponents stopped for a second, which the players in the home team took advantage of by winning the ball and creating a chance to finish (O19).

Players are often instructed both before acting and in action and those who obey instructions are given credit:

a coach directed the players to score a goal, ‘Now! Score! Get in front of the goal’, the players scored and the coach shouted ‘That’s the way to do it lads, good!’ (O20).

Players are treated unequally, are given different amounts of playing time and attention by the coach. Playing in different positions is restricted and organized in order to maximize the chances of winning, as shown in the interview excerpt below.

R:

Is there a difference between playing league and cup matches?

G12A:4:

Yes.

G12B:4:

I haven’t noticed any difference.

R:

Ok.

G12A:4:

That’s because you are one of the players who usually plays when winning is critical. It’s mostly in cup matches that this happens.

R:

Are cup matches more important then, and if so, how come?

G12A:4:

I don’t know. Probably because they want us to win the cup.

G12B:4:

My understanding is that players are allowed to play in the positions they like best in cup matches. My view is that the coaches put you in the position you’re happiest in. So if I like playing in defence that’s usually what I play in cup matches. I’ve noticed that the coaches put the players in the positions they like to play.

R:

Yes?

G12A:4:

And they often, or rather, they’ve said that this season every player now has to try out all the positions. But even so they usually allow those players who are happy in a certain position to play there. So you aren’t really allowed to try many new positions.

G12B:4:

Except we have switched round quite a bit.

G12A:4:

Yes but that’s mostly, it’s usually … in cup matches they usually play people in the positions they are best at.

G12B:4:

Mm.

G12A:4:

and let the best players play.

The approach is characterized by strategic planning, where players are treated differently depending on ability and are often used as tools to maximize the chances of winning.

Confrontational: assaulting to win

The opponents are treated as enemies to beat and referees as objects to manipulate. The coaching demonstrates superiority and opponents are often degraded:

A coach showed superiority by shouting, ‘Move the team forward. We’ve got them, we’ve got them!’ (O17);

in a close competition between two players a coach shouted, ‘You are faster, come on!’ (O15).

The coach sometimes steps onto the pitch, runs to get the ball or stops the opponents from getting it. Players are allowed to act unjustly and the coach is focused on what the opponents and referee are doing, which strongly influences the coaching. There are powerful reactions, complaints and arguments when something is disadvantageous. Wrong decisions and incidents are complained and argued about with the referee and the opponents. The referee can even be reprimanded by the coach:

A coach reacted to a referee’s offside decision : ‘It’s on our side of the pitch! You’ve got cones!’ (O15).

Coaching is adjusted in relation to the score and, when scoring, celebration is often excessive:

A coach yelled loudly, ‘Yes, yes, yes! Come on Y (team)! We’re the better team!’ (O17).

If the scoring goes wrong, others are often blamed and players are substituted for not performing well. Players’ mistakes are often publicly blamed using powerful body movements and angry voices. Sometimes the surrounding environment is used physically to ventilate aggression due to setbacks, wrong referee decisions or players’ mistakes:

a coach got angry and disappointed, threw a flag on the ground and yelled ‘Fuck!’ (O10);

Players are often subjected to the coach’s commands and decisions as to what to do and how. This approach is exemplified in the conversation below.

R:

When a coach does something bad in a game, what do they do then?

B16:21:

They swear at you and tell you that you’re do things badly.

B15:21:

Yes

B16:21:

Well, our coaches don’t usually swear at us … they either say this or that straight out or shout and kick the booth or whatever.

B15:21:

Yes, and then you hear that they’re … .

B16:21:

Frustrated.

B15:21:

Yes, and then you know ‘they don’t think that I did well there’, but it doesn’t feel good at the time.

B16:21:

No, when you understand that you haven’t … (inaudible)

B15:21:

Mm (mm).

R:

But what does it feel like?

B16:21:

It’s not good.

B15:21:

No.

B16:21:

It affects you … depending on the match situation … if things are already going badly the tempo can drop even more.

B15:21:

Yes.

B16:21:

You lose motivation even more.

The approach is characterized by winning the game, no matter what the consequences are. Players are treated unequally, opponents as enemies and referees as objects to manipulate.

Concluding discussion

Coaching matters politically because it includes, excludes, organizes and groups people into ‘us’ and ‘them’. The coaches' socio-political coaching approach typology (Table 3) concludes the findings and gives an overview of the coaching approaches, norms, principles and consequences.

Table 3. Coaches’ socio-political coaching approach typology.

Coaching approach	Social norms	Learning norms	Principles and consequences
Growth - include all and focus on the process	Focus on own group, promote ‘do your best’, be supportive and encouraging, act peacefully and patiently, use a positive glad voice, develop all individuals, follow the rules, show compassion and care.	Praise good performances, communicate what is good, what should be developed and how, use mistakes for learning, provide perspectives and proposals, encourage continued attempts, let players play in different positions.	Socialization principle: include, communicate and work together for the well-being of all individuals in the group. Socialization consequences: collective work and support, inclusion and belonging to a community, safe, peaceful and respectful forms of social organization, responsibility for the well-being of the group, for a permissive and safe social environment, acknowledgement and equality. Education principle: patient and long-term education for all. Education consequences: everybody has an opportunity to learn everything, players develop a critical and constructive attitude, the strengths of the group and each player is developed, process, patient work and long-term solutions become standard practice.
Collective - act consistently with the team	Treat individuals equally, control body movements, never comment on referee decisions, use the same social behaviour.	Distribute equal amount of playing time, communicate with the players during the game and address the whole team, praise collective work.
Situational - adjusting to the situation	Act in relation to the situation, support the referee, communicate through dialogue.	Offer equal amount of playing time, instruct and communicate informatively and briefly at the right moment, support the players for/in action.
Individual - adjusting to the individual	Use the names of individuals, guide emotionally instable individuals, react to obviously wrong referee decisions and dangerous incidents.	Adjust playing time for each individual, encourage desirable behaviour, give players instructions after and before player action, give individualized feedback and instructions.
Selective - optimizing the team and focusing on the results	Optimize the strength of the group, question referee decisions, show anger and disappointment, treat individuals unequal.	Allocate more playing time for the best players, instruct, make decisions and direct players’ actions, instruct the players to minimize risks.	Socialization principle: exclude undesirable individuals, instruct and strive for the superiority of the homogenous few. Socialization consequences: individual value varies due to ability, homogenous individuals are included and those not meeting the criteria are excluded, rules and social conventions become means for own interests, formal leaders become decision-makers and members of the group obey orders and deliver what is asked for. Education principle: reactive and short-term education for the selected ones. Education consequences: exclusive education for some players who learn parts of the education programme, the players let others think for them, short-term results and outcomes become standard practice.
Calculated - act strategically to win	Use resources optimally and strategically, treat individuals as tools, let individuals take care of themselves, act as an ‘extra referee’.	Let less skilled players substitute each other, use start players and fixed positions, decide who should take the free kick etc., focus on the game, own player’s and the tactics, instruct the players before they act in a situation.
Confrontational- assaulting to win	Use powerful body movements and angry voices, treat opponents unfairly and the referee as an object, allow individuals to act unjustly, focus on opponents and referee, use powerful reactions, use whatever necessary means to win, blame others.	Substitute non-contributing players, publicly blame players, adjust coaching to the scoring result, make decisions for the players, command and tell them what to do, when and how.

In youth soccer the experiences and perspectives of the players are regarded as marginal.³⁴ The article tries to counteract this by allowing the players to articulate their perspectives, thus showing that political socialization is manifest in coaching in which social organization and interpersonal relations are at stake and have consequences for the individuals as players and members of the community.³⁵ The typology that is offered is an analytically useful tool for research and can also serve as a practical tool in coach education programmes for practitioners to analyse and understand their everyday socio-political coaching practices.

In the growth approach, which is common in all the studied age groups, the opponents are viewed as ‘friendly-enemies’ and competition becomes an inclusive and socially safe practice for the learning and development of all players. Here, the coaching is directed towards all the players with a focus on the process, acting consistently and adjusting to the situation and the individuals. This coaching approach could be understood as favouring association nurturing in which all players are (democratically) included. In the selective approach, which is most common in the older age groups, the opponents are viewed as enemies and competition becomes an exclusive and socially insecure practice for producing results. Here the coaching is directed towards optimizing the strength of the team, acting strategically and, if needed, assaulting opponents and own players with a focus on winning at all cost. Thus, this coaching approach could be understood as favouring what Peterson calls competition nurturing in which only selected players (the best) are included.³⁶

From a child and youth perspective, the selective approach is problematic. This is because we know that young players’ enjoyment is mostly based on being with friends, collaborating with teammates, learning new skills, equal opportunities to participate and having a supportive coach³⁷ and that the lack of opportunity to play increases the risk of dropout.³⁸ We also know that ‘athletes prefer coaches to exhibit behaviour related to (in order of preference): training and instruction, positive feedback, social support, democratic behaviour, and autocratic behavior’.³⁹ For example, in the selective approach, the allocation of playing time and optimizing the strength of the team become political questions of inclusion/exclusion, human value and the right to learn, develop and participate on equal terms⁴⁰ and actualize the unequal development of players’ abilities, learning and inequality in the distribution of rights, privileges and respect. To quote Nicholls: ‘Those of lesser accomplishments are thereby humiliated and set back in their efforts to construct their own destinies and the destiny of their group. Unequal accomplishment we should expect and accept. Levels of humanity we should not’.⁴¹

The growth approach is more in line with what children and young people prefer and is stated in national and international sport policy.⁴² It also resonates better with the concept of fair play, which implies ‘(a) recognition and respect towards the rules of the game; (b) correct relationships with the opponents; (c) maintenance of the same opportunities and conditions for everybody; (d) avoidance of victory at all cost; (e) honourable attitude in victory and in defeat; and (f) commitment with giving as much as possible’.⁴³ However, at least one critical question still needs to be addressed and further researched and that is: What are the long-term consequences of grassroots youth soccer and coaching for the shaping of young citizens of today and a future society?

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Andersson, ‘Situational Political Socialization’, 967–83.

2. Côte and Gilbert, ‘An Integrative Definition of Coaching Effectiveness and Expertise’, 313.

3. Henriksen, Storm and Larsen, ‘Organisational Culture and Influence on Developing Athletes’, 216–27.

4. Gearity, ‘Poor Teaching by the Coach’, 81.

5. Smith et al., ‘Observing the Coach-Created Motivational Environment across Training and Competition in Youth Sport’, 149.

6. Cf. Gearity, ‘Poor teaching by the coach’,79–96.

7. Cf. Jones and McNamee, ‘Moral Reasoning, Moral Action, and the Moral Atmosphere of Sport’, 131–46.

8. Cf. Potrac et al., ‘Exploring the Everyday Realities of Grass-Roots Football Coaching’, 919–25.

9. Cf. O’Gorman, ‘Introduction’, 793–99.

10. Andersson and Carlsson, ‘Football in Scandinavia’, 299.

11. Peterson, ‘Landskrona BoIS as an Environment for Nurturing and Education’, 125–39.

12. Brackenridge, ‘Children’s Right in Football’.

13. Ibid., 3.

14. Walters et al., ‘“It Just Makes You Feel Invincible”’, 241–57; O’Gorman, Introduction; O’Gorman and Greenough, ‘Children’s Voices in Mini Soccer’, 810–26; and Pitchford et al., ‘Children in Football,’ 44.

15. David, Human Rights in Sport.

16. Tjomsland et al., ‘Enjoyment in Youth Soccer’, 827–42.

17. Temple and Crane, ‘A Systematic Review of Drop-out from Organized Soccer Among Children and Adolescents’, 856–81.

18. Ommundsen et al., ‘Perceived Motivational Climate in Male Youth Soccer’, 397–413; Boixadós et al., ‘Relationships among Motivational Climate, Satisfaction, Perceived Ability, and Fair Play Attitudes in Young Soccer Players’, 301–17; Jowett and Chaundy, ‘An Investigation into the Impact of Coach Leadership and Coach-Athlete Relationship on Group Cohesion’, 302–11; García-Calvo et al., ‘Perceived Coach-created and Peer-created Motivational Climates and Their Associations with Team Cohesion and Athlete Satisfaction’, 1738–50; Appleton and Duda, ‘Examining the Interactive Effects of Coach-created Empowering and Disempowering Climate Dimensions on Athletes’ Health and Functioning’, 61–70; Høigaard et al., ‘Team Identity in Youth Soccer’, 697–707; Fenton et al., ‘Empowering Youth Sport Environments’, 423–33; and Smith et al., ‘Observing the Coach-created Motivational Environment’, 149–58.

19. Appleton and Duda, ‘Examining the Interactive Effects of Coach-created Empowering’, 61.

20. Lorentzen, ‘Allocation of Playing Time Within Team Sports’, 20.

21. Lindgren Hilingh and Linnér, ‘Children’s Stories about Team Selection’, 633–44.

22. Lindgren Hilingh and Linnér, ‘Children’s Stories about Team Selection’; Walters et al., ‘It Just Makes You Feel Invincible’.

23. Cushion and Jones, ‘Power, Discourse, and Symbolic Violence in Professional Youth Soccer’, 142–61.

24. Chow, Murray and Feltz, ‘Individual, Team, and Coach Predictors of Players’ Likelihood to Aggress in Youth Soccer’, 428.

25. Ibid.

26. Kooistra and Kooistra, ‘The Ins and Outs of US Youth Soccer’, 955.

27. Eliasson, ‘Gendered Socialization among Girls and Boys in Children’s Football Teams in Swede’, 820–33.

28. Cushion and Jones, ‘A Bourdieusian Analysis of Cultural Reproduction’, 276–98.

29. Parker et al., ‘Sporting Intervention and Social Change’.

30. Mouffe, Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically.

31. E.g. Appleton and Duda, ‘Examining the Interactive Effects of Coach-created Empowering’.

32. Cf. Flyvbjerg, ‘Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research’, 219–45.

33. Cf. Cushion and Jones, ‘A Bourdieusian Analysis of Cultural Reproduction’.

34. Walters et al., ‘“It Just Makes You Feel Invincible”’; and O’Gorman; O’Gorman and Greenough.

35. Cf. Cushion and Jones, A Bourdieusian Analysis of Cultural Reproduction; Parker et al.

36. Peterson, ‘Landskrona BoIS as an Environment for Nurturing and Education’, 125–39.

37. Cf. Walters et al., ‘“It Just Makes You Feel Invincible”’; and Tjomsland et al., ‘Enjoyment in Youth Soccer’; Lindgren Hilingh and Linnér, ‘Children’s Stories about Team Selection’.

38. Temple and Crane, ‘A Systematic Review of Drop-out from Organized Soccer’.

39. Gearity, ‘Poor teaching by the coach’,81.

40. Cf. Lorentzen, ‘Allocation of Playing Time within Team Sports’, 20–32.

41. Nicholls, The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education, 153.

42. Cf. David, Human Rights in Sport; and Eliasson, ‘Gendered Socialization among Girls and Boys’.

43. Boixadós et al., ‘Relationships among Motivational Climate’, 303.