Becoming Swedish pragmatics: comparing the coaching philosophies of Sven-Göran Eriksson and Pia Sundhage

ABSTRACT

Since the dawn of modern sport, Swedish athletes and leaders have made a significant impact in the global sport community, and Swedish scientists and entrepreneurs have contributed to the development of coaching and training. But when it comes to football, Sweden has rather taken influence from others. Two names contradict this relative anonymity – Sven-Göran Eriksson and Pia Sundhage. They both have had long and successful careers which have brought Swedish coaching ideals to an international audience. The purpose of this study is to investigate how their respective coaching philosophies have developed over time and how they have been shaped by education, previous experiences, and influences in the coaches’ own lives. The developments of Eriksson’s and Sundhage’s coaching philosophies are analysed through the lens of theories about scientisation, specialisation and professionalisation. We build on their own publications, as well as interviews and archival sources.

KEYWORDS:

• Sweden
• coaching
• football
• democratic leadership
• professionalisation

Introduction

Given its relatively small population, Sweden has been a prominent sporting nation since the dawn of modern sport in the nineteenth century (Ljunggren, 2020). Successful athletes and influential leaders have made a significant impact in the global sport community, and Swedish scientists and entrepreneurs have contributed to the sportification and scientisation of coaching and training internationally (Yttergren, 2012; Svensson, 2016). But when it comes to football, few Swedish coaches have had international careers and in terms of coaching and tactics, Sweden has rather taken their influence from others (Sund, 1997; Svensson & Svensson, 2021).

There are two names in particular who contradict this relative anonymity – Sven-Göran Eriksson and Pia Sundhage. They represent change and development of the coaching role in football, and both have had long and successful international careers, which have brought Swedish coaching ideals to an international audience (Birkinshaw & Crainer, 2004; Botelho & Skogvang, 2013; Head, 2004; Radmann & Andersson, 2018; Skogvang, 2023). For example, Eriksson has been the coach of the men’s national team in England, Mexico and Ivory Coast and Sundhage has been the assistant coach of the women’s national team in China, the head coach of U.S.A., Sweden and, since 2019, Brazil.

In this article, we conduct a biographical study of Eriksson’s and Sundhage’s coaching in theory and practice, with a focus on their journeys from the Swedish countryside to the international spotlight. The purpose is to investigate how their respective coaching philosophies have developed over time and how they have been shaped by education, previous experiences, and influences in the coaches’ own lives. How have they built on their own (rather different) playing careers? What aspects of the political and social context have influenced their coaching? And how have their international experiences and meetings with other national football cultures changed their views on coaching and football? We will then do a comparison to identify similarities and differences. Knowledge on how coaches develop their coaching philosophies and what influences them to change can inform coach education programmes and the further development of in-service training for coaches.

The development of Eriksson’s and Sundhage’s coaching philosophies are analysed through the lens of theories about scientisation, specialisation and professionalisation (Guttmann, 2004; Svensson, 2016). We build on Eriksson’s and Sundhage’s own publications, as well as interviews and archival sources. In the following section, we present previous research on Eriksson and Sundhage. In the subsequent sections, we elaborate on the method and analytical framework. To contextualise Eriksson’s and Sundhage’s careers, coaching philosophies and influences, we thereafter briefly describe the history of Swedish football and how the role of the Swedish elite football coach has changed over time. Subsequently, we present the results, followed by discussion and conclusions.

Previous research

Previous research has focused both on Eriksson’s tactics and his leadership and management style. When it comes to tactics, Eriksson has in the literature been presented as the Swedish coach who independently developed the football philosophy of the English coaches Bob Houghton and Roy Hodgson (Peterson, 1993; Sund, 2015). Eriksson’s leadership and management style have been addressed both in and outside academic literature, and in and outside the sport context. He came to the attention of scholars and journalists when he was appointed manager of England’s national team, the first foreigner ever to coach England.

Altman (2002) as well as Birkinshaw and Crainer (2004) claim that there is a specific Swedish leadership style, oriented towards teamwork and cooperation and that is more unassuming and pragmatic than the more charismatic and fearful leader that used to be the ideal. This style is pointed out as the reason why Swedish companies are and have been so successful. Eriksson shared these traits, being described as having soft competencies “not charismatic, but gets things done through people. He achieves results in different ways than the dictatorial leaders of yesteryear” (Birkinshaw & Crainer, 2004, p. 32). Thus, Birkinshaw and Crainer argue that though Eriksson is not unique, he is a visible and successful example of a change in leadership style which is evident in the sporting context. On the same note, Mallinder (2017) argues that the single-minded, quiet, and modest Eriksson came to embody a new leadership archetype, different to the big ego leader that had been popular before. Furthermore, Head (2004) makes the case that Eriksson (together with the German player and later coach Jurgen Klinsmann) had a cross-cultural impact in England. Quoting British newspapers, Head shows how Eriksson and the country that had formed him was perceived as having something instructive to offer. Indifference to the British management culture, characterised by an Anglo-American “gung-ho” attitude, Eriksson was, as a representative of the “Swedish way”, identified “as a bridge to a consensus-oriented, non-hierarchical society that believes in empowering its people and which distinguishes itself by its efficiency in many fields of activity” (Head, 2004, p. 30). His management style was described as cool, detached, calm, patient, respectful, facilitative and confidence-building. For his thoughtful manner and respectful style, he was already known in Italy as “il gentilumo” (the gentleman) while in England some criticised Eriksson for not being passionate enough (Head, 2004).

In this article, we will study the development of this style – or what we in this study call coaching philosophy – and compare it with the coaching philosophy of Pia Sundhage. By doing so, we answer the call from Jenkins (2010) for more knowledge on how coaches develop their philosophies over time and how they are shaped by education, previous experiences, and influences in the coaches’ own lives.

As for Pia Sundhage, research has shown that in Sweden, Sundhage is considered as a norm-breaker in football, as her careers as both player and trainer have contributed to the football culture becoming more egalitarian (Radmann & Andersson, 2018). Sundhage has also been used as an example in studies on globalisation in women's football (Eliasson, 2009) and the emigration of Scandinavian women soccer players (Botelho & Skogvang, 2013, 2014). Here, she is labelled as being one of the pioneers, as she left Sweden for Italy in 1985. The reasoning behind her leaving was a frustration of playing and working as a professional but not being considered as such in Sweden (Botelho & Skogvang, 2013, 2014). Pia Sundhage is also used as an example of there being no glass ceiling in women's coaching. By having been the US women's national soccer team coach, and later the head coach of the Swedish women's national soccer team, Burton and LaVoi (2016) argue that Sundhage is proof that women can and will continue to reach the highest levels of coaching women’s teams. While Sundhage is recognised for being part of – and representing important changes in – women's football, there is still limited knowledge on her coaching philosophy and how it has developed over time. We are aiming to bridge this knowledge gap.

Method

We draw mostly on biographical source material, such as biographies about, or books authored by, Eriksson and Sundhage. While the focus on specific individuals in sport history and coaching may not give the same overview as a broader, more quantitative study, it instead adds depth and highlights the complex interplay between structural changes and individual agency (Bale, Krogh Christensen, & Pfister, 2004). The individuals are here seen as two important agents that have both shaped, and been shaped by, the broader context of international coaching exchange and their background in Swedish football and coach education. A qualitative narrative approach based on biographical records and interviews will contribute to a deeper understanding (Oldfield, 2015) of how the coaching philosophies of Eriksson and Sundhage have been developed. As noted by Day and Vamplew (2015, 1716), “the quantifiable approach can marginalise those who do not fit the standard pattern”. We instead aim to focus precisely on those individuals, the outliers who challenged existing career paths of Swedish football coaches and reached the highest international level.

Because there are several books written by or about Eriksson and only one book about Sundhage, we have opted to complement these sources with an interview with Sundhage. We conducted a semi-structured interview with her via Zoom in December 2022. It lasted for one hour and the audio was recorded. Afterwards, the interview was transcribed by the authors. The interview was built on a set of guiding, open-ended questions (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014; Wengraf, 2001) but then evolved based on what Sundhage said. Finally, we also use some material from the Swedish Football Association (FA) archives to capture some of the changes within the organisation, not least in relation to the coach education which both Eriksson and Sundhage underwent. When we quote text written in Swedish, we have translated the quotes into English.

Analytical framework

In this article, we investigate how Sven-Göran Eriksson’s and Pia Sundhage’s respective coaching philosophies have developed over time. Following Lyle (1999) we understand coaching philosophy as

a comprehensive statement about the beliefs and behaviours that will characterize the coach’s practice. These beliefs and behaviours will either reflect a deeper set of values held by the coach, or will be recognition of a set of externally imposed expectations to which the coach feels the need to adhere. (Lyle, 1999, p. 30)

It is important to note that we do not perceive a coaching philosophy as something fixed, rather we will focus on what in Eriksson’s and Sundhage’s history has shaped and changed their philosophies. Within the concept of coaching philosophy, in this paper we study three main dimensions – tactics (beliefs about how football should be organised in terms of formations and how the players tactically should behave on the pitch), training (beliefs about what and how to train) and leadership (beliefs about how to lead and behave towards players and coaching staff).

We analyse these three aspects of coaching through a theoretical framework of scientisation, specialisation and professionalisation. Scientisation frames the increasing role of science-based knowledge in coaching (e.g., Hjelseth & Telseth, 2023). Specialisation refers to the increasing level of specialist knowledge and the consequent growth of the coaching staff at many elite football clubs. Professionalisation links to the growing sport economy and how elite coaches today are full-time employees. We see these three aspects of sportification (Guttmann, 2004; Svensson, 2016) as decisive for the development of football coaching during the last decades, and we will use them to understand how Eriksson and Sundhage have been affected by such developments in relation to their coaching practice, delegating to staff members, adapting their tactical style, and using technological equipment for measuring performance of players. Subsequently, we will compare the two philosophies to discuss potential similarities and differences in relation to scientisation, specialisation and professionalisation.

The history of Swedish football and the changing role of the coach

Men’s football

Football was introduced in Sweden in the late nineteenth century. It rapidly gained popularity and in 1904 the Swedish FA was established. Sweden was also taking part in the emerging international football community and was part of founding Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) in 1904 (Primus, Alsarve, & Svensson, 2023). At this point, sports in Sweden were still in their infancy. The amateur regulations mandated football as mainly a leisure activity for men and the climate and a lack of proper indoor facilities limited training and playing to the warmer months (Svensson & Svensson, 2021). Some clubs employed coaches prior to important games or tournaments, but mostly the players performed their own training. The occasional coaches were often foreign former players who built their coaching practice on own experience. How to train and play were discussed in sport journals and the contributions mainly came from experienced coaches from abroad (Sund, 1997; Svensson, 2019; Svensson & Svensson, 2021). But to secure the quality of Swedish football from the longer perspective one needed Swedish coaches. Therefore, in 1931, the Swedish FA established a coach education programme (Peterson, 1993; Sund, 1997). The trajectory of employing foreign coaches, however, continued, as it seemed to be the recipe for success (Sund, 1997; Svensson, 2019).

By the 1950s “King football” was perceived as the national sport of Sweden (Andersson, 2002). Contributing to this coronation was international success (winning gold at the Olympics 1948, and bronze at World cup 1950 and the Olympics in 1952), peaking with winning silver in the World Cup in 1958 – a tournament that Sweden hosted (Primus, Alsarve, & Svensson, 2023). After this success in the 1940s and 1950s, Swedish football stagnated and to keep up in the international competition the amateur regulations were overturned in 1967. The professionalisation process was slow and it was not until after the Bosman ruling in 1995 that Swedish male elite players became employed full-time (Andersson, 2002; Peterson, 1993; Svensson, 2019). Parallel to the professionalisation, the coach education programme developed. Coaching practice in Sweden in general experienced a scientific turn between the 1950s and the 1970s. Coaches gradually became more dependent on scientific knowledge and formalised education, rather than only on practical experience (Svensson & Svensson, 2021).

In the mid-1970s, Swedish men’s football became more oriented towards tactics and was heavily influenced by British coaches who advocated for more control over the tactical game. As the responsibilities for the coach increased, assistant coaches started to be appointed on part-time basis (Peterson, 1993; Svensson, 2019). During the 1980s and 1990s, Swedish clubs and the Swedish FA also turned towards sport psychology and leadership, making the coach responsible for the players' mental training (Svensson, 2019). As we will elaborate on later, in this regard, Sven-Göran Eriksson was a forerunner.

To afford a full-scale professionalisation after the Bosman ruling 1995, including the employment of additional assistant- and specialist coaches, Swedish clubs from 2000 and onwards developed the commercial side of their businesses (Ericsson & Sund, 2019; Svensson, 2019). The Swedish FA integrated management and communication into the coach education programme, suggesting that the head coach would manage not only players but also the growing coaching staff. The coach also became the clubs’ outward face, engaged in attracting sponsors and communicating with the media and fans (Carter, 2007; Svensson, 2019).

Women’s football

While football spread geographically and public interest increased, during the first half of the twentieth century it remained a predominantly male domain. There were a few scattered, loosely organised, and short-lived initiatives (Hjelm & Olofsson, 2003), but women’s football did not gain momentum. Despite continuous efforts by female footballers to establish their sport, there was no support from the governing bodies.

In the 1960s, the club Öxabäck managed to secure the support from the regional FA for a women’s football league. During the 1970s, the number of women’s teams increased, and several new local and regional football leagues started. In 1972, female football was formally organised in a national league by the Swedish FA and the first international fixture was played in 1973. It was an important step in the sportification of women’s football, and one that set Sweden on the path towards becoming one of the leading women’s football nations, a path shared with several other Western European countries (Breuil, 2011; Skogvang, 2023). The expansion was evident, not least through the rapid increase in the number of registered players – from just above 700 in 1970, to more than 26 000 in 1980 (Hjelm & Olofsson, 2003). Today, the number of registered female players is closing in on 100,000 (Primus, Alsarve, & Svensson, 2023), whereas there are about 330,000 male players registered.

While the rise of Swedish women’s football has been most visible through the standout performances of specific teams and players (including Pia Sundhage), there are also structural explanations. Aspects of sportification, such as rational training, have been used to promote and develop the women’s game and to secure organisational and public support (Brus & Trangbæk, 2003; Hjelm & Olofsson, 2003; Svensson & Oppenheim, 2018). This has been done with a low degree of professionalisation. Although women’s clubs in Sweden were among the most successful in Europe during the 1990s and early 2000s, few of the players were full-time professionals. While many players from other countries moved to Scandinavia to play football, some Scandinavian players were going in the other direction (Botelho & Skogvang, 2013). Swedish clubs were among the best in the world in terms of sportification and results, but they struggled in terms of salaries and turnover. This was in line with the Scandinavian sport model, which emphasises non-commerciality, mass participation and voluntary work (Ljunggren, 2020; Norberg, 2014; Wikberg, 2005). Research into the coaching roles in Swedish women’s football is very limited. As there are less resources in women’s football, the coaching staff is generally smaller and less specialised compared to men’s football.

Results

In the following, we start by presenting the playing and coaching careers of Eriksson and Sundhage, as well as their education. We then turn to their coaching philosophies, and how they have developed over time and what has influenced them.

Sven-Göran Eriksson

Playing and coaching career

Sven-Göran Eriksson was born 1948 and grew up in Torsby, a small town in Sweden. Eriksson, playing right defender, had a rather moderate playing career, peaking in the Swedish second division when he occasionally stood in as a playing coach. Parallel to playing, Eriksson educated himself to be a Physical Education teacher (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013).

Eriksson’s coaching career started at age 27, when in 1976 he became the assistant coach to Tord Grip in Degerfors IF, at that time in the Swedish third division. When Grip was appointed assistant coach for the national team, Eriksson became the head coach of Degerfors. The same year he finished the Swedish FA’s coach education programme and by that Eriksson embodied the rather new trend where education could replace having a long and successful playing career. After promoting Degerfors to the second division Eriksson caught bigger clubs’ attention, and he was in 1979 appointed coach for IFK Göteborg a club which (similar to other clubs in Sweden at that time) wanted to try something new and different and were prepared to appoint a rather inexperienced coach. During Eriksson’s three years in the club they won several titles, one of them being the UEFA Cup. Parallel to his engagement in IFK Göteborg, Eriksson was assistant coach to Tord Grip for the Swedish men’s U21 national team (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013).

After success in Sweden, Eriksson’s international career was launched. He was twice at the Portuguese club SL Benfica (1982–1984 and 1989–1992), winning the league twice, the Portuguese cup once and performing well in the European Cup. During the 1980s and 1990s Eriksson also coached several Italian clubs; Roma, Fiorentina, Sampdoria, and Lazio. With Roma and Sampdoria, he won the Italian Cup and with Lazio he won several titles (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013). Between 2001 and 2006 he was the manager of England’s men’s national team, 2007–2008 he coached Mexico’s men’s national team and during World cup 2010, Ivory Coast’s men’s national team. He was also at a few English clubs; Manchester City (2007–2008), Notts County (2009–2010) and Leicester City (2010–2011). During the latest decade, Eriksson has been in several Asian clubs. At present, he is the manager of IF Karlstad football, a club in the Swedish third division.

Coaching philosophy

Eriksson on tactics. Eriksson’s beliefs on tactics started to emerge during his player career and in his biography (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013) he highlights a specific experience that fuelled his ideas on tactics. During a game, he struggled in his man-to-man defence against a rapid left winger, which made him think that football cannot be about one-to-one 60 metre runs. There must be better ways to help each other and play as a team. Eriksson also give credit to Tord Grip, saying that “basically, all my football knowledge I had got from Tord” (p. 157). During Eriksson’s career he regularly engaged Grip as his assistant coach or player scout. Grip was inspired by the football that Bob Houghton and Roy Hodgson introduced in Sweden in the middle of the 1970s, a 4-4-2 system, where the actions of the players were very controlled and structured. Hodgson became very important for Eriksson, who described Hodgson as one of his great role models during his early years as a football coach (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013).

Grip and Eriksson implemented the 4-4-2 formation and the controlled game at Degerfors IF, having learnt more about it by visiting Houghton’s training sessions as well going on several study trips to England (Peterson, 1993, 2000). The training sessions, Eriksson recalls, were almost all about tactics and when Eriksson took over as head coach of Degerfors he continued what Tord had started. Eriksson developed his ideas during his time in the coach education programme and in his final exam he presented the 4-4-2 system. The guiding principles were to put pressure on the opponents high up in the field, limit the spaces and make it tight. Instead of man-to-man defence one should defend different zones and give each other support, while the offensive game should be very structured (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013).

Grip and Eriksson were not the only Swedish coaches who became more interested in tactics in the 1970s. In the coach education programme, moving from mainly focusing on physical and technical aspects, a tactical vocabulary was introduced in the middle of the 1970s (Svenska fotbollförbundet, 1976) and in the coach education programme of 1988 it was stated that on the pitch “all players should have a well-defined task and it should be properly practiced” (Svenska fotbollförbundet, 1988, p. 40). Consequently, an important part of becoming a professional coach became to develop a tactical philosophy, where Eriksson’s beliefs on tactics thus was influenced by the ideas introduced by Houghton and Hodgson.

Even though Eriksson could see connection between the collective aspects of the system he preferred and a socialistic ideology, he claims that there were no political thoughts behind his tactical beliefs; “I just wanted to create the best football team possible. If you played like a team – one for all, all for one – you reached the best results. It was not more complicated than that” (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013, p. 45).

Eriksson, however, gradually started to experiment with other formations. He came to realise that sometimes the formation needs to be subordinated according to what players one has access to. Some players, like the individualistic Roberto Baggio that Eriksson coached in Fiorentina, had to be given freedom. Despite his focus on the collective, Eriksson came to the conclusion that one also needed to give space for individualists with special talents (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013). Thus, over time Eriksson changed the tactical dimension of his coaching philosophy and became more pragmatic. He also started to let the assistant coaches run the sessions: “I used to be hard as nails on tactical discipline. Now I go along with the ‘discipline with freedom’ line” (Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002, p. 128). When reflecting on this he thinks that: “maybe it was something I have picked up after working with the best players in the world. I realised that you also need to give the players freedom. Most of the time they knew what they needed to do” (Eriksson & Lövgren, p. 274). When talking in 2001 about how he would like to work in the future he seemed to continue wanting to take a step back:

I want to be more a manager than a coach. I’d prefer to be sitting in the stand with walkie-talkie, watching the matches. It’s easier to see the game from that perspective, make the right decisions, the right changes, give advice to the assistant coaches. (Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002, p. 133)

Eriksson also correctly anticipated that football would become increasingly specialised and that it would require more expertise than they had at the time.

Eriksson on training

Mirroring Eriksson’s beliefs on playing a rather structured tactical game he, just like Tord Grip, focused very much on tactics during his training sessions, especially in the beginning of his coaching career. As the players at IFK Göteborg did not know the system, the sessions were very controlled. Eriksson remembers how he walked with the players and moved them around on the pitch as if they were chess pieces, although Eriksson argues that he was not as extreme as Houghton and Hodgson:

I have always agreed on their ideas and learnt from them, but I have never wanted to be as thorough as them, I have never wanted to govern every kick, even though it could look like that from time to time during my first years in Gothenburg. (Peterson, 1993, p. 192)

It was the same when Eriksson went to Benfica, where the players knew even less about what he calls his “4-4-2 -religion”. He took the players by the shoulders and moved them one metre here, one metre there and repeated the moving patterns over and over (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013).

While putting much emphasis on detailed tactical instructions during training sessions, Eriksson also highlights the mental dimension of football, none the least self-confident: “When two teams are equally strong in technique, tactics and feel for the game, the team with the greater self-confidence is going to win” (Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002, p. 18). His reasoning is that earlier, when the players were not full-time professionals, one could improve their performance by employing them full-time to give them more time to train technique, condition and strengths, and tactics. In contemporary football this is not the case: “We’re already at the maximum that players can take nowadays. So it’s the mental differences which will decide who the real winners are” (Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002, p. 20). Eriksson also talks about mental tension, which he relates to aggression and states that as aggression can increase mental tension, and block performance in technique, tactics, and concentration, it is important to motivate each other and keep the fun of playing in the forefront of the mind, regardless of the results. Consequently, he spent

a lot of energy taking the aggression out of my players. All a player has to do is to begin arguing with the referee, play dirty or quarrel with the opposition for there to be a danger that their performance level will sink like a stone – not only the player’s performance, the whole team’s. (Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002, p. 68)

Eriksson’s understanding of the importance of the mental dimension was a cornerstone in his coaching. Starting already in Degerfors, Eriksson worked with Willi Railo, a Norwegian sport physiologist, in most of his teams (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013; Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002). It is reasonable to believe that Eriksson first heard of Railo during his coach education phase. At the end of the 1970s (when Eriksson attended the programme) the Swedish FA integrated psychological aspects based on science into the coach education curricula (including work by Railio) (Svenska fotbollförbundet, N.A.). Evidently, Eriksson was an early adopter and a forerunner in the scientisation process of the mental dimensions of players. In addition, engaging a sport psychologist was also an example of specialisation of the coaching practice.

Eriksson on leadership

According to Eriksson, it is crucial for the coach to build a good team spirit and a winning culture, and it is the leader who must take the initiative in this area. The coach should set the norms and values, but should also listen to what the players have to say. Eriksson likes to have leaders that can speak up, as football also is about communication (Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002). As a leader, Eriksson thus tries to infuse a team spirit: “I always tried to instil a ‘we’ feeling amongst the player” (Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002, p. 15). For example, in Lazio, all the players ate together, and no one was allowed to leave the table until everyone was done (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013).

To build a team and a winning culture Eriksson has combined two methods: promote the culture himself but also use good examples. He always tried to get new players who brought a winning attitude into the team: “It was enough to have two or three players who could serve as my instrument when I wanted to change attitudes and the thinking in the team” (Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002, p. 115). He also tried to stop players who represented the old culture from having influence on the team. On this note, Eriksson thinks it is very important to be loyal and work for the team. Maybe, Eriksson reasons, his hatred towards laziness had to do with his approach to his own training during his career as a player. He believes he probably trained harder than everyone else as he knew that his talent was limited. Therefore, he had trouble to accept those who had talent but did not show willingness to put down the hard work (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013).

As to Eriksson’s personal relationship with the players, he liked to keep his distance. About his time in Lazio he says: “I wasn’t their mate. I did not go out and eat with individual players. I wanted to be more like a big brother to them, so that they would come to me if they had problems” (Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002, p. 125). In retrospect, Eriksson thinks that he perhaps talked too little with the players and kept too much distance. However, having been a coach in several different countries he came to realise it depended on the culture of the country one was working in. For example, he tried to discuss the team selection with the players in Italy as he had done in Sweden, but that did not work. The players in Italy did not want to have the responsibility for decisions of that nature (Eriksson, Railo, & Matson, 2002).

However, in general he wanted to have a dialogue with the players and it was important to have their support and understanding. For example, when a player was disappointed after being substituted, Eriksson could ask what the player would have done in his position, and by that made the player realise that his decision was what was best for the team. This was new for some players as they had experience coaches with more of a because I say so-attitude (Eriksson & Lövgren, 2013).

Pia Sundhage

Player and coaching career

Pia Sundhage was born 1960 in Ulricehamn, a small town in West Sweden. Sundhage grew up in a family with three sisters and two brothers. Her parents recognised her interest in football early on, but there was no team for girls. Instead, Pia played in the local boys’ team Marbäcks IF under the pseudonym “Pelle”. Pia was one of the best players in the team and eventually started playing under her real name. It could have been controversial, but her parents supported her.

My father gave me a feeling of safety, of doing your part and keeping both feet on the ground. My mother gave me wings and told me that I could accomplish anything. It was tough at times playing football with the boys, but I had support from my parents and my siblings”. (Sundhage, 2022)

Sundhage started out as one of the pioneering women footballers in Sweden and went on to win the UEFA Women’s European Championship in 1984. She was also one of the first Scandinavian women footballers who played professionally abroad, with her move to Italian club Lazio in 1985 (Botelho & Skogvang, 2013). She then returned to Sweden and played for Stattena, Jitex and Hammarby, and ended her playing career in 1996 with 146 caps and 71 goals for Sweden. During her career, she mostly played as a forward but was highly versatile and played more or less all positions.

When she moved back to Sweden, Sundhage was accepted to the PE teacher and coaching education (specialising in football) course at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm, which she attended 1985–1987. She was the only woman in the class, which included would-be elite coaches such as Erik Hamrén and Håkan Ericsson. Sundhage had seen teaching as a possible future career, but at this stage she became convinced that professional football coaching was worth pursuing (Sundhage, 2022).

As recommended by some of her coaches, Sundhage then went through the Swedish FA’s coach education, which, at the time, contained four steps of which the fourth and highest is equivalent of the current UEFA PRO (Swedish FA, 2023). Sundhage went through all four noting that she enjoyed the education and learned from it, although she is also critical about some of the gender equality aspects: “It was all about men’s football. All the examples, everything. And there were almost no other women taking the courses either, so it felt a bit lonely at times” (Sundhage, 2022). As late as 2013, there were only four women among the 219 coaches with the highest coach education qualification in Sweden (svt.se, 2013) and while women’s football in general has come a long way in Sweden, the coaching role has proven more difficult to equalise.

After her playing career, she went on to coach some of the world’s leading national teams (including Sweden, U.S.A. and Brazil), although her first coaching jobs were less glamorous. Her first attempt at coaching on elite level was her role as player manager at Hammarby 1992–1994. When she quit playing, she had several jobs as assistant coach (at Vallentuna BK, AIK, and Philadelphia Charge) before her first job as head coach for the Boston Breakers in 2003. That was followed by spells at Kolbotn IL (Norway) and KIF Örebro (Sweden). These early years as a coach were demanding, because Sundhage was very committed and worked many hours while the salary was not always an appropriate reward for her efforts.

It was not until she became assistant coach for China in 2007, hand-picked by her Swedish colleague Marika Domanski-Lyfors, that Sundhage’s coaching career really took off. After a year in China, she was appointed as head coach for US Women in 2008. By the time she left in 2012, she had won an Olympic gold medal and was a highly respected coach at the international level. Between 2012 and 2017 she coached the Swedish women’s national team, followed by a spell as coach for the Swedish U17 team. Finally, she assumed her current role as head coach for Brazil national women’s team in 2019. Sundhage has an honorary doctor’s title at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, and in 2003 she became the first woman to be selected to the Swedish Football Hall of Fame.

Coaching philosophy

Sundhage on tactics

Rooted in a Swedish tactical tradition of zonal marking and strong defence, Pia Sundhage has taken influences from her coaching education as well as from her personal experiences as a player and as a coach. She has taken inspiration from several of her earlier coaches and from colleagues who she met during her coaching education at the Swedish FA. One early example is Ulf Lyfors, who was the head coach of the Swedish national women’s team 1980–1987 and who spent a lot of time discussing tactics with Sundhage. Another important person is Kaj Hansson, Sundhage’s coach in the Gothenburg-based club Jitex where she played between 1979 and 1981 (and would return to for three additional spells during the 1980s). Sundhage constantly wanted her coach to justify his training setup, his formation, his substitutions, and other tactical choices: “I think he was a bit tired of me asking all these questions, but he took the time to explain why he did things the way he did. I learned a lot from him” (Sundhage, 2022). At the time, Jitex played a classic 4-4-2 with one target forward and one quick forward. Sundhage argued that the team’s tactical style could be improved, and Hansson finally got to the point where he urged Pia to take a coaching education with the remark “it’s not as easy as you think”.

When Sundhage moved to Lazio as a professional in 1985, she experienced some of the difficulties commonly faced by pioneering women footballers who moved abroad at the time. Above all, it was a different football philosophy with a new playing style, and different training routines. While Italian men’s football has long had a reputation of being very tactically skilled, Sundhage saw the women’s league as less tactically developed than the Swedish league, but more technically skilled (Botelho & Skogvang, 2013, p. 810). These early experiences of differences between national football cultures were important for Sundhage as she developed her tactical understanding of the game.

When reflecting on her views of football, Sundhage says that her go-to formation for a long time was 4-4-2 with zonal marking, much resembling the style of the Swedish men’s team under Lars Lagerbäck (Sundhage, 2022). However, she also says that she has become more prone to adapt her tactics to the players available:

When I came to the US in 2008, those players had won everything and played 4-3-3 with elements of man-man marking. I felt most confident playing 4-4-2, so we changed to that. Today, I wouldn’t have done it the same way. In Brazil now, I am building much more on the strengths of the players. I am twenty years older and have more experience. (Sundhage, 2022)

Thus, Sundhage over time became more pragmatic and less dogmatic, allowing more space for individual players without abandoning her firm belief in the importance of a strong collective.

Sundhage on training

Sundhage has combined a rather traditional Swedish tactical style with a stronger-than-usual emphasis on personal coaching, positive reinforcement and the inclusion of non-scientific methods relating to mental training (Sundhage & Solin, 2013). Despite external criticism, she kept the Swedish motivational speaker and author Mia Törnblom as part of the support team around the Swedish national team, although her title was changed from mental coach to inspirational speaker (Lundh, 2017). Here, Sundhage was drawing more on her own experiential understanding of what mental training could be, rather than any scientific definition.

In training, Sundhage wants to be down on the pitch with the players, seeing them in action and how they react in game-like situations. Therefore, she tends to prioritise internal games, such as 4 vs 4, 5 vs 5. While some types of training (strength, set pieces) are delegated to specialist coaches, Sundhage wants to oversee the general play, especially the offence. Psychological aspects are an important factor as to why Sundhage wants to be present on the pitch during training. She has a rule of thumb outlining the relation between positive and negative feedback; “For every negative or critical feedback, there should be seven positives. If I manage that, then the player will be more receptive and actually listen to that piece of advice on what they can improve” (Sundhage, 2022). This illustrates how much emphasis Sundhage puts on mental aspects of the game, not only during team talks and meetings but also during training and matches. However, she has not neglected the potential of new technologies and scientific knowledge in the training setup. To name one example, as early as 2008 she emphasised the potential of pulse watches for each player as a tool for better individualisation of training (Sundhage & Solin, 2013, pp. 94–95).

Sundhage on leadership

Sundhage’s career in many ways embodies the trajectory of Swedish women’s football, starting off in the shadow of men’s football in the 1970s, to excelling in the international arena. There are a number of important meetings and events which have contributed to the gradual change of the leadership dimension of her coaching philosophy. One is her short and failed spell as head coach of the Norwegian team Kolbotn in 2004. Sundhage had only a small team of coaches, which she had not selected herself. She felt that the players did not believe in the process and the ideas, and she therefore terminated her contract by mutual agreement (Sundhage, 2022). After this point, Sundhage became convinced that a key to success was to pick her own assistant coaches and other supporting staff and delegate matters which she felt were not her strengths (such as administration and physio). She continuously stresses the importance of her coaching staff and the ability to delegate certain aspects of training to specialists, such as fitness coach Helena Andersson (Sundhage, 2022; Sundhage & Solin, 2013), an illustration of how Sundhage has embraced specialisation and professionalisation for the purpose of maximising her teams’ performance.

Another critical point in the life story of Sundhage was when she became head coach of the US Women’s National Team in 2008. She inherited a controversy within the squad, centred around the outspoken goalkeeper Hope Solo who had been criticised by several teammates. While Sundhage had been formed by her background in the Swedish coach education with its strong emphasis on the collective and the tactical system, she became convinced that she had to reintegrate Solo in her team at all costs because she was the best goalkeeper available: “Fair leadership is not always treating everyone in the same way. It is more about meeting every individual where they are, seeing everyone and giving them the space to grow” (Sundhage, 2022). This is another example of how Sundhage has gradually embraced individuality, while still emphasising the collective. Every player in her team has a responsibility to maximise their own contribution, for the benefit of the team. The same goes for herself and her coaching staff, as specialisation and professionalisation have allowed for more hours put in, more people involved, and more advanced science and technology available. The Swedish football tradition has built on an idea of the strong collective, with zonal marking to make defensive duties a collective action rather than individual player vs individual player. Sundhage still uses this tactical foundation but has successfully combined it with space for individual creativity on the pitch and different personalities off it. In her own words, “the coach education was good, but not so much for the leadership as in terms of tactics and playing style on the pitch” (Sundhage, 2022). Her leadership style has rather been the result of a long and continuous learning process, where personal experiences and relations to players and other coaches have been integral.

Comparison and conclusion

The tactics adopted for both Eriksson and Sundhage were heavily influenced by the British-oriented style introduced in Sweden in the 1970s and 1980s by Bob Houghton, Roy Hodgson. In this respect, both Sven and Pia have relied on systematic knowledge with an emphasis on the coaching education and playing style that later would be promoted by the Swedish FA. That said, there are differences. Eriksson remained a strong advocate for the 4-4-2 system with zonal marking throughout almost his full career while Sundhage, even when an active player, started to advocate a more flexible style, more adapted to the skills and weaknesses of individual players.

If the tactical style was rather similar and strongly influenced by the Swedish-English football tradition, the coaching style was more different, not least in terms of balancing between personal/experiential and scientific knowledge. While Eriksson was a pioneer in introducing science-based psychology in his coaching staff, Sundhage went down a less scientific route and relied more on personal experience. This could be explained by her status as a player, something which Eriksson could not rely on. While Eriksson worked with psychologist Willi Railo, Sundhage involved inspirational speaker Mia Törnblom. That said, Sundhage has worked with several scientific specialists during her career in coaching and delegated physiological and biomechanical aspects to experts in those fields. She has acknowledged the importance of research in women’s football and argued for the need for more scientific studies specifically aimed at the women’s game. She has also had a long-standing cooperation with behavioural scientist Elisabeth Solin, who has acted as a mentor for Sundhage for many years (Sundhage & Solin, 2013).

In general, both Sundhage and Eriksson have paid attention to the holistic perspective that Vaughan, Mallett, Potrac, López-Felip, and Davids (2021) articulate, in which the benefits of positivistic and de-contextualised knowledge in football are questioned as the authors point at the risk of too specialised knowledge and roles in football. Instead of relying too much on quantitative data, coaches need to be able to understand and explain their training setup and team selection in relation to cultural and social contexts (p. 3). The lead football researcher at the Norwegian School of Sport and Health Sciences, Mark O’Sullivan, has critiqued Swedish football for being anxious and copying too much from other countries based on what appears to be most successful at the moment (Johansson, 2023). He explicitly mentions the attempts to introduce a more passing-oriented, possession-based and Pep Guardiola-inspired football from around 2010. At the same time, international influence outside of the official channels (such as the Swedish FA’s coach education) has been important historically (Svensson, 2019). What Eriksson and Sundhage have managed well is the balance between tradition and innovation, drawing both on the officially sanctioned Swedish coach education, and their own experiences from coaching in different cultural contexts. Both coaches state that they have become more and more pragmatic and flexible, allowing for more individual freedom rather than relying on a dogmatic system. This underlines how personal experience, built over many years, has been integral to their success. Drawing on their increasing experience and status as coaches have given them security and allowed for tactical flexibility. In tandem with this growing experience, the effects of professionalisation, scientisation and specialisation have allowed Sundhage and Eriksson to take a step back and assume a manager-like role. They have both been rather pragmatic, gradually changing their coaching philosophy as new technological, scientific, and economic developments have opened up new opportunities. Without the effects of professionalisation, including the opportunities to coach abroad, this would not have been possible.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).