A qualitative multiple case study exploration of the antecedents of the interpersonal behaviours of youth football coaches in Scotland based on a self-determination theory framework

Background: A plethora of research has investigated the impact of the coach-created motivational environment on athlete outcomes, but much less is known about the factors that influence the behaviours that shape this environment in the first place (Matosic, Ntoumanis, & Quested, 2016; Occhino, Mallett, Rynne, & Carlisle, 2014). Furthermore, behaviours that affect athletes’ basic psychological needs for competence and relatedness have not received the same level of attention as those that affect the need for autonomy, nor has there been enough qualitative inquiry into this topic (Carroll & Allen, 2021).

Aim: The purpose of this project was to better understand why coaches act the way they do, so as to help enhance training and support for coaches for the betterment of the coach-created motivational environment.

Methods: Eight youth football coaches from two community clubs in Scotland were each observed and interviewed across three months. The fieldnote observations and interview transcripts underwent thematic case study (Stake, 2013) analysis on three separate levels: within-case analysis looking at every coach of a club individually, cross-case analysis looking at every coach of a club together, and comparative analysis looking at the cross-case findings from every club together.

Key findings: Multiple case study analyses revealed that the coaches’ working environment, their personal biographies, and their athletes’ characteristics combined to influence their behaviour. Notably, these antecedent factors altered the presentation of the coaches’ need-supportive, -depriving, and -thwarting behaviours in ways that conflict with conventional understanding of such behaviours in the sport coaching literature.

Conclusion: Overall, the findings make a case for in-situ, bottom-up approaches to improving the coach-created motivational environment. A flexible conception of what adaptive vs maladaptive coach behaviour looks like to researchers in coaching is also encouraged to promote increased understanding around the complexity of coach behaviour.