Frequency and performance relevance of parent-coaches in competition-oriented sports

The question of whether it is a good thing for children to be coached by their own parents is met with a divided opinion in the world of sport and among the general public. On the one hand, one finds examples in literature, film, and television in which a certain parent-coach–child-athlete relationship (Weiss & Fretwell, 2005)¹ appears in a positive light (e.g., Schneider, 2021). On the other hand, one comes across findings that suggest that this form of “atypical coach–athlete relationships” (Jowett, 2008, p. 22) or “‘familial’ coach–athlete relationship[s]” (Jowett, Timson-Katchis, & Adams, 2007, p. 61) has a particular potential for conflict (e.g., Schmid, Bernstein, Shannon, Rishell, & Griffith, 2015).

To date, the benefits and risks of the corresponding dual role constellation (parent/coach, child/athlete) have received little attention in the education and research landscape (Graham, Dixon, & Hazen-Swann, 2016). This may be due, in part, to the fact that the explanatory object of the parent-coach–child-athlete relationship fits within a relatively young field of research: The systematic study of coach–athlete interaction did not take off until the beginning of the third millennium (Poczwardowski, Barott, & Jowett, 2006; Wylleman, 2000).

Nonetheless, research on parent-coach–child-athlete relationships should be pursued as it can be considered as part of the effort to achieve optimal talent development and individual development of athletes from the perspective of sport practice (Federal Institute of Sport Science [Bundesinstitut für Sportwissenschaft], 2023). The need to advance the study of parent-coach–child-athlete relationships may also be fueled by the fact that an increasing level of parental involvement is emerging in the field of youth sport in the present (Eliasson, 2019; Qunito Romani, 2020). A changing understanding of gender and parenting roles is hypothesized to trigger this Zeitgeist phenomenon (Trussell & Shaw, 2012).

As part of their research, some authors have addressed the elementary descriptive question of the number of parent-coaches found in the sport landscape. To date, this question has preferably been answered from the perspective of the parents (e.g., Gould & Martens, 1979). In general, Eliasson (2019, p. 1007) points out “that the exact number of parent-coaches and child-athletes of coaches in many countries remains unknown.” Given this background, it is innovative to determine the frequency of parent-coaches from the perspective of children, and, in addition, to ask the question about the relevance of parent-coaches to athletic performance. The question of how important coaching-by-parents is for the success of athletes has also not yet been the subject of quantitative research. In the light of these two existing research gaps, two studies were conducted. In contrast, the duration of such parent-coach–child-athlete collaborations has been measured on various occasions (McCann, 2005; Schmid et al., 2015; Weiss & Sisley, 1984). Furthermore, it was empirically found that in youth sports, it is primarily fathers who assume the coaching role for their children (Snyder & Purdy, 1982). It also became apparent that different types of parent-coaches can be identified (e.g., voluntary and full-time), although no one has yet taken a decidedly comparative look at the different forms. Thus, questions about the duration and ontogenetic localization of parent-coach–child-athlete collaborations, as well as about the gender distribution and different types of parent-coaches also became part of the research project.

Study 1 was not only designed to answer the question of the frequency of occurrence; in parallel, two other parameters were at issue. The list of three research questions reads as follows:

Study 2 was designed to focus on answering the question of the relevance of parent-coaches to athletic performance. It took place in the field of men’s soccer. The hypothesis was formulated directionally because in past qualitative studies, successful athletes were often coached by their parents (Prewitt-White, Fisher, Odenheimer, & Buchanan, 2016; Willms, 2009). The hypothesis was as follows:

The proportion of soccer players who have been coached by their parents turns out to be larger in higher-ranked leagues than in lower-ranked leagues.

The first study on the frequency of parent-coaches in sports reveals four main ideas in quantitative terms. First, the study suggests that a noteworthy number of male and female athletes who pursue their sport in a performance-oriented manner are coached by their own parents for a shorter or longer period of time. Across a variety of sports, the percentage—even in the case of changing perspectives—is consistently in the double digits. In the cross-sport survey in the city of Speyer, the percentage of parent-coached children was 19%. This percentage is only slightly reduced if the soccer players are left out of this sample; the percentage is then still 18% (Table 1). Even among the coaches interviewed (“coaches’ survey”), 5 out of 47 cases (11%) showed that the person in question had once been coached by a parent.⁷

In addition, there are various sport-specific differences with regard to the frequency of parent-coaches. The proportion of parent-coaches was significantly higher in the group of soccer players (33%) than in individual sports and hand-oriented team sports (Table 1). Kemming (2008) and Reinders (2013) also point out in the context of their empirical studies that the parent-coach phenomenon can be observed especially in kids’ and youth soccer.

Wylleman and De Knop (1998) already observed that parents often start coaching their children after the kids have finished elementary school. The two authors found in the field of athletics and swimming that 20% of parent-coaches did not become coaches of their own children until the kids were in their teens and adolescents, respectively (cited in Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004, p. 514). In our study 1, we detected that 32% of the child-athletes had been coached by their parents starting when they were of secondary school age (Fig. 1). In addition, Wylleman and De Knop (1998) also seem to have encountered parent-coach–child-athlete alliances that did not begin until the transition from junior to senior age category or even later (13%) (cited in Wylleman, De Knop, Verdet, & Cecič-Erpič, 2007, p. 244; Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004, p. 514).⁸

A fourth result which stands out is the statistically significant finding that alliances between parent-coaches and child-athletes—measured in seasons as previously described—are of longer duration in individual sports (MD = 6 seasons, M = 7.682, SD = 4.787) than among soccer players (MD = 2.5 seasons, M = 3.824, SD = 3.292). The duration of parent-coach–child-athlete alliances collected in study 1 is slightly lower than average values obtained in previous research (McCann, 2005; Weiss & Sisley, 1984). When all collaborations between parents and their own children in study 1 are considered (athletes’ survey and coaches’ survey), the mean alliance duration is 5.055 seasons (SD = 4.219, N = 95). If only the already completed parent-coach–child-athlete alliances are taken into account, then the average duration is 4.604 seasons (SD = 3.918, n = 84). In comparison, the average value in terms of alliance length in the retrospective study by McCann (2005)—following our calculation method—was 4.818 seasons (SD = 3.281, N = 11). The former parent-coaches (“dropout coaches”) in the study by Weiss and Sisley (1984, p. 336) had coached their own children for an average of 5.2 years (n = 97).⁹

The evaluation of the developmental location of parent-coach–child-athlete alliances fully paves the way for a discussion. From the perspective of the athletes interviewed, a high number of collaborations were found to have begun after the child had completed—or with the completion of—elementary school (Fig. 1). Interestingly, among the alliances that had been formed at a later stage, there were often links that lasted only a short time: For 13 of the 24 identified child-athletes who had not been coached by their parents until secondary or tertiary school, the sporting alliance in question spanned a period of 2 seasons or less.

This could indicate a type of coach who is willing and able to accompany his or her son or daughter in a flexible manner. Ideally, this is not a parent who wants to make it easier or possible for the child and its peers to get started in a sport by taking on a coaching role (on a voluntary basis).¹⁰ And it is probably just as little about a pronounced connoisseur who wants to accompany his offspring from childhood and over a long period in a sport.¹¹ It is possible that a type of father-coach or mother-coach has been identified in this way whose coaching career is to be considered independent of the athletic career of their own child. Both careers—that of the athlete and that of the coach—take their own direction over long stretches and overlap only at times (in “bridging situations”).¹²

Finally, the finding that boys are more often coached by their parents than girls is quite inspiring, even if it only tends to be inferentially significant. This result can be made plausible by referring to the existence of gender role stereotypes. Eccles, Jacobs, and Harold (1990) as well as Würth and Saborowski (1999) have already shown in their respective studies that parents ascribe significantly more natural talent or more often an aptitude for competitive sports to their sons than to their daughters. The dominance of male respondents, both among coaches and athletes, can be attributed not only to the fact that sport is a male domain (e.g., Willms, 2009), but also to the fact that only 3 of the 14 sports surveyed can be named a “girls’ sport” (equestrian, swimming, volleyball). Since most of the coaches are male, the finding that boys are more often coached by their parents than girls, can also be seen as a variant of the leisure phenomenon that fathers spend more time with sons than with daughters in play, companionship, and gender-stereotypical activities (e.g., Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001). The observation that 88% of all parent-coaches were fathers can be understood as a form of “fathering through sport” (Kay, 2007, 2009) and as an expression of a new form of masculinity (“inclusive masculinity”; Anderson, 2009). With the help of children’s and youth sports, fathers become more involved in the family environment in a different way than is traditionally the case (Coakley, 2006; Graham & Dixon, 2014; Graham et al., 2016).

The second study on the performance relevance of parent-coaches in sports was based on a central assumption. The main hypothesis, which states that the proportion of male soccer players who have been trained by their parents is greater in higher-ranking leagues than in lower-ranking leagues, was confirmed empirically. This suggests that having been coached by one’s own parents has a direct or indirect beneficial influence on the development of the playing performance of young people.

The formulation just chosen regarding the ways in which the existence of a parent-coach figure influences the athletic development of youngsters alludes to the recognition that there is widespread unclarity about the subtleties of providing family support (Rees, Hardy, Güllich, Abernethy, Côté, Woodmann, Montgomery, Laing, & Warr, 2016). On average, child-athletes in soccer are coached by their father (the “normal case”¹³) for 4–5 seasons.¹⁴ This period, for which an individualized and intensive sporting cooperation between a parent and the child may be assumed, can in many cases have a beneficial effect on performance. This mechanism can be characterized with the title “coached-by-parents as a catalyst”. The interpretation approach “coached-by-parents as a catalyst” is based on the assumption that it is primarily or solely the father (or mother) in the function as a coach who has a certain added value. Perhaps the unique selling point of a father-trainer is to enable the son or daughter to train as individually as possible, so that, for example, unofficial training in their free time can serve as an optimal feeder for the official club training. In terms of training practice, this also means that initiatives in coach education are to be welcomed, particularly those aimed at qualifying moms and dads in the field of youth sports (Bavarian Football Association [Bayerischer Fußball-Verband & BFV], 2021).

Alternatively, or complementary, the function of a parent-coach can also be seen as a kind of mosaic stone of family assistance—as one mosaic stone among several. The willingness to take on a coaching position within one’s own son’s or daughter’s team can thus be interpreted as a signal that is, in principle, good. This signal might indicate that a player receives intensive support in many ways, not only in the public or organized sphere, but also at home. On the one hand, this sheds light on a coaching parent who is willing and able to take an in-depth look at the child’s sport. This means that a father’s voluntary involvement in an organized training of a certain soccer club may often be limited to just a few years, but the father’s expertise will be available to his son or daughter for long stretches of their childhood and youth. This can take the form of conversations around the kitchen table as well as one-on-one “extra shifts” on the soccer field, in the front yard, or in the park.¹⁵ On the other hand, this brings the noncoaching parent and siblings into focus. Mothers, as well as brothers and sisters, also play a role in supporting a child-athlete in the private sphere (Blazo & Smith, 2018; Chafetz & Kotarba, 1999; Thompsons, 1999). Thus, the finding that players in higher leagues were more often coached by their own fathers than this was the case in lower divisions can also be understood as an indicator of qualitatively higher support for the player by the entire parental home. The mechanism referred to here can be described as “coached-by-parents as an indicator”.¹⁶

However, both interpretations should be used with caution. On the one hand, the effect size of the relationship between the status of the child-athlete (as a parent-coached child or nonparent-coached child) and the level of performance achieved is small. On the other hand, the characteristic “parent-coached” is a category that indicates a social function and role but does not say anything about the concrete form of the associated leadership or educational behavior.

However, based on the present empirical results, the presence of a parent-coach figure in the biography of a soccer player can—as a rule—be considered as a performance-enhancing framework condition. Overall, the confirmation of our hypothesis joins many findings according to which the support that a young athlete receives from his or her family has a positive effect on the performance development (see most recently Coutinho, Mesquita, & Fonseca, 2018).

Regarding the research methodology used in the present studies, some critical questions can be formulated, for instance on the veridicality of the memory performances as well as on the precision of the operationalizations. At many interview sites, the impression was that a large proportion—if not the majority—of interviewees first had to recapitulate autobiographical contexts in order to then be able to name the relevant years. The observation that a recollection cannot be retrieved episodically and therefore must first be generated (cf. Norman & Bobrow, 1979; Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000) is also well known in sports science (e.g., Bette, Schimank, Wahlig, & Weber, 2002, p. 203). In fact, this should increase the likelihood of recall bias. In addition, detailed time measurements would also be desirable, for example based on monthly data. In general, however, the question arises to what extent participants in a survey framed by a fleeting encounter can still produce better recall performances.