A deconstruction of coaching philosophy

ABSTRACT

Coaching philosophy is positioned in the literature and practice as providing coaches with a clear guide for their coaching. However, current understandings of coaching philosophy suffer from a lack of conceptual clarity and are usually decontextualised from practice. To address this gap, this research deconstructed 10 professional football coaches’ understanding of coaching philosophy(ies) and explored what influenced their practice over 18 months in one English football Academy using the methods of interviews and observations. The data were analysed abductively and included Bourdieu’s concepts of field, capital, and habitus to help make further sense of the data. The findings revealed that, in this football Academy, coaching philosophy was associated with a technical and tactical model of the sport and functioned as a symbolic device rather than being a guide to coaches’ practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Coaching philosophy
• sport coaching
• Bourdieu
• reproduction
• symbolic
• pedagogic action

Introduction

Understanding and articulating a coaching philosophy has been recognised as important in the literature (Carless & Douglas, 2011; MaCallister et al., 2000) and coach education, as it has been positioned as underpinning coaches’ practice (Burton & Raedeke, 2008; Gould et al., 2017; Leeder & Beaumont, 2023; Voight & Carroll, 2006). Despite good intentions, these attempts at clarification and understanding have instead only succeeded in reproducing coaching ideology and rhetoric (Cushion & Partington, 2014). Often confusing espoused statements of intent for practice with coaching philosophy. This confusion was reported by MaCallister et al., (2000) who interviewed 22 youth baseball and softball coaches (10 women and 12 men) to explore their coaching philosophies and described “evasive responses” with the authors indicating that they regularly experienced inconsistencies between coaches articulated philosophy and coaching actions. Indeed, despite the espoused importance of understanding what underpins coaches’ practice, more critical analysis has shown how little is known about coaching philosophy and importantly how it links to practice (Cassidy et al., 2023; Hall et al., 2022; Webb & Leeder, 2022). Instead of providing a guide to coaching practice, coaching philosophy remains a contested and often confused phenomenon (Partington & Cushion, 2019). Idealist representations of coaching philosophy common in previous research (e.g. Bespomoshchov & Caron, 2017; Leeder & Beaumont, 2023; Robbins et al., 2010; Schempp, McCullick, Busch, Webster, & Mason, 2006) have been grounded in stand-alone methods such as surveys, questionnaires, and interviews without observations of practice. This means that the research has failed to see past simplistic coach descriptions and ideals that have not linked articulations of so-called philosophy to practice.

A philosophical understanding of coaching philosophy has been advocated by Hardman and Jones (2013), who proposed a philosophy of coaching that consists of two factors relating to values that are important, and beliefs about learning. It seems meaningful that when thinking about coaching philosophy, it would be beneficial to have discussions on the characteristics and qualities of pedagogy and learning (Partington & Campbell, 2020). This would provide an opportunity for coaches to develop an understanding of coaching (e.g. pedagogy and learning) and philosophy (e.g. values and beliefs) resulting in an ability to intellectualise the process and better support athletes and their development (Cushion & Partington, 2014; Hall et al., 2022; Partington & Campbell, 2020).

Importantly, current work positions coaching philosophies as a “possession of the coach” that guide practice and this has tended to downplay or overlook the influence of social context (e.g. the environment, situation, and interactions) (cf. Cushion & Partington, 2014; Partington & Campbell, 2020). This overemphasis on coaches’ agency takes at face value what a coach says is informing their practice and ignores the influences of embedded social structure (e.g. social rules) on coaching. Importantly, this perspective ignores the social beyond the interactional (Jones et al., 2014) through not recognising the effects of tradition, culture, and power on subjectivity (Cushion & Partington, 2014). In other words, this thinking tends to downplay or even ignore a relational and social appreciation of how coaching philosophy is understood, and the term used in practice (Cushion & Partington, 2014).

The interest in and perceived importance of coaching philosophy has resulted in topic-driven work that has been case oriented, grounded in coaching anecdote, and not theoretically developed (Partington & Campbell, 2020). The interaction of structure (e.g. a club or a sport) and agent (e.g. a coach or player) within the field of coaching creates a discursive space for constituting the construction of coaching philosophy and use of the term in context. Indeed, any consideration of interaction and discourse devoid of context is limited because “it denies the relational positioning of individuals within social fields” (Hunter, 2004, p. 176). Researching coaching philosophy, therefore requires an approach to understand coach’s actions by including the social context and interactions with others (Cushion & Partington, 2014) to provide a deeper and more textured appreciation of how the influence of social context and individual coaches come together to construct and use coaching philosophy in practice.

Consequently, consideration is needed of the social context when investigating coaches’ understanding and implementation of coaching philosophy (Cushion & Partington, 2014). This means seeing the coach as not simply an isolated cognitive being, but instead embedded in a series of interconnected relations and rules within a specific context (e.g. Carless & Douglas, 2011; Cushion & Jones, 2014; Jones et al., 2011, inter-alia). To progress research on coaching philosophy, Cushion and Partington (2014) called for an integration of social theory to help recognise and explain how coaching philosophy is “socially, culturally and historically” (re)constructed (Jones et al., 2011, p. 310; Townsend & Cushion, 2015). Therefore, the aims of this research were to deconstruct coaches’ understanding of coaching philosophy and explore the implementation of constructed coaching philosophy(ies) in one coaching context. The purpose of the study was to use the findings to support future research and help inform coaches and coach education of coaching philosophy and its implementation in practice. The significance of the work is to be the first to employ a theoretically informed sociological analysis, to better understand coaching philosophy and the challenges of implementation in practice.

Theoretical framework

Critical of the notion of theory for its own sake, Bourdieu’s thinking tools of field, capital and habitus offer a critical and reflexive vista (Grenfell, 2014) from which to deconstruct coaching philosophy in a way that reveals the interaction between structure, agency, and the logic of a social space, in this case a professional football Academy. In the past, Bourdieu’s body of work has proven a useful source for sport coaching scholars in helping to understand and explain coaches structured and structuring practice (e.g. Hall et al., 2022; Leeder & Cushion, 2019) and has the potential for explaining coaching philosophy acting at the meeting place of agency and structure. More specifically in this case between coaches and the football academy that operate in the specific context, or in Bourdieu’s terms the field.

Fields are social spaces that are defined as a “network, or a configuration, of objective relations between positions” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 97) and Bourdieu uses these to look more closely at the relationship between agents and structures (Robbins, 1991). For this research, an understanding of field allowed an analysis of the football Academy context, as a multidimensional space comprising of specific rules that informed coaches understanding and use of the term coaching philosophy. It was necessary to examine the social space in which interactions, transactions and events occurred (Bourdieu, 2004) and to interrogate the ways in which previous knowledge about coaching philosophy was constructed, by whom, and whose interests were served by that knowledge creation (Grenfell, 2014). Previous research in coaching (e.g. Christensen, 2009; Cushion & Jones, 2006; Townsend & Cushion, 2015) has identified factors such as high-performance values or having experience as a professional player being the logic that influences practice. Using field as a theoretical tool helps to gain an understanding of the unwritten rules, the logic of a field, that influences coaching philosophy. For Bourdieu, a field is constructed, and agents are positioned, with the logic demarcated on the basis of power differentiation (Bourdieu, 1986). In coaching, this power has been shown to be governed by capital and determines the position of agents in a hierarchy (Cushion & Jones, 2014).

Capital can be thought of as the representation of particular goods or mediating properties, that determine the power available to individuals within a field. In cricket coach education, Townsend and Cushion (2015) identified previous playing and coaching experience as a form of capital. Capital can be accumulated and converted into symbolic capital, defined as that “in which the different forms of capital are perceived and recognised as legitimate” (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 724). Agents’ possession of symbolic capital is valued within a field and influences the dissemination of power. Power is an omnipresent feature of social life, even the most basic of interactions involve power balances and complexities, indeed, “there is no social without power” (Westwood, 2002, p. 25). Combined with field, capital can be used to identify and then describe why coaches are positioned in a particular way and allows for an understanding of the logic that influences practice. Although the deterministic nature of Bourdieu’s work has been emphasised, he also acknowledges that it is practice that mediates between habitus and the social world and as discussed next, the agent remains empowered to exercise agency to act back on the social world (Bourdieu, 1990b).

Habitus is a “system of structured, structuring dispositions which is constituted in practice and is always orientated towards practical functions” (Bourdieu, 1990b, p. 52). Habitus is then both influenced by dominant social structure and coaches’ agency (cf. Bourdieu, 1990b; Cushion et al., 2017). As such, habitus is difficult to observe directly as it “is a socialized subjectivity” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 126) but does reveal itself through the dispositions of people (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Coaches’ dispositions have been identified as becoming attuned to the logic of the field that is governed by symbolic capital, and therefore coaching as an educational process, becomes a pedagogic action which has been shown to reproduce in practice (e.g. Blackett et al., 2018; Leeder & Cushion, 2019). In other words, symbolic violence, through pedagogic work (e.g. sports coaching), is “a process of inculcation which must last long enough to produce a desirable training, i.e. habitus […] capable of perpetuating itself after pedagogic action has ceased” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977, p. 31). Social structures are then reproduced through pedagogic work as dispositions that are misrecognised by its consumers. Therefore, it is important to recognise and explain the structural influences that impact on coaches’ dispositions a part of which are coaches’ understanding and use of coaching philosophy.

Bourdieu’s work has mainly been criticised for being overly deterministic, but his work is founded on individual strategies and the actions of agents in each social space (Everett, 2002). Bourdieu’s theory of practice has been applied in sport coaching research (e.g. Hall et al., 2022; Leeder & Cushion, 2019; Townsend & Cushion, 2015) but also, more specifically, in English youth football (e.g. Cushion & Jones, 2006, 2014) in which the findings have highlighted not only agency but more so the actual deterministic nature of practice in football. Bourdieu’s body of work that includes the thinking tools of field, capital and habitus is useful when exploring the coaching landscape, more specifically, coaches’ understanding and application of coaching philosophy. This critical understanding is needed when researching – and when informing – coaches and coach education on coaching philosophy.

Methodology

Research position

Rejecting coaching and coaching philosophy as simply cause and effect relationships (Jones et al., 2011), the research adopted a social constructionist perspective, where coaching philosophy is socially constructed between the individual coach and their environment and operates at the meeting place of agent and structure. Individual coaches’ understanding of coaching philosophy is therefore influenced by a mixture of their biographies, goals, motivations as well as contextual and situational factors (Jones et al., 2011; Sparkes, 1992). The research focused on the constructed rather than the found world and concentrated on an analysis of the social context and coach’s practices that contributed to the distribution, production, and legitimation of coaching philosophy.

Research context

In England, football talent development is managed by professional clubs in their Academies to produce players for the professional game (The Premier League Elite Player Performance Plan, 2011). The Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) was devised in 2011 and is currently implemented nationwide across all professional English football Academies. The aim of the EPPP is for all Academies to deliver an environment that promotes excellence, nurtures talented young players, and systematically converts talent into more – and better – professional home-grown players (The Premier League, 2011). The research was undertaken in one English youth male football Academy which was audited as a EPPP category three Academy, in which their “key performance output was to demonstrate regular graduation of players into the professional game and develop players capable of progression into Cat two and one Academies” (The Premier League, 2011, p. 31).

The football Academy delivered a youth football performance pathway, which comprises of three distinct phases: the foundation phase (under 5 to under 11), the youth development phase (under 12 to under 16), and the professional development phase (under 17 to under 21) (The Premier League, 2011). The foundation phase players were provided with between 5 and 8 hours of coaching and a competitive match each week, increasing to between 12 and 16 hours in the youth development phase. At the end of the development period, players may be offered a professional playing contract at the club or released, a decision made by the first team staff, youth team coach and Academy manager.

Participants

Twelve professional English youth football coaches were homogeneously sampled to participate (Sparkes & Smith, 2014), having been at the Academy for 6 months or more, giving an understanding of the context they worked in. All coaches were given a participant information sheet and 10 out of the 12 coaches agreed to be full participants. The other two agreed to be in the study but did not want their practice directly observed or to take part in the formal interviews. The 10 main participants had similarities but also differences in their educational qualifications, playing backgrounds and coaching experience (see Table 1). The participants were all male (Mean age = 37 years) and had been coaching for an average of 13 years (range 3 to 38 years), with an average of 4 years (range 2 to 13 years) in the Academy. Prior to data collection, the research project received institutional ethical approval.

Table 1. Participant information.

Coach (pseudonym)	Alan	Stu	John	Pete	Lee	Tony	Tom	Dan	Jude	Ian
Age	29	35	21	24	55	39	49	46	37	32
Age group	9’s	11’s	9’s	10’s	12’s	13’s	14’s	16’s	16’s	11’s
Postgraduate education award in sport	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No
Undergraduate education award in sport	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
Highest coaching award	B	B	B	L2	A	B	B	A	B	B
F.A. Youth Award	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Teaching qualification	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No
Years’ coaching experience	10	11	3	6	38	15	17	9	13	7
Years coaching at the Academy	2	3	2	2	2	8	13	4	3	2
Played as a professional	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No
Played semi-professional	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No

L2 – The English Football Association level 2 coaching award.

B – Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) B level 3 coaching licence.

A – Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) A level 4 coaching licence.

Positionality and data collection

The somewhat secretive nature of professional football is difficult to access, with coaches often guarded about the goings on in their setting (Cushion & Jones, 2014). It was therefore important to note that the researcher was a part-time coach in the Academy and had established relationships with the participants. This allowed immersion in the context and allowed access to the “magic circle [of the field]” (Bourdieu, 1990b, p. 68). Indeed, Bourdieu (1990a) argued that social research is most meaningful when it is undertaken within one’s field where the researcher can feel, understand, and interpret the internal logic and practical beliefs of the inhabitants. Having access to the “magic circle” and studying individuals with whom there is an existing relationship allowed authentic knowledge about coaching philosophy to be achieved through authentic relationships. In this case, the positives of having an established rapport and trust with the participants and context supported data collection. However, there were considerations that had to be made during the process, for example, how to manage interactions between researcher and participant. At times, the researcher had to move away from the “banter” to more critical discussions regarding coaching practice and coaching philosophy.

Data were collected longitudinally over 18 months to explore coaches’ understanding of coaching philosophy and the influence of social context. This involved both interviews and observations of coaching and interactions with others (e.g. coaches, Academy Manager) in the Academy. Research using both observations and interviews over time allowed for a deeper investigation of coaches’ construction of coaching philosophy and its relationship with coaching practice. It was important to be reflective of the relationship between the researcher and research settingthroughout the data collection and analysis process. The subjectivity of the football Academy and how it related to the researcher (lead author) was constantly reflected upon in relation to the impact on the participants and data collection. For example, in the initial stages of data collection views on coaching philosophy were not made explicit to the participants.

Interviews

Coaches’ prior socialisation experience impacts on their understanding of coaching philosophy and coaching practice (Christensen, 2009). Therefore, interviews were used to provide an understanding of how coaches constructed this knowledge given their interests and purposes (Sparkes, 1992). Consequently, interviews explored coaches understanding of coaching philosophy and how they felt this linked to their practice, and to gather information about their understanding of coaching philosophy, practice, and the impact of external influences.

The formal semi-structured interviews took place prior to the observations and concentrated on the coaches’ biographical information, their perceptions of coaching philosophy, and how they coached in practice. The total of 15 interviews with the 10 coaches lasted for a total of 471 min, generating 248 pages of transcriptions. The longest interview was 49 min, the shortest was 14 min, and the average was 31 min.

Observations

Dubois and Gadde (2002) wrote that “theory cannot be understood without empirical observation and vice versa” (p.555). Sparkes and Smith (2014) define observation as “the rigorous act of perceiving the workings of people, culture and society through one’s senses and then documenting these in field notes of recording them through technological means” (p.100). Unlike past coaching philosophy research (e.g. Bespomoshchov & Caron, 2017; Robbins et al., 2010; Schempp et al., 2006) observations were used to understand coaches’ practice and to gain a contextual understanding of their actions and interactions related to coaching philosophy (Cushion & Partington, 2014). After the semi-structured interviews, prolonged fieldwork over 16 months allowed observations of social practice and everyday situations to offer an authentic, first-hand construction that cannot be covered by other methods (Potter, 2002). Observations were undertaken of coaching practice sessions but also interactions in the canteen and changing rooms. This method of field observations also included interviews (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007) to understand the use of the term coaching philosophy and what influenced coaches’ practice. During the observations, field notes were made as well as a collection of audio data, from oral accounts, from the participants and researcher who wore a microphone when observing coaching sessions but also when in and around the Academy. The audio data recorded on the microphone included the participant coach coaching, discussions with the researcher and conversations with other coaches who worked at the Academy. Audio data were collected during fieldwork to capture verbatim conversations associated with the research aim and the observations that had been made (e.g. Researcher: “So when you say coaching philosophy in your coaching session just earlier, what do you mean?”). It was made clear to all the participants that the microphone was on and at any point it could be switched off. The participants did sometimes ask for the microphone to be turned off mainly when discussing with other coaches about players' performances.

Data analysis

A flexible approach to analysis was considered based on the principles of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2021; Braunet al., 2016; Clarke & Braun, 2018). To identify themes, required a “moving backwards and forwards between the data set” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 86) using a constant comparative approach whereby data analysis informed data collection and vice versa. Adopting an inductive stance can result in new theory being constructed from the data. In contrast, deductive analysis is where the data are analysed according to an existing framework. However, Morgan’s (2007) suggestion that research is never analysed from either a purely inductive or deductive perspective supported the rejection of the idea that inductive or deductive analysis is exclusively possible (Nelson & Cushion, 2006). Instead, an abductive analysis was undertaken, which considered how data impacted on theory, but also how theory impacted on data (Morgan, 2007). Therefore, data analysis was an iterative process (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

During the initial analysis stage, the data were situated within different sociological perspectives, but Bourdieu’s theoretical framework was the most appropriate to enable a move from concrete description to abstraction on the coaches’ construction of coaching philosophy within the Academy. Doing so increased the understanding of the relationship between the actors and structures under study, and how they interacted to produce and reproduce coaching philosophy in the Academy. Using Bourdieu’s thinking tools helped to recognise and identify, for example, why coaching philosophy was such an important term. Importantly, the use of a theoretical framework was not a rigid prejudgement as to how to read the data (correctly), but a process of supporting analysis and interpretation (Grenfell, 2014).

Results and discussion

The purpose of this study was to understand coaches’ construction of coaching philosophy and how it articulates with, and impacts, coaching practice. The four themes identified from the data analysis are presented in this section: (a) coaches’ understanding of coaching philosophy as technical and tactical knowledge, (b) the importance of using the term coaching philosophy, (c) coaches’ reproduction of coaching philosophy and coaching practice, and (d) coaches’ increased awareness of coaching philosophy.

Coaches’ understanding of coaching philosophy as technical and tactical knowledge

The coaching philosophy literature consistently positions coaching philosophy as an underpinning for practice (c.f. Partington & Campbell, 2020). However in this case, the data illustrated that it was instead a symbolic device, and not linked to pedagogy, learning or the player’s needs – with practice driven by contextual considerations rather than an individual “coach philosophy”. It was an example of the workings of the coach’s habitus which Swartz (2012) argues disposes actors to behave in ways that have legitimacy within the field and are embedded with a series of material and symbolic “legitimations” around rituals, language, and notions of difference that obscures power relations, making them unrecognisable to, and misrecognised by agents. Moreover, the term coaching philosophy was doxa – the conditions of existence or the order of things – which became perceived as acceptable, natural, self-evident, and legitimate (Bourdieu, 2004). Taken together, this study shows that it was the knowledge of the sport, the technical and tactical, that was privileged and embodied as important (cf. Blackett, Evans, & Piggott, 2018). Indeed, when coaches were asked directly “what is your coaching philosophy?”, they mainly articulated a way of playing the sport (i.e. tactical knowledge):

Interview: “What is a coaching philosophy?” (Researcher) “I have a philosophy on 11 aside football and then I try and make it as relevant to small sided football as possible. So, for example, the movement we spoke about before, centre midfielder dropping deep under the number 4 deep lying playmaker. So how do you do that in small-sided football? You try and find a way to make sure that they can do that, because then if they’ve got it at 5 and 6 aside, when they go to 7 aside, they’ve already got one or two movements” (Alan, head of foundation phase)

Interview: “I call it the four Ps, progression of play, penetration, pressurisation and possession… so as a coach my philosophy and my values are deemed around them four Ps” (Alan)

Field notes: “I see it as a style of play, how you believe the game should be played” (John, under 9’s coach)

Interview: “When I first sat down and came up with a philosophy, I came up with technical and tactical points” (Jude, head of development phase). “What factors are included in that philosophy?” (Researcher) “So, there’s the technical and tactical side, which is where I do a full breakdown, like a periodised syllabus over four years, really. I split it up for every different age, every different position” (Jude)

In addition to tactical knowledge, coaching philosophy was also connected to the Academies technical idea of the model player (i.e. technical knowledge):

Interview: “This is the type of player I want you to be, this is the type of team I want you to be, this is how I want you to play this in the system, this is what you’re working to, I think it gives them something to work to and I think it gives them focus of this is the technical player I need to be” (Ian, head of foundation phase)

Interview: “So you’ve got a very clear understanding of what you want a model of a player to be” (John, under 9’s coach)

In this setting, one aspect of the coaching philosophy was to develop players who were technically “comfortable in a one vs. one” (Tony, under 13’s coach). At the beginning of every session, all of the coaches spent time with the players practicing different one vs. one scenario’s. “Being comfortable in a one vs. one is important” (John, under 10’s coach) and was deemed “part of the Academy’s coaching philosophy” (John).

As a result, coaching philosophy and how it was understood within the Academy became the basis for the common-sense, taken-for-granted logic of the field (i.e. doxa), linked to tactical and technical knowledge. Conversations between the coaches were commonly about the playing style of their age group or observations of professional football. Coaching philosophy was mostly associated with knowledge of the sport and had little to do with coaching (e.g. pedagogy and learning) or philosophy (e.g. values and beliefs) (c.f. Hardman & Jones, 2013; Partington & Campbell, 2020). When observing the coaches, they mainly discussed their tactical and technical knowledge rather than articulating or thinking about pedagogy or learning; how they wanted to coach and why:

Field notes: Tony and I are stood at the entrance of the astro-turf before the start of the training on a cold evening. Jude walks quickly down the steep path to the entrance and as he passes, he shakes both our hands and asks Tony: “How did the game go on Sunday?” (Jude, head of development phase)

“They didn’t let us play, big boys just wanting to stop our philosophy. We struggled to play out” (Tony, under 13’s coach) Jude then walked onto the astro-turf to another coach who was coaching.

When asked about coaching, the coaches discussed the Academy’s technical and tactical model, and when asked about learning, they struggled to give clear articulations:

Interview: “What is learning?” (Researcher) “You know when players pick things up. Lots of different types of learning” (Jude, Head of Development Phase) “Can you name and describe these different types of learning?” (Researcher) “Players generally learn by doing” (Jude) “What do you mean?” (Researcher) “Well, by playing and being involved” (Jude).

Interview: “How do people learn?” (Researcher) “Not sure. I learnt when I was a YT” (Tom, under 14’s coach) “How did you learn when you was a YT?” (Researcher) “Just by playing and that. With the coach” (Tom).

Field notes: Observing Lee’s coaching session on the astro-turf with the under 12 players. It is another cold evening with 15 players playing a small, sided game 8v7. Lee and I are stood at the side of the session observing the players finish with a game.“How did your players’ learn in that coaching session?” (Researcher) “What?” (Lee, under 12’s coach) “How did your players’ learn?” (Researcher) “Oh, lots of different ways. I do different things in my session” (Lee). Lee walks into the game the players are playing and talks to one player. I feel like Lee didn’t want to discuss such a topic. This contrasts with when discussing about how to play the sport of football.

The importance of coaches having a clear understanding of learning that underpins their coaching has been called for in the literature (e.g. Cushion & Partington, 2014; Partington & Campbell, 2020). Instead, the results in this study identify a link between an institutional coaching philosophy primarily concerned with technical and tactical knowledge which was a collective understanding by all the Academy coaches.

Coaching philosophy was symbolic in the football Academy and was deployed as knowledge of the sport rather than acting as a rationale that guided coaches practice (c.f. Burton & Raedeke, 2008; Gould et al., 2017; Leeder & Beaumont, 2023; Voight & Carroll, 2006). Symbolic actions (e.g. using the term coaching philosophy) were correlated with social distinctions, turning symbolic classifications into expressions of social hierarchy (discussed further below) (cf. Cushion, et al., 2017). Coaches simply using the term coaching philosophy rationalised and importantly legitimised their coaching practice. Coaches had an unconscious commitment to the rules of the game instead of a conscious link to the implementation of such language (e.g. coaching philosophy) (Swartz, 2012). Therefore, how coaching philosophy operationalised in this setting did not match the expectations of prevailing coaching discourse (Partington & Campbell, 2020) and was not based on a conscious link to players’ needs, development, pedagogy, or learning, but more coach centred strategies that attempted to maintain or improve the coaches’ position in the Academy.

The importance of using the term coaching philosophy

Findings unequivocally showed that all the coaches valued and used the term coaching philosophy. Coaching philosophy was an orthodox discourse and the cornerstone of the Academy institutional language. The Academy Manager, Head of Coaching and Heads of Phase, decided and endorsed coaching philosophy, what it looked like, and therefore how the social world should be perceived and, as Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) argue, engaged in to impose the definition of the world most congruent with their interests. Thus, as the data suggest, there was an imposed wide-ranging use of coaching philosophy that centred around tactical and technical knowledge more so than coaching (e.g. pedagogy and learning) and philosophy (e.g. values and beliefs). The use of the term coaching philosophy became “an instrument of power and action” (Grenfell, 2014, p. 179). As such, the orthodoxy of the discourse was promoted and endorsed by coaches in hierarchical positions (i.e. Academy Manager, Head of Coaching and Heads of Phase) which, in turn, influenced other coaches’ (i.e. part-time coaches):

Field notes: After Pete’s session with the under 10’s we both walk off the astro-turf and up to the changing rooms. I help Pete carry the cones and bibs whilst he carries the ball bag. As we are walking Pete and I discuss the coaching session he has just taken. I ask Pete: “What was the thinking behind tonight’s coaching sessions?” (Researcher) “We follow Jude’s philosophy as phase lead, playing out from the back has really helped the players progress technically as well” (Pete, under 10’s coach) “What about the session design? Did you have a plan for their learning?” (Researcher). Pete looks at me with a screwed up face: “The session allowed them to play out, don’t you think?”. I responded quickly with a “Yes!”. Pete then, as we continue to walk to the changing rooms, carries on talking about individual players in the session who did well or did not during the coaching session.

Field notes: Chatting to Tom, who is a part-time coach, during his coaching session with 17 under 14 players. Tom is using a warm-up practice with footballs that I have seen him use during several other sessions over the course of the season. Players are passing the ball in certain directions that have been explained by Tom around cones. Tom looks over to me and says: “I use the philosophy during the warm-up session a lot, especially before games. We always have” (Tom, under 14’s coach).

The ex-professional players, with substantial symbolic capital in the field, also instigated discussions when using coaching philosophy in line with a playing style (i.e. tactical and technical knowledge), thus reinforcing the “accepted” understanding and way of using coaching philosophy while also securing their position in the coaching hierarchy:

Field notes: I am observing Tom’s coaching session with the under 14’s on another cold evening at the bottom of the asto-turf. Tom is stood next to me carefully watching the 17 players involved in a game-based practice. Dan who is taking the under 16’s session has come over to borrow some red bibs. Without asking he starts to pick up a number of red bibs counting them as he picks them up. Dan is watching the session as he picks up the bibs and turns to Tom and says: “So the coaching philosophy here? How are the boys playing out against the two?” Tom smiles at Dan and whispers: “With difficulty at the moment, they just need to be quicker with the circulation”. Dan replies whilst shaking his head and looking over to where his under 16 players are training: “Same as them lot, they will get there”.

Adherence to the ideology of coaching philosophy related to symbolic systems meant those at the Academy “misrecognising” the arbitrary and power relations between individuals and groups (cf. Leeder & Cushion, 2019). Several studies (Cushion & Jones, 2006, 2014; Hall et al., 2022,; Leeder & Cushion, 2019; Townsend & Cushion, 2015) have also acknowledged how the socially contested processes of cultural reproduction in coaching have significantly influenced terminology and strands of information that are initially acquired and then contextualised as the orthodoxy.

For the ex-professional players having “been there and done it” (Tom) was associated with having the tactical and technical knowledge of the sport. Like other research (e.g. Cushion & Jones, 2014; Townsend & Cushion, 2015), having played professionally was valuable symbolic capital and was an important asset. The ex-professional coaches imposed a scale of preference most favourable to their own symbolic goods (i.e. knowledge of the sport from professional playing experience) which was then linked to coaching philosophy. Coaching philosophy served as a symbolic device that was a deeply ingrained disposition – all coaches have a philosophy. The focus for the coaches, was on the what to coach i.e. how to play football (perceived by coaches as being a coaching philosophy), not on the how to coach. As a result, coaching philosophy was mostly associated with knowledge of the sport because this type of understanding was symbolic for all the coaches but more importantly those in positions of power (e.g. Academy Manager, Head of Coaching, Head of Phases, and the ex-professional players). These actors pursued strategies that attempted to maintain or improve their positions were richest in particular symbolic capital (e.g. previous playing experience, Sport Governing Body qualifications), and invested in this to their advantage while actively downplaying other capital linked to knowledge about pedagogy and learning. To this end, they promoted the legitimacy of coaching philosophy as an orthodox discourse.

Coaches’ reproduction of coaching philosophy and coaching practice

The findings illustrated that coaching philosophy became legitimised because “the more directly a pedagogic agency reproduces, in the arbitrary content that it inculcates, the cultural arbitrary of the group or class which delegates to it its pedagogical authority, the less need it has to affirm and justify its own legitimacy” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990, p. 29). In other words, constant repetition, and adoption, led to a collective process of socialisation and reproduction where coaches “buy in” to coaching philosophy and the associated meaning (e.g. Cushion & Jones, 2006, 2014; Townsend & Cushion, 2015) was accepted in the Academy unquestioningly. Coaches’ practice was influenced by the norm and unwritten rules that both structured and was structuring rather than, as past research suggests (e.g. Gould et al., 2007; Voight & Carroll, 2006) underpinned by clear views on pedagogy and learning. For example, Ian (head of the development phase) used the language of coaching philosophy but did not realise he was saying it:

Field notes: Observing Ian’s coaching session with 10 under 11 players on the astro-turf. Ian carefully walks around the coned of area the players are in. The players are all running around inside the coned off area and passing four balls to each other. Ian puts his hand up and walks into the area: “STOP there, lads… based on the coaching philosophy the pass isn’t on, so we need to retain” (Ian) “What is the pass?” (Ian) “There?” (Player) “Yep, good so let’s do that one, just stick to the philosophy” (Ian). Ian then walks out of the middle of the players and the coned off area. The players start again running and passing the four footballs to each other.

Field notes: Stood next to Ian watching the under 11’s play a game against the under 10’s across half the astro-turf. As the players play out from the back, he turns to me: “that was based on the coaching philosophy” (Ian)

Field notes: Stood next to Ian observing the under 11’s carrying out the practice that has been instructed to them. Ian turns to me: “the lads have stuck to the philosophy and played some superb stuff. Harry just gets it” (Ian)

Field notes: In the head of phases office, on the wall above Ian’s desk, is an A4 piece of paper with the title in bold writing: “Coaching Philosophy”.

Later, that evening, Ian discussed how he was trying to stop using coaching philosophy to describe his sessions:

Field notes: Near the end of the season. Ian and I are walking over to the car park at the end of the coaching sessions. All the players, parents and other coaches have gone. Ian turns to me: “I honestly didn’t release I was saying philosophy a lot in that session. Was it a lot?” “Well, yep, I suppose so” (Researcher) “[Laughter] bet you hated that [laughter], I’ve stopped using it” (Ian) “I forgot you were there. It’s interesting that though it just comes out, I suppose I’m just used to hearing it and saying it” (Ian)

This example from Ian shows that the use of coaching philosophy was deeply ingrained in the Academy that also included coaches that were not full time:

Field notes: Walked into the canteen area as the foundation phase players are training on the astro-turf. Tom, Dan, and Ian are sat around a table in the corner away from all the parents. I walk over to make a cup of tea. As they are talking, I can hear them consistently using the phrase coaching philosophy. “To be fair, they sticking to the philosophy worked?” (Dan, part-time, under 16’s coach) “It’s the same with the pros” (Tom, part-time, under 14’s coach). I walk over to Tom, Dan, and Ian, shake hands, and then go to watch the foundation phase coaches’ coach.

Like Ian, Dan also discussed how he did not realise how much he was using coaching philosophy:

Field notes: Final few weeks of the season before the players and Academy staff finish. Walking down to the astro-turf, Dan is stood with Ian. As I approach, I shake hands with Dan and Ian and watch the training sessions that are taking place. Whilst I am watching, Ian and Dan are discussing their games that took place on Sunday. Ian walks off towards the changing rooms. “What were you lot discussing? What did you mean by coaching philosophy?” (Researcher) Whilst smiling Dan replies: “Don’t know really. Why did we say it a lot? I smile back: “Yes. Everyone uses it a lot!” (Researcher). Dan shrugs his shoulders: “Not sure didn’t know I was. Suppose if everyone uses it” (Dan)

Over time, coaching philosophy – in the Academy – had become part of a “lasting habitus i.e. an action of imposing and inculcating an arbitrary” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990, p. 31) and its operation in obscuring power relations and its contextual and arbitrary nature was constantly misrecognised and reproduced. It might be suggested that coaches use of coaching philosophy was through ongoing exposure to the Academy which provided a set of implicit rules. All of which was structured through habitus that was also structuring coaches’ actions. In this research, power was a critical factor in the reproduction of coaching philosophy. Therefore, habitus was a socialised subjectivity and the social embodied (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) that unconsciously filtered and determined the coaches’ understanding of coaching philosophy. To fit in or advance in the Academy, coaches acted strategically but within a system of constraints whereby their practice was influenced by the prevailing culture and social context. The situated coach in this football Academy context, as Bourdieu (1977) would argue, therefore constructed the situation that determined him but did not choose the principle of his choice. The reproduction of coaching philosophy was powerful and uncritically accepted without challenge. Coaches aligned with the dominant discourse to maintain or advance their position in the field. Because of their unconscious commitment to the rules of the game (Swartz, 2012), the coaches acted to reproduce the culture while they rationalised their actions and aligned their practice to the term coaching philosophy.

Indeed, when the coaches were questioned about their practice, they rationalised what they did by saying “coaching philosophy” as this had value to everyone in the Academy. For example, John and Alan when discussing about their coaching session, rationalised practice using coaching philosophy, rather than providing a clear rationale for coaching:

Field notes: Sat in the canteen area with John and Alan before any of the players or parents arrive: “Last session I observed on Tuesday what was that starting practice?” (Researcher) “Carousal, well that’s what they said on my B and [National Governing Body Coach Developer] keeps going on about it” (John, under 9’s coach). “What does it mean?” (Researcher). “If I’m honest, I’m not too sure, really” (Alan, under 9’s coach) “Moving round, it’s on their coaching philosophy” (John). We then discuss what John’s plan is tonight with his under 9 players.

Field notes: Walking up to the changing rooms from the astro-turf talking to Alan after observing his session: “What you think of that game at the end?” (Alan) “Yeah” (Researcher) “Worked well got them thinking, quick feet, Joe was class” (Alan). Alan smiles: “Seeing creating decision making players is now important” (Alan) “How do you do this?” (Researcher) “It’s difficult really… just lots of games” (Alan) “Why games?” (MP) “Erm, not sure really, it’s just the philosophy” (Alan). Alan then walks into one of the changing rooms.

As shown in the data, John and Alan seemed confused and often contradicted their reason for implementing the chosen practice. For example, as shown above, carousel (i.e. a type of NGB practice) and decision-making practices had no underlying rationale.

As Partington and Cushion (2013) argued, coaches often use coaching rhetoric that is not reflected in their practice, and this was the case in the current study. For example, Pete (under 10’s coach) before any observations of his practice, suggested that he “empowers his players” (interview). Pete’s understanding of empowerment was to “give them ownership and give the players chance to design the practice” (interview). However, when observing Pete’s coaching sessions, the players had limited input and he took control of the session. The following extracts from the observation field notes demonstrate this:

Field notes: Another dark evening on the astro-turf with the floodlights lighting up the pitch. Players parents are stood outside the caged area of the astro-turf watching the training. Pete has just started his session with the under 10s and tells the players what they are doing this evening. I move closer, so I can clearly hear. “Right, tonight we are doing rotation, mainly midfielders, but it does involve other positions” (Pete). Pete continues to explain the session with no input from the players. Once Pete finishes talking the players all run of to where Pete has told them to go.

The under 10 players start to walk over to the practice on the astro-turf that is set up and as they arrive Pete shouts: “Make sure the highest man recognises and he starts the rotation. Lower players ‘like four and eight’ move out of the space” (Pete).

Field notes: Again, lots of telling by Pete with limited opportunity for the players to communicate with each other or to Pete: “Okay, stop there. If you move like that a defender will come with you. Move quickly and arrive on the half turn to play forwards. If not, protect and retain. Bounce back” (Pete).

In his first interview Pete was asked about how he discussed “empowering the players”, and if he felt that he achieved that during his coaching session:

Field notes: At the end of Pete’s coaching session with the under 10s I help Pete put the footballs in the bag and discuss tonight: “How did you feel the session went?” (Researcher) “Yes, I was happy with it, it went well. The kids seemed to enjoy it” (Pete) “How did you empower the players?” (Researcher) “What?” (Pete) “How did you empower the players? In your first interview, you said you wanted to empower your players” (Researcher) “You know” Pete pauses: “You know, I got them involved, followed the philosophy” (Pete). Pete picks up his equipment and walks away.

Again, like John and Alan, Pete used the prevailing rhetoric; coaching philosophy, as a rationalisation of practice, rather than providing a knowledge-informed rationale linked to player development. The coaches all used the term coaching philosophy, and it was clearly an orthodox discourse, that when associated with coaching practice was misrecognised. As already discussed, coaches in positions of power used coaching philosophy to describe their practice and therefore other coaches interested in maintaining or improving their position fell in line and “played the game”.

Coaches’ increased awareness of coaching philosophy

As the research progressed, with support from the researcher (lead author), the coaches started to recognise how they mostly associated a coaching philosophy with technical and tactical knowledge and were using it without any clarity. The coaches’ highlighted how coaching philosophy did not clearly explain their practice nor help their coaching. If anything, it covered up how they coached and limited their reflections on pedagogy and learning to clearly underpin and drive practice. Bourdieu (1977) proposes that such uncritical inertia is “because any language that can command attention is an ‘authorised language’, invested with the authority of a group, the things it designates are not simply expressed but also authorised and legitimated” (p.170). Near the end of the research process, the researcher started to discuss with the coaches’ their interpretation and use of coaching philosophy, for example:

Field notes: In the canteen discussing with Alan and Ian about why they use coaching philosophy frequently in practice: “What did you mean, then, when explaining your practice as coaching philosophy?” (Researcher) “I suppose we have already discussed this” (Alan)I carefully decide to probe further: “Where has it come from?” “Who started it? “Why did they start using it? (Researcher) “Not sure really” (Alan).

Field notes: Pete’s coaching session has just finished I am helping take the equipment back to the store container by carrying a mannequin. As we walk up the short but steep hill, we are discussing his use of coaching philosophy. I look at Pete as we are walking: “Coaching philosophy?” (Researcher) “What about it? (Pete) “It seems to me to be used with no clear link to any type of specific coaching?” (Researcher) “[Pause] I suppose you are right, you just hear it everywhere” (Pete) “It just means nothing though [pause] surely it is better to talk about actual coaching?” (Researcher) “Yeah, but everyone uses it” (Pete)“Doesn’t mean its right to do so” (Researcher) “Fair one” (Pete) “Who started to use it?” (Researcher) “I suppose it comes from the top, the Academy manager uses it, Alan and Ian use it” (Pete).

From discussions with coaches, this type of exchange allowed them to recognise and think about how they used coaching philosophy. This is illustrated in a final discussion with Ian and Alan about the research process near the end of data collection:

Field notes: Ian and I are stood near the changing rooms before the start of the under 11’s coaching session.“How have you found me observing and asking questions about your practice?” (Researcher). Ian smiles: “It’s actually been a positive process” (Ian) “In what way?” (Researcher) “Highlighting what I do. A lot of things I didn’t realise” (Ian). Ian pauses as two of the under 11 players walk out of the changing room we are stood by, shake our hands, and head out onto the astro-turf. Ian looks at me again: “Certainly got me thinking about my actual coaching” (Ian).

In the canteen area before the foundation coaching session begins with Alan. We are sat down at a table with a cup of tea. No one else is in the canteen. “How have you found me researching?” (Researcher) “Fine. Good I suppose in that you have got me thinking about my sessions” (Alan).

It is important to note here that the somewhat uncritical use of coaching philosophy could be identified and then highlighted by the lead researcher (first author) and then articulated to the coaches.

Summary

The findings have highlighted coaches understanding and implementation of coaching philosophy was structured and structuring through – and by – habitus. Coaching philosophy had become “an action of imposing and inculcating an arbitrary” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990, p. 31) as it was reproduced but had nothing to do with coaching (e.g. pedagogy and learning) or philosophy (e.g. values and beliefs). This challenges the prevailing and overly simplistic notion of a coaching philosophy underpinning and driving coaches’ practice alone – a position that has erroneously over-emphasised coaches’ agency. Instead, the findings of this research have identified the strong influence that social context and structure had on determining coaches’ understanding of coaching philosophy as an orthodoxy that was associated with a technical and tactical model of the sport.

The separation of coaching philosophy and a technical and tactical model could give coaches more opportunity to think about how, when, and why they implement certain types of coaching in their practice. This research builds on the suggestions of Partington and Cushion (2013) and Stodter and Cushion (2014) that there is a need to develop coaches’ awareness of the characteristics and qualities of pedagogy, learning and context. This knowledge and understanding could then underpin coaches’ actions to help make more informed decisions about practice based on the needs of their players. A focus on coaches developing an understanding of pedagogy and learning may result in an ability to intellectualise the coaching process (Partington & Campbell, 2020). In addition, with an understanding of the impact of social context, structure and power, coaches could develop habits around being reflective and reflexive on the social influences (cf. Bourdieu, 1998).

Disclosure statement

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