Search Results

This study examined the psychological contract of volunteer youth sport coaches to determine the content, variation, and influences to its development. Interviews were conducted with 22 volunteer coaches of team sports, representing different levels of play (recreational, competitive), coaching tenure (novice, experienced), and gender (female, male), who were sampled to account for the potential variation based on these demographic factors. The findings revealed that volunteer coaches possessed both transactional and relational expectations of themselves and their club. Coaches’ most frequently cited expectations of themselves were technical expertise (transactional), and leadership (relational), while their most frequently cited expectations of the club were fundamental resources and club administration (transactional), and coach support (relational). Variation was found by different levels of play (recreational, competitive) and coaching tenure (novice, experienced). The coaches’ psychological contract was shaped predominately by sources external to the club. Implications for managing the psychological contract of volunteer youth sport coaches and directions for future research are discussed.

The structural components of sports competitions and the characteristics of sport practices vary significantly. These differences may translate into different optimal employment arrangements for the professional coaches (those who prepare teams and athletes for competitions). While there has been academic inquiry into the practice of sport coaching, there has been little apparent research into the industrial organization of sport coaches. This paper presents a formal model of the coaching practice. The coaching roles as strategists and trainers are distinguished, variation in the significance of the connections in the nexus of team to individual relations is identified, and the various methods of sport preparation are classified. Predictions of the employment arrangements based on model parameters are made and related to some established stylized facts and survey results from both cycling training coaches and athletes. The model and data corroborate that cycling coaches be hired by the individual athletes not their cycling teams. JEL classifications: J22, J24, L23, L83

Despite the ubiquitous presence of mothers in sport contexts, mothers’ voices are often absent in the sport literature, particularly at the youth sport level. A phenomenological approach was used to explore the experiences of working mother volunteer youth sport coaches. A role-triad model based on the work-family enrichment and role enhancement literature provided the theoretical framework. The purpose was to understand how and why working mother-coaches mange this role triad and to identify mother-worker skills which may transfer to youth coaching and vice versa. Semistructured interviews were conducted with eight working mother-coaches and analyzed for themes. Findings suggest that notions of being a good mother and reasons for coaching are very similar, including spending time together, developing life skills and role modeling. Participants negotiated multiple roles using cognitive tools, such as reframing and separation of roles. The reciprocal benefits of motherhood, working and coaching for themselves and others were highlighted.

The literature examining executive and upper management compensation has looked at a variety of factors. Within sport, coaches are equivalent to these positions, with one of the major factors determining total compensation being on-field performance. However, little is known on how expectations of on-field performance compared with actual performance affect compensation. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of performance expectations on Division I–Football Bowl Subdivision head football coaches’ total compensation. Using data from 2006 to 2013, compensation increases when on-field performance expectations are exceeded. The impact of an additional on-field win relative to performance expectations is between 5.0 and 5.5% in terms of additional compensation. However, no statistically significant effect exists when comparing coaches at automatic qualifying versus nonautomatic qualifying schools. In addition, off-field measures of performance as well as individual and university characteristics affect total compensation.