Winning Vs. Fun in Youth Sport

LITERATURE REVIEWS

WINNING VS. FUN IN YOUTH SPORT

Torri Nuxell Brad Strand North Dakota State University

Abstract

Is it winning or fun, or, winning and fun, in youth sport endeavors? Are both outcomes possible, or are they mutually exclusive? Many sports coaches believe their win-loss record effects their athletes’ attitudes toward them, but there is evidence that this may not be the case. Youth from multiple sports and different competitive levels have all listed fun as a main reason for participation. Coaches are more likely to adopt ego-involving coaching styles where the primary focus is to produce winning teams when they feel pressured to win, or believe they are being evaluated based on their won-lost record. One of the many difficulties that come with youth sport programs, is the need to satisfy multiple stakeholders. A developmental model of sport, Give Us Back Our Game, as opposed to the win- and profit-oriented model, provides a measure of success goes beyond individual statistics and team standings.

Winning vs. Fun in Youth Sport

Most of today’s athletic events are a struggle for supremacy in which every coach and athlete looks to emerge victorious. Youth sports are no exception. There is a common notion in sports that equates wining with success and failure with losing (Cumming et al., 2007). With this, comes a winnertake-all mentality that challenges sportsmanship principles (Strand, 2013) and alienates many young athletes (Kahn, 2012). Many coaches believe that their win-loss record effects their athletes’ attitudes toward them, but there is evidence that this may not be the case.

When parents begin signing their children up for youth sports, they typically do it for all the right reasons—to help them get fit, learn new skills, build character, and have fun (Krucoff, 1998). When the games begin, however, we often see actions take a turn for the worse. They wish for their child a better chance for success, as compared to a losing experience on any given team. Many parents and coaches think that highly skilled kids need a good coach and a winning team to develop as an athlete (Frankl, n.d.). Kevin Daugherty, youth sports specialist for the American Sport Education Program explained it like this: “People start to think, ‘If you’re not a winner, you’re a loser.’ Our culture bombards us with messages that winning is everything” (Krucoff, 1998, para. 3). Daughtery also pointed out that, “The two main reasons kids play sports are to have fun and to be with their friends. Winning is way down on their list” (Krucoff, 1998, para. 7). Current research supports this thesis (Strand et al., 2021).

In various studies, youth from multiple sports and different competitive levels all listed fun as a main reason for participation (Klint & Weiss, 1986). Participation motivation research (Ewing & Seefeldt, 1990) has consistently shown that children participate in youth sport programs "to have fun" as their primary objective, but what does fun in sports really mean? To have fun in sport means to be totally involved, seeking pleasure from participation by oneself or with others. Although sports can be fun, many times the fun aspect is eliminated from youth sport, often by the actions of well-meaning adults/coaches (Strean & Holt, 2000). Researchers have also linked enjoyment in youth sports with positive peer adult interactions in the sports setting (Schwab et al., 2010).

We know that winning is not everything in youth sports, but it would be naive and unrealistic to claim that winning is not an important part of youth sports. While winning is an important part of competition and therefore an important goal, it is not the only or the most important goal. Instead, winning should be viewed as a consequence of an athletes physical and psychological development through sport (Cumming et al., 2007).

Win-Loss Records

Krucoff (1998) quoted Marty Ewing of the Institute for the Study of Youth Sports, “Most kids would rather be active participants on a losing team, than sit on the bench of a winning one.

Overemphasis on competition is one of the main reasons that American kids involved in organized sports drop out each year” (para. 8). Interestingly, however, research has shown that won-loss records may not actually affect how athletes perceive their coaches (Becker, 2009). It is well proven that coaches who produce winning teams typically receive greater recognition and reinforcement. This may cause coaches to feel they are being evaluated based on their won-lost record rather than the individual development of their athletes. Personal or social expectations for success may also encourage coaches to focus more on winning than on developing athletes. Coaches are more likely to adopt ego-involving coaching styles where the primary focus is to produce winning teams when they feel pressured to win, or believe they are being evaluated based on their won-lost record. This causes coaches to lose sight of the primary objectives of youth sport (psychological, social, and physical development of athletes). It is important that sport educators, parents, coaches, and others involved in youth sport recognize coaches’ contributions to the personal development of athletes and not just to the outcomes of performance and competition (Cumming et al., 2007).

Smith et al. (1978) compared the won-lost percentages of the nine best-liked and the 11 leastliked coaches in a sample of 51 Little League Baseball coaches. They discovered that the bestliked coaches had a lower winning percentage than did the least-liked coaches (.422 compared to .545). The researchers also compared the attitudinal responses of players who played for very successful teams (won-lost percentage > 66.7%) against those of players who played for less successful teams (won-lost percentage < 33.3%). Analyses revealed that winners and losers did not differ in any of their attitudes toward the coach.

Similarly, Cumming et al. (2007) examined the main and interactive effects of winning percentages and motivational climate upon young athletes’ evaluations of their coaches. Their study explored the comparative roles of team success, defined in terms of won-lost percentage, and coach-initiated motivational climate on young athletes’ ratings of enjoyment and reactions toward their coach. Their findings showed that basketball players who perceived the coaching climate as masteryinvolving (a) liked playing for their coach more, (b) rated their coaches as more knowledgeable about the sport of basketball, (c) thought their coach was better at teaching kids how to play basketball, and (d) had a greater desire to play for the coach again in the following year. Ego-involving climate was negatively related to athlete evaluations of the coach. Won-lost percentage was unrelated to attitudes toward the coach, as indicated by ratings of liking and desire to play for the coach in the future. Won-lost percentage was, however, significantly related to the athletes’ evaluations of the coach’s knowledge and teaching ability. The results of the Cumming et al. investigation supports the argument that winning, while influencing some variables, is not a prerequisite for enjoyment in youth sports. Rather, the strongest and most consistent predictor of enjoyment in youth basketball was the motivational climate established by the coach.

Further, Breiger et al. (2015) reexamined the relative contributions of team success defined in terms of won-lost record and motivational climate to young athletes’ reactions to their sport experience. Consistent with the findings of Cumming et al. (2007), the sex-based multilevel analyses showed that for both genders, motivational climate has a stronger influence on athletes’ evaluative relations than winning. Winning did not appear to matter as won-lost records were more only slightly associated with athletes’ reactions than the motivational climate. For both genders, winning was related to liking for the sport, and intention to return the next year. The results of the study lead researchers to the following conclusions:

1. Winning can influence children’s evaluative reactions of their sport experience, but motivational climate exerts a stronger and more pervasive influence. 2. Winning exerts a stronger influence on boys’ attitudes toward various aspects of their sport experience than it does on girls’ attitudes. 3. Consistent with earlier research, both boys and girls respond positively to a mastery climate. 4. An ego climate has a stronger negative impact on girls than it does on boys.

5. Winning within an ego climate may promote greater importance placed on winning in both boys and girls.

Satisfying Multiple Stakeholders

One of the many difficulties that may come with managing youth sport programs is the need to satisfy multiple stakeholders. While the experiences of young athletes are of primary concern, administrators must also understand the expectations of sports parents, and try to meet those expectations, all while providing a positive youth sport experience for athletes. Experiences in sport can vary greatly from person to person and therefor family members typically have different perspectives of sport or family leisure experiences. When properly organized, youth sports can meet the expectations of all family members. (Schwab et al., 2010).

Schwab et al. (2010) compared the perspectives of antecedent, ongoing, and outcome expectations of players and parents in youth sport experiences. Results indicated that players do perceive the experience of playing in a youth sport league differently than their parents. Many times, parents hold higher expectations for activities than participants do. When expectations are not being met, parents tend to rate the experiences less positively than their children do. Parents may have also had prior involvement with other children in other programs, giving them a wider perspective on sports programs. The differences that exist between parents’ and players’ perspectives in youth sport bring both challenges and opportunities for youth sport professionals.

Fun to Lack of Fun and Drop Out

It is key that parents and youth sport coaches have knowledge of what makes youth sport enjoyable for participants. Having this knowledge can/will help youth athletes achieve their goal of having fun and improving the quality of youth’s sport experiences (Strean & Holt, 2000). Sport programs can provide youth with opportunities to be physically active, provide opportunities to learn important life skills such as cooperation, discipline, leadership, and self-control and provide the learning of motor skills. While the opportunity of positive outcomes through sport are possible, positive outcomes are not always automatic. Often, youth feel excessive pressure to win, perceive themselves as having poor abilities, feel unattached to their teams, and feel vulnerable in the presence of teammates (Fraser-Thomas & Côté, 2006; Strand et al., 2021).

The same reasons that youth have for taking part in sport can also cause youth to transfer or drop outincluding not having fun, wanting to play another sport, not being as skilled as the child wanted, or not liking the pressure (Schwab et al., 2010). Kelley and Carchia (2013) reported that 38% of girls and 39% of boys suggested that lack of fun was the biggest reason for dropping out of sports. Many times, children experience excessive criticism and pressure from parents and coaches to perform their best, win every game, compete so they can earn recognition; and even compete for college scholarships. Suggestions to minimize sports attrition have been offered including: (1) redefining sports goals away from winning towards having fun, (2) balancing parental involvement, (3) encouraging multiple sport participation, (4) enabling children and youth to have more ownership over their sports experiences, (5) decreasing the emphasis on winning, (6) encouraging rules that enable every child to play, and (7) beginning sport involvement at an appropriate age (Witt, 2018).

Development Model of Sport

In a developmental model of sport, as opposed to the win- and profit-oriented model, the measure of success goes beyond individual statistics and team standings. Instead, success involves giving maximum effort, working to develop one’s skills, and enjoying the social and competitive aspects of the sport experience. The model suggests that youth can learn valuable lessons from both winning and losing. In order for this to occur, however, adults must place winning within a healthy perspective. If young athletes think that the only objective is to win, sports are far less likely to provide personal growth (Cumming et al., 2007).

Achievement Goal Theory is a theoretical framework concerned with individuals’ conceptions

of what it means to be successful (Roberts et al., 2007). It provides a proper vantage point from which to compare the importance of winning with other factors that may affect motivated behavior. Nicholls (1984) found two different ways of defining success and construing one’s level of competence, labeling them ego involvement and task involvement. An ego involved individual’s definition of personal success and demonstrated competence is other referenced. Their primary goal is to show they are superior relevant to others, or to avoid appearing inferior to others. Conversely, a task involved individual’s definition of personal success and demonstrated competence is selfreferenced. They feel successful when they learn something new, witness self-improvement in skills or performance, master a task, or give their full effort (Cumming et al., 2007).

Achievement goal theory also addresses environmental factors that foster mastery or ego involvement. To create valuable experiences for athletes, it is recommended that coaches create a mastery-involving motivational climate that encourages athletes to focus on their own personal development. To do this, coaches should reduce the ultimate importance of winning relative to other participation motives. Additionally, ego-involving climate occurs when a coach promotes intra-team rivalries, favors the most talented players, and punishes players for making mistakes. Masteryinvolving climates are associated with greater sport enjoyment and intrinsic motivation, while egoinvolving climates are associated with lower enjoyment and intrinsic motivation (Cumming et al., 2007).

One example of a success development of sport model is Give Us Back Our Game (GUBOG), which started as an emerging soccer campaign in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2006 (Fenoglio & Taylor, 2012). Since its start, GUBOG has been regularly highlighted as an alternative to the formalized league structures, winning-at-all-cost attitudes, and widespread a dulcification that currently affects youth soccer in the UK. GUBOG champions an approach which guarantees children their right to play and to have access to ageappropriate, positive sporting experiences. It also provides a practical 10-point guide to assist practitioners in ensuring that children are always engaged, having fun, and learning new skills. The approach relies upon the adults involved in youth sport to use common sense as they emphasize children’s enjoyment, fun and engagement more than the outcomes of winning and defeating opponents. GUBOG does not advocate the removal of the competitive element, but rather deemphasizes the importance of competition outcomes for youth.

Conclusion

Research has shown that one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that youth choose to take part in sport is to have fun. It is also known that although sports can provide positive experiences for youth, the process it is not always automatic. There are many different stakeholders involved in sport. Each stakeholder has a unique expectation of the experience they want to receive from youth sport. Youth sport organizations must be aware of stakeholder’s expectations and be able to find ways to meet all those expectations with the best interests of the youth in mind. There are a variety of youth development models and programs that have shown to be efficient in providing youth with positive sport experiences and truly allowing them to have fun. The biggest challenge is ensuring that programs are available to all youth, so the needs and expectations of all children be met.

References

Becker, A. J. (2009). It’s not what they do, it’s how they do it: Athlete experiences of great coaching. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4, 93-119. Breiger, J., Cumming, S. P., Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. (2015). Winning, motivational climate, and young athletes' competitive experiences: Some notable sex differences. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 10, 395-411. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.10.2-3.395 Cumming, S. P., Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & Grossbard, J. R. (2007). Is winning everything? The relative contributions of motivational climate and won-lost percentage in youth sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 322-336. doi:10.1080/10413200701342640

Ewing, M. E., & Seefeldt, V. (1997). Youth sports in America: An Overview. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest, 2(11), 1-12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED413324.p df Fenoglio, R., & Taylor, W. (2012). From winningat-all-costs to Give Us Back Our Game: Perspective transformation in youth sport coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19, 191-204. doi:10.1080/17408989.2012.748737 Frankl, D. (n.d.). Recruiting practices in Little League: Who's winning? Kids First Soccer. https://www.kidsfirstsoccer.com/PDF/Recru iting-in-Little-League-DF-2002.pdf Fraser-Thomas, J., & Côté, J. (2006). Youth sports: Implementing findings and moving forward with research. The Online Journal of Sports Psychology, 8(3), 12-27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43 501311_Youth_Sports_Implementing_Findi ngs_and_Moving_Forward_with_Research Kahn, J. P. (2012, December 7). Training camp for coaches: Program teaches youth-SPORTS volunteers that winning has little to do with the final score. Boston.com. Retrieved May 7, 2022, from https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/nopr imarytagmatch/2012/12/07/training-campfor-coaches/ Kelley, B., & Carchia, C. (2013). Hey, data data— swing! ESPN. Retrieved May 7, 2022, from https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/94692 52/hidden-demographics-youth-sports-espnmagazine Klint, K., & Weiss, M. R. (1986). Dropping in and dropping out: Participation motives of current and former youth gymnasts. Canadian Journal of Sport Science, 11, 106-114 Krucoff, C. (1998, October 26). Youth sports shouldn't be about winning. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 7, 2022, from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm1998-oct-26-he-36217-story.html Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conception of ability, subjective experience, mastery choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346. Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Conroy, D. E. (2007). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in sport and physical activity: An achievement goal interpretation. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 1-30). John Wiley & Sons, Inc Schwab, K. A., Wells, M. S., & Arthur-Banning, S. (2010). Experiences in youth sports: A comparison between players’ and parents’ perspectives. Journal of Sport Administration & Supervision, 2(1), 41-51. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League Baseball. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives in youth sports (pp. 173-201). Hemisphere. Strand, B. (2013). Gamesmanship beliefs of high school coaches. The ICHPERSD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance, 8(1), 20-24. Strand, B., Strand, L., Ratzalf, K., & Spiess, K. (2021). From the voice of athletes: Positive and negative aspects of parent/athlete relationships. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/24711616.2021.1907 263 Strean, W. B., & Holt, N. L. (2000). Coaches', athletes', and parents' perceptions of fun in youth sports: Assumptions about learning and implications for practice. Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 6(3), 1-24. Witt, P. A. (2018). Why children/youth drop out of sports. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 36, 191-199. doi:10.18666/jpra-2018-v36-i3-8618