ISSN: 1543-9518

Over-promised, under-delivered: Does position in the National Football League draft matter?

Authors: Dennis M. Shaffer1 and Ryanne E. Shaffer

1Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University Mansfield, Mansfield, Ohio, USA

 

Corresponding Author:

Dennis M. Shaffer, PhD

1760 University Drive

Mansfield, OH 44906

[email protected]

Dennis M. Shaffer, PhD, is a Full Professor Psychology at The Ohio State University in Mansfield, Ohio. His research interests focus on how athletes use visual information to pursue and induce collisions with targets in the environment in domains such as Frisbee catching, American football, and baseball, and how cognition and systems of perception and action interact.

Ryanne E. Shaffer is currently a senior at Twinsburg High School in Twinsburg, Ohio.

ABSTRACT 

Purpose. We investigated whether players drafted higher in the National Football League (NFL) over a ten-year period performed better in their first four years in the league, consistent with the trade value charts and rookie wage scale the NFL uses to value players. The purpose was to see whether how the NFL intuits draft values is connected to player performance.

Methods. In Study 1, we collected draft position data for each of the seven rounds of the draft over a ten-year period as well as the values for each of two different trade charts and the salaries in the rookie wage scale. We then coded data by round, third of round (top, middle, bottom), years in the league, and Pro Football Focus (PFF) grades.

Results. We found no correlation between performance and the way the NFL values draft positions and no difference in player performance and years in the league between draft positions in rounds 4 and 5. There were also no differences in player performance or years played in the among top, middle, or bottom thirds of rounds. We also found a distinct advantage in player performance for teams trading down for draft picks compared to those trading up for draft picks, contrary to the way the NFL values draft positions.

Conclusions. Our work shows several player performance-based results that contradict well-established beliefs concerning the value of draft picks in the NFL.

Applications in Sport. Trade values and rookie wage salaries are used as baselines by the NFL. The importance of drafting better players higher in the draft order have important implications for greater success for teams, executives, and players. Our work may inform strategies that might be best to use in drafting prospective players in the National Football League.

Key Words: NFL draft, trade value, intuitive beliefs, player performance.

INTRODUCTION 

The work here tested whether draft position predicts player performance once they are drafted into the National Football League (NFL). The NFL draft is set up so the team with the worst regular season record picks first, followed by the team with the second worst regular season record picking second, and so on. Picking first, though it means you finished with the worst record in the league the previous year, is an enviable position to be in at draft time as you have your pick of ~250-~275 players. The NFL draft consists of seven rounds(since 1994) of draft picks where, at least originally, every team has one pick in every round. Prevailing wisdom in this field and even if you are picking teams for any game whether athletic or not is that higher picks should be valued more than lower picks and that over time the data should bear this out.

The intuitive beliefs that the NFL, individual teams, and executives have about draft order or draft pick position can be measured in two ways. First, this may be measured by what are called ‘trade value charts,’ that define values for each one of the draft picks (3). There are a few different types of trade value charts, but most teams follow one of these versions if they want to trade draft picks with any other team. The classic version of a trade value chart is the Jimmy Johnson (JJ) chart. A more recent chart is the Rich Hill (RH) trade value chart. These charts basically provide teams with a framework or baseline from which to trade draft picks (14). The trade value charts are similar in several ways—(1) values increase exponentially in the first round from about pick 4 to pick 1 and (2) values for picks decrease for each subsequent pick. For instance, Pick #10 in the JJ chart this year was given a value that was 46.3% of Pick#1 (RH chart = 36.9%); Pick #20 was given a value that was 28.33% of Pick #1 (RH chart = 26.9%), and Pick #30 was given a value that was 20.67% of Pick #1 (RH chart = 19.6%). Consistent with this, the ratio of values in the top third : middle third of the first round is 1.824 in the JJ chart, (RH chart = 2); middle third : bottom third is ~1.49 (RH = 1.55); top third : bottom third is ~2.71 (RH = 3.13), and bottom third of 1st : top third of 2nd is 1.3 (RH = 1.5).

The second way the NFL’s intuitive beliefs about draft order may be measured is by the ‘rookie wage scale’ put forth by the player’s labor union and the NFL in 2011, which defines the parameters for what every drafted player will earn in his first four years in the league (3). For instance, this year, the number one overall draft pick will earn $48,757,500 in total value over his first 4 years; the number 10 pick will earn a little less than 55% of that (a difference of over $22M over the first four years); the number 20 pick will earn about 37% of that (a difference of almost $30M), while the number 30 pick will earn about 31.25% of that (a difference of ~$33.5M). While the percentage and salary difference is less in subsequent rounds among those picks (picks 1, 10, 20, and 30 in rounds 2-7), the importance of drafting better players higher in the draft order have important implications for building the best team, paying players the proper amount for their performance, the amount of money that is charged to a team’s salary cap, and the livelihood of the NFL executives who have a hand in drafting these players.

Previous work has investigated several avenues regarding characteristics that affect draft value, that are related to performance once in the NFL (5, 9, 15, 17, 20). The results of some of this work show how draft value does very little to affect probabilities of teams making the playoffs (9, 15), Other work has shown that college performance is a better predictor of performance once in the NFL than tests measuring physical ability (11, 20-21). While other work has shown that total yards gained by running backs in college and overall speed has been shown to be a primary predictor of both draft status and higher salaries once in the NFL over tests of physical ability and combine tests (6, 11, 16-17, 20). Additionally, predicting success based on results of athletic testing including the NFL Combine can yield complicated and somewhat mixed results (16).

The primary focus of this paper was to investigate whether what teams intuit of draft value based on grades in these trade value charts and rookie wage scales matches actual performance data for the players chosen in those spots. More specifically, our primary investigative foci in Study 1 were to: (1) analyze whether differences in player value (as given by trade value charts and the rookie wage scale) from pick-to-subsequent-pick were correlated with differences in player performance from pick-to-subsequent-pick, (2) analyze whether player performance, as measured by Pro Football Focus (PFF) grades and years spent in the league, was different among and within rounds (14), (3) analyze whether PFF grades and years in the league were different among thirds of rounds across and within rounds, (4) and analyze how the NFL valuation and PFF grades for last twelve picks of the first round compared to the first twelve picks of the second round.

STUDY 1

METHODS

Data Sets

We first used the Pro Football Reference site (20) to gather and download data for every player drafted from 2011-2020. We then used the Pro Football Focus (14) site to gather the overall season grades for each player across their first four years in the NFL. This resulted in 2,544 drafted players across 10 years. This study was approved by The Ohio State University Behavioral and Social Sciences Institutional Review Board (Study Number: 2023B0282).

Procedure

Evaluating a Player’s First Four Years in the NFL

Since we were interested in evaluating the success of teams in drafting, we evaluated player performance over the player’s first four years. This is because four years is the length of all rookie (1st year player) contracts. Additionally, the first four years provides a very good indicator of what the teams think the player can do for their team in terms of performance.

Understanding the Pro Football Focus Grading System

PFF analyzes every player on every snap, with each play receiving a grade on a scale from -2 to +2. A score of 0 represents an average or the expected execution of the player’s responsibilities, while a +2 denotes an outstanding play and a -2 indicates a critical error. These assessments are adjusted for factors such as difficulty of assignment and game context. PFF’s system includes tracking over 200 data points per play using the All-22 coaches’ film, including such aspects as player alignment, assignment, and outcome of the play from every aspect of the field (1, 14). PFF then converts these evaluations into a normalized score on a 0–100 scale.

Calculation and Coding of PFF Grades and Years in the League

While PFF normalizes plays to values ranging from 0-100, the overall grades across an entire season of plays are far more restricted, ranging from ~high 40’s-low 90’s (for the requirement of at least 10 games played per season as described below). For every player, we calculated a mean for their overall PFF grade across their first four years after being drafted. For players with a missing grade, we found which of the four years there was a missing grade for and why. If the player was injured and missed the entire year (for any year), we did not count that year for their average and averaged across their other years. For players at most positions, we used the offense or defense overall grade for the given year. Only for punters and kickers did we use the special team grade. Our threshold for counting a PFF grade for the year, was at least ten games played. Additionally, if the drafting team waived the player they drafted, we assigned that player a value of 35, as that is below the lowest grade anyone on a team who played earned across an entire year of play (with a minimum of 10 games played). If they played on a team after they were waived, we filled in the four years with the grade(s) they earned in the remaining year(s) on the subsequent team. We wanted to penalize the drafting team, but we also did not want to assign a 0 as waiving the player was an act but does not represent their PFF grade over an entire year. Additionally, this happened far less often in earlier rounds and since we were calculating means, we did not want these outliers to dramatically influence the results. We assigned a value of 45 for a player who was on an NFL roster, but not active for the minimum number of games (or did not have enough snaps to be graded by PFF). This is a lower grade than any player we graded who played during the season for at least ten games and gave us a baseline for someone who is good enough to be on the team but may not be good enough/needed to dress on game day(s). We did not gather PFF data for rounds 6 and 7 as fewer players in these rounds were active for enough games (i.e., played enough snaps) for which PFF could assign grades.

Finally, we also analyzed the number of years players were in the league. Again, in the interests of evaluating how well teams draft, we were really focused on years in the league of these players over their first four to five years. Therefore, we coded years played in the league in categories of less than two years, two to three years, four years, five years, and more than five years, and then analyzed this coded data.

Availability of Data and Material

Data may be accessed at: https://osf.io/pf5hq/?view_only=28f7350c720f430b92270c76e5b48080

RESULTS

We performed Bayesian analyses throughout the Results sections for all experiments to properly identify and balance the same evidence in favor of as we did evidence opposed to differences, in line with the recommendations of both Dienes (4) and Kruschke (7). The primary independent variables were draft round and position within the round (top, middle, or bottom third), while the primary dependent variables were years in the league and PFF mean overall grade for players’ first four years in the league. We outline each set of analyses below.

Testing for Correlations Between Differences in PFF Grades and Differences in Jimmy Johnson and Rich Hill Trade Chart Values and Rookie Salaries for Each Subsequent Pick

 If players drafted with picks 1-10 are better than players drafted with picks 10-20, and so on, then both the difference in trade chart values and rookie wage scale salaries from pick #1 to pick #2 and pick #2 to #3 and so on through the first five rounds of the draft should be highly correlated with PFF grades. Bayesian correlational analyses showed substantial to strong evidence that there was close to zero correlation between PFF grades and trade chart values, RH trade value chart: Bayes Factor in favor of the null hypothesis (BF01)= 5.594, r = .086, JJ trade value chart: BF01= 10.485, r = .014, and PFF grades and rookie wage scale salaries: BF01= 9.047, r = .043. The Bayes factors may be interpreted that it is 5.594, 10.485, and 9.047 times as likely that there is no correlation between PFF grades and RH trade chart values, JJ trade chart values, and rookie wage scale salaries, respectively, than there is a correlation (12, 24). Values of BF01 or BF10 of 0-1 = no evidence, 1-3 = anecdotal evidence, 3-10 = substantial evidence, 10-30 = strong evidence, 30-100 = very strong evidence, and >100 = decisive evidence in favor of whatever hypothesis is being tested (null (BF01) or alternative (BF10) (12, 24).

Analyzing How the NFL Values Draft Positions Based on the Rookie Wage Scale

We first established how the NFL values draft position across rounds and thirds of rounds. We used the rookie wage scale salaries for the first five rounds of the draft (the same rounds for which we calculated PFF grades for players—picks 1-165). Bayesian analyses showed decisive evidence of differences in salaries across rounds, BF10= 2.806 x 10+37, F(4, 150) = 448.83, p < .001, h2 = 0.71, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707. Post hoc tests also indicated decisive evidence for differences among all rounds. Bayesian analysis showed substantial evidence of differences in salaries across thirds of rounds, BF10= 4.99, F(2, 150) = 88.19, p < .001, h2 = 0.07, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707. Post hoc tests confirmed between anecdotal to substantial evidence for differences among all thirds of rounds (top, middle, and bottom). Virtually identical results were found when performing these same analyses using each trade value chart in lieu of the rookie wage scale.

Analyzing Differences in Rounds for Coded Years in League and PFF Overall Mean Grade

 Coded Years in League

 A Bayesian one-way ANOVA analyzing whether there were differences in years played in the league showed that there were: BF10= 2.806 x 10+111 (decisive evidence), > Test value F(6, 2536) = 101.93, p < .001, h2 = 0.19, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707. Post hoc tests indicated that there was moderate to strong evidence that players drafted in round 1 remained in the league somewhat longer than players drafted in round 2, BF10= 4.312 (moderate to substantial). Players in almost all subsequent rounds remained in the league for less time than the previous round. One exception was that there was no difference in years played in the league between rounds 4 and 5, BF01 = 3.83 in favor of no difference, indicating moderate to substantial evidence in favor of no difference in years played in the league for 4th and 5th round draft picks.

 PFF Overall Mean Grade

A Bayesian one-way ANOVA analyzing whether there were differences in PFF overall mean grade showed that there were: BF10= 2.673 x 10+59 (decisive evidence), > Test value F(6, 2536) = 80.95, p < .001, h2 = 0.16, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707. Additionally, again almost all post hoc test BF10 evidence showed decisive evidence for differences among all five rounds with values ranging from BF10 = 188.192 to 2.724 x 10+38. The one exception was that there was no difference in PFF overall mean grade between rounds 4 and 5, BF01 = 4.51 in favor of no difference, indicating moderate to substantial evidence in favor of no difference. Figure 1 shows a graph of pick position (x-axis) by PFF grade (y-axis) for picks across all ten years.

Figure 1.

Shown is a plot of the pick number by overall mean PFF grade for the first 4 years. Each symbol represents the average PFF grade across 10 years for a particular position in the draft (picks1-179).

Differences in Thirds of Rounds for Coded Years in League and PFF Overall Mean Grade

A Bayesian one-way ANOVA analyzing whether there were differences in years played in the league in terms of whether a player was chosen at the top, in the middle, or at the bottom third of the round showed decisive evidence that there is no difference: BF01= 20.998, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707.

PFF Overall Mean Grade

A Bayesian one-way ANOVA analyzing whether there were differences in PFF overall mean grade showed decisive evidence that there also is no difference: BF01= 30.292, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707.

Differences Among Top, Middle, and Bottom of Rounds for Coded Years in League and PFF Overall Mean Grade Round-by-Round

While our previous analyses show no differences among player longevity and PFF overall mean grade across the top, middle, and bottom of rounds, it could be that any potential differences were washed out by combining rounds for the analysis. For instance, later rounds that have lesser talented players overall may see no differences, or have more talented players at the middle and bottom of rounds than the tops of rounds, whereas earlier rounds may have more talented players at the tops of rounds than at the middle and bottom of rounds. These effects or patterns may cancel each other out by combining all rounds. Therefore, we again tested for differences among the top, middle, and bottom third of rounds, but this time did so within each round. Table 1 shows the results of these analyses.

Table 1.

Shown are Bayes factor in favor of the null hypothesis (BF01) for one-way ANOVAs testing for differences in coded years in the league and PFF overall mean grades for draft picks in rounds 1-7 (for years) and round 1-5 (for PFF grades) from 2011-2020. Values of BF01 of 1-3 = anecdotal evidence, 3-10 = substantial evidence, 10-30 = strong evidence, 30-100 = very strong evidence, and >100 = decisive evidence in favor of the null hypothesis) (12, 23).

Round 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
Years in League2.2373.2847.1034.856.1791.28510.313
PFF Grades8.54318.6256.6032.5219.475  

Predicting PFF Grades from Trade Value Charts and Evaluating Whether Trading Up into the First Round from the Second Round Warranted

Many times, draft experts will argue that some teams may “trade up” into the bottom third of the first round—that is, the last ~twelve to fifteen (~picks 18-32 or so)–from the top of the second round in order to draft a second player for whom they will have the 5th year option (1st round pick). Many teams have done this in the past. In fact, according to the values themselves, the NFL views the bottom 10-15 picks in round 1 as over 7008 times greater in value than the top 10-15 picks in round 2 , BF10= 7008.114, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707). When we analyzed PFF grades across ten years for the “bottom third” of the first round (12 picks—21-32) and compared them to PFF grades across ten years for the “top third” of the second round (12 picks—33-44), a Bayesian one-way ANOVA showed substantial evidence that there is no difference: BF01= 6.854, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707 (MBottom10of1st = 63.835; SDBottom10of1st = 10.642, MTop10of2nd= 64.387, SDTop10of2nd = 9.975).

STUDY 2

In Study 1 we found that the NFL values draft positions in the top of a round far more than those in the middle or bottom of a round and those in the middle of the round far more than those in the bottom of a round. However, there was substantial to decisive evidence of no differences in PFF grades across and within rounds, respectively, for top, middle, and bottom thirds of draft positions in rounds. We also found that there was no difference in PFF grades for draft positions in the top third of the 2nd round compared to the bottom third of the 1st round. This predicts that teams should not move up in a draft for players as the player performance will not be better for players drafted even 20-30 picks higher. When teams move up in the draft, they give up more draft capital for at least two reasons. First, while the values in the trade value chart might be even, typically the team moving back must give up more than one pick to do that in order to even out the trade value. Second, the team trading down must be incentivized in some ways to trade down. Sometimes, that team simply needs more players for the values to be even. Other times, the team trading down will ask for more as they are giving up an attractive draft pick. In Study 2, we sought to investigate whether the findings from the ten year period we investigated in Study 1 would predict the outcome of pick-for-pick trades in the 2021 NFL draft.

METHODS

We identified each of the draft pick-for-draft pick trades in the draft immediately after the last season for which we analyzed draft picks (the 2021 NFL draft). We evaluated each of the twenty-nine trades that are listed by the NFL that occurred during the 2021 draft (15). We did this because the 2021 draft was the first draft after the last year for which player performance data was collected so it allowed us to test whether our findings predicted future patterns and because it was the last year that would still allow us to analyze player performance in the first four years of the player’s career. We only looked at trades involving draft picks for draft picks.

Raters

We had two high school football players (MAge = 18 years, MExperiencePlayingCompetitiveFootball = 6 years) who have a strong knowledge of not only the workings of football but also a strong knowledge of the NFL, the NFL draft, and grading players.

Procedure     

We gave raters the series of trades with round(s), pick number(s), and PFF grades across years played listed for each pick. We removed the draft year and team and player names from the list. Raters were also blind to which part of the trade was the “trade up” and which part was the “trade down.” Our list consisted of Team A on one side and Team B on the other. We randomly assigned which team (“trade up” or “trade down”) was Team A and which team was Team B. We instructed raters on how PFF grades are set up and general cutoffs for what PFF grades are generally considered elite, good, above average, average, and poor. We also instructed them to decide which team “won” each trade. While they were instructed that they should use all the information available in making their decisions, they were told that the performance of the players (i.e. PFF grades) should be paramount in making their decisions.

Raters made their judgments independently from one another. They were initially seated in two different areas at the same time while they made their judgments. They then came together, compared their judgments, and went over the judgments that were different to see whether they could come to a consensus on the judgments that were different.

RESULTS

The raters initially agreed on 20/29 trades. After discussing the trades they had originally disagreed on, they came to a consensus on all 29. Of the 9 on which they initially had different answers, neither rater favored the “trade up” team; each of the 9 consisted of one rater deciding on the “trade down” team and the other deciding on “neither.” For 6/9 of the trades they eventually decided on “neither,” and in the other 3 trades they decided on “trade down.” Finally agreed-upon frequencies for each group were: Trade Up: 4, Trade Down: 19, and Neither: 6.

Since we were only interested in testing whether trading up resulted in better player performance, we were most interested in a comparison where we split the categories into the following two groups: Group 1: Trade Up and Group 2: Trade Down and Neither. We performed a Bayesian binomial test on frequencies of what the raters judged as “wins” in each category. Raters judged that there were significantly more wins in terms of better performing players for teams who traded down than for teams who traded up, BF10  = 753.471, Proportion = .832, Prior Distribution with α and β = 1. This is decisive evidence that trading down led to better performing players than trading up and may be interpreted that it is more than 753 times more likely that trading down led to better performing players than trading up. In a second analysis, we compared only trade downs versus trade ups and removed any trade that resulted in a judgement of “neither.” Raters again judged that there were significantly more wins in terms of better performing players for teams who traded down than for teams who traded up, BF10  = 39.472 , Proportion = .826, Prior Distribution with α and β = 1. This indicates very strong evidence that trading down led to better performing players than trading up. Therefore, even when solely comparing trade ups versus trade downs, it is still over thirty nine more times likely that trading down led to better performing players than trading up.

DISCUSSION 

The way the NFL values draft positions in terms of trade values and rookie salaries is not correlated at all with player performance consistent with previous work (14). While time spent in the league and overall PFF grade during their rookie contracts did, for the most part, gradually decline in subsequent rounds as trade value charts, fans, and NFL executives would all predict, this pattern was not straightforward. One large deviation from this gradual decline between rounds was between the  4th and 5th rounds, where there was moderate to substantial evidence in favor of no difference in both years played and overall PFF grades between those rounds, contradicting how the NFL values draft position. In fact, if we use trade values as a representation of people’s intuitions then we should expect far greater value out of 4th round picks than we do from 5th round picks, as a Bayesian independent-samples t-test analyzing trade values in round 4 versus round 5 found decisive evidence that round 4 values are significantly greater than round 5 values, BF10= 7.294 x 10+11, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707. According to the values themselves, the NFL views round 4 picks as 7.294 x 10+11 greater in value than 5th round picks.

There were several other counterintuitive findings. First, there was decisive evidence of no difference among the top, middle, and bottom thirds of rounds across all rounds for both years in the league and PFF grades. Second, this evidence of no difference for both years in the league and PFF grades among the top, middle, and bottom thirds of rounds was a regularity for every round when evaluating each round individually. Third, we found that the performance of players taken in the top third of the second round was no different from the performance of players taken in the bottom third of the first round across all ten years, contradicting what the trade values tell us—that there is decisive evidence in favor of differences in those respective trade values.

When we looked at trades that occurred in 2021, we found that, in terms of quality of player(s), the large majority—over 82%–and significant number of trades did not favor the team who traded higher up in the draft where that pick had greater value. This result is consistent with what was found with the analyses finding no differences across thirds of rounds across and within rounds across our data. This has important implications for not only player performance, but also because it has been recently shown that teams getting the better end of trades increase their probability of making the playoffs (9).

There were limitations to this study. First, while PFF grades are used by NFL teams, NFL analytics sites, and content creators to assess player performance and are seen as the best tool for doing this, they are not perfect. However, while there may be an argument as to what goes into creating the absolute grades, we analyzed the grades relatively for players so the shortcomings of the grades themselves would apply to all players. A second limitation is that we used trade values and rookie wage salaries to as a measure of how general managers (GMs) of teams and the NFL as a whole assess player quality without directly asking them about how they value draft positions. However, there was a collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and player’s union that put in place the rookie wage scale in 2011 (3), and owners, GMs, and players all had their input into how this would be created. Additionally, every team in the NFL uses these trade values as the standard way to barter before, during, and after the draft. Thus, we feel this was a fair way to assess the way the NFL values draft positions.

Further research should be conducted to see how the player performance grades in the first four years connect with second contracts of players in their next 2-5 years. It may be that it takes certain players four years to blossom in the league. However, the average tenure of a player who makes the opening-day roster is ~6 years (about half of that if you include drafted players who do not make the opening day roster). Other work should focus on directly assessing the executives in charge of the teams who draft players and the intuitions they have regarding trading up or down in the draft and what goes into these decisions. It may be that player performance is not the only factor that drives this decision making.

CONCLUSION 

Differences in the way the NFL values draft positions are not associated with player performance in those respective draft positions. This occurs whether you analyze differences in values assigned to draft positions, different positions within a round, or adjacent positions across rounds. These patterns from our findings also predict the outcomes of future drafts in terms of the assets a team trading up gets compared to a team trading down.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

Trade values and trade value charts in the NFL are used as the baselines by which to trade draft picks. These charts serve at least two purposes. First, they give general managers a common mechanism that they generally agree on to trade draft picks. Second, it prevents desperate teams from trading away too much and prevents overly greedy teams from demanding too much. These values assign an assumed or perceived worth of the player picked in that position. The idea is that, while picks that are very close together may result in players that are of equal talent, picks that are several positions away from one another should result in better players for those picks that are higher in the draft order. This is reflected in the draft assets that teams are willing to give up to move up in the draft order. Our work shows that there are several performance-based patterns that contradict these naïve beliefs stemming from values given to players. While some teams might argue that they needed a player at a specific position over the best available player, one would expect that if teams stayed with their original pick, that across a general manager’s tenure they would be better off picking someone who provides better performance and not positional need. One should also expect that over one’s tenure the player performance is more valuable as a better player is more valuable as a trade asset. Our work may inform strategies that might be best to use in drafting prospective players in the National Football League.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dennis M. Shaffer conceptualized the studies. For Study 1, the author oversaw investigation, methodology, and data curation. Formal analysis in the paper was conducted by this author. 

Ryanne E. Shaffer contributed to both studies, assisting with data curation for Study 1, and conducting Study 2. Dennis M. Shaffer supervised Study 2. 

The paper was drafted by Dennis M. Shaffer; the paper was reviewed and edited by Ryanne E. Shaffer. 

The authors would like to thank JD Okuma and Gavin Davis for their work as raters.

REFERENCES 

1. ALL-22 (2025). https://www.all-22.com/#/

2. All Access Football (2025). https://www.allaccessfootball.com/p/nfl-draft-pick-trade-value-chart

3. Deubert, C., Wong, G. M., & Howe, J. (2012). All four quarters: A retrospective and analysis of the 2011 collective bargaining process and agreement in the National

Football League. UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 19, 1-78. https://doi.org/10.5070/LR8191027149

4. Dienes, Z. (2024). Use one system for all results to avoid contradiction: Advice for using significance tests, equivalence tests, and Bayes factors. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 50, 531-534. doi: 1        0.1037/xhp0001202.

5. Hadley, L., Poitras, M., Ruggiero, J., & Knowles, S. (2000). Performance evaluation of National Football League teams. Managerial And Decision Economics, 2, 63-70.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108334

6. Hartman, M. (2011). Competitive performance compared to combine performance as a valid predictor of NFL draft status. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25, S105-S106. DOI:10.1097/01.JSC.0000395746.03546.e8

7. Kruschke, J. K. (2021). Bayesian analysis reporting guidelines. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1282-1291. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01177-7

8. Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267

9. Lapre, M., A., & Palazzolo, E. M. (2024). Does draft currency promote competitive balance? An empirical investigation of the National Football League 2002–2021

Journal of Sports Economics, 25, 779-801. https://doi.org/10.1177/15270025241264238

10. Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2013). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge University Press.

11. Lyons, B. D., Hoffman, B. J., Michel, J. W., & Williams, K. J. (2011). On the predictive efficiency of past performance and physical ability: The case of the National Football League. Human Performance, 24, 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.555218

12. Massey, C., and Thaler, R. (2013). The loser’s curse: Decision making and market efficiency in the National Football League draft. Management Science, 59, 1479-1495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1657

13. NFL (2025). https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-draft-trade-tracker-full-details-of-every-move

14. PFF football news and analysis (June, 2025). https://www.pff.com/.

15. Reynolds, Z., Bonds, T., Thompson, S., LeCrom, C. (2015). Deconstructing the draft: An evaluation of the NFL draft as a predictor of team success. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 7, https://doi.org/10.7290/jasm07bj7q.

16. Rishis, E., Johnston, K., & Baker, J. (2023). On the predictive validity of the National Football League combine: Does it forecast future success? Journal of Sports Sciences, 41,

217-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2207853

17. Simmons, R., & Berri, D. (2009). Gains from specialization and free Agency: The story from the gridiron. Review Of Industrial Organization, 34, 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-009-9200-9

18. Sports Reference © (June, 2025). Pro Football Reference. https://www.pro-football-reference.com

19. Spotrac © (September, 2025). https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cba/rookie-scale.

20. Terry, N. (2007). Investing in NFL prospects: Factors influencing team winning percentage. International Advances In Economic Research, 13, 117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-006-9071-x

21. Tucker, R., Lee, C., & Black, W. J. (2024). The predictive ability of the physical skills used at the NFL combine to predict draft status. The Sport Journal. https://thesportjournal.org/article/the-predictive-ability-of-the-physical-skills-used-at-the-nfl-combine-to-predict-draft-status/

22. Wetzels, R., Matzke, D., Lee, M. D., Rouder, J. N., Iverson, G. J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2011). Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: An empirical comparison using 855 t tests. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 291–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406923

.

2025-10-13T10:22:32-05:00April 29th, 2026|Research, Sports Coaching, Sports Management|Comments Off on Over-promised, under-delivered: Does position in the National Football League draft matter?
Read More

Accreditation, Curriculum, and Competition: An Explanatory Case Study of Sport Sales Education in Undergraduate Sport Management Programs

Authors: Joshua S. Greer1, Nicholas Zoroya2, and Tim Wilson3

1Cumberland University

2Wayne State University

3Middle Tennessee State University

 

Corresponding Author:

Joshua S. Greer

[email protected]

Joshua S. Greer. https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2890-1673

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

ABSTRACT 

This explanatory mixed-methods case study explored the relationship between accreditation, curriculum design, and student performance in sport sales education within undergraduate sport management programs. Using archival data from the 2024–2025 National Collegiate Sports Sales Championship (NCSSC), the study compared outcomes among 25 institutions, including COSMA- and non-accredited programs. Quantitative analysis found no significant relationship between accreditation status and Top-10 finishes in either the Ticket Sales or Corporate Partnerships divisions (p > .05). Qualitative findings indicated that student performance was more closely associated with experiential learning depth, faculty expertise, and the integration of customer relationship management and analytics tools. Grounded in Experiential Learning Theory, Competency-Based Education, Human Capital Theory, and Communities of Practice, the study concludes that accreditation provides useful structure but does not independently predict competitive success. Program-level factors such as applied pedagogy, simulation-based learning, and industry partnerships appear to be stronger indicators of professional readiness and employability in sport sales.

KEYWORDS: Experiential Learning Theory, Competency-Based Education, Human Capital Theory, Communities of Practice

INTRODUCTION 

The goal of supporting positive outcomes for younger people (i.e., generativity; Erikson, 1950) is one that is both widely and cross-culturally relevant, yet despite this, the understanding for how to best support young people and the strategies employed to do so are still in flux. Only recently have developmental psychology and social research begun to place an emphasis on fostering positive outcomes for youth, as opposed to the prevention of negative outcomes and problematic behaviors (Larson, 2000). Within the areas of social and developmental research, this emphasis has led to the creation of diverse approaches to and philosophies of developmental youth programming (Lerner et al., 2011), which often provide opportunities for life skill development (i.e., explicit positive youth development). That said, the translation of such knowledge to spaces where youth development is view as a secondary priority, such as sport, tends to be challenging (Jones et al., 2011).  The primary aim of the present pilot study was to test a grounded theory of implicit positive youth development through sport by examining the impact of peer, coach, and parental relationships on youth sport experiences in a small, single-organization sample. In doing so, the present study offers a novel examination of the collective social climate (i.e., PYD climate) and its relationship to athlete developmental outcomes. We hypothesized the following:

  • Athletes’ perceptions of positive outcomes obtained through sport participation (e.g., social skills, goal setting skills) will be predicted by positive changes to the ratings of the coach-athlete relationship, peer cohesion, and parental involvement across a sport season.

At two time points (e.g., beginning of the season, end of the season), athletes’ ratings of their relationships with their coach, peer cohesion, and parental involvement were collected.  Subsequently, athletes’ perceptions of skill development across four areas (e.g., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting, initiative) were regressed on changes to the relationship variables. Both the coach-athlete relationship and parental involvement were shown to significantly predict social skill development, not only offering partial support for a theory of implicit PYD through sport and underscoring the critical developmental role of relationship building in sport but also pointing to the need for stakeholders to prioritize a high-quality social climate in the sport context to better support youth development.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Historically, adolescence and adolescent development has been regarded as a period during which youth are at risk and laden with problematic behaviors (Benson et al., 2006), therefore implying that the role of adults was to manage and prevent the problems that arise from adolescent development, also known as a deficit-focused approach to youth development (Clonan et al., 2004; Lerner, 2005). However, preventing such problems through a focus on treatment or intervention often failed to yield positive results (Catalano et al., 2008). Appearing concurrently with positive psychology’s focus on human strengths and flourishing, positive youth development theory offered that youth are “resources to be developed,” presenting a path toward positive youth outcomes through youth enrichment and the promotion of adolescent strengths (Lerner, Almerigi, et al., 2005). Positive youth development is a broad term, but generally refers to “processes, approaches, and instances” (Lerner et al., 2011) which seek to optimally prepare young people for adulthood, with the targeted outcomes being well-being and the fulfillment of their potential (Catalano et al., 2008). Contexts which aim to support positive youth development vary widely, to include agricultural programming (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005), volunteer and service programming (McBride et al., 2011), tutoring (Worker et al., 2019), aquatics (Storm et al., 2017), adventure-based programming (Sibthorp & Morgan, 2011), and sport (Bruner et al., 2021).

Youth sports are generally touted as tools for healthy and positive development, yet research aimed at validating this claim or understanding the processes by which it occurs is ambiguous (Holt et al., 2017). PYD theory was developed outside of the sport context (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005) and researchers have struggled to apply PYD models and measures to sporting contexts (Jones et al., 2011). One reason for this may be that PYD researchers have failed to acknowledge keyfeatures of the sport environment (Holt et al., 2017). In a systematic review of qualitative data, Holt and colleagues (2017) proposed that PYD through sport occurs via two distinct pathways. In the first, programs offer explicit education to youth sport participants aimed at life skill development. In the second pathway, PYD occurs implicitly via positive relationships with coaches, peers, and parents (i.e., the creation of a ‘PYD climate’). Holt and colleagues concluded that further research is needed to not only investigate the validity of this framework but also understand additional nuances for when and how PYD may occur through explicit and implicit factors. The need for further research was bolstered by a systematic review of sport-based PYD programming, conducted by Whitley and colleagues (2019), who concluded the benefit of explicit PYD programming in sport is not clear enough to support the implementation of a standardized intervention. Therefore, while the field’s understanding of how to best implement explicit PYD programming through sport is still evolving, there also exists a need to test the proposed model of implicit PYD through positive relationships within sport. While the specific role positive relationships play in supporting PYD within sport is unclear, it is generally accepted that these relationships are all valuable, if not necessary, for positive athlete outcomes (Burns et al., 2019).

Coach-Athlete Relationship

Arguably the primary relationship in the sporting context (Jowett, 2017), the dyadic relationship between coach and athlete has been shown to be instrumental to numerous athlete outcomes. In a systematic review of the coach-athlete relationship literature, Nikolina and Đorić (2023) reported that a positive coach-athlete relationship was not only predictive of increased motivation, satisfaction, and performance, but also protective from athlete stress, burnout, and negative affect. Davis and Jowett (2014) have reported that the quality of the coach-athlete relationship is directly related to athlete positive and negative affect. Furthermore, in a systematic review of the literature, McShan and Moore (2023) found that a positive coach-athlete relationship, as reported by coaches, was associated with coach’s beliefs of fostering an environment supportive of athlete life skill development. In Holt and colleague’s (2017) grounded theory of implicit PYD, the authors posit that strong, positive relationships between athletes and coaches can create a developmentally supportive social environment.

Peer Cohesion

Paralleling the coach-athlete relationship research, research on the role of peer relationships in the sport environment have shown these relationships to be highly influential on athlete experiences and outcomes (Smith & Ullrich-French, 2020).  Peer support has been shown to be related to elite sport participation, athlete motivation, and reduced withdrawal from sport (Sheridan et al., 2014). Additionally, researchers have shown that peer cohesion is not only associated with performance (Carron et al., 2002; Filho et al., 2014), but also athlete need satisfaction and learning (Erikstad et al., 2018). Furthermore, Smith and Ulrich-French (2020) have posited that peer relationships in the sport context are likely to be influential to individual athlete development, to include character, moral, social, and life skill development. In proposing strong peer relationships as influential of an implicit PYD climate, Holt and colleagues (2017) highlighted how strong peer relationships in the sport context often result in feelings of belongingness and support, which may provide developmental benefit.

Parental Involvement

While not always directly involved in the training environment, researchers have shown that parents are highly influential to youth athletes’ experiences and outcomes in sport. Youth who perceive their parents as satisfied with their performance and who experience low parental pressure are more likely to report sport enjoyment and positive affect (Dorsch et al., 2021). Additionally, parental involvement has also been associated with youth sport enjoyment, perceptions of competence, and self-esteem (Dorsch et al., 2021). Parental involvement in sport has also been found to be associated with youth athlete need satisfaction (Felber Charbonneau & Camiré, 2020). Furthermore, parental involvement in sport has also been connected to athletes’ development, to include socialization and value adoption (Danioni et al., 2017). In their grounded theory model, Holt and colleagues (2017) highlighted the reinforcing role that parental involvement plays to creating a PYD climate; while coaches may be responsible for delivering lessons and values to athletes in the sport context, the authors noted that it is important that parents support, not contradict, these messages.

Study Aims

In their grounded theory model, Holt and colleagues (2017) posited that these three relationships (i.e., coaches, peers, parents) collectively create a social climate supportive of implicit positive youth development. Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to examine the impact of peer, coach, and parental relationships on youth sport experiences and youth athletes’ perceptions of developmental skills gained, thereby piloting a test of Holt and colleagues’ (2017) grounded theory model. Should these relationships be predictive of positive youth development, it could be expected that athletes who experience positive changes to these relationships (e.g., increased peer cohesion, increased parental involvement) across a sport season should also receive increased benefit from their participation compared to athletes whose relationships did not improve. As such, we hypothesized that athletes’ perceptions of positive outcomes obtained through sport participation (e.g., social skills, goal setting skills) would be predicted by positive changes to the ratings of their peer relationships, coach-athlete relationships, and parental involvement across a sport season.

METHODS 

Participants

Participants included 67 youth athletes from a competitive soccer club in the northwest region of the United States. In total, 41 athletes (Mage = 11.85) completed data collection at both time points. Participants represented 13 teams from four separate age categories. Additionally, 65.9% of the athletes identified as white and 61.0% of the athletes identified as boys.

Measures

Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q)

To measure athlete perceptions of their relationship with their coach, the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004) was utilized. The 11-item scale measured the nature of the athlete’s relationship with their coach (a = 0.97). Using a seven-point Likert scale, athletes rated their agreement with statements such as, “I trust my coach.”

Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ)

Athletes’ perceptions of their relationship with teammates were measured utilizing the Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ; Eys et al., 2009). The scale, which has been shown to be both valid and reliable, measured group cohesion and peer relationship quality. The YSEQ contains 16 statements, such as, “I am happy with my team’s level of desire to win” (a = 0.93). Athletes rated their agreement with these statements utilizing a seven-point Likert scale.

Parental Involvement in Sport Questionnaire (PISQ)

The Parental Involvement in Sport Questionnaire (PISQ; Lee & MacLean, 1997) is a valid and reliable 19-item scale (a = 0.87), which captures athletes’ perceptions of parental involvement across three subscales: directive behavior, praise and understanding, and active involvement. Utilizing a five-point Likert scale, athletes rated their level of agreement with statements such as, “Do your parents push you to practice harder?”

Youth Experience Survey for Sport (YES-S)

Employed only at the second time point, the short form Youth Experience Survey for Sport (YES-S; MacDonald et al., 2012; Sullivan et al., 2015) is 16-item scale that measured the perceptions of athletes’ experiences participating in sport across the previous season, and was utilized in the present study to operationalize PYD. The scale measures whether athletes perceived any benefit to their participation across four subscales: personal and social skills (a = 0.78), cognitive skills (a = 0.78), goal setting (a = 0.81), and initiative (a = 0.71). Athletes rated their agreement with statements such as, “I learned to push myself” on a five-point Likert scale.

Procedure

Ahead of the start of the summer season, the first author attended the club’s tryouts and parent meetings to share information about the study and recruit participants. During this time, parental consent was obtained through the completion of a written consent form and household demographic survey. The first survey was completed electronically one month into the summer season.  Subsequently, 14 weeks later, the research team returned to conduct the second survey during the final week of the fall season. At both time points, the surveys collected demographic information, athlete perceptions of relationships with their coach, peer cohesion, and parental involvement. At the second time point, the survey collected measurements of athletes’ perceptions of their experiences playing sport across the previous season, particularly focused on skills gained.

The dataset contained 0.3% missingness, and results of an MCAR test were not significant (X2(1386) = 0.00, p = 1.00), suggesting data was missing at random. For cases with missingness, scales were prorated based on completed items. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each scale and notable demographic differences are reported in Table 1. For each of the relationship variables (i.e., CART-Q, PISQ, YSEQ), a difference score was calculated (MT2 – MT1) to measure changes in these relationships across the season. While the utilization of difference scores has been criticized for its negative, summative impact on reliability (Edwards, 1994), researchers have noted that difference scores can be an appropriate choice in research, particularly for nonrandomized, theory-driven analyses (Castro-Schilo & Grimm, 2018). Assumptions testing revealed issues regarding multicollinearity as there was a high correlation between coach-athlete relationship and the peer cohesion change scores (r = 0.801), which resulted in unstable beta coefficients. This instability indicated that the presence of the peer cohesion variable in the model was distorting the estimation of other predictors, undermining the reliability and interpretability of the model. As such, the peer cohesion variable was removed from primary analyses. Following this, we regressed the four subscales of the YES-S (i.e., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting skills, initiative) on changes in relationship quality across the season, while controlling for age, race, and gender.

Table 1

Sample Characteristics and Descriptive Statistics

   CART-QYSEQPISQYES-S Social SkillsYES-S Cog. SkillsYES-S Goal SettingYES-S Initiative
Variablen%T1 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T1 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T1 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)
Age            
1037.35.61(1.24)*5.97(1.47)*4.25(2.01)*5.08(1.98)*2.39(0.18)2.91(0.45)3.58(0.52)3.67(0.58)4.25(0.58)4.58(0.52)
11922.05.46(1.73)6.36(0.39)4.74(1.52)5.53(0.83)3.02(0.60)3.13(0.52)4.00(0.60)3.69(1.05)4.00(0.85)4.50(0.45)
122048.86.10(0.40)5.96(0.85)5.10(0.75)5.30(0.91)*2.92(0.60)3.25(0.74)*4.17(0.75)3.53(1.16)3.93(0.90)4.25(0.59)
13922.05.71(1.04)*5.15(1.26)* †4.69(1.40)4.89(1.18)3.16(0.69)3.30(0.58)4.03(0.57)3.56(0.69)4.25(0.57)4.43(0.66)
Gender            
Boy2561.06.03(0.61)6.17(0.69)†4.91(1.03)*5.26(0.89)*2.92(0.62)*3.24(0.66)*4.12(0.66)3.72(0.85)4.11(0.71)4.43(0.41)
Girl1639.05.56(1.43)5.41(0.99)†4.81(1.42)5.22(1.25)3.01(0.62)3.17(0.62)3.96(0.89)3.35(1.19)3.90(0.94)4.27(0.76)
Race            
White2765.95.77(1.13)5.97(0.83)4.75(1.21)*5.24(1.03)*2.95(0.61)3.14(0.57)4.07(0.69)3.52(1.04)3.99(0.85)4.43(0.54)
Black12.4          
Asian49.85.50(1.38)5.41(1.85)4.77(1.85)*5.30(1.64)*2.74(0.90)3.29(0.90)4.00(0.35)3.94(0.43)3.94(0.43)3.94(0.66)
Hispanic49.86.27(0.45)5.86(1.12)5.50(0.89)5.55(0.74)2.99(0.57)3.41(0.83)4.50(0.41)4.25(0.54)4.69(0.47)4.63(0.32)
Other512.26.13(0.31)5.65(1.20)5.05(0.83)4.99(1.04)2.99(0.45)3.31(0.52)3.80(0.89)3.15(1.29)3.80(0.94)4.15(0.74)
Total41100.05.84(1.02)5.87(0.99)4.87(1.18)*5.24(1.03)*2.96(0.62)*3.21(0.64)*4.06(0.67)3.58(1.00)4.03(0.80)4.37(0.57)

Notes. n = 41; CART-Q = Coach-Athlete Relationship; PISQ = Parental Involvement; YSEQ = Ratings of Peer Cohesion; YES-S = Perceptions of Developmental Experiences, *Difference is significant between time points; †Difference is significant between groups.

RESULTS

The model examining personal and social skills was significant and explained 45.4% of variance in the outcome (R2 = 0.454, F(5,34) = 5.664, p < 0.001).

Regression Results for Perceptions of Social Skills Gained by Athletes

    95% CI 
VariablebbSELLULp
Intercept 0.7741.268-1.8023.3500.546
Gender-0.129-0.1750.184-0.5500.1990.348
Age0.3690.2910.1100.0670.5150.012
Race-0.024-0.0080.042-0.0940.0780.858
DCART-Q0.4820.2500.0740.0990.4000.002
DPISQ0.3260.3820.1600.5800.7070.022

Notes. n = 41; R2= 0.454, F(5,34) = 5.664, p < 0.001; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement.

**When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was also a significant predictor of personal and social skills (R2 = 0.317, F(4,35) = 4.063, p = 0.008).

Within this model, both changes to the coach-athlete relationships (b= 0.482, p = 0.002) and changes to parental involvement (b= 0.326, p = 0.022) across the season were significant predictors of personal and social skills. Additionally, the covariate age was also a significant predictor of personal and social skills (b = 0.369, p = 0.012). The model examining cognitive skills explained 25.1% of the variance, however was only marginally significant (R2 = 0.251, F(5,34) = 2.275, p = 0.069). Within this model the change in coach-athlete relationship was a statistically significant predictor (b= 0.403, p = 0.022), whereas changes to parental involvement was not (b= 0.158, p = 0.330).

Table 3

Regression Results for Perceptions of Cognitive Skills Gained by Athletes

    95% CI 
VariablebbSELLULp
Intercept 2.0482.221-2.4656.5610.363
Gender-0.155-0.3150.323-0.9720.3420.337
Age0.1430.1690.193-0.2240.5610.389
Race-0.066-0.0320.074-0.1820.1190.670
DCART-Q0.4030.3120.1300.0480.5760.022
DPISQ0.1580.2770.280-0.2920.8450.330

Notes. n = 41; R2= 0.251, F(5,34) = 2.275, p = 0.069; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement.

** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.

The models predicting goal setting skills (R2 = 0.183, F(5,34) = 1.528, p = 0.207) and initiative (R2 = 0.185, F(5,34) = 1.542, p = 0.203) were not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION 

The present study provides partial support to Holt and colleague’s (2017) proposition that there is an implicit pathway of PYD in sport that takes place through positive relationships. In particular, changes to the coach-athlete relationship significantly predicted youth athletes’ perceptions of social skills and cognitive skills gained; and changes to perceptions of parental involvement also predicted social skills gained. Additionally, when analyzed separately due to issues of multicollinearity, changes to peer cohesion also significantly predicted social skill perceptions. As such, data in the current study reinforce the importance of relationships within the sport environment, and extend previous research by highlighting their value to the specific area of PYD through sport.

While research has shown the coach-athlete relationship to be associated with motivation (Adie & Jowett, 2010), collective-efficacy (Hampson & Jowett, 2014), and team cohesion (Turman, 2003), its role in the social and cognitive development of athletes is less understood. That said, research has shown that coaches seem to intuitively understand the developmental value of a positive coach-athlete relationship as coaches have reported a positive relationship with their athletes led to social and emotional development and resilience (White & Bennie, 2015). Furthermore, Davis and colleagues (2019) proposed a bidirectional relationship between communication skills and the coach-athlete relationship, where communication skills not only helped to improve the relationship, but also improved as a product of a high-quality coach-athlete relationship. When examining the more expansive literature on the impact of a high-quality relationships, researchers have documents that teacher-student relationships can promote cognitive development (Davis, 2003) and social adjustment (Dong et al., 2021) through positive and trusting learning environments. Data in the current study suggest coaches hold a responsibility to ensure the development and sustainment of positive relationships in the sport environment to support similarly positive developmental outcomes for youth athletes. This is particularly important as social skills have been shown to be associated with academic performance (Sung & Chang, 2010), increased mental health (Greenberg et al., 2003), wellbeing (Sancassiani et al., 2015), and self-esteem (Riggio et al., 1990).

The present study also highlights the important yet specific role that parents play in positive youth development through sport. Parental styles have been shown to be associated with social skill development; youth with democratic and permissive parents have been shown to score higher on social skills measures than those with neglectful or authoritative parents (Salavera et al., 2022). As such, it could be hypothesized that parents with more developmentally supportive parenting styles are more likely to be involved in their child’s sport and supportive of their child’s social skills. That said, data in the current study suggests the need to delineate the roles of parents and coaches, as these relationships may provide different benefits for youth. For example, Knight and colleagues (2011) reported that athletes consistently prefer parents to fill a supportive and encouraging role, as opposed to a coaching role. This is supported by data in the current study in that while change to parental involvement predicted athletes’ perceptions of social skill development, it did not predict their cognitive skill perceptions.

Finally, it is important to note that girls rated their relationship with their coach significantly lower than their peers who identified as boys; and older athletes were also significantly less likely to rate their coach-relationships higher than younger athletes. As such, should there exist any developmental benefit to high-quality, coaching relationships, the present findings would suggest that girls and older youth athletes are less likely to receive those benefits. Given that a positive coach-athlete relationship can be protective from poor mental health outcomes for girl athletes specifically (Massey et al., 2024), it is important that positive coach-athlete relationships are prioritized for female athletes, particularly adolescent female athletes. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that as athletes get older, the sporting environment shifts from a focus on fun to a focus on competition. Be that as it may, research has shown that the true shift lies within how athletes are treated; Kipp and Bolter (2020) found that while both older and younger athletes equally perceived their sporting environments to be focused on effort and learning, older athletes were more likely to report being punished or disciplined for mistakes. It is possible that such climates explain the decreasing trend of the coach-athlete relationship observed in the present study. Speaking strictly to the proposed developmental role of the coach-athlete relationship within sport, the present findings would offer that sports become less beneficial and developmentally supportive over time.

Despite the present study’s value to the literature base on PYD through sport, its small, homogenous sample limits its generalizability. In addition to being predominantly white, the sample derived from a singular, pay-to-play soccer organization within an affluent community. Additionally, the present sample predominantly identified as boys, which may parallel youth sport participation trends, but limits the generalizability of the findings to non-boy athlete populations. The age rage of the sample was also limited, clustered into the soccer organizations U11 and U13 age groupings, and as such, the findings may be in part reflective of the natural development occurring in this age range.

Furthermore, most athletes in the present study were satisfied with their relationship with their coach and peers, and the mean parental involvement score was slightly above the midpoint of the scale. Depending on sport or community context, it is possible that more athletes would report more dissatisfaction with these relationships or less parental involvement, thereby affecting the nature of the findings. With respect to age and gender differences, it is possible that these differences could be explained by confounding variables, such as coach gender, competition level, or position, which could not be differentiated in the present study due to the small sample size. Lastly, while multicollinearity necessitated the removal of the peer cohesion variable from the analyses, it should be acknowledged that doing so also limits the completeness of the model by excluding a theoretically important dimension of the sport environment, and one which should continue to be examined in this line of research.  As such, future studies should not only continue to examine the nuanced roles of parents and coaches in sport-based PYD, but also peer relationships, and doing so in larger and more diverse samples.

CONCLUSION 

The social context of the sport environment, which includes coaches, parents, and peers, plays a significant role in shaping athletes’ perceived development through sport. In the present study, athletes’ perceived social skill development was significantly predicted by positive changes to the coach-athlete relationship and parental involvement. The quality of the coach-athlete relationship also emerged as a meaningful predictor of athletes’ perceived cognitive development, highlighting the broader developmental impact of adult figures in the sport context. Furthermore, while peer cohesion was omitted in analyses due to multicollinearity, its interconnectedness with the coach-athlete relationship should be acknowledged, and researchers should continue to utilize it as a variable of interest as theory would dictate. Taken together, these findings underscore the importance of considering the full network of sport-based relationships when seeking to support athletes’ development through sport participation.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

In addition to providing support for Holt and colleagues’ (2017) theory of implicit PYD through sport, the present study highlights the interconnected nature of youth sport’s social context. We offer the following recommendations to stakeholders seeking to utilize these findings to develop their youth sport organization’s PYD climate:

  • Provide coaches with education and training that supports their development of communication and relationship-building skills (see Barnett et al., 1992; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003).
  • Provide education and clear expectations for parents’ involvement in the organization, as well as opportunities for involvement (see Knight et al., 2011).

Prioritize relationship building and psychological safety at the outset of the season, to include team-building activities and the development of team norms, rituals, and goals (see Carron et al., 1997; Senécal et al., 2008).

REFERENCES 

1. Adie, J. W., & Jowett, S. (2010). Meta‐perceptions of the coach–athlete relationship, achievement goals, and intrinsic motivation among sport participants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(11), 2750-2773. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00679.x

2. Barnett, N. P., Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1992). Effects of enhancing coach-athlete relationships on youth sport attrition. The Sport Psychologist, 6(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.6.2.111

3. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma Jr., A. (2006). Positive youth development so far: Core hypotheses and their implications for policy and practice. Search Institute Insights & Evidence 3(1), 1-13.

4. Bruner, M. W., McLaren, C. D., Sutcliffe, J. T., Gardner, L. A., Lubans, D. R., Smith, J. J., & Vella, S. A. (2021). The effect of sport-based interventions on positive youth development: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(1), 368-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1875496

5. Burns, L., Weissensteiner, J. R., & Cohen, M. (2019). Supportive interpersonal relationships: a key component to high-performance sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(22), 1386-1389. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100312

6. Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.2.168

7. Carron, A. V., Spink, K. S., & Prapavessis, H. (1997). Team building and cohesiveness in the sport and exercise setting: Use of indirect interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209708415384

8. Castro-Schilo, L., & Grimm, K. J. (2018). Using residualized change versus difference scores for longitudinal research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 32-58.

9. Catalano, R. F., Toumbourou, J. W., & Hawkins, J. D. (2008). Positive youth development in the United States: History, efficacy, and links to moral and character education. In L. Nucci & T. Krettenauer (Eds.) Handbook of moral and character education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203114896

10. Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604272461

10. Clonan, S. M., Chafouleas, S. M., McDougal, J. L., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2004). Positive psychology goes to school: Are we there yet? Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10142

11. Danioni, F., Barni, D., & Rosnati, R. (2017). Transmitting sport values: The importance of parental involvement in children’s sport activity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v13i1.1265 

12. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207-234. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2

13. Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2014). Coach–athlete attachment and the quality of the coach–athlete relationship: Implications for athlete’s well-being. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(15), 1454–1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.898183

14. Davis, L., Jowett, S., & Tafvelin, S. (2019). Communication strategies: The fuel for quality coach-athlete relationships and athlete satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02156

15. Dong, Y., Wang, H., Luan, F., Li, Z., & Cheng, L. (2021). How children feel matters: Teacher–student relationship as an indirect role between interpersonal trust and social adjustment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 581235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581235

16. Dorsch, T. E., Wright, E., Eckardt, V. C., Elliott, S., Thrower, S. N., & Knight, C. J. (2021). A history of parent involvement in organized youth sport: A scoping review. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 10(4), 536. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000266

17. Edwards, J. R. (1994). Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores. Journal of Management, 20(3), 683-689.

18. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Co.

19. Erikstad, M. K., Martin, L. J., Haugen, T., & Høigaard, R. (2018). Group cohesion, needs satisfaction, and self-regulated learning: A one-year prospective study of elite youth soccer players’ perceptions of their club team. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.013

20. Eys, M., Loughead, T., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(3), 390-408. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.31.3.390

21. Felber Charbonneau, E., & Camiré, M. (2020). Parental involvement in sport and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs: Perspectives from parent–child dyads. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(5), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1570533

22. Filho, E., Dobersek, U., Gershgoren, L., Becker, B., & Tenenbaum, G. (2014). The cohesion–performance relationship in sport: A 10-year retrospective meta-analysis. Sport Sciences for Health, 10(3), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-014-0188-7

23. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466

24. Hampson, R., & Jowett, S. (2014). Effects of coach leadership and coach–athlete relationship on collective efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(2), 454-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01527.x

25. Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camiré, M., Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., MacDonald, D., Strachan, L., & Tamminen, K. A. (2017). A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1180704

26. Jones, M. I., Dunn, J. G., Holt, N. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Bloom, G. A. (2011). Exploring the ‘5Cs’ of positive youth development in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34(3). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-17095-003

27. Jowett, S. (2017). Coaching effectiveness: The coach–athlete relationship at its heart. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.006

28. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medalists’ perspective of the athlete–coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(4), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00011-0

29. Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART‐Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14(4), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x

30. Kipp, L. E., & Bolter, N. D. (2020). Motivational climate, psychological needs, and personal and social responsibility in youth soccer: Comparisons by age group and competitive level. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101756

31. Knight, C. J., Neely, K. C., & Holt, N. L. (2011). Parental behaviors in team sports: How do female athletes want parents to behave? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(1), 76-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2010.525589

32. Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.170

33. Lee, M., & MacLean, S. (1997). Sources of parental pressure among age group swimmers. European Journal of Physical Education, 2(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898970020204

34. Lerner, R. M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences.

35. Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive youth development A view of the issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604273211

36. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., 37.

37. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Lewin-Bizan, S., Bowers, E. P., Boyd, M. J., Mueller, M. K., Schmid, K. L., & Napolitano, C. M. (2011). Positive youth development: Processes, orograms, and problematics. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.5195/JYD.2011.174

38. MacDonald, D. J., Côté, J., Eys, M., & Deakin, J. (2012). Psychometric properties of the youth experience survey with young athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(3), 332-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.09.001

39. Massey, W. V., Veliz, P. T., Zarrett, N., & Farello, A. (2024). Thriving through sport: The transformative impact on girls’ mental health. Women’s Sport Foundation.

40. McBride, A. M., Johnson, E., Olate, R., & O’Hara, K. (2011). Youth volunteer service as positive youth development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.009

41. Nikolina, K., & Đorić, V. (2023). Relations of coach-athlete relationship quality and athlete psychosocial functioning: A systematic review. SportLogia, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.7251/SGIA2319002K

42. Riggio, R. E., Throckmorton, B., & Depaola, S. (1990). Social skills and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(8), 799-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90188-W

43. Salavera, C., Usán, P., & Quilez-Robres, A. (2022). Exploring the effect of parental styles on social skills: The mediating role of affects. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3295. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063295

44. Sancassiani, F., Pintus, E., Holte, A., Paulus, P., Moro, M. F., Cossu, G., Angermeyer, M. C., Carta, M. G., & Lindert, J. (2015). Enhancing the emotional and social skills of the youth to promote their wellbeing and positive development: A systematic review of universal school-based randomized controlled trials [Special issue]. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 11, 21-40. https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901511010021

45. Senécal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.2.186

46. Sheridan, D., Coffee, P., & Lavallee, D. (2014). A systematic review of social support in youth sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 198-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2014.931999

47. Sibthorp, J., & Morgan, C. (2011). Adventure‐based programming: Exemplary youth development practice. New Directions for Youth Development, (130), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.400

48. Smith, A. L., & Ullrich-French, S. (2020). Peers and the sport experience. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.) Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 410–428). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119568124.ch19

49. Storm, M. K., Williams, K. N., Shetter, E. M., Kaminsky, J., Lowery, C. M., Caldas, S. V., & Winch, P. J. (2017). Sink or swim: Promoting youth development through aquatics programs in Baltimore, Maryland. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 35(1), 66-79. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2017-V35-I1-7295

50. Sullivan, P. J., LaForge-MacKenzie, K., & Marini, M. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Youth Experiences Survey for Sport (YES-S). Open Journal of Statistics, 5(05), 421. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2015.55044

51. Sung, Y. Y., & Chang, M. (2010). Which social skills predict academic performance of elementary school students. Journal on Educational Psychology, 3(3), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.3.3.1078

52. Turman, P. D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on team cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 26(1), 86-104. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-01497-007

53. White, R. L., & Bennie, A. (2015). Resilience in youth sport: A qualitative investigation of gymnastics coach and athlete perceptions. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 10(2-3), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.10.2-3.379

54. Whitley, M. A., Massey, W. V., Camiré, M., Boutet, M., & Borbee, A. (2019). Sport-based youth development interventions in the United States: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 19, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6387-z

55. Worker, S. M., Iaccopucci, A. M., Bird, M., & Horowitz, M. (2019). Promoting positive youth development through teenagers-as-teachers programs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 34(1), 30-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558418764089

Appendix A
Supplemental Materials

Table 4

Correlation Matrix of Study Variables

Variables1234567
1. Age       
2. CART-Q-0.34*      
3. PISQ0.150.23     
4. YSEQ-0.140.66**0.31*    
5. Social Skills0.140.62**0.35*0.47**   
6. Cognitive Skills-0.050.40*0.160.160.66**  
7. Goal Setting0.030.43**0.130.42**0.57**0.70** 
8. Initiative-0.100.53**0.180.47**0.51**0.40*0.70**

Notes. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); CART-Q = Coach-Athlete Relationship; PISQ = Parental Involvement, YSEQ = Peer Relationships

Table 5

Regression Results for Perceptions of Goal Setting Skills Gained by Athletes

   95% CI for B  
VariablebSELLULbp
Intercept2.0531.862-1.7315.836 0.278
Gender-0.2280.271-0.7790.322-0.1400.405
Age0.1860.162-0.1430.5150.1960.259
Race0.0110.062-0.1150.1370.0280.863
DCART-Q0.2300.1090.0080.4510.3690.042
DPISQ0.1750.235-0.3020.6510.1240.462

Notes. R2= 0.183, p = 0.207; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement

** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.

Table 6

Regression Results for Perceptions of Initiative Gained by Athletes

   95% CI for B  
VariablebSELLULbp
Intercept4.0001.3151.3286.671-0.1203.043
Gender-0.1380.191-0.5270.2500.062-0.723
Age0.0420.114-0.1910.2740.0350.365
Race0.0100.044-0.0790.0990.3890.221
DCART-Q0.1710.0770.0150.3270.0872.224
DPISQ0.0860.166-0.2510.423-0.1200.520

Notes. R2= 0.185, p = 0.203; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement

** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.

2026-04-09T15:25:29-05:00April 9th, 2026|Contemporary Sports Issues, Leadership, Research, Sports Coaching, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Accreditation, Curriculum, and Competition: An Explanatory Case Study of Sport Sales Education in Undergraduate Sport Management Programs
Read More

The Role of Sport Relationships in Positive Youth Development

Authors: Jim P. Arnold1 and William V. Massey1

1Department of Kinesiology, College of Health, Oregon State University

 

Corresponding Author:

Jim P. Arnold

[email protected]

Jim P. Arnold https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2282-1915
William V. Massey, Ph.D. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4002-3720
We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.

ABSTRACT 

Purpose. Research on positive youth development (PYD) through sport remains unclear and speculative (Whitley et al., 2019). It has been suggested that sport-based PYD can occur implicitly through positive relationships (Holt et al., 2017). The present pilot study examined the impact of changes in the coach-athlete relationship, peer cohesion, and parental involvement on PYD outcomes across a sport season in a sample of youth soccer participants (N = 41, Mage = 11.85, 61% boys).

Methods. Athletes responded to surveys rating their relationships with coaches, parents, and peers at two time points, and additionally reported their perceptions of developmental skills gained across the sport season. A difference score was calculated for each relationship variable to measure change across the season. Four developmental outcomes (i.e., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting skills, initiative) were regressed on changes in relationship quality across the season, while controlling for age, race, and gender.

Results. Changes to the coach-athlete relationship (b= 0.482, p = 0.002) and parental involvement (b= 0.326, p = 0.022) were significant predictors of perceptions of social skill development (R2 = 0.454, F(5,34) = 5.664, p < 0.001), supporting a relationship-based model of PYD in sport. Significant age and gender differences in ratings of the coach-athlete relationship were also discovered.

Conclusions. The present study not only offers partial support to a Holt and colleagues’ (2017) theory of implicit PYD through sport but also highlights the need important developmental role of relationship building in in the sport context.

Applications in Sport. Organizations should prioritize positive sport relationships through education, training, and programming, as poor or absent relationships may undermine the envisioned benefits of sport. In particular, the present study highlights the need for positive parental involvement, which may require stakeholders to work with parents to define their role expectations.

KEYWORDS: youth sport, positive youth development, sport relationships, coaching, parental involvement

INTRODUCTION 

The goal of supporting positive outcomes for younger people (i.e., generativity; Erikson, 1950) is one that is both widely and cross-culturally relevant, yet despite this, the understanding for how to best support young people and the strategies employed to do so are still in flux. Only recently have developmental psychology and social research begun to place an emphasis on fostering positive outcomes for youth, as opposed to the prevention of negative outcomes and problematic behaviors (Larson, 2000). Within the areas of social and developmental research, this emphasis has led to the creation of diverse approaches to and philosophies of developmental youth programming (Lerner et al., 2011), which often provide opportunities for life skill development (i.e., explicit positive youth development). That said, the translation of such knowledge to spaces where youth development is view as a secondary priority, such as sport, tends to be challenging (Jones et al., 2011).  The primary aim of the present pilot study was to test a grounded theory of implicit positive youth development through sport by examining the impact of peer, coach, and parental relationships on youth sport experiences in a small, single-organization sample. In doing so, the present study offers a novel examination of the collective social climate (i.e., PYD climate) and its relationship to athlete developmental outcomes. We hypothesized the following:

  • Athletes’ perceptions of positive outcomes obtained through sport participation (e.g., social skills, goal setting skills) will be predicted by positive changes to the ratings of the coach-athlete relationship, peer cohesion, and parental involvement across a sport season.

At two time points (e.g., beginning of the season, end of the season), athletes’ ratings of their relationships with their coach, peer cohesion, and parental involvement were collected.  Subsequently, athletes’ perceptions of skill development across four areas (e.g., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting, initiative) were regressed on changes to the relationship variables. Both the coach-athlete relationship and parental involvement were shown to significantly predict social skill development, not only offering partial support for a theory of implicit PYD through sport and underscoring the critical developmental role of relationship building in sport but also pointing to the need for stakeholders to prioritize a high-quality social climate in the sport context to better support youth development.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Historically, adolescence and adolescent development has been regarded as a period during which youth are at risk and laden with problematic behaviors (Benson et al., 2006), therefore implying that the role of adults was to manage and prevent the problems that arise from adolescent development, also known as a deficit-focused approach to youth development (Clonan et al., 2004; Lerner, 2005). However, preventing such problems through a focus on treatment or intervention often failed to yield positive results (Catalano et al., 2008). Appearing concurrently with positive psychology’s focus on human strengths and flourishing, positive youth development theory offered that youth are “resources to be developed,” presenting a path toward positive youth outcomes through youth enrichment and the promotion of adolescent strengths (Lerner, Almerigi, et al., 2005). Positive youth development is a broad term, but generally refers to “processes, approaches, and instances” (Lerner et al., 2011) which seek to optimally prepare young people for adulthood, with the targeted outcomes being well-being and the fulfillment of their potential (Catalano et al., 2008). Contexts which aim to support positive youth development vary widely, to include agricultural programming (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005), volunteer and service programming (McBride et al., 2011), tutoring (Worker et al., 2019), aquatics (Storm et al., 2017), adventure-based programming (Sibthorp & Morgan, 2011), and sport (Bruner et al., 2021).

Youth sports are generally touted as tools for healthy and positive development, yet research aimed at validating this claim or understanding the processes by which it occurs is ambiguous (Holt et al., 2017). PYD theory was developed outside of the sport context (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005) and researchers have struggled to apply PYD models and measures to sporting contexts (Jones et al., 2011). One reason for this may be that PYD researchers have failed to acknowledge keyfeatures of the sport environment (Holt et al., 2017). In a systematic review of qualitative data, Holt and colleagues (2017) proposed that PYD through sport occurs via two distinct pathways. In the first, programs offer explicit education to youth sport participants aimed at life skill development. In the second pathway, PYD occurs implicitly via positive relationships with coaches, peers, and parents (i.e., the creation of a ‘PYD climate’). Holt and colleagues concluded that further research is needed to not only investigate the validity of this framework but also understand additional nuances for when and how PYD may occur through explicit and implicit factors. The need for further research was bolstered by a systematic review of sport-based PYD programming, conducted by Whitley and colleagues (2019), who concluded the benefit of explicit PYD programming in sport is not clear enough to support the implementation of a standardized intervention. Therefore, while the field’s understanding of how to best implement explicit PYD programming through sport is still evolving, there also exists a need to test the proposed model of implicit PYD through positive relationships within sport. While the specific role positive relationships play in supporting PYD within sport is unclear, it is generally accepted that these relationships are all valuable, if not necessary, for positive athlete outcomes (Burns et al., 2019).

Coach-Athlete Relationship

Arguably the primary relationship in the sporting context (Jowett, 2017), the dyadic relationship between coach and athlete has been shown to be instrumental to numerous athlete outcomes. In a systematic review of the coach-athlete relationship literature, Nikolina and Đorić (2023) reported that a positive coach-athlete relationship was not only predictive of increased motivation, satisfaction, and performance, but also protective from athlete stress, burnout, and negative affect. Davis and Jowett (2014) have reported that the quality of the coach-athlete relationship is directly related to athlete positive and negative affect. Furthermore, in a systematic review of the literature, McShan and Moore (2023) found that a positive coach-athlete relationship, as reported by coaches, was associated with coach’s beliefs of fostering an environment supportive of athlete life skill development. In Holt and colleague’s (2017) grounded theory of implicit PYD, the authors posit that strong, positive relationships between athletes and coaches can create a developmentally supportive social environment.

Peer Cohesion

Paralleling the coach-athlete relationship research, research on the role of peer relationships in the sport environment have shown these relationships to be highly influential on athlete experiences and outcomes (Smith & Ullrich-French, 2020).  Peer support has been shown to be related to elite sport participation, athlete motivation, and reduced withdrawal from sport (Sheridan et al., 2014). Additionally, researchers have shown that peer cohesion is not only associated with performance (Carron et al., 2002; Filho et al., 2014), but also athlete need satisfaction and learning (Erikstad et al., 2018). Furthermore, Smith and Ulrich-French (2020) have posited that peer relationships in the sport context are likely to be influential to individual athlete development, to include character, moral, social, and life skill development. In proposing strong peer relationships as influential of an implicit PYD climate, Holt and colleagues (2017) highlighted how strong peer relationships in the sport context often result in feelings of belongingness and support, which may provide developmental benefit.

Parental Involvement

While not always directly involved in the training environment, researchers have shown that parents are highly influential to youth athletes’ experiences and outcomes in sport. Youth who perceive their parents as satisfied with their performance and who experience low parental pressure are more likely to report sport enjoyment and positive affect (Dorsch et al., 2021). Additionally, parental involvement has also been associated with youth sport enjoyment, perceptions of competence, and self-esteem (Dorsch et al., 2021). Parental involvement in sport has also been found to be associated with youth athlete need satisfaction (Felber Charbonneau & Camiré, 2020). Furthermore, parental involvement in sport has also been connected to athletes’ development, to include socialization and value adoption (Danioni et al., 2017). In their grounded theory model, Holt and colleagues (2017) highlighted the reinforcing role that parental involvement plays to creating a PYD climate; while coaches may be responsible for delivering lessons and values to athletes in the sport context, the authors noted that it is important that parents support, not contradict, these messages.

Study Aims

In their grounded theory model, Holt and colleagues (2017) posited that these three relationships (i.e., coaches, peers, parents) collectively create a social climate supportive of implicit positive youth development. Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to examine the impact of peer, coach, and parental relationships on youth sport experiences and youth athletes’ perceptions of developmental skills gained, thereby piloting a test of Holt and colleagues’ (2017) grounded theory model. Should these relationships be predictive of positive youth development, it could be expected that athletes who experience positive changes to these relationships (e.g., increased peer cohesion, increased parental involvement) across a sport season should also receive increased benefit from their participation compared to athletes whose relationships did not improve. As such, we hypothesized that athletes’ perceptions of positive outcomes obtained through sport participation (e.g., social skills, goal setting skills) would be predicted by positive changes to the ratings of their peer relationships, coach-athlete relationships, and parental involvement across a sport season.

METHODS 

Participants

Participants included 67 youth athletes from a competitive soccer club in the northwest region of the United States. In total, 41 athletes (Mage = 11.85) completed data collection at both time points. Participants represented 13 teams from four separate age categories. Additionally, 65.9% of the athletes identified as white and 61.0% of the athletes identified as boys.

Measures

Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q)

To measure athlete perceptions of their relationship with their coach, the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004) was utilized. The 11-item scale measured the nature of the athlete’s relationship with their coach (a = 0.97). Using a seven-point Likert scale, athletes rated their agreement with statements such as, “I trust my coach.”

Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ)

Athletes’ perceptions of their relationship with teammates were measured utilizing the Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ; Eys et al., 2009). The scale, which has been shown to be both valid and reliable, measured group cohesion and peer relationship quality. The YSEQ contains 16 statements, such as, “I am happy with my team’s level of desire to win” (a = 0.93). Athletes rated their agreement with these statements utilizing a seven-point Likert scale.

Parental Involvement in Sport Questionnaire (PISQ)

The Parental Involvement in Sport Questionnaire (PISQ; Lee & MacLean, 1997) is a valid and reliable 19-item scale (a = 0.87), which captures athletes’ perceptions of parental involvement across three subscales: directive behavior, praise and understanding, and active involvement. Utilizing a five-point Likert scale, athletes rated their level of agreement with statements such as, “Do your parents push you to practice harder?”

Youth Experience Survey for Sport (YES-S)

Employed only at the second time point, the short form Youth Experience Survey for Sport (YES-S; MacDonald et al., 2012; Sullivan et al., 2015) is 16-item scale that measured the perceptions of athletes’ experiences participating in sport across the previous season, and was utilized in the present study to operationalize PYD. The scale measures whether athletes perceived any benefit to their participation across four subscales: personal and social skills (a = 0.78), cognitive skills (a = 0.78), goal setting (a = 0.81), and initiative (a = 0.71). Athletes rated their agreement with statements such as, “I learned to push myself” on a five-point Likert scale.

Procedure

Ahead of the start of the summer season, the first author attended the club’s tryouts and parent meetings to share information about the study and recruit participants. During this time, parental consent was obtained through the completion of a written consent form and household demographic survey. The first survey was completed electronically one month into the summer season.  Subsequently, 14 weeks later, the research team returned to conduct the second survey during the final week of the fall season. At both time points, the surveys collected demographic information, athlete perceptions of relationships with their coach, peer cohesion, and parental involvement. At the second time point, the survey collected measurements of athletes’ perceptions of their experiences playing sport across the previous season, particularly focused on skills gained.

The dataset contained 0.3% missingness, and results of an MCAR test were not significant (X2(1386) = 0.00, p = 1.00), suggesting data was missing at random. For cases with missingness, scales were prorated based on completed items. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each scale and notable demographic differences are reported in Table 1. For each of the relationship variables (i.e., CART-Q, PISQ, YSEQ), a difference score was calculated (MT2 – MT1) to measure changes in these relationships across the season. While the utilization of difference scores has been criticized for its negative, summative impact on reliability (Edwards, 1994), researchers have noted that difference scores can be an appropriate choice in research, particularly for nonrandomized, theory-driven analyses (Castro-Schilo & Grimm, 2018). Assumptions testing revealed issues regarding multicollinearity as there was a high correlation between coach-athlete relationship and the peer cohesion change scores (r = 0.801), which resulted in unstable beta coefficients. This instability indicated that the presence of the peer cohesion variable in the model was distorting the estimation of other predictors, undermining the reliability and interpretability of the model. As such, the peer cohesion variable was removed from primary analyses. Following this, we regressed the four subscales of the YES-S (i.e., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting skills, initiative) on changes in relationship quality across the season, while controlling for age, race, and gender.

Table 1

Sample Characteristics and Descriptive Statistics

   CART-QYSEQPISQYES-S Social SkillsYES-S Cog. SkillsYES-S Goal SettingYES-S Initiative
Variablen%T1 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T1 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T1 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)T2 – M(SD)
Age            
1037.35.61(1.24)*5.97(1.47)*4.25(2.01)*5.08(1.98)*2.39(0.18)2.91(0.45)3.58(0.52)3.67(0.58)4.25(0.58)4.58(0.52)
11922.05.46(1.73)6.36(0.39)4.74(1.52)5.53(0.83)3.02(0.60)3.13(0.52)4.00(0.60)3.69(1.05)4.00(0.85)4.50(0.45)
122048.86.10(0.40)5.96(0.85)5.10(0.75)5.30(0.91)*2.92(0.60)3.25(0.74)*4.17(0.75)3.53(1.16)3.93(0.90)4.25(0.59)
13922.05.71(1.04)*5.15(1.26)* †4.69(1.40)4.89(1.18)3.16(0.69)3.30(0.58)4.03(0.57)3.56(0.69)4.25(0.57)4.43(0.66)
Gender            
Boy2561.06.03(0.61)6.17(0.69)†4.91(1.03)*5.26(0.89)*2.92(0.62)*3.24(0.66)*4.12(0.66)3.72(0.85)4.11(0.71)4.43(0.41)
Girl1639.05.56(1.43)5.41(0.99)†4.81(1.42)5.22(1.25)3.01(0.62)3.17(0.62)3.96(0.89)3.35(1.19)3.90(0.94)4.27(0.76)
Race            
White2765.95.77(1.13)5.97(0.83)4.75(1.21)*5.24(1.03)*2.95(0.61)3.14(0.57)4.07(0.69)3.52(1.04)3.99(0.85)4.43(0.54)
Black12.4          
Asian49.85.50(1.38)5.41(1.85)4.77(1.85)*5.30(1.64)*2.74(0.90)3.29(0.90)4.00(0.35)3.94(0.43)3.94(0.43)3.94(0.66)
Hispanic49.86.27(0.45)5.86(1.12)5.50(0.89)5.55(0.74)2.99(0.57)3.41(0.83)4.50(0.41)4.25(0.54)4.69(0.47)4.63(0.32)
Other512.26.13(0.31)5.65(1.20)5.05(0.83)4.99(1.04)2.99(0.45)3.31(0.52)3.80(0.89)3.15(1.29)3.80(0.94)4.15(0.74)
Total41100.05.84(1.02)5.87(0.99)4.87(1.18)*5.24(1.03)*2.96(0.62)*3.21(0.64)*4.06(0.67)3.58(1.00)4.03(0.80)4.37(0.57)

Notes. n = 41; CART-Q = Coach-Athlete Relationship; PISQ = Parental Involvement; YSEQ = Ratings of Peer Cohesion; YES-S = Perceptions of Developmental Experiences, *Difference is significant between time points; †Difference is significant between groups.

RESULTS

The model examining personal and social skills was significant and explained 45.4% of variance in the outcome (R2 = 0.454, F(5,34) = 5.664, p < 0.001).

Regression Results for Perceptions of Social Skills Gained by Athletes

    95% CI 
VariablebbSELLULp
Intercept 0.7741.268-1.8023.3500.546
Gender-0.129-0.1750.184-0.5500.1990.348
Age0.3690.2910.1100.0670.5150.012
Race-0.024-0.0080.042-0.0940.0780.858
DCART-Q0.4820.2500.0740.0990.4000.002
DPISQ0.3260.3820.1600.5800.7070.022

Notes. n = 41; R2= 0.454, F(5,34) = 5.664, p < 0.001; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement.

**When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was also a significant predictor of personal and social skills (R2 = 0.317, F(4,35) = 4.063, p = 0.008).

Within this model, both changes to the coach-athlete relationships (b= 0.482, p = 0.002) and changes to parental involvement (b= 0.326, p = 0.022) across the season were significant predictors of personal and social skills. Additionally, the covariate age was also a significant predictor of personal and social skills (b = 0.369, p = 0.012). The model examining cognitive skills explained 25.1% of the variance, however was only marginally significant (R2 = 0.251, F(5,34) = 2.275, p = 0.069). Within this model the change in coach-athlete relationship was a statistically significant predictor (b= 0.403, p = 0.022), whereas changes to parental involvement was not (b= 0.158, p = 0.330).

Table 3

Regression Results for Perceptions of Cognitive Skills Gained by Athletes

    95% CI 
VariablebbSELLULp
Intercept 2.0482.221-2.4656.5610.363
Gender-0.155-0.3150.323-0.9720.3420.337
Age0.1430.1690.193-0.2240.5610.389
Race-0.066-0.0320.074-0.1820.1190.670
DCART-Q0.4030.3120.1300.0480.5760.022
DPISQ0.1580.2770.280-0.2920.8450.330

Notes. n = 41; R2= 0.251, F(5,34) = 2.275, p = 0.069; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement.

** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.

The models predicting goal setting skills (R2 = 0.183, F(5,34) = 1.528, p = 0.207) and initiative (R2 = 0.185, F(5,34) = 1.542, p = 0.203) were not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION 

The present study provides partial support to Holt and colleague’s (2017) proposition that there is an implicit pathway of PYD in sport that takes place through positive relationships. In particular, changes to the coach-athlete relationship significantly predicted youth athletes’ perceptions of social skills and cognitive skills gained; and changes to perceptions of parental involvement also predicted social skills gained. Additionally, when analyzed separately due to issues of multicollinearity, changes to peer cohesion also significantly predicted social skill perceptions. As such, data in the current study reinforce the importance of relationships within the sport environment, and extend previous research by highlighting their value to the specific area of PYD through sport.

While research has shown the coach-athlete relationship to be associated with motivation (Adie & Jowett, 2010), collective-efficacy (Hampson & Jowett, 2014), and team cohesion (Turman, 2003), its role in the social and cognitive development of athletes is less understood. That said, research has shown that coaches seem to intuitively understand the developmental value of a positive coach-athlete relationship as coaches have reported a positive relationship with their athletes led to social and emotional development and resilience (White & Bennie, 2015). Furthermore, Davis and colleagues (2019) proposed a bidirectional relationship between communication skills and the coach-athlete relationship, where communication skills not only helped to improve the relationship, but also improved as a product of a high-quality coach-athlete relationship. When examining the more expansive literature on the impact of a high-quality relationships, researchers have documents that teacher-student relationships can promote cognitive development (Davis, 2003) and social adjustment (Dong et al., 2021) through positive and trusting learning environments. Data in the current study suggest coaches hold a responsibility to ensure the development and sustainment of positive relationships in the sport environment to support similarly positive developmental outcomes for youth athletes. This is particularly important as social skills have been shown to be associated with academic performance (Sung & Chang, 2010), increased mental health (Greenberg et al., 2003), wellbeing (Sancassiani et al., 2015), and self-esteem (Riggio et al., 1990).

The present study also highlights the important yet specific role that parents play in positive youth development through sport. Parental styles have been shown to be associated with social skill development; youth with democratic and permissive parents have been shown to score higher on social skills measures than those with neglectful or authoritative parents (Salavera et al., 2022). As such, it could be hypothesized that parents with more developmentally supportive parenting styles are more likely to be involved in their child’s sport and supportive of their child’s social skills. That said, data in the current study suggests the need to delineate the roles of parents and coaches, as these relationships may provide different benefits for youth. For example, Knight and colleagues (2011) reported that athletes consistently prefer parents to fill a supportive and encouraging role, as opposed to a coaching role. This is supported by data in the current study in that while change to parental involvement predicted athletes’ perceptions of social skill development, it did not predict their cognitive skill perceptions.

Finally, it is important to note that girls rated their relationship with their coach significantly lower than their peers who identified as boys; and older athletes were also significantly less likely to rate their coach-relationships higher than younger athletes. As such, should there exist any developmental benefit to high-quality, coaching relationships, the present findings would suggest that girls and older youth athletes are less likely to receive those benefits. Given that a positive coach-athlete relationship can be protective from poor mental health outcomes for girl athletes specifically (Massey et al., 2024), it is important that positive coach-athlete relationships are prioritized for female athletes, particularly adolescent female athletes. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that as athletes get older, the sporting environment shifts from a focus on fun to a focus on competition. Be that as it may, research has shown that the true shift lies within how athletes are treated; Kipp and Bolter (2020) found that while both older and younger athletes equally perceived their sporting environments to be focused on effort and learning, older athletes were more likely to report being punished or disciplined for mistakes. It is possible that such climates explain the decreasing trend of the coach-athlete relationship observed in the present study. Speaking strictly to the proposed developmental role of the coach-athlete relationship within sport, the present findings would offer that sports become less beneficial and developmentally supportive over time.

Despite the present study’s value to the literature base on PYD through sport, its small, homogenous sample limits its generalizability. In addition to being predominantly white, the sample derived from a singular, pay-to-play soccer organization within an affluent community. Additionally, the present sample predominantly identified as boys, which may parallel youth sport participation trends, but limits the generalizability of the findings to non-boy athlete populations. The age rage of the sample was also limited, clustered into the soccer organizations U11 and U13 age groupings, and as such, the findings may be in part reflective of the natural development occurring in this age range.

Furthermore, most athletes in the present study were satisfied with their relationship with their coach and peers, and the mean parental involvement score was slightly above the midpoint of the scale. Depending on sport or community context, it is possible that more athletes would report more dissatisfaction with these relationships or less parental involvement, thereby affecting the nature of the findings. With respect to age and gender differences, it is possible that these differences could be explained by confounding variables, such as coach gender, competition level, or position, which could not be differentiated in the present study due to the small sample size. Lastly, while multicollinearity necessitated the removal of the peer cohesion variable from the analyses, it should be acknowledged that doing so also limits the completeness of the model by excluding a theoretically important dimension of the sport environment, and one which should continue to be examined in this line of research.  As such, future studies should not only continue to examine the nuanced roles of parents and coaches in sport-based PYD, but also peer relationships, and doing so in larger and more diverse samples.

CONCLUSION 

The social context of the sport environment, which includes coaches, parents, and peers, plays a significant role in shaping athletes’ perceived development through sport. In the present study, athletes’ perceived social skill development was significantly predicted by positive changes to the coach-athlete relationship and parental involvement. The quality of the coach-athlete relationship also emerged as a meaningful predictor of athletes’ perceived cognitive development, highlighting the broader developmental impact of adult figures in the sport context. Furthermore, while peer cohesion was omitted in analyses due to multicollinearity, its interconnectedness with the coach-athlete relationship should be acknowledged, and researchers should continue to utilize it as a variable of interest as theory would dictate. Taken together, these findings underscore the importance of considering the full network of sport-based relationships when seeking to support athletes’ development through sport participation.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

In addition to providing support for Holt and colleagues’ (2017) theory of implicit PYD through sport, the present study highlights the interconnected nature of youth sport’s social context. We offer the following recommendations to stakeholders seeking to utilize these findings to develop their youth sport organization’s PYD climate:

  • Provide coaches with education and training that supports their development of communication and relationship-building skills (see Barnett et al., 1992; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003).
  • Provide education and clear expectations for parents’ involvement in the organization, as well as opportunities for involvement (see Knight et al., 2011).

Prioritize relationship building and psychological safety at the outset of the season, to include team-building activities and the development of team norms, rituals, and goals (see Carron et al., 1997; Senécal et al., 2008).

REFERENCES 

1. Adie, J. W., & Jowett, S. (2010). Meta‐perceptions of the coach–athlete relationship, achievement goals, and intrinsic motivation among sport participants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(11), 2750-2773. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00679.x

2. Barnett, N. P., Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1992). Effects of enhancing coach-athlete relationships on youth sport attrition. The Sport Psychologist, 6(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.6.2.111

3. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma Jr., A. (2006). Positive youth development so far: Core hypotheses and their implications for policy and practice. Search Institute Insights & Evidence 3(1), 1-13.

4. Bruner, M. W., McLaren, C. D., Sutcliffe, J. T., Gardner, L. A., Lubans, D. R., Smith, J. J., & Vella, S. A. (2021). The effect of sport-based interventions on positive youth development: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(1), 368-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1875496

5. Burns, L., Weissensteiner, J. R., & Cohen, M. (2019). Supportive interpersonal relationships: a key component to high-performance sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(22), 1386-1389. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100312

6. Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.2.168

7. Carron, A. V., Spink, K. S., & Prapavessis, H. (1997). Team building and cohesiveness in the sport and exercise setting: Use of indirect interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209708415384

8. Castro-Schilo, L., & Grimm, K. J. (2018). Using residualized change versus difference scores for longitudinal research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 32-58.

9. Catalano, R. F., Toumbourou, J. W., & Hawkins, J. D. (2008). Positive youth development in the United States: History, efficacy, and links to moral and character education. In L. Nucci & T. Krettenauer (Eds.) Handbook of moral and character education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203114896

10. Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604272461

10. Clonan, S. M., Chafouleas, S. M., McDougal, J. L., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2004). Positive psychology goes to school: Are we there yet? Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10142

11. Danioni, F., Barni, D., & Rosnati, R. (2017). Transmitting sport values: The importance of parental involvement in children’s sport activity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v13i1.1265 

12. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207-234. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2

13. Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2014). Coach–athlete attachment and the quality of the coach–athlete relationship: Implications for athlete’s well-being. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(15), 1454–1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.898183

14. Davis, L., Jowett, S., & Tafvelin, S. (2019). Communication strategies: The fuel for quality coach-athlete relationships and athlete satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02156

15. Dong, Y., Wang, H., Luan, F., Li, Z., & Cheng, L. (2021). How children feel matters: Teacher–student relationship as an indirect role between interpersonal trust and social adjustment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 581235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581235

16. Dorsch, T. E., Wright, E., Eckardt, V. C., Elliott, S., Thrower, S. N., & Knight, C. J. (2021). A history of parent involvement in organized youth sport: A scoping review. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 10(4), 536. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000266

17. Edwards, J. R. (1994). Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores. Journal of Management, 20(3), 683-689.

18. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Co.

19. Erikstad, M. K., Martin, L. J., Haugen, T., & Høigaard, R. (2018). Group cohesion, needs satisfaction, and self-regulated learning: A one-year prospective study of elite youth soccer players’ perceptions of their club team. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.013

20. Eys, M., Loughead, T., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(3), 390-408. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.31.3.390

21. Felber Charbonneau, E., & Camiré, M. (2020). Parental involvement in sport and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs: Perspectives from parent–child dyads. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(5), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1570533

22. Filho, E., Dobersek, U., Gershgoren, L., Becker, B., & Tenenbaum, G. (2014). The cohesion–performance relationship in sport: A 10-year retrospective meta-analysis. Sport Sciences for Health, 10(3), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-014-0188-7

23. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466

24. Hampson, R., & Jowett, S. (2014). Effects of coach leadership and coach–athlete relationship on collective efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(2), 454-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01527.x

25. Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camiré, M., Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., MacDonald, D., Strachan, L., & Tamminen, K. A. (2017). A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1180704

26. Jones, M. I., Dunn, J. G., Holt, N. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Bloom, G. A. (2011). Exploring the ‘5Cs’ of positive youth development in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34(3). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-17095-003

27. Jowett, S. (2017). Coaching effectiveness: The coach–athlete relationship at its heart. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.006

28. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medalists’ perspective of the athlete–coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(4), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00011-0

29. Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART‐Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14(4), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x

30. Kipp, L. E., & Bolter, N. D. (2020). Motivational climate, psychological needs, and personal and social responsibility in youth soccer: Comparisons by age group and competitive level. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101756

31. Knight, C. J., Neely, K. C., & Holt, N. L. (2011). Parental behaviors in team sports: How do female athletes want parents to behave? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(1), 76-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2010.525589

32. Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.170

33. Lee, M., & MacLean, S. (1997). Sources of parental pressure among age group swimmers. European Journal of Physical Education, 2(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898970020204

34. Lerner, R. M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences.

35. Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive youth development A view of the issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604273211

36. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., 37.

37. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Lewin-Bizan, S., Bowers, E. P., Boyd, M. J., Mueller, M. K., Schmid, K. L., & Napolitano, C. M. (2011). Positive youth development: Processes, orograms, and problematics. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.5195/JYD.2011.174

38. MacDonald, D. J., Côté, J., Eys, M., & Deakin, J. (2012). Psychometric properties of the youth experience survey with young athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(3), 332-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.09.001

39. Massey, W. V., Veliz, P. T., Zarrett, N., & Farello, A. (2024). Thriving through sport: The transformative impact on girls’ mental health. Women’s Sport Foundation.

40. McBride, A. M., Johnson, E., Olate, R., & O’Hara, K. (2011). Youth volunteer service as positive youth development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.009

41. Nikolina, K., & Đorić, V. (2023). Relations of coach-athlete relationship quality and athlete psychosocial functioning: A systematic review. SportLogia, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.7251/SGIA2319002K

42. Riggio, R. E., Throckmorton, B., & Depaola, S. (1990). Social skills and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(8), 799-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90188-W

43. Salavera, C., Usán, P., & Quilez-Robres, A. (2022). Exploring the effect of parental styles on social skills: The mediating role of affects. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3295. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063295

44. Sancassiani, F., Pintus, E., Holte, A., Paulus, P., Moro, M. F., Cossu, G., Angermeyer, M. C., Carta, M. G., & Lindert, J. (2015). Enhancing the emotional and social skills of the youth to promote their wellbeing and positive development: A systematic review of universal school-based randomized controlled trials [Special issue]. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 11, 21-40. https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901511010021

45. Senécal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.2.186

46. Sheridan, D., Coffee, P., & Lavallee, D. (2014). A systematic review of social support in youth sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 198-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2014.931999

47. Sibthorp, J., & Morgan, C. (2011). Adventure‐based programming: Exemplary youth development practice. New Directions for Youth Development, (130), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.400

48. Smith, A. L., & Ullrich-French, S. (2020). Peers and the sport experience. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.) Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 410–428). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119568124.ch19

49. Storm, M. K., Williams, K. N., Shetter, E. M., Kaminsky, J., Lowery, C. M., Caldas, S. V., & Winch, P. J. (2017). Sink or swim: Promoting youth development through aquatics programs in Baltimore, Maryland. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 35(1), 66-79. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2017-V35-I1-7295

50. Sullivan, P. J., LaForge-MacKenzie, K., & Marini, M. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Youth Experiences Survey for Sport (YES-S). Open Journal of Statistics, 5(05), 421. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2015.55044

51. Sung, Y. Y., & Chang, M. (2010). Which social skills predict academic performance of elementary school students. Journal on Educational Psychology, 3(3), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.3.3.1078

52. Turman, P. D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on team cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 26(1), 86-104. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-01497-007

53. White, R. L., & Bennie, A. (2015). Resilience in youth sport: A qualitative investigation of gymnastics coach and athlete perceptions. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 10(2-3), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.10.2-3.379

54. Whitley, M. A., Massey, W. V., Camiré, M., Boutet, M., & Borbee, A. (2019). Sport-based youth development interventions in the United States: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 19, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6387-z

55. Worker, S. M., Iaccopucci, A. M., Bird, M., & Horowitz, M. (2019). Promoting positive youth development through teenagers-as-teachers programs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 34(1), 30-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558418764089

Appendix A
Supplemental Materials

Table 4

Correlation Matrix of Study Variables

Variables1234567
1. Age       
2. CART-Q-0.34*      
3. PISQ0.150.23     
4. YSEQ-0.140.66**0.31*    
5. Social Skills0.140.62**0.35*0.47**   
6. Cognitive Skills-0.050.40*0.160.160.66**  
7. Goal Setting0.030.43**0.130.42**0.57**0.70** 
8. Initiative-0.100.53**0.180.47**0.51**0.40*0.70**

Notes. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); CART-Q = Coach-Athlete Relationship; PISQ = Parental Involvement, YSEQ = Peer Relationships

Table 5

Regression Results for Perceptions of Goal Setting Skills Gained by Athletes

   95% CI for B  
VariablebSELLULbp
Intercept2.0531.862-1.7315.836 0.278
Gender-0.2280.271-0.7790.322-0.1400.405
Age0.1860.162-0.1430.5150.1960.259
Race0.0110.062-0.1150.1370.0280.863
DCART-Q0.2300.1090.0080.4510.3690.042
DPISQ0.1750.235-0.3020.6510.1240.462

Notes. R2= 0.183, p = 0.207; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement

** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.

Table 6

Regression Results for Perceptions of Initiative Gained by Athletes

   95% CI for B  
VariablebSELLULbp
Intercept4.0001.3151.3286.671-0.1203.043
Gender-0.1380.191-0.5270.2500.062-0.723
Age0.0420.114-0.1910.2740.0350.365
Race0.0100.044-0.0790.0990.3890.221
DCART-Q0.1710.0770.0150.3270.0872.224
DPISQ0.0860.166-0.2510.423-0.1200.520

Notes. R2= 0.185, p = 0.203; DCART-Q = Change in Coach-Athlete Relationship; DPISQ = Change in Parental Involvement

** When ran independently due to the existing multicollinearity, change to peer cohesion was not a significant predictor of cognitive skills.

2025-10-01T13:40:31-05:00March 18th, 2026|Leadership, Research, Sport Education, Sport Training, Sports Coaching, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on The Role of Sport Relationships in Positive Youth Development
Read More

Positional Differences and Workload Requirements of a 3-5-2 Formation in Women’s Soccer

Authors: Asher L. Flynn1, Joanne Spalding2, and Sellena Dixon3

1Department of Sport & Exercise Science, Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, TN, USA

2Department of Health Sciences, Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, GA, USA

3Athletics Department, Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, TN, USA

 

Corresponding Author:

Asher L. Flynn, PhD, CSCS

6965 Cumberland Gap Parkway

[email protected]

423.869.6828

Asher L Flynn, PhD, CSCS is an Assistant Professor of Sport and Exercise Science at Lincoln Memorial University, TN. His research interests focus on fatigue and athlete monitoring in colligate athletes, and aspects of women’s soccer performance.

Joanne Spalding, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in Exercise Science at Georgia College & State University, GA. Her research interests include athlete monitoring and long term athlete development in female athletes.

Sellena Dixon, BS, is the graduate assistant for the women’s soccer team at Lincoln Memorial University, TN.

ABSTRACT 

The purpose of this research was to investigated the match demands of 24 female soccer players over one season (15 conference matches) playing in a 3-5-2 formation to determine the match demands and work rates of each position. In order to determine formation specific workload, positions were grouped as center-backs (CB), wingbacks (WB), midfielders (MF), and forwards (FW). Velocity bands used to compare distances and work rates were total distance (TD), 2-3 m/s, 3-4 m/s, 4-5 m/s, 5-6 m/s, and >6 m/s. Results revealed that MF covered significantly more total distance (TD; 10743 ±1520 m) and distance between 2-3 m/s (3444 ± 423 m) than all other positions (CB TD: 8549 ± 1106 m, 2-3: 2497 ± 276 m; WB TD: 8860 ± 1216 m, 2-3: 2324 ± 344 m; FW TD: 8069 ± 1286 m) and greater distance between 3-4 m/s (2515 ± 382m) compared to CB (1574 ± 214 m) and FW (1270 ± 281 m), but not WB (1814 ± 258 m). There were no significant differences between any of the higher velocity bands (>4 m/s). These results can be useful for the coaching staff as descriptive data for the expected distances covered and work rates of Division 2 Women’s soccer teams playing a 3-5-2 formation. These data can be used to determine practice plans in season and for off-season training plans, to prepare athletes for reporting for preseason in appropriate condition.

KEYWORDS: GPS, Sport Science, Athlete Monitoring, Fitness, NCAA

Abbreviations: CB: Center-back, WB: Wingback, MF: Midfield, FW: Forward, GPS: Global Positioning System, MD: Match Day, vVO2max: Velocity at VO2max

INTRODUCTION 

There is a growing interest in the physical demands of women’s soccer, but the majority of research has focused on the top levels of competition (International and Professional; 23). Although this information is important, it is likely to have limited use for lower levels of competition. It has been reported that “top class” females perform more high intensity running compared to “high-level” females (16, 17, 19). Currently, there is a lack of research investigating match demands at other levels of women’s soccer, especially at lower levels of collegiate soccer in the USA.

The majority of the literature investigating the demands of lower levels of women’s soccer has focused on the match demands of NCAA Division I (2, 5, 12, 20, 21), two articles focused on NCAA Division II athletes (9, 11), and one article focused on NCAA DIII (22), with no studies investigating the match demands of women’s NAIA soccer. Gentles et al (2018) observed that NCAA DII female players covered approximately 5480 m in 45 minutes of match play, while NCAA Division I players covered between 9486m and 9930 m in 90 minutes (20, 22). With little evidence exploring the activity profiles of the lower divisions of collegiate women’s soccer, further investigation is needed.

Many of the studies to date, at any level, have been conducted using only a few matches (3, 17), which, due to the high standard deviations (approximately 10 – 40%; 3, 11, 13, 20, 21-23), raise the question of whether a small number of matches truly reflects the average match demands. Previous studies have also shown differences in match demands based on position (20, 21). On average, defenders covered less distance than midfielders and attackers (forwards), and forwards covered more distance than midfielders (20, 21). Another complication when extrapolating information from current research is that the formation type may also alter the match demands (4, 6, 7). These limitations can lead to complications when inferring information from current research for use in a practical setting with different teams.

Factors that alter expected match demands, level of play and formation used, imply that it would be improper for the coaching staff to use data from a different level of play and unknown formation to determine the expected demands for their specific situation; that is, a high school coach should not be implementing a training plan based on data from college, professional, or international level teams. As such, the purpose of this research was to observe the match demands (distances and work rates) of an NCAA Division II women’s soccer team playing in a 3-5-2 formation, and to determine if there are significant differences in distances covered and/or work rates between positions.

METHODS 

Participants  

Retrospective data from 24 field players (age: 19.90 ± 1.56 years old; height: 163.43 ± 6.18 cm, weight: 59.35 ± 7.20 kg,) on the same team were included in this study. A total of 194 observations were included in the analysis (center back (CB), n = 49; wingback (WB), n = 36; midfield (MF), n = 61; and forward (FW), n = 48). This study was approved by the institutional review board of Lincoln Memorial University.

Procedures

Match data from an NCAA division II women’s soccer team playing a 3-5-2 formation were collected during a single competitive season. Only conference regular season matches, conference tournament, and national tournament matches were included, with 15 matches used for analysis.

Global Positioning System (GPS) devices (TITAN sports, Houston, TX, USA), sampling at 10 Hz, were used to track player movement duringcompetition. GPS units were activated at least 20-minutes prior to kick-off and were worn in a provided chest halter that secured the device between the shoulder blades under their game uniform. GPS devices were provided to all athletes (starters and substitutes) during the 10-minute window after the team warm-up and before the start of the match, and were collected again after the final whistle. All data from the duration of the match (substitute warm-up and half-time warm-up) were included in the analysis.

For positional analysis, distances accumulated by all athletes who played in a specific position for a match were summed and then divided by the number of positions in the formation. For example, in the forward position, if one athlete was substituted for a portion of the match, the total distance covered by all three athletes playing in the forward position was summed and then divided by two for the two forward positions in the 3-5-2 system. For the work rate analysis, meters covered per minute at each threshold (distances divided by total match time) were averaged for all players in that position (20). Due to the different substitution rules in college soccer, this analysis was deemed optimal to determine the distances and work rate of each position, instead of specific players. Variables of interest included total distance and distances covered in velocity thresholds; 2 – 3 m/s (7.2 – 10.8 km·h-1), 3 – 4 m/s (10.8 – 14.4 km·h-1), 4 – 5 m/s (14.4 – 18.0 km·h-1), 5 – 6 m/s (18 – 21.6 km·h-1), and >6 m/s (>21.6 km·h-1).

All matches analyzed were official NCAA matches consisting of two 45-minute halves with a 15-minute half-time period, with a maximum of two 10-minute extra-time periods with a 2-minute intermission, with extra time being stopped in the event of a goal if the competition was tied at the end of the normal 90-minute match.

Data Analyses

Two Repeated Measures ANOVA analyses with Bonferroni corrections were performed to determine whether there was a significant difference in distances and work rates for each position at each threshold (TD, 2 – 3 m/s, 3 – 4 m/s, 4 – 5 m/s, 5 – 6 m/s, and >6 m/s). Statistical analyses were performed using JASP (Version 0.16.2). The alpha level was set at 0.05.

RESULTS 

The first RM-ANOVA revealed significantly higher distances (F(3.37, 62.82) = 11.96, p < 0.001) covered in the MF position compared to all other positions for TD and 2 – 3 m/s. Midfielders also covered significantly more distances than CBs and FWs, but not WBs, at 3 – 4 m/s. The only other significant difference observed was between the WB and FW positions in TD covered. There were no significant differences between any other positions at any other threshold. Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 1.

Table 1

Mean distance covered by position in each velocity zone (meters).

 CBWBMFFW
TD8549 ± 1106 (6467 – 11066)8860 ± 1216# (5443 – 10854)10743 ± 1520* (7060 – 12864)8069 ± 1286# (6204 – 10537)
7.2 – 10.8 km·h-12497 ± 276 (1827 – 2972)2324 ± 344 (1389 – 2842)3444 ± 423* (2180 – 3916)2301 ± 400 (1668 – 2942)
10.8 – 14.4 km·h-11574 ± 214 ǂ (1191 – 1959)1814 ± 258 (1068 – 2218)2515 ± 382# ǂ (1771 – 3129)1270 ± 281# (759 – 1688)
14.4 – 18.0 km·h-1607 ± 113 (449 – 769)878 ± 135 (639 – 1124)1092 ± 211 (792 – 1453)587 ± 109 (395 – 734)
18.0 – 21.6 km·h-1246 ± 58 (155 – 342)404 ± 86 (252 – 552)381 ± 79 (241 – 533)272 ± 60 (149 – 357)
>21.6 km·h-196 ± 35 (45 – 175)200 ± 102 (68 – 426)120 ± 55 (68 – 295)180 ± 112 (45 – 530)

Note: Data are presented as mean ± Standard Deviation (Range).
TD: Total distance, CB: Center back, WB: Wingback, MF: Midfield, FW: Forward
* = p < 0.05 compared to all other positions in that velocity range
# = p < 0.05 compared to the other indicated positions in that velocity range
ǂ = p < 0.05 compared to the other indicated positions in that velocity range

The RM-ANOVA performed to determine differences in work rates at each threshold revealed significantly higher work rates (F(3.47, 64.82) = 6.05, p < 0.001) over the entire match (TD) for the MF position compared to all other positions, and a significantly higher work rate from the MF position in the 3 – 4 m/s velocity range compared to the FW position. There were no other significant differences between any of the other positions at any other threshold. The results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Mean work rate by position in each velocity zone (meters per minute).

 CBWBMFFW
TD96 ± 8 (88 – 123)101 ± 7 (85 – 117)119 ± 20 * (88 – 167)101 ± 24 (72 – 156)
7.2 – 10.8 km·h-128 ± 2 (25 – 33)26 ± 3 (21 – 35)36 ± 3 (29 – 40)27 ± 5 (19 – 35)
10.8 – 14.4 km·h-118 ± 2 (14 – 21)21 ± 2 (18 – 26)27 ± 3 # (21 – 32)16 ± 4 # (8 – 21)
14.4 – 18.0 km·h-17 ± 1 (5 – 10)10 ± 1 (8 – 12)12 ± 3 (9 – 19)8 ± 3 (4 – 14)
18.0 – 21.6 km·h-13 ± 1 (2 – 4)5 ± 1 (4 – 6)4 ± 1 (2 – 7)4 ± 2 (2 – 9)
>21.6 km·h-11.3 ± 1 (1 – 3)2.3 ± 1 (1 – 4)1.3 ± 1 (1 – 3)3.4 ± 4 (1 – 13)

Note. Data are presented as mean ± Standard Deviation (Range).
TD: Total distance, CB: Center back, WB: Wingback, MF: Midfield, FW: Forward

* = p < 0.05 compared to all other positions in that velocity range
# = p < 0.05 compared to the other indicated positions in that velocity range

DISCUSSION 

The purpose of this study was to examine the external demands of NCAA DII women’s college soccer playing in a 3-5-2 formation. The most interesting finding from these data was that the WB position was only significantly higher in total distance covered compared to the FW position (p = 0.044), but there were no other significant differences in distances or work rates compared to other positions. This was interesting, given that the WB position is commonly accepted as the most demanding position. Another interesting result was that the MF position had significantly higher distances at lower speeds (2-3 m/s, p < 0.001; 3-4 m/s, p < 0.001) only when compared to FW position. Other studies have reported that different positions have significantly different total distances covered in a match (1, 14). Abbot et al.(2018) reported that central midfielders covered the greatest distance (11,570 ± 469 m), followed by wide attackers (10,918 ± 353 m), wide defenders (10,747 ± 420 m), strikers (10,320 ± 420 m), and central defenders covering the least amount of distance (9,830 ± 428 m), while Lago-Peñas (2009) reported significant differences between nearly every position for each threshold, except for total distance (11.1 – 14 km·h-1, 14.1 – 19 km·h-1, 19.1 – 23 km·h-1, > 23 km·h-1). Both these studies observed high-level male soccer teams (U23 English Premier League, Professional Spanish Premier League) and as such they would not be expected to mimic the results of this study and highlight the importance of sex- and level-specific research.

In a more direct comparison with other women’s college soccer research, Sausaman et al(2019) and Alaxander et al (2014) reported significant differences in distances covered by position, whereas Corrales (2020) reported no differences, regardless of position. Sausaman et al (2019) reported that attackers covered more high-speed (> 15 km·h-1) and sprint (> 18 km·h-1) distances than midfielders and defenders, with no difference between midfielders and defenders. Alexander et al (2104) reported that central defenders covered the least amount of total distance (8041.2 ± 371.0 m), followed by central attacking midfielders (9236.1 ± 491.3 m), fullbacks (9306.2 ± 367.8 m), and wide midfielders (9500.4 ± 847.0 m), with central defensive midfielders (9947.4 ± 577.9 m) covering the greatest amount of total distance. Fullbacks (1321.5 ± 173.7 m) and wide midfielders (1208.2 ± 314.1 m) covered significantly more distance at high speed (> 15 km·h-1) compared to central defensive midfielders (847.7 ± 234.9 m), central attacking midfielders (747.64 ± 196.5 m), and central defenders (614.1 ± 98.9 m). The difference in results between these studies and the current investigation could be due to a different level of competition (NCAA Division 1), a possible difference in formation (not reported), or due to the current studies banding velocity zones (i.e. 4 -5 m/s, 5 – 6 m/s) instead of summing distances above thresholds (> 15 km·h-1).

CONCLUSION 

This present study provides information on the expected work and work rates of division 2 women’s soccer. Data analysis revealed minimal differences based on position, with the midfield position being the only position with significant differences and only at low intensity thresholds (TD, 2-3 m/s). All other positions and intensities were not statistically different, highlighting the possibility that training for these positions likely does not need to be modified to fit each position but rather each athlete.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

The primary application of this research is to allow the coaching staff to determine the appropriate fitness, conditioning, and practice workloads for their team with respect to their level of competition, formation, and style of play. Using typical tactical periodization plans for match-day preparation (Match day (MD) +1, MD -2, MD -1, etc.), position-specific workloads can be determined and monitored to ensure optimal loading during each practice session. This information can also be used to determine fitness testing requirements. Since there was a significant drop (43.7%) in distance covered and work rate (approximately 43% decrease) at intensities above 4 m/s (14.4 km·h-1) observed from this study, minimum criteria for aerobic fitness tests could be set at 15.5 km·h-1, which would allow players to do the majority of the work expected below their estimated lactate threshold (85% vVO2max; 8, 18)

In addition, these data can be used to determine the appropriate time requirements for different conditioning drills. For example, making a time criterion of 3:40 for an 800 m run would meet the Long Interval definition for an individual with a vVO2max of 15.5 km·h-1, but if a team had higher/lower requirements, adjusting time cut offs would be suggested (15). These data can also be used to create game-specific conditioning drills, such as creating an interval training exercise (100m active running, 100m recovery jog; Table 3) that would provide about 30 – 35% of game distances at the higher end of expected game work rates.

Table 3

Interval conditioning exercise.

Speed LevelRepsTimeWork RateAccumulated Distance
8.0 km·h-12245s89 m/min2200
12.0 km·h-11030s36 m/min1000
15.0 km·h-1524s20 m/min500
20.0 km·h-1218s8 m/min200
>21.6 km·h-11<16s4 m/min100

Note: Work Rate was calculated as the total distance covered in each velocity threshold divided by the total exercise time (24.5 min).

When retroactively analyzing team distances and work rates to create a training plan, it is important to note that since the majority of the total distance covered during a match is at low intensities (<3 m/s; 11), focusing on “running” the observed TD is likely unnecessary. Lower speed distances (<4 m/s) would be expected to be accumulated through daily technical drills and exercises. Higher speed distances (>4 m/s) could be accumulated in any manner chosen by the coach, such as a mixture of soccer technical drills and/or conditioning drills.

When using workload data in this manner, this would allow the coaching staff to create training plans that develop physical characteristics in a manner appropriate to the athletes level and expected match play requirements instead of arbitrarily spending time and effort developing a specific characteristic beyond projected usefulness. For example, since the majority of work is performed below 14.4 kph, spending the time and training effort for a vVO2max above 16 kph would be counterproductive. The extra focus could be better spent on improving other training targets to improve performance (technical, tactical, sprint, acceleration, change of direction)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors declare no conflicts of interest, and no funding was received for this research.

REFERENCES 

1.   Abbott, W., Brickley, G., & Smeeton, N. J. (2018). Positional differences in GPS outputs and perceived exertion during soccer training games and competition. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(11), 3222-3231.

2.   Alexander, RP. (2014) Physical and Technical Demands of Women’s Collegiate Soccer (Publication No. 2421). [Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University], Digital Commons.

3.   Andersson, H. Å., Randers, M. B., Heiner-Møller, A., Krustrup, P., & Mohr, M. (2010). Elite female soccer players perform more high-intensity running when playing in international games compared with domestic league games. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(4), 912-919.

4.   Aquino, R., Vieira, L. H. P., Carling, C., Martins, G. H., Alves, I. S., & Puggina, E. F. (2017). Effects of competitive standard, team formation and playing position on match running performance of Brazilian professional soccer players. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 17(5), 695-705.

5.   Bozzini, B. N., McFadden, B. A., Walker, A. J., & Arent, S. M. (2020). Varying demands and quality of play between in-conference and out-of-conference games in division i collegiate women’s soccer. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(12), 3364-3368.

6.   Bradley, P. S., Carling, C., Archer, D., Roberts, J., Dodds, A., Di Mascio, M., Paul, D., Gomez Diaz, A., Peart D., & Krustrup, P. (2011). The effect of playing formation on high-intensity running and technical profiles in English FA Premier League soccer matches. Journal of sports sciences, 29(8), 821-830.

7.   Carling, C., Espié, V., Le Gall, F., Bloomfield, J., & Jullien, H. (2010). Work-rate of substitutes in elite soccer: A preliminary study. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 13(2), 253-255.

8.   Cerezuela-Espejo, V., Courel-Ibáñez, J., Morán-Navarro, R., Martínez-Cava, A., & Pallarés, J. G. (2018). The relationship between lactate and ventilatory thresholds in runners: validity and reliability of exercise test performance parameters. Frontiers in physiology, 9, 1320.

9.   Choice, E. E., Tufano, J. J., Jagger, K. L., & Cochrane-Snyman, K. C. (2022). Match-play external load and internal load in NCAA division II women’s soccer. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 10-1519.

10. Corrales, I. (2020). The Physical Demands of Women’s Collegiate Soccer Matches Assessed Using GPS Devices [master’s thesis, California State University, Fullerton], https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/.

11. Gentles, J. A., Coniglio, C. L., Besemer, M. M., Morgan, J. M., & Mahnken, M. T. (2018). The demands of a women’s college soccer season. Sports, 6(1), 16.

12. Ishida, A., Travis, S. K., Draper, G., White, J. B., & Stone, M. H. (2022). Player position affects relationship between internal and external training loads during Division I collegiate female soccer season. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 36(2), 513-517.

13. Jagim, A. R., Murphy, J., Schaefer, A. Q., Askow, A. T., Luedke, J. A., Erickson, J. L., & Jones, M. T. (2020). Match demands of women’s collegiate soccer. Sports, 8(6), 87.

14. Lago-Peñas, C., Rey, E., Lago-Ballesteros, J., Casais, L., & Dominguez, E. (2009). Analysis of work-rate in soccer according to playing positions. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 9(2), 218-227.

15. Laursen, P., & Buchheit, M. (2019). Science and application of high-intensity interval training. Human kinetics.

16. Martínez-Lagunas, V., Niessen, M., & Hartmann, U. (2014). Women’s football: Player characteristics and demands of the game. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 3(4), 258-272.

17. Mohr, M., Krustrup, P., Andersson, H., Kirkendal, D., & Bangsbo, J. (2008). Match activities of elite women soccer players at different performance levels. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(2), 341-349..

18. Parpa, K., & Michaelides, M. A. (2025). Ventilatory thresholds in professional female soccer players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(02), 97-103.

19. Ramos, G. P., Nakamura, F. Y., Penna, E. M., Wilke, C. F., Pereira, L. A., Loturco, I., Capelli, L., Mahseredjian F., Silami-Garcia E., & Coimbra, C. C. (2019). Activity profiles in U17, U20, and senior women’s Brazilian national soccer teams during international competitions: are there meaningful differences?. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(12), 3414-3422.

20. Sausaman, R. W., Sams, M. L., Mizuguchi, S., DeWeese, B. H., & Stone, M. H. (2019). The physical demands of NCAA division I women’s college soccer. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 4(4), 73.

21. Vescovi, J. D. (2014). Motion characteristics of youth women soccer matches: female athletes in motion (FAiM) study. International journal of sports medicine, 35(02), 110-117.

22. Vescovi, J. D. (2015). Physical demands of regular season and playoff matches in professional women’s soccer: a pilot from the Female Athletes in Motion (FAiM) study. In International research in science and soccer II (pp. 95-106). Routledge.

23. Vescovi, J. D., & Falenchuk, O. (2019). Contextual factors on physical demands in professional women’s soccer: female athletes in motion study. European journal of sport science, 19(2), 141-146.

2025-09-30T16:08:05-05:00March 4th, 2026|Research, Sport Education, Sport Training, Sports Coaching, Women and Sports|Comments Off on Positional Differences and Workload Requirements of a 3-5-2 Formation in Women’s Soccer
Read More

Match Demands and Positional Differences of NCAA Division II Women’s Soccer Players Over a Competitive Season

Authors: Joanne Spalding1, Jacob L. Grazer2

1Department of Health & Human Performance, Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, GA, USA

2Department of Exercise Science & Sports Management, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

 

Corresponding Author:

Joanne Spalding, PhD, CSCS, CPSS, ACSM-EP

231 West Hancock Street

Milledgeville, GA 31061

[email protected]

478-445-2135

Joanne Spalding, PhD is Assistant Professor in Exercise Science at Georgia College and State University. Her research interests include long term athletic development and monitoring at the club, high school, and college level with an emphasis on neuromuscular fatigue.

Jacob L. Grazer, PhD, CSCS, USAW-1, ACSM-EP is currently a faculty member in the Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management at Kennesaw State University. Jacob’s research interests include: accentuated eccentric loading, countermovement jump analysis, and sport technology.

ABSTRACT 

Purpose:  There has been a growing interest in American women’s college soccer with the majority of research focused on the NCAA Division I level.  With 250+ Division II programs competing in 2024, there is an underrepresentation of this group in the literature. The purpose of this study is to examine the physical demands in Division II women’s soccer and analyze whether these physical demands vary by position.

Methods:  Twenty-two Division II female soccer field players from one DII college team were monitored over an 18-match season wearing GPS devices, a technology that is more commonly used at prevalent at Division I universities. Field players were divided into one of four positions: (1) Center Back Defenders; (2) Outside Back Defenders; (3) Midfielders; and (4) Forwards. The GPS devices provided data on: (a) total distance traveled; (b) total distance traveled per minute; (c) high-speed running distance traveled per minute; and (d) sprint distance traveled per minute. Due to NCAA Division II substitution rules, the focus in this study is the relative variables calculated as distance traveled per minute.

Results: Descriptive statistics for each GPS measurement are calculated based on the position played.  Then, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is used to identify any differences in player workload physical demands based on the position played. For distance traveled during a match, Center Back Defenders traveled the least distance compared to other positions. Similarly, for high-speed running distance, Center Back Defenders traveled the least distance compared to other positions. Finally, for Sprint Distance per minute, both Forwards and Outside Back Defenders traveled more distance compared to Center Back Defenders and Midfielders.

Conclusions: Findings suggest that the physical demands of Division II women’s soccer differ by position. Center Back Defenders tend to ‘stay at home’ and defend the goal while traveling less distance and sprinting less often. Forwards and Outside Back Defenders tend to spend more time sprinting compared to other players.

Applications in Sport: Coaches and practitioners can use this data when designing training programs to ensure their athletes are well-prepared for the differing physical demands of their sport based on the position played.

KEYWORDS: college soccer, GPS, match demands, women’s soccer, physical match performance

INTRODUCTION 

Over the past several years, there has been an increase in the number of peer-reviewed research articles focusing on the physical demands of women’s soccer. The majority of the research that has been conducted has focused on athletes who compete at the professional and international levels (E. Choice et al., 2022). Recently, there has been a growing interest in American college women’s soccer, with the majority of this research focused on National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I level. This can likely be attributed to the fact that wearable technology has become more prevalent at the collegiate Division I level making it easier to collect information regarding the physical demands experienced by female collegiate athletes. However, with 250+ Division II programs competing in the 2024 season, this significant population has been under-represented in research efforts to examine the physical demands on the athlete when competing.  As such, further analysis is needed to better understand the physical demands on athletes participating in the various levels of collegiate women’s soccer. 

Soccer is a high intensity, intermittent sport that requires running, jogging, walking, repeated sprints, jumping and change of direction (Al-Hazzaa et al., 2001; Bloomfield et al., n.d.; Wisløff et al., 2004). Matches consist of two 45-minute halves with a 15-minute halftime period. For international competition, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (better known as FIFA) sanctions allow for five substitutions per game with a typical squad size of 26 players. However, NCAA soccer permits an unlimited number of players to be on the official roster during the regular season. Substitutions rules for the NCAA also differ from FIFA in that the number of substitutions is unlimited per game, and players are allowed to re-enter the match once in the second half. This difference is notable because it may influence the physical demands placed on players during match play.

Current literature has explored match play data at various playing levels and reports that there are differences in match-play demands at different levels in women’s soccer (E. Choice et al., 2022). A perspective review by Vescovi et al (2021) reported that there is a linear increase in total distance covered across playing levels ranging from youth (~7,500m), collegiate (~9,500m), to professional levels (~10,200m). A systematic review of women’s soccer also identified that playing demands increase between playing levels, and that there are positional differences in terms of total distance covered, high-speed running distance, and sprint efforts where midfielders covered greater total distances and sprint efforts compared to central defenders (Alexander, 2014; E. E. Choice et al., 2023).

Challenges arise when comparing research due to variations of inclusion criteria and determination of velocity thresholds. In addition to inclusion criteria varying, values are typically reported in total distances rather than relative to time spent playing on the field. As highlighted previously, the unique NCAA substitution rules make it challenging to fully grasp the physical demands that are placed on the athletes since it is uncommon for someone to play a full 90-minute match in women’s collegiate soccer. Due to the potential influence of substitution rules on physical demand, more research is needed to gain a greater understanding of the relative demands with respect to playing time. 

Very few studies have investigated the match demands of NCAA DII women’s soccer (E. E. Choice et al., 2023; Gentles et al., 2018). Gentles et al. (2018) assessed and compared accelerometry data to data collected using GPS signal. Although total distance and distance covered in specific velocity zones were reported, statistical analyses were not made comparing playing positions. Whereas Choice et al., (2023) investigated the external and internal load of players, including positional and time-specific differences.  

Due to the lack of research in women’s soccer in general, and specifically at the lower playing levels, there is a need for more research. The purpose of this study is to examine the physical demands in Division II women’s soccer and analyze whether these physical demands vary by position.

SOCCER TEAM ROLES AND ROLE EXPECTATIONS

Given this study examines the possible differences in physical demands on soccer athletes based on the position played, it is advantageous to clearly outline each position and the expectation of athletes who play that position. Each position carries distinct responsibilities within a team’s formation and can change based on the formation. This study focused on a team that utilized the 4-3-3 formation where positions are separated into center backs, outside backs (right and left), midfielders (center and attacking), and Forwards (central striker and right/left wing) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Visual Presentation of 4-3-3 Soccer Formation

Center Back Defenders

Center back defenders are primarily responsible for defensive organization and central coverage. When in a defensive scenario, center backs are responsible for defending the opposing forwards, intercepting through balls, contesting aerial duels and tackling to gain possession. In possession, center backs initiate playing out from the back, with passes to midfielders or out to forwards, and or switching play across the back line.

Outside Back Defenders

Outside backs (right and left) provide width for the back line and help with transitional play from the defensive half to the attacking half. Out of possession, outside backs typically deal with the opposing forward or winger depending on the opposition’s formation. Similar to center backs, outside backs with attempt to win aerial duels and tackles. In possession, outside backs will look to support the team by overlapping the forward, dribbling the ball up the field, delivering crosses and well as helping maintain possession in the attacking half. 

Midfielders

The center midfielders are composed of two defensive midfielders and one attacking midfielder. The defensive midfielders attempt to shield the back line, break up opposition attacks, and in possession help to maintain and build possession from the defensive to attacking half. The attacking midfielder helps the forward and midfielders with defensive duties and in possession looks to support the forwards, maintain possession as well provide goals and assists. 

Forwards

Forwards help to provide width and are important for stretching the oppositions defense. They will primarily defend the oppositions outside back and recover into midfield positions when out of possession. In possession they will aim to beat defenders one-on-one, deliver crosses and create shooting opportunities. When a player is in the central striker position, they are the focal point of the attacking line and are primarily there to convert scoring opportunities by finishing inside and around the 18-yard box. In possession, the central striker will look to hold the ball up allowing midfielders and other forwards to join the play. They will attempt to make runs to disrupt the defensive lines and apply pressure to the opposition center backs. 

METHODS 

Participants  

A total of 22 NCAA Division II female soccer players participated in this study. Participants were athletes from a team already using a GPS athlete monitoring system. Players were assigned 1 of 4 positions by the team’s coaching staff (Sporis et al., 2009).

  1. Center Backs (CB) (n = 4)
  2. Outside Backs (OB) (n = 5)
  3. Midfielders (MID) (n=6)
  4. Forwards (FWD) (n= 7). 

Procedures  

A total of 18 regular season matches were included in this analysis from a single competitive season. Global Positional System (GPS) devices (TITAN Sports, Titan2, Houston, TX, USA) sampling at 10 Hz were used to track player movement during competition.  Data included 234 observations (n= 79 FWD, n= 70 MID, n= 50 OB, n= 35 CB). The team used for this study played 1-4-3-3 formation (please note 1 = goalkeeper) during all matches included in the analyses. All matches were official NCAA matches with two 45-minute halves and a 15-minute halftime period. All players were informed of the risks and benefits of this study and voluntarily signed an informed consent. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.  

Variables for Analysis

Data was collected on the following variables to better understand the physical demands on each player based on position played (see Andersson, 2010).

  • Total Distance – The total distance a player covers during a game. This value is needed to determine the distance covered related to minutes played.
  • Relative Total Distance (TDREL) – The distance covered per unit of time, expressed as meters per minute (m/min).
  • Relative High-Speed Running Distance (HSRREL) – Distance covered per minute while running at high speeds, in this case, over 15 kilometers per hour (km/h), or 9.3 miles per hour.
  • Relative Sprint Distance (SDREL) – Distance covered per minute while sprinting, usually above a higher threshold. In this case, over 18 kilometers per hour (km/h) or 11.2 miles per hour.

Using the Global Navigation Satellite System to Measure Match Load  

GPS units were worn in a harness that secured the device between the scapulae (i.e., shoulder blades). The units were turned on 10 minutes before being placed in the harness to ensure sufficient GPS signal was attained per manufacturer’s instructions. Due to the substitution rules in NCAA college soccer, calculating the variables per minutes played was deemed the optimal solution for comparing workload across playing position.

RESULTS 

Three separate one-way ANOVA analyses with Bonferroni corrections were conducted to determine if there were differences between positions for Total Distance (TDREL), High Speed Running Distance (HSRREL) and Sprint Distance (SDREL). Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS (Version 27.0.1). Alpha level was set at p <0.05. Eta-squared effect sizes were calculated to determine magnitude of differences for each variable. For pairwise comparisons, Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated to determine magnitude of difference between playing positions (Hopkins, 2002).  Descriptive statistics for match physical performance for this specific team are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 – Match Performance Data

Variables Midfielders (n=70) Forwards (n=79) Outside Back Defenders (n=50) Center Back Defenders (n=35) Total (n=234) 
Minutes Played per Match 51.6 ± 13.6 52.8 ± 15.1 52.1 ±13.9 68.0 ±19.9 57.1 ± 15.6 
Total Distance (m) 5,643.9 ± 1,435.0 5,507.9 ± 1,214.1 5,506.3 ±1,373.8 6365.1 ± 1884.9  Greatest total distance covered due to greatest minutes played5,855.8 ±1,476.8 
Relative Total Distance (m/min) The distance covered per unit of time, usually expressed as meters per minute (m/min). 110.4 ± 14.2 Significantly greater than Center Back Defender106.8 ± 14.4   Significantly greater than Center Back Defender106.8 ±12.6  Significantly greater than Center Back Defender93.8 ± 11.6 105.9 ± 14.5 
Relative High Speed Running Distance (m/min)  Distance covered per minute while running at high speeds, in this case, over 15 kilometers per hour (km/h), or 9.3 miles per hour.  10.06 ± 3.45  Significantly greater than Center Back Defender12.96 ±4.01 Significantly greater than Center Back Defender 13.18 ± 4.21 Significantly greater than Center Back Defender7.53 ± 2.90   11.33 ± 4.26 
Relative Sprint Distance (m/min)  Distance covered per minute while sprinting, usually above a higher threshold. In this case, over 18 kilometers per hour (km/h) or 11.2 miles per hour3.45 ± 1.98  6.06 ± 2.64 Significantly greater than Center Back Defender  Significantly different than Midfielders5.53 ± 1.85 Significantly greater than Center Back Defender  Significantly different than Midfielders3.05 ± 1.92  4.72 ± 2.53 

 Relative Total Distance (TDREL)

A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in positions for TDREL, F(3, 230) = 11.9, p = <0.001. An effect size (η2=0.135) indicated a medium effect. Post Hoc analysis indicated that there were mean differences between FWD and CB (p = <0.001), MID and CB (p = <0.001), and OB and CB (p = <0.001).  

Relative High-Speed Running Distance (HSRREL)

There were statistically significant difference for HSRREL, F(3, 230) = 23.73 p < 0.001, with a large effect (η2=0.23). Post Hoc analysis showed mean differences between FWD and MID (p = <0.001), FWD and CB (p = <0.001), MID and OB (p = <0.001), MID and CB (p = <0.008) and OB and CB (p = <0.001) as seen in Figure 2. 

Relative Sprint Distance (SDREL)

Finally, there were statistically significant differences for positions in SDREL, F=(3,230), 25.547, p <0.001 with a large effect η2=0.25 Post Hoc analysis revealed mean differences for FWD and MID (p = <0.001), FWD and CB (p = <0.001), MID and OB (p = <0.001), OB and CB (p = <0.001). 

DISCUSSION 

The purpose of this study is to determine the physical demands for NCAA Division II Women’s Soccer and to assess positional differences and physical demands relative to minutes played.  The study’s results include the average demands during match play of each field position as previously shown in Table 1. The main findings of this study indicate that center backs accumulate the greatest total distance, however, this is mainly attributable to extended playing time as they frequently remained on the field 15-17 minutes longer than other positions. When normalized for minutes outside backs, midfielders and forwards covered greater total distance and high-speed running distance than center backs. In addition, outside backs and forwards demonstrated greater sprint distance per minute compared to both center backs and midfielders. 

The average total distance covered for players included in analyses was 5,855 ± 1,476 meters, which differs from prior findings by Choice et al. (2023) who saw starters cover 9,463 ± 2,591 meters. It should be noted that the analysis by Choice et al. (2023) only included players who participated in over 50% of match play. Findings from this study are similar to results reported by Gentles et al. (2018) who reported findings of 5,480 ± 2,350 meters and average minutes played of 45.32 ± 26.01 which are similar to minutes played in this study.  The maximum distance covered by an individual in this study was 9,810 meters, which is much lower than distance covered by the sample in Gentles (13,850 meters) and Choice (12,054 meters), but similar to distances reported in Division I athletes, 9,786 meters (Sausaman, 2019). Both maximum and average distance covered varied across levels may indicate that more research is needed across differing playing levels. Also, from a practical point of view, this should help sport practitioners implement appropriate programs that develop players for both maximum and mean distances, regardless of minutes played.  

To our knowledge, this is the first study to report TDREL (105 ± 14.5 m/min), HSRREL (11.3 ± 4.2 m/min) and SDREL (4.72 ± 2.53) in NCAA Division II athletes. Gentles (2018) reported total distance accumulated at velocity zones 15.00 – 19.99 kph and 20.00-24.99 kph but not relative distances. Due to the substitution rules in NCAA College soccer, there is a high variance in match-to-match playing variables. Other studies have only included players who have played over 50% of the match or the entire match (E. E. Choice et al., 2023), whereas other research only included participants who completed the match in its entirety (Alexander, 2014; Sausaman et al., 2019).  If training programs are only based on average totals, then the whole picture may not be clear when designing training programs for those not participating in 90 minutes. Therefore, reporting data per minute may be more beneficial as reserves need to be trained throughout the season to compensate for minutes not played.  

There was a difference in positional demands for HSRREL, with FWDs covering higher distances than MIDs and CBs. Whereas OBs covered more HSRREL than CBs and MIDs, and MIDs only covered more distance than CBs. Although there was no statistical difference between OBs and FWDs, OBs covered slightly more distance per minute. Although the lack of statistical difference between FWDs and OBs may be due to formation and playing style. In the 4-3-3 OB and FWDs may have similar positional demands as OBs are often part of the attack by providing width higher up the field. Formation on the field was not controlled for in this study so more research is warranted to understand positional differences across a variety of formation styles. 

Results also showed that FWDs covered more SDREL than MIDs and CBs, and OBs covered more than CBs. Although variables are different within this study, results show similar trend within the literature, that forwards cover more HSR distance and sprint distance than midfielders (Sausaman et al., 2019; J. Vescovi, 2013). It should also be noted that CB and OB positions are typically grouped together as a singular position group (commonly reported as defender) (Stolen et al., 2005; J. D. Vescovi, 2012).

This study provides further evidence, particularly in women’s soccer literature, that there is a need to differentiate between central and outside defenders when evaluating physical demands during competition due to the different physical demands during competition (Alexander, 2014; Harkness-Armstrong et al., 2022). It is also important to note that in NCAA Division I studies, players covered more high-speed running and sprint distance on average compared to NCAA division II athletes. This indicates that the Division I game may be played at a faster pace, especially in those critical moments of the game (defensive recovery run, sprinting to goal etc.) As this study reports HSR and sprint distance per minute, it prevents the authors from making additional conclusions or comparisons.  

There are limitations to the study that may have impacted the results.  The data for this study was collected for one team playing one season of competition.  The level of soccer players at all NCAA level can vary greatly across teams and conferences.  Therefore, further research is needed to confirm the current findings. Differences in match demands as well as positional demands may be a result of opposition level, formations, match status, and match location.  As such, additional research is needed to assess these factors to determine their possible influence on the physical demands of Division II women’s soccer.  

CONCLUSION 

This study examined the physical demands of women’s soccer at the NCAA Division II level and analyzed differences among position groups. Unlike previous research, this study assessed Relative total distance (TDREL), relative high-speed running distance (HSRREL), and relative sprint distance (SDREL), providing average values for all players and specific positions to describe match demands. The findings highlight differences in physical demands based on position played. The findings from this study emphasize the importance of evaluating workload relative to minutes played and recognizing the unique demands of each position at the NCAA Division II level. Such insights provide a framework for tailoring training, conditioning and substitution strategies that reflect position-specific requirements rather than relying on team-wide averages.  Future research should continue to examine how positional workloads vary across divisions and competitive levels, as well as how these demands interact with injury risk, recovery and long-term players development. 

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

These findings provide an insight into general and positional demands of women’s soccer at the NCAA Division II level. These results are particularly valuable to coaches who may strategically utilize the NCAA substitution rules to manage player workloads. Caution should be exercised when applying published findings from other levels of play and relying on total averages as positional differences can substantially influence match demands.

The results emphasize the importance of aligning athlete’s physical attributes with the requirements of their playing positions. Forwards and outsides backs perform the highest sprinting and high-speed running demands per minute and may require players that have higher acceleration and sprint capacities. On the other hand, players that have less high-speed and sprinting demands, but positional awareness may be better suited at center back. 

This may have implications for recruitment. Coaches may want to target athletes with performance profiles that align with the positional demands, rather than relying on general fitness. In regard to player development, training and conditioning programs should be tailored to the requirements of each position moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach. For example, midfielders may benefit from training designed to sustain higher per-minute workloads, while forwards and outside backs should focus on repeated spring ability as well as increasing top speed. 

Finally, these results may extend to tactical decision making and injury prevention. Coaches may rotate outside backs and forwards more frequently to preserve sprint performance later in matches. These findings provide sport practitioners with evidence-based guidance to optimize recruitment, training and match management in NCAA division II soccer. 


REFERENCES 

  1. Alexander, R. (2014). Physical and Technical Demands of Women’s Collegiate Soccer. Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2421. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/2421
  2. Al-Hazzaa, H., Almuzaini, K., Al-Refaee, S., Sulaiman, M., Dafterdar, M., Al-Ghamedi, A., &  Al-Khuraiji, K. (2001). Aeronic and anaerobic power characteristics of Saudi elite soccer players. Journal of Sports Medicine & Physical Fitness, 41(1), 54–61.
  3. Andersson, H. A., Randers, M. B., Heiner-Møller, A., Krustrup, P., & Mohr, M. (2010). Elite female soccer players perform more high-intensity running when playing in international games compared with domestic league games. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(4), 912–919. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d09f21
  4. Bloomfield, J., Polman, R., & O’Donoghue, P. (n.d.). Physical demands of different positions in FA Premier League soccer.
  5. Choice, E. E., Tufano, J. J., Jagger, K., L., & Cochrane-Synman, K. C. (2023). Match-Play External Load and Internal Load in NCAA Division II Women’s Soccer. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 37(12), 633–639. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004578
  6. Choice, E., Tufano, J., Jagger, K., Hooker, K., & Cochrane-Snyman, K. C. (2022). Differences across Playing Levels for Match-Play Physical Demands in Women’s Professional and Collegiate Soccer: A Narrative Review. Sports, 10(10), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports10100141
  7. Gentles, J., Coniglio, C., Besemer, M., Morgan, J., & Mahnken, M. (2018). The Demands of a Women’s College Soccer Season. Sports, 6(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports6010016
  8. Harkness-Armstrong, A., Till, K., Datson, N., Myhill, N., & Emmonds, S. (2022). A systematic review of match-play characteristics in women’s soccer. PLOS ONE, 17(6), e0268334. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268334
  9. Hopkins, W. G. (2002). A scale of magnitude for effect statistics. http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html.
  10. Sausaman, R. W., Sams, M. L., Mizuguchi, S., DeWeese, B. H., & Stone, M. H. (2019). The Physical Demands of NCAA Division I Women’s College Soccer. Journal of Functional      Morphology and Kinesiology, 4(4), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk4040073
  11. Sporis, G., Jukic, I., Ostojic, S., & Milanovic, D. (2009). Fitness profiling in soccer: Physical and physiologic characteristics of elite players. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(7), 1947–1953. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b3e141
  12. Stolen, T., Chamari, K., Castagna, C., & Wisl??ff, U. (2005). Physiology of Soccer: An Update. Sports Medicine, 35(6), 501–536. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200535060-00004
  13. Vescovi, J. (2013). Motion Characteristics of Youth Women Soccer Matches: Female Athletes in Motion (FAiM) Study. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(02), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1345134
  14. Vescovi, J. D. (2012). Sprint profile of professional female soccer players during competitive matches: Female Athletes in Motion (FAiM) study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(12), 1259–1265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.701760
  15. Wisløff, U., Castagna, C., Helgerud, J., Jones, R., & Hoff, J. (2004). Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players: Figure 1. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38(3), 285–288. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2002.002071

2025-09-25T15:33:55-05:00February 4th, 2026|Research, Sport Education, Sport Training, Sports Coaching, Sports Health & Fitness, Women and Sports|Comments Off on Match Demands and Positional Differences of NCAA Division II Women’s Soccer Players Over a Competitive Season
Read More

The Sport Journal uses Accessibility Checker to monitor our website's accessibility.

Go to Top