Abstract
This study examines how coaches, athletes and managers influence and reproduce cultural expectations of performance within their teams, and how athletes respond to these expectations. Methodologically, the study is based on qualitative interviews with athletes, coaches and managers within two Scandinavian elite football clubs. Using a Foucauldian perspective on power, the analysis shows how coaches and managers normalise athlete sacrifice, discomfort and conformity within team culture, setting high performance standards that athletes internalise and help to sustain. Importantly, athletes are monitored and disciplined into particular behaviours, though paradoxically, these disciplinary practices often inhibit their ability to meet performance standards fully. Additionally, results highlight how recruitment practices pre-screen for cultural compatibility, laying a foundation for maintaining discipline and cohesion. The findings provide insights into how disciplinary power operates within elite sports environments, shaping behaviours, attitudes and beliefs that may prove detrimental to athlete health.
Introduction
In high-performance sports environments, athletes and coaches relentlessly pursue marginal gains, often fostering a win-at-all-costs culture in which bleeding for the team becomes a normalised expectation (Manley et al., 2016; Schnell et al., 2014). Extensive sociological research documents the detrimental effects of such pressures on athlete wellbeing, including excessive use of painkillers (Overbye, 2021), burnout (Gustafsson et al., 2017; Hilpisch et al., 2024), injury mismanagement (Law and Bloyce, 2019; Murphy and Waddington, 2007), disordered eating and mental health issues (Fatt et al., 2024; Rice et al., 2016). This literature holds valuable insights into the harmful repercussions high-performance sport environments may have on elite athletes. As shown by Nixon (1993), Safai (2003) and others, an ethos of risk, sacrifice and enduring discomfort as is often celebrated in elite sport culture as a testament to commitment (Mayer and Thiel, 2018; Schnell et al., 2014). These social norms extend beyond concerns about burnout, mental health, injury and pain, also shaping identity formation, organisational culture, and the behaviours of coaches, athletes and managers under cultural pressures.
While sociologists have already examined the socio-cultural aspects of high-performance sport leading to cultures of risk and sacrifice (Mayer and Thiel, 2018; Nixon, 1993; Safai, 2003), we add to this literature in multiple ways. Firstly, our contribution is original through its methodological approach. Much sociological work (Mayer and Thiel, 2018; Nixon, 1993; Overbye, 2021; Safai, 2003; Schnell et al. 2014) focuses on athletes’ perspectives. Notable exceptions being Safai (2003) who interviewed both student athletes and sport medicine professionals in a North American context, as well as Manley et al. (2016) who interviewed staff members and youth athletes at an English Premier League team's football academy. Our study design includes athletes, coaches, board members and the CEO of two professional football clubs. Understanding how different actors at multiple levels within an elite sport organisation collectively contribute to the normalisation of certain cultural expectations is critical to addressing the harmful outcomes (overuse of painkillers, burnout, playing while injured) pinpointed by previous research. Secondly, we contribute to literature through our empirical sample. Previous research is primarily situated within North-America (Nixon, 1993, Safai, 2003) and central Europe (Mayer and Thiel, 2018; Schnell et al. 2014). Apart from Overbye (2021), there is limited empirical insights from elite sporting cultures in the Nordic countries. Third, our data provides novel insights into how racialised beliefs about cultural difference (and perceived superiority) among team management influence athlete recruitment. Fourth, our study advances knowledge within this field through our analytical focus. While previous studies have examined specific problematic situations within certain cultures of risk, our focus is on the collective reproduction of cultural expectations within elite sport teams. For instance, Safai (2003) studied injured athletes, Mayer and Thiel (2018) examined athletes’ willingness to compete hurt and Overbye (2021) explored athletes’ use of painkillers. We add to the literature by examining the organisational environments that shape these cultures of risk, leading to the problematic situations described in the works of others.
High-performance sport teams and institutions operate as workplaces where athletes, despite their elite status, have limited power compared to coaches, board members and administrative employees (Murphy and Waddington, 2007). This imbalance of power is especially evident when athletes do not ‘fit in’ with their team culture or organisational expectations, and as a result they are often sold to other teams. This raises important questions about the autonomy and agency of athletes within these work environments, particularly when the need to conform to team norms directly impacts their health and wellbeing. This study addresses these knowledge gaps by exploring the organisational and cultural aspects that lead to performance pressures in elite sport. Specifically, we examine how coaches, athletes, board members and administrative managers influence and reinforce cultural expectations of performance within their teams, and how athletes navigate these expectations. The research question guiding our analysis is: How do coaches, leaders and athletes influence and reproduce cultural expectations of performance within elite sports teams, and how do athletes respond to these performance expectations?
In the following, we outline previous sociological work on the culture of risk and discipline in elite sport and the power dynamics that shape these cultures. Second, we describe our theoretical framework consisting of a Foucauldian perspective on power and deviance. Thereafter, the methodological basis for the study is outlined before we present the findings and conclusion.
Literature review: cultures of risk and discipline in elite sport
Coakley (1992) argued that elite sport systems discipline athletes by promoting one-dimensional identities, where an athlete's self-worth is directly tied to their sporting success. Such dynamics may create elite sports cultures where athletes are pressured to conform to established norms and fulfil their roles as defined by the team. For instance, Brown (2016: 969) found that elite athletes were conditioned to become ‘goody-goodies’, reinforcing behaviours that would likely enhance short-term sporting performance while diverting attention away from social and emotional wellbeing. Studies have further highlighted the influence of those in power positions, such as managers and coaches, in reinforcing these behaviours (Manley et al., 2016; Murphy and Waddington, 2007). For example, Law and Bloyce (2019) found that players faced stigma when they appeared unwilling to play after a manager's encouragement. Similarly, Kelly and Waddington (2006) demonstrated how managers maintain high levels of control over players in professional football clubs, implementing disciplinary codes through intimidation and physical and verbal abuse as central features of their management style. Ohl and colleagues (2015) thus emphasise that athletes are socialised into striving for performance enhancement, often accepting health risks and, in some cases, excessive drug use.
In line with these social pressures, sociologists such as Frey (1991), Nixon (1993) and Safai (2003) have all described elite sports cultures in North America as a culture of risk, framing the ways in which athletes view their health and wellbeing (Safai, 2003: 142). Nixon (1993: 191) argued that the risks (of sports injuries) are accepted by athletes, because they interpret their sporting experiences within a culture of risk. Since the works of Frey (1991), Nixon (1993) and Safai (2003), research has demonstrated how athletes in a variety of elite sporting contexts operate within a culture of risk where both coaches and athletes support the notion that athletes must push their bodies to the limit, even occasionally beyond that limit (Anderson and Jackson, 2013; Bette, 2004; Overbye, 2021; Roderick, 2006). This acceptance of high risk is not isolated; rather, it represents a broader issue pervasive across competitive sports (Pike and Maguire, 2003; Pringle and Markula, 2005; Theberge, 2008). For instance, research shows how elite athletes often face social pressure to compete despite experiencing health problems, making it a widespread phenomenon in elite sports (Mayer and Thiel, 2018). For some coaches and managers, playing through pain is perceived as a symbol of the right attitude in elite sport teams. Consequently, athletes who refuse to compete when injured may be stigmatised, branded as soft, risking isolation and marginalisation by teammates, coaches and managers (Law and Bloyce, 2019; Malcolm and Sheard, 2002; Roderick, 2006; Roderick et al., 2000). Already in 1993, Nixon's content analysis of the American magazine Sports Illustrated showed how sports journalists and commentators ‘frequently glorify the character of athletes who endure with a high pain threshold, sacrifice for the team, and ignore the personal consequences’ (Nixon, 1993: 188).
Even when athletes invest heavily and make significant personal sacrifices, success is not guaranteed for their teams. Elite athletes frequently face various performance-related challenges, such as failure and non-selection, despite showcasing the right attitude. As elite sport systems often encompass stressors like excessive training, inadequate recovery periods, and controlling coaching behaviours (Hilpisch et al., 2024), athletes may react by intensifying their efforts to avoid further setbacks and feelings of shame. Such reactions may mark the onset of a burnout spiral (Gustafsson et al., 2011; Gustafsson et al., 2017; Woods et al., 2022). For instance, Hilpisch and colleagues (2024) found that athletes experiencing sporting disappointments, despite significant investment in training, are more prone to burnout. Moreover, Kleinert et al. (2021) highlighted that negative attitudes toward daily training sessions could lead athletes to question the meaningfulness of their competitive pursuits, potentially accelerating burnout. To mitigate these risks, Hilpisch et al. (2024: 1069) propose monitoring negative training-related emotions over longer periods as an ‘early warning sign’ for burnout. Rather than intensifying pressure, these studies underscore the importance of social and emotional support in elite sports cultures (Goodger et al., 2007; Gustafsson et al., 2017; Hilpisch et al., 2024; Rice et al., 2016; Röthlin et al., 2023; Woods et al., 2022).
Reflecting on these findings, it is evident that many elite athletes experience significant pressure from coaches, managers, and the broader cultural context they inhabit to accept risks and conform to specific practices in their pursuit of success (Law and Bloyce, 2019; Murphy and Waddington, 2007). Despite these findings, there is a need for research investigating how these power dynamics operate in the day-to-day practices of elite sports teams, across athletes, coaches, board members and administrative staff.
Theory
We employ a Foucauldian perspective on power and deviance to examine how cultural performance expectations are reproduced and navigated by elite athletes, coaches and managers.
Foucault describes power and power relations as intertwined with the production of knowledge in society. Power and knowledge are inextricably linked, with each reinforcing and shaping the other (Foucault, 1980). In his writings, Foucault (1977; 1978; 1980) illustrates how those in positions of authority shape what is deemed valid knowledge, reinforcing their dominance within society. In this way, Foucault also challenges traditional notions of power as solely repressive, suggesting instead that power can be productive, creating new forms of knowledge and discourse (Foucault, 1978; 1980). In other words, power produces knowledge, bodies and practices that are aligned with dominant cultural expectations. In elite sports teams, power produces disciplined athletes and the very idea of what it means to be a successful athlete (Brown, 2016). Through the construction of knowledge about training, competition, and performance, cultural expectations become ingrained as common sense. Athletes and coaches may reproduce expectations through established metrics of performance (e.g. speed, strength, technique), reinforcing the legitimacy of these standards. Thus, Foucault's writings on power/knowledge offer a critical lens through which we can examine elite sports teams as institutions that produce and perpetuate knowledge about athletic performance and high-performance culture.
Foucault's (1980) concept of disciplinary power is also relevant for analyses of performance cultures in elite sport. In this context, coaches and managers become key figures who influence norms, subtly shaping what is considered acceptable behaviour among athletes (Claringbould et al. 2014). In this way, coaches and managers contribute to the normalisation of certain behaviours, creating conforming athletes (Konoval et al. 2021). This power extends beyond formal institutions, infiltrating personal habits as individuals internalise cultural expectations. Here, normalisation refers to the process through which certain behaviours and standards are established as expected, while deviations from these norms are marked as abnormal or undesirable (Foucault, 1977; 1980). In sports teams, performance expectations are normalised through both formal structures (e.g. training schedules, performance metrics) and informal practices (e.g. team culture, peer pressure). As athletes are scrutinised, these standards become ingrained, guiding behaviour and marking deviations as undesirable. Athletes are continually measured against these normalised standards, and those who fail to conform to them risk being marginalised or excluded.
Foucault's writings on how behaviours that deviate from social norms are labelled and regulated have significantly influenced research in sociology of sport. For instance, Pringle and Markula (2005) utilised Fourcault's concepts of discourse and power to examine how rugby athletes defy pain and injury to appear successful according to the standards and norms of their culture. Similarly, Manley and colleagues (2012) used Foucault's conceptualisations of surveillance to show how athletes in football academies were constantly monitored, and their behaviours were regulated and controlled according to predetermined norms of achievement to enhance performance. In another study, Manley and colleagues (2016) gave further insights into such deviance in academies, showing how surveillance and disciplinary mechanisms led to a ‘climate of silence’ (p. 221). These studies demonstrate a variety of ways in which behaviour has been controlled through various discourses, and how athletes’ performances are similarly shaped by social and cultural norms, underscoring the pervasive role of power in defining and managing deviance.
The works of Pringle and Markula (2005), Manley and colleagues (2012) and Manley and colleagues (2016) illustrate how applying a Foucauldian perspective shifts the understanding of deviance in sport to a product of power relations and social structures. By examining how elite sport teams construct and manage deviance, the perspectives of Foucault offer insights into the ways in which social order is maintained and how norms are used as tools of control. This allows for research to further investigate the socio-cultural aspects of high-performance sport leading to cultures of risk, as previous research has demonstrated (Mayer and Thiel, 2018; Nixon, 1993; Safai, 2003).
Methods
Emphasising the subjective meanings and experiences of individuals in their social contexts, our work is philosophically grounded in an interpretivist paradigm (Alharahsheh and Pius, 2020). Our approach is underpinned by a relativist ontology, acknowledging that participants may perceive and interpret reality differently, and a constructionist epistemology emphasising the co-construction of knowledge through researcher–participant interaction (Moon and Blackman, 2014).
The article is based on interviews with athletes, coaches and managers in two Scandinavian elite football clubs. We selected clubs who regularly compete for national titles as well as consistently competing and achieving success in European tournaments. This was to examine the cultural work of clubs that perform well and regularly compete for the most prestigious trophies, where the stakes are high, and the demands placed on athletes are correspondingly high. Both clubs have in recent years experienced significant sporting and non-sporting challenges, including relegation and financial challenges. Over the last few years, however, both clubs have delivered exceptional sporting performances, achieving several records and national titles as well as proving competitive in European tournaments against clubs with significantly greater financial resources. Thus, the clubs constitute relevant cases for investigating how coaches, leaders and athletes influence and reproduce cultural expectations of performance to achieve such remarkable results, and, importantly, how athletes navigate and respond to performance expectations placed upon them.
Sample and data collection
The recruitment of informants was carried out using strategic sampling (Miles and Huberman, 1994). We selected participants who: (1) represent the sports, administrative and strategic parts of the teams (players, coaches, administrators, board members, CEO), (2) represent people who are both new to the team and people who have long time experience in the team. We recruited participants based on publicly available information about the members of the teams. Potential informants were approached via email and phone. We interviewed a total of 20 individuals from the two teams. An overview of the participants is presented in Table 1.
Participant characteristics.
All participants were pseudo-anonymised based on their roles: players have pseudonyms starting with the letter ‘S’, coaches starting with the letter ‘T’ and leaders starting with the letter ‘L’. As Table 1 shows, the management category consists of three different roles: the sporting director, CEO and the chairman of the board. These are categorised together on the basis of being administrative roles that between them hold power and influence over strategic decisions around important focus areas for the club and their culture. Furthermore, the management roles also stand out by not being directly involved in on-field work, distinguishing them from coaches and players. Taken together, the three levels thus provide insight into both strategic and operational aspects of their culture, as well as the dynamics between the different roles that are central to football clubs’ cultural work.
The interviews were conducted at the clubs’ stadiums, and the duration of the interviews varied between 45 and 90 min. The interviews were semi-structured with open ended questions centred around themes such as the informant's role within the organisation's work with performance culture, what important elements of their performance culture consists of, as well as the acquisition, development and sharing of important knowledge and strategies to their performance culture. Three interview guides were developed – one for each of the main informant categories: managers, coaches and players. The purpose of this was to gain insight into what the informants perceived as important to them within their specific roles, as well as accommodating the nuances and differences that may occur based on the nature of the different roles.
Collective qualitative analysis
All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Interview transcripts and material from the analysis were anonymised and analysed using collective qualitative analysis. Collective qualitative analysis is a method where a group of researchers collaborate in a workshop and engage in analytical work together, limiting the risk that results are influenced by an individual's (pre)understanding (Eggebø, 2020). Reflecting our relativist ontology, the collective qualitative analysis acknowledges that individual researchers may interpret data differently. Hence, working collectively with the analysis aligns with our constructionist epistemology, emphasising the co-construction of knowledge through interaction. The approach builds on Braun and Clark's (2019) inductive and reflexive thematic analysis and consists of preparations where each researcher writes individual summaries of the interviews. For our collective analysis, three researchers were involved in the collective qualitative analysis workshop.
The analytical workshop consists of four phases. Firstly, the authors worked through the data material by presenting individual summaries of all interviews. Secondly, we mapped all the data and reflected on what was the main essence of the material and which themes, ideas, thoughts and analytical threads existed. During this phase, key themes were developed amongst the co-authors (e.g. cultural expectations and demands, experience of social control and insatiable quest for success). Thirdly, the data was sorted, where we reflected on which of the themes fit together, and what were the important main themes and sub-themes. Here, we grouped quotes into particularly prominent tendencies and nuances with regards to how coaches, leaders, and athletes influence and reproduce cultural expectations of performance, in line with Braun and Clarke's (2019) reflexive thematic analysis. Furthermore, we analysed key elements regarding how athletes respond to the performance expectations they are subjugated to. Finally, the fourth step consisted of creating a work plan for writing up the findings. The analytical themes and subthemes developed from the workshop are presented in Table 2.
Analytical themes and subthemes.
Findings and discussion
To examine how different actors at multiple levels (coaches, athletes, board members, CEO, sporting directors) collectively perpetuate and navigate cultural expectations of performance within elite sport organisations, we start by presenting how coaches and managers normalise sacrifice, discomfort and conformity in their team culture. Second, we present findings related to what the coaches and managers term ‘cultural fit’, addressing how teams incorporate cultural values into their recruitment strategies for new players. Third, we focus on the role of athletes in reproducing cultural norms of performance. The fourth part discusses how athletes experience and navigate the cultural expectations under which they are placed.
Coaches and managers’ normalisation of commitment and sacrifice
We found that coaches and managers had clear visions of their club's ideal performance culture, the elements required for athletes to contribute to the team's performance culture – and by extension, which behaviours were deemed as incompatible with that culture. When asked to reflect on their performance culture, one of the sport directors expressed how the team had a ‘good culture’: We do have a really good culture. So, I think we are aware of what a good culture looks like. And the direction, and the thoughts that need to be in place, for us to have the right culture. You have to have that fire in you. People who may not have experienced much success before but want to move up and forward in the world. Those who has a real hunger and desire to work for that. (Leo, sporting director)
The sporting director oversees sporting operations and makes key decisions about the club's strategic focus, including which athletes should be retained or replaced. The quote highlights the sports director's influence over the principles of what constitutes as a ‘good culture’ or a ‘right culture’ in the team. By articulating clear expectations and standards for what a positive culture entails, the sporting director emphasises the athletes’ commitment to work for the benefit of their team. Other managers and coaches amongst our interviewees described that athletes were expected to be ‘fully committed’ and ‘do their utmost for the team’. Within that, it was expected that athletes would ‘push themselves to their limit every day’ to contribute to the team's development. Coaches and managers acknowledged the challenges athletes face in sustaining such daily efforts, often involving multiple hours of training, matches each week and minimal breaks or holidays throughout the year. Despite this, they were clear in their expectation that athletes should ‘face adversity’ with ‘unwavering effort and sacrifice’, underlining that, as long as they are ‘part of this team’, they are required to consistently meet the high standards set for them: Every day should be full intensity. Everything we do should be 100%. (Tyler, coach) It demands a lot from the players, and it demands a lot from the coaching team. It requires a high degree of presence and culture to be 100% motivated when the conditions are bad. To still have the approach that, damn it, today I'm going to go out and have a damn good session, so that I can become better, and so that the team can develop further. (Terry, coach) It is crucial that you put in the required effort and sacrifice. There is zero tolerance when it comes to that. (Thomas, coach)
By expecting a high level of ‘commitment, effort and sacrifice’, coaches and managers enact disciplinary power through the normalisation of behaviours that discipline athletes to meet these standards to maintain a ‘good’ performance culture (Foucault, 1980). However, in doing so, they risk encouraging behaviours that, as research has shown, may lead to detrimental outcomes for athletes’ wellbeing, such as burnout and injuries (Hilpisch et al., 2024; Mayer and Thiel, 2018). The expectations of commitment, effort and sacrifice were also found within the athletes’ descriptions of what they perceive as important elements within their club's performance culture: It's not just the coach, the mindset spreads to the players. And then it becomes a form of… social control, where you… you're not allowed to drop in concentration or effort. (Simon, player) We have a captain who leads by example. He's someone who does things properly in training. There's never any fooling around, he shows up for everything, he works hard, he… speaks up if people aren't doing things well enough. He, and the coach, are both very insistent that ‘this is how it has to be.’ It helps the rest of us to see that… this is how things work. (Shawn, player)
In further exploring this interplay between individual behaviour and collective expectations, our data illustrates the head coach's influence in enforcing such social norms as they actively intervene to correct and discipline athletes who stray from these norms: We have a coach who is very strict. He is really focused on good everyday routines. When you're here, you have to improve. (Shawn, player) It gets noticed very quickly if you're slacking off in a training session. Then it gets addressed brutally. (Sebastian, player) Then the head coach will call you out on your lack of effort. In a meeting the next day. (Stuart, player)
While it is common, and not necessarily problematic, for head coaches in elite sports to enforce certain standards and expectations, prioritising effort and personal sacrifice as essential components of ‘good everyday routines’ introduces risks. It may establish a precedent where athletes feel rewarded for pushing through difficulties with intensified effort and sacrifice to gain recognition and appear successful. This may inadvertently discourage them from seeking alternative, sustainable solutions that could more effectively prevent overload, burnout and injury. As previous research has shown, this ‘push-through’ mentality poses significant dangers, as it often results in severe consequences for athletes, including physical and mental exhaustion (Brown, 2016; Hilpisch et al., 2024; Mayer and Thiel, 2018). Even if coaches and sporting management encourage open communication around challenges to facilitate appropriate solutions, their emphasis on commitment and effort as markers of success can foster a culture where athletes feel compelled to meet these standards (Foucault, 1980). As a result, they may prioritise adherence to these expectations over addressing their own physical and mental needs, believing that conforming to these norms will better position them for career advancement. This illustrates how disciplinary practices, though subtly applied, can unintentionally shape behaviours that deviate from the coaches’ and management's intended outcomes. Athletes themselves report feeling they have few options other than to align with these expectations, noting that any deviations are noticed ‘very quickly’ and gets ‘addressed brutally’. Failure to conform risks confrontation and correction, pushing athletes to align their behaviour with the cultural elements deemed essential by leadership for maintaining a ‘good culture.’ When asked about what happens if athletes do not conform to the standards and expectations within the culture, one administrative leader says: You can't be here. Because you can't work against us. (Leo, sporting director)
The quote shows how there is little to no alternative other than adhering to cultural expectations. You either adapt to the club's performance culture, values and practices, or you are out. To protect their career and opportunities for success it may therefore be difficult for athletes to defy cultural norms, leaving them with little other option than to conform to the cultural expectations that are placed upon them. In our interviews, there is also data to indicate that team cultural expectations are also connected to racialised beliefs.
Cultural fit: recruitment strategies and ‘Nordic values’
Team management plays a pivotal role in shaping performance culture, especially through the recruitment of new athletes. Our data reveals that management employs a clear, intentional recruitment strategy designed to maintain a cohesive club culture: We have a very conservative approach to player recruitment. If you look at their nationality, we mostly have Norwegian and Danish players. Who normally have the same mentality and who are used to working for the team. (Lucas, sporting director)
As this sporting director explains, the club's recruitment practices are guided by the desire to select players from specific national backgrounds. By limiting recruitment to athletes from other cultural backgrounds, the club aims to create an environment where players are thought to be better suited to meet behavioural and cultural expectations. This approach is disciplinary in several ways: First, it reduces the likelihood that athletes will challenge existing cultural norms and expectations. Second, it contributes to the reproduction of social control within the team, as players are assumed to share similar values and perspectives, thereby facilitating a form of mutual surveillance and disciplinary behaviour among teammates (Foucault, 1980; Haggerty and Ericson, 2000). However, this approach to player recruitment did not emerge in isolation; it evolved from past experiences of recruiting players from diverse cultural backgrounds. In interviews, members of the team management reflected on how ‘challenges’ with ‘culturally different’ athletes prompted a reassessment of their recruitment strategy: We recruited some foreign, English-speaking players, who came from a different type of culture. Then we realized, damn, it became challenging. It wasn’t always the best players who fit in with the way we work. (Lewis, CEO) Foreign players from Eastern Europe or… Africa, or Southern Europe, they can also be good and bring a lot of qualities. But they typically have an individual mindset, we just felt that things did not go… exactly as fantastically as we had hoped. (Lucas, sporting director)
These reflections highlight how management's experiences with athletes from diverse backgrounds created friction within the team culture. While these players were considered ‘talented’ and ‘capable’, their differing values were seen as incompatible with team performance culture. Here, the interviewees talked about how players with a Nordic background were used to ‘hard work’ and ‘sacrificing themselves for the team’. Whereas players from other countries were thought to be more egocentric, creating friction in the team. Thus, by selecting athletes with a Nordic background, who were thought to align with the club's norms, coaches and managers seek to avoid disruptions to their performance cultures. This practice demonstrates how disciplinary measures can begin long before an athlete's arrival at the club. By pre-screening for cultural compatibility, coaches and managers lay the groundwork for maintaining discipline and cohesion within the team. The athletes, too, echo management's views, expressing that having teammates from similar cultural backgrounds is an advantage: I feel that it's an advantage that so many of us come from the same culture. But in the teams I've been part of before, there were people from many different cultures, and many internal cliques. Which made things a bit complicated. (Stuart, player)
Stuart's reflection underscores the challenges that may arise when cultural diversity introduces internal divisions in sports teams (Tjønndal and Haugen, 2024). While there may be multiple factors at play, one interpretation could be that a culturally diverse team may disrupt the social control that players view as essential for achieving athletic success with the team. When athletes accept that success hinges on their individual efforts and conformity to team culture, they may also come to view opposing opinions within the team as a threat to these shared values, potentially undermining the unity and drive necessary for success.
Athletes and the reproduction of cultural expectations
Our findings illustrate how athletes actively participate in reinforcing cultural expectations of performance within their teams. Many athletes characterise this as a form of ‘social control’ exercised among teammates: There's a social control within the group, where you are put in your place quite quickly if you do not meet the expectations. Because if you don't, it's damaging to the culture. (Simon, player) It's hard not to give 100% in training. Other players will call you out on it. (Stuart, player)
The quotes show how the athletes adopt the values in such a way that they themselves, towards each other, apply disciplinary mechanisms according to the cultural values of effort and conformity. This is in line with previous research, where monitoring and subsequent disciplining of athletes towards norms have been demonstrated in several contexts within sport (e.g. Manley et al., 2012; Manley et al., 2016; Mayer and Thiel, 2018). This social control can also be understood as an expression of Foucault's (1980) concept of docile bodies, or through Haggerty and Ericsons (2000) rhizomatic surveillance. We found that these disciplining practices are reinforced as the top players serve both as role models and as monitors: The players who are the best in our team are all hard workers. None of them slack off. (Stevie, player) We have a captain who leads the way. There is never any nonsense, he shows up for everything, he works hard, and he lets people know if they are not doing things well enough. (Shawn, player)
In football and other team sports, athletes rely heavily on one another, making it essential for everyone to adhere to the practices established as standards for success. Consequently, peer discipline can become a powerful tool to ensure that all team members contribute to collective and individual achievements. However, this form of social control may also drive athletes to strive to outperform teammates. In this way, the performance culture of the teams may normalise increasingly extreme behaviours, such as ignoring injuries, using performance-enhancing drugs, or failing to communicate personal challenges, which are all issues that research has shown to be prevalent in elite sports cultures (Gustafsson et al., 2017; Ohl et al., 2015; Overbye, 2021). Social pressure among athletes can create an environment where they are continually held to escalating standards, driving them to demonstrate their competence through relentless effort and personal sacrifice. The following quote from a team captain illustrates how athletes themselves have internalised these values and set examples for others to emulate: I sacrifice a lot to be available for all trainings, for all matches. Last week my foot was completely messed up. I couldn’t kick with it. But I still felt that I had to train and be available for the team. (Stuart, player)
Stuart's quote illustrates how athletes push themselves and their bodies to great lengths to meet the cultural expectations placed upon them. He goes as far as playing through severe pain to show effort and willingness to sacrifice himself to be available for the team. Our findings thus support those of previous research from North-America (Nixon, 1993; Safai, 2003) and central Europe (Mayer and Thiel, 2018; Schnell et al. 2014) that shows how athletes both individually and collectively conform to the standards set by coaches and management (Brown, 2016; Manley et al., 2012). Our findings add to these studies by illustrating how athletes become deeply convinced of the importance of such behaviours, actively engaging in producing and reinforcing disciplinary practices. This, in turn, escalates the risks they take and the potential consequences for their health and career opportunities.
Reprimands and rewards: how athletes respond to performance expectations
In our interviews, we asked the athletes about their experiences of not meeting the cultural expectations of performance within their teams and how this impacted them. Several of the athletes described how they experienced discomfort and reprimands when they failed to meet the expectations of coaches and managers. For instance, the players describe how they must maintain ‘high standards’ and adhere to existing requirements to keep their place within the team. This becomes a form of disciplining through implicit punishment, where athletes may feel restricted by the constant need to prove their capabilities. In the interviews, several athletes exemplified this through coaches’ allocation of playing time: The coach was a bit reluctant to let me play. I really felt that I had to play the game of my life. Because I had to show that I’m better than the ones who are playing. And when that's the mindset, that you have to do great, it can often make you tense up. At least, that's what it does for me. I was never good enough to start the next match again. (Shawn, player) I can’t afford to make mistakes. (Sebastian, player)
Shawn and Sebastian both describe how allocation of playing time is based on effort (for instance when Shawn says he needs to ‘play the game of my life’) and on individual performance (avoiding making mistakes on-field). Sebastian went on to describe experiences where the coach would give him ‘harsh feedback’ when he made on-field mistakes and how this impacted his playing style by ‘playing simple’ to avoid reprimands from the coach and losing his position in the team. These quotes exemplify how the coaches and managers’ normalisation of commitment and sacrifice impacts the athletes’ agency and actions. Shawn and Sebastian's experiences can also be interpreted as examples of how athletes internalise cultural norms related to discipline and sacrifice imposed by coaches and managers in the organisation. As a result, Sebastian prioritises caution over creativity in his playing style. As Shawn describes, the scrutiny of the coach leads him to tense up, despite knowing that it hinders his performance. In this way, athletes’ behaviours are guided by a fear of deviating from established cultural expectations, illustrating how the disciplined team culture has permeated their mindset (Foucault, 1980). Even when alternative behaviours could offer equally valuable contributions to the team's success (for instance a more creative playing style), the athletes remain reluctant to deviate from accepted norms. Several of the athletes also describe the pressures arising from the competitive environment among teammates, where they feel they must constantly outperform their peers to secure their place in the lineup and avoid losing valuable opportunities: It's easy to become defensive and tense in what you’re doing. You are comparing yourself to teammates and thinking, ‘I can’t miss that pass’ or ‘I can’t lose that duel,’ because then the guy on the bench, well, he’ll play the next match, not me. (Sebastian, player) I think the new players coming in feel a bit like, ‘I need to step up here,’ and ‘I need to jump in, otherwise I’ll fall behind. (Stevie, player)
Sebastian and Stevie's quotes show how teammates also serve as competitors. This competitive environment means that athletes must consistently perform well to avoid the risk of others taking their place in the team. Moreover, recruitment of new players by management, based on perceived alignment with cultural expectations, adds further pressure on athletes to conform to the team's performance culture. Under this pressure, athletes face the dual burden of striving for personal success while upholding collective expectations. Sebastian and Stevie describe feeling torn between their desire to succeed and a sense of being overwhelmed by the demands of the team. This strain is evident in their reflections on self-imposed expectations: Sometimes you set too high demands for yourself. It's kind of negative where you’re never satisfied. Well, you should never be completely satisfied, but you also have to be able to enjoy things. (Sebastian, player) Even if you won the league by… ten points, you still feel like you’ve played… very few games that you’re satisfied with. That feels somewhat wrong. (Stevie, player)
The cultural expectation of never being satisfied, of always pushing for greater effort and sacrifice, takes a toll on Stevie and Sebastian emotionally, as they rarely feel successful or competent enough. This demonstrates how the relentless drive for improvement in elite sport, might be beneficial for the team, while simultaneously being harmful for the mental health and wellbeing of the athletes (Hilpisch et al., 2024; Mayer and Thiel, 2018). Beyond performing well on the field, the athletes we interviewed also describe financial incentives linked to playing time, intensifying their motivation to conform to team performance culture: The more you play, the more money you get. If you play everything, you’ll get… probably ten times as much compared to if you’re on the bench. And it's not just an extra five thousand, it's… a lot more.. I feel that it's an extra, like… carrot, and a whip. (Stevie, player)
The athletes’ financial rewards are thus tightly connected to their ability to meet the coach's standards and secure playing time. In this way, the prospect of increased income serves as both a motivator and a disciplinary tool, where athletes must decide between conforming to cultural expectations to secure these benefits or risking reduced playing time and financial setbacks. As one athlete described, ‘If you end up playing, then you've received your reward. The consensus is that we accept that’.
Together, these findings reveal a complex system of expectations and practical implications that serve to discipline athletes. Although the athletes we interviewed describe feeling monitored and disciplined into certain behaviours, paradoxically, the same disciplinary practices that coaches and management employ to enforce high standards often hinder athletes’ ability to meet them. This creates a cycle in which cultural expectations of performance, established by authority figures like the sporting director and coaches, lead to unintended consequences that limit athletes’ capacity to fully meet those standards.
Conclusion
This study examined how coaches, athletes and managers influence and reproduce cultural expectations within elite sports teams. Our findings support previous research demonstrating how the socio-cultural aspects of high-performance sport may lead to cultures of risk (Mayer and Thiel, 2018; Nixon, 1993; Safai, 2003). We further add to this literature in multiple ways. First, by exploring how athletes, coaches, board members and CEO's collectively contribute to the normalisation of certain cultural expectations, our findings show how those in authority – coaches, managers and sport directors, set rigid standards of commitment, pushing the athletes to ‘give their all’ as a prerequisite for belonging to the team. Through this lens, a ‘good culture’ is one where athletes demonstrate an unwavering dedication to their training and performance. However, this intensity comes with substantial risks for the athletes, who feel pressured to prioritise team expectations over their own physical and mental wellbeing.
Second, our findings highlight how performance culture is disciplined from the outset through the recruitment strategies employed by team management represented by the CEO, sporting director and board members. By employing a strategy of recruiting athletes from similar cultural backgrounds, particularly those sharing ‘Nordic values’ of ‘hard work’ and self-sacrifice, the team management attempts to minimise disruptions to team cohesion and reinforces an existing performance culture. These findings underpin the importance of investigating the perspectives of management members such as sporting directors, CEO's and board members, uncovering how they employ a form of preemptive discipline, filtering for athletes deemed more likely to conform to team norms, thereby reducing the likelihood of resistance or alternative perspectives within the team. This practice demonstrates two things: (1) how the disciplinary measures of team management are implemented long before an athlete's arrival at the club, and (2) how racialised beliefs of cultural difference (and perceived superiority) influence athlete recruitment. The preference for athletes who are thought to embody particular cultural traits underlines the extent to which disciplinary practices are embedded within daily routines and in the structural decisions surrounding team composition. However, the consequences of such a performance focused and conformist culture are not without cost. While these disciplinary practices may foster short-term performance gains, they can also lead to long-term detriments for athlete wellbeing. The athletes we interviewed describe having experienced high levels of pressure and anxiety, with little margin for error, resulting in favouring a playing style that prioritises caution over creativity and a reluctance to seek alternative strategies that might better support their health and development. This ‘push-through’ mentality can result in burnout, physical injuries and mental strain, as suggested in previous sociological work (Manley et al. 2016; Overbye, 2021), as athletes internalise the idea that ‘sacrifice’ is essential to success.
In interviews, athletes echoed the values promoted by their coaches and managers, describing a ‘social control’ within the team that holds them accountable for meeting the expectations of performance. This form of peer discipline reproduces the cultural values set by the team staff and creates an environment where deviation from expected behaviours is quickly corrected. Top players, particularly team captains, serve as role models and monitors, ensuring that other team members adhere to the standards of effort, sacrifice and conformity. This dynamic illustrates how disciplinary power, wherein behaviour is regulated by internalised norms, works in elite sports organisations. In this case, the athletes view commitment and sacrifice as non-negotiable traits for achieving and maintaining their status within the team, furthering the entrenchment of these standards within the team performance culture. Moreover, the pressure to conform extends beyond performance, as financial incentives tied to playing time intensify athletes’ motivation to adhere to team norms. This creates a dual-layered form of discipline: athletes must not only meet performance expectations to secure their positions but also rely on adherence to cultural standards to maximise their financial rewards. This combination of social and financial pressures reinforces a ‘win-at-all-costs’ mentality, which often leads athletes to overlook or minimise injuries and fatigue, believing that pushing through adversity is necessary for success and recognition.
The findings of this study add to current literature by providing insights into the organisational environments that shape cultures of risk. By exploring the perspectives of athletes, coaches, board members and CEO's, the study demonstrates how disciplinary power operates within elite sports environments, shaping behaviours, attitudes and beliefs that may prove detrimental to athlete health. Future research should continue to investigate these dynamics across multiple organisational levels in diverse sports and cultural contexts, providing a broader perspective on the impact of performance culture on athletes’ lives and careers.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank associate professor Anne Kamilla Lund (Nord University) for her contribution to the collective qualitative analysis seminar.
Declaration of conflicting interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article
Ethical approval and informed consent
This study was approved by Sikt – the Norwegian Research Ethics Committee (approval no.532344) on 12 April 2023. Respondents gave written consent with signature before starting interviews.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
