Abstract
Strength and conditioning (S&C) coaches are invaluable in exercise and sport, with numbers rising globally. This exploratory study sought to better understand who these coaches are, their career aspirations, and to identify potential career-related barriers. An anonymous mixed-methods online survey collected information from Australian S&C coaches on demographics, work-related variables, career aspirations, and industry perceptions. Ninety-eight S&C coaches were included in final analyses, with variations in response numbers across variables. A total 42.4% identified as female (n = 28 of 66) and 71.8% (n = 61) held more than 1 job. Whilst only 9.9% (n = 8 of 81) were contracted for ≥40 h/week, 40.7% reported working ≥40 h (n = 33 of 81). Fifty-five S&C coaches were considering changing jobs, with personal, role-related, and industry factors viewed as barriers to working or progressing in the S&C industry. Overall findings demonstrated S&C coaches often hold multiple jobs to survive financially, with many considering a career change into non-coaching roles or out of S&C. This study identified key areas for review to enhance the support and sustainability of S&C coaches, vital to securing future generations of high-quality, adaptable S&C coaches. Given that our coach profile information (e.g., demographics) aligns with that of various international research, it is feasible our findings offer learnings and guidance for the S&C industry beyond Australia. Such information can guide the development and implementation of sustainable, stakeholder-centred services and support, enabling industry growth and the retention of quality S&C coaches, whilst also supporting the transition of coaches wishing to change or diversify their career pathway.
Introduction
Strength and conditioning (S&C) coaches play critical roles in athlete development across all levels of participation. Traditionally, designing training programs for performance and injury prevention have been considered key duties of an S&C coach. 1 However, this perspective fails to capture the true breadth of their responsibilities in the contemporary sporting landscape. For example, a survey of 179 Canadian S&C coaches found that 67% reported completing duties beyond those ‘typical’ of S&C roles, including nutrition counselling (83%) and substance abuse counselling (59%). 2 This highlights that success in S&C coaching requires more than just technical expertise. Notably, interpersonal skills have been identified as the ‘secret sauce’ that distinguish expert from novice S&C coaches 3 and are essential across all facets of coaching, including leadership 4 and athlete care. 5
Despite their contributions, S&C coaches face demanding work conditions not conducive to career longevity. The harsh reality is that S&C jobs are highly competitive, unpredictable, transient, and often economically inadequate. Developing S&C coaches often spend months or even years in unpaid or low-paid positions to gain experience or industry contacts to enable them to later apply for more lucrative positions, which unfortunately are few and far between.2,6 Previous research with S&C coaches indicated many individuals report mediocre salaries relative to hours worked, even many years into their career, with some having to take on multiple jobs to make ends meet.6,7 Conversely, studies have also consistently reported that S&C roles demand commitment beyond full-time hours. For example, US college division II S&C coaches work an average 75 h per week in season and often still maintain 64-h weeks during the off-season.8,9 In Australia, S&C coaches in high-performance settings reported experiencing similar poor working environments with long, variable hours often accompanied by low overall compensation. 7 While national S&C organisations like the Australian Strength and Conditioning Association (ASCA) and the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) report data on recommended 10 and current 11 annual salaries, which sit around $60,000 outside of professional or tactical/government roles, these numbers do not factor in that many S&C coaches report working above full-time hours.
Beyond the issue of workload and compensation, another significant challenge experienced by S&C coaches is the widespread approach of employers only offering short term or contract-base employment, resulting in job instability. A recent systematic review by Zhong et al. demonstrated that most S&C coach contracts in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) system were generally one year or less. 6 As such, coach tenure was generally brief, with the same review also reporting that most (63–75%) of these S&C coaches had been with their current employer for less than 5 years, and only 9–20% served 10 or more years. 6 Similarly, an Australian-based study of the high performance and sport science workforce found less than half (47.1%) of the 36 S&C coach participants held an ongoing contract. 12
Regardless of these issues, a career in S&C continues to hold its appeal. There are over 6000 S&C coaches currently registered with ASCA, the leading Australian accrediting body. 13 Furthermore, the US-based NSCA, the world's largest S&C association, has over 60,000 accredited coaches worldwide, an increase from 45,000 in 2020. 14 Given the ever-evolving landscape of sport worldwide, particularly the increase in the professionalism of sports from grassroots to elite, it is anticipated the number of accredited S&C coaches will only increase further. This growth is particularly relevant in Australia with the upcoming Brisbane 2032 Olympics.
Given this projected growth in the profession, establishing a clear demographic profile of this workforce is valuable for effective planning, resource allocation, and the development of targeted support initiatives. However, while research has been undertaken globally to establish a profile of the ‘typical’ S&C coach, a comprehensive understanding of the Australian S&C coaching landscape is lacking. Existing international data from Canada, USA and China characterised the workforce as being predominately male (75–88%), around 30 years of age, and with less than 10 years of industry experience.2,6,11,15,16 A further international study by Weldon et al., with 156 S&C coaches from 17 different countries, also reported a mean average age of 31.9 years (± 8.9) and average coaching experience of 8.35 ± 6.89 years. 17 For Australia-focused research, the only available data came from a broader survey of 175 high-performance and sport science practitioners, which included a small sample of 36 S&C coaches. 12 Notwithstanding this limitation, the demographic information of this sub-cohort was consistent with findings from other countries, with 91.7% males, 69.4% aged 35 years or younger, and 77.7% had been in their current position for 5 years or less. 12 While further exploration of the demographic of Australian S&C coaching workforce is required, these global trends of young workforce and high turnover can have detrimental effects on the retention of knowledge and the development of coaching expertise. Moreover, understanding S&C coaches’ career aspirations and perceived challenges, aspects often overlooked by quantitative studies, is essential for designing effective support and retention strategies to build a sustainable profession.
Therefore, this research sought to not only understand the demographics of Australian S&C coaches, but also their career aspirations and perceived challenges to entering and remaining in the field. As emphasised above, while S&C coaching remains an attractive profession to those wanting to work in sport and performance at various levels, worldwide the industry is characterised by challenges including high staff turnover and limited career longevity. A detailed understanding of S&C coaches, encompassing factors beyond demographic and professional practice variables (e.g., approaches to coaching, programming, training methods used), will enable the development of strategies to enhance work conditions and support these invaluable professionals, ultimately fostering a more sustainable S&C industry.
Methods
Design and participants
A cross-sectional exploratory study was undertaken to gather data on S&C coaches, including career aspirations and perceived industry challenges. Potential survey participants were invited to participate via social media platform posts (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook) shared by the research team or direct email of the study information and survey link to professional networks of research team members (e.g., S&C coaching interest groups, previous and current colleagues). Of note is that this survey was not directly disseminated via any S&C coach membership databases, as it was conducted independently of any associations (e.g., ASCA), and instead relied on the methods outlined above. Due to this dissemination method, a total sample size could not be estimated. Inclusion criteria were: i) aged 18 years or older and, ii) currently working in some capacity as an S&C coach. While individuals did not have to be Australian, given the nature of the dissemination methods (i.e., via the research team and Australian S&C coaching networks), it was anticipated most respondents would be. Invited individuals were able to view the participant information sheet at the start of the survey, outlining purpose, aims, time-commitment, and data usage. They were informed that all survey data were collected in an unidentified manner, and choosing to proceed with completing the survey was considered consent to participate. Ethical approval was provided by Southern Cross University's Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No: 2023/180).
Survey
An anonymous online survey was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data at a single time-point (Appendix 1). Survey questions were originally drafted by two members of the research team, who developed a list of closed- and open-ended questions guided by previous research in the field,7,18 professional experience working with and as S&C coaches, and alignment with a survey designed to evaluate who current aspiring S&C coaches are in Australia (currently in dissemination). These questions were then sent to a small team comprised of university exercise and sport academics and S&C coaches working at various levels (e.g., state, national) for feedback and addition/modification of questions. The survey draft was then re-reviewed by the original researchers for clarity, overlap, and alignment with overall project aims, resulting in a final 28-question survey. This was converted to an open-access survey on Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Utah, USA) and distributed in December 2023 as outlined above, with an expected completion time of 15–20 min. A follow-up distribution was repeated two and four months later, with the survey open for a duration of five months to allow for variation in sporting seasons, snowball effect, and holidays.
The final survey was designed to capture personal and professional information from respondents. To respect individual's right to choose, related to their participation, no questions were made mandatory after the initial pre-screening questions related to age (18 or over) and indication of whether they were currently working as an S&C coach were answered. Demographics collected included age range, gender, and geographical location. Additional questions asked respondents about their industry-related work history, including area (e.g., sport, level), employment situation and plans, income, hours worked versus contracted, previous experience, and qualifications. Also included were two open-ended questions:
If you are currently seeking a new job/contract, why? What (if any) do you perceive as barriers to seeking or gaining employment in the S&C space?
Statistical analyses
For survey questions with set response options (e.g., gender, age range, location, yearly salary), descriptive statistics were reported. Findings were reported as frequencies of response expressed as a percentage of the total number of responses. All analyses were completed with Microsoft Excel, Version 2018 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA).
Open-ended survey responses were imported into a Microsoft Word Document and analysed using Braun and Clarke's inductive thematic analysis method, involving data coding, theme development, refinement, and reporting. 19 Their 2021 critique on tailoring qualitative methods to specific research aims guided the process. 20 Two researchers conducted the analysis, resolving differences through discussion until consensus was reached. There was no limitation placed on the number of themes established for each question.
Results
A total of 117 individuals commenced the survey, with 99 indicating they were currently working in S&C in some capacity, and 18 indicating they were not. The most common reasons for no longer working in S&C (n = 15 providing data) included ‘pursuing a different profession’ (40.0%, n = 6), ‘between jobs/seeking new employment’ (33.3%, n = 5) and ‘returning to study/travel/personal reasons’ (20.0%, n = 3). Ninety-eight individuals proceeded to answer at least the first two questions in the survey and were therefore included in analyses. Where total responses do not total 98, an N-value has been included to clarify how many participants provided a response for that survey item. Table 1 presents information on respondent demographics, including qualification(s) and years as an S&C coach.
Strength and conditioning coach demographics.
*Option to select multiple responses; ASCA = Australian Strength and Conditioning Association.
Industry experience
A total 89.2% of S&C coaches reported currently or previously completing, on average, 15.5 ± 11.2 h per week of volunteer or honorarium S&C work, beyond that required for any accreditation pathways. This experience was completed over a period of 35.2 ± 65.2 months (Min = 1 month; Max = 432 months; Median = 22 months), typically whilst they were still studying, shortly after obtaining their S&C accreditation, or while between roles. Participants commonly held more than one job (71.8%), with 61.8% working additional jobs outside the S&C sector. A further 37% of respondents reported S&C was not their primary source of income.
Employment
Most participants (59.5%) reported that they were employed to work with both male and female athletes, although some participants did work exclusively with female (19.0%) or male athletes (17.9%). Further, 71.4% were working with school-level (12–18 years of age) or open-level (18–35 years of age) athletes. S&C coaches came from 19 different sports, with 30.9% of coaches working across 3 or more sports. Table 2 summarises information related to current employment variables.
Strength and conditioning coach employment and career variables.
*Some respondents selected multiple options.
Job seeking
A total of 55 participants indicated they were “definitely or possibly” considering seeking new employment or contract, 50 of whom provided qualitative data on why. Three primary themes emerged from these responses, which are further outlined with demonstrative quotes from participants in Table 3: financial factors; position-related factors; and issues related to work performed. Overall, the data suggest, for those S&C coaches considering or actively looking for new roles, a combination of financial, industry, and position-specific factors are key influencers on this decision. Multiple participants highlighted the instability and unpredictability of the industry, as well as their desire for higher pay and greater stimulation, as motivators for seeking a new S&C job or even exploring a career change.
Themes influencing consideration of job change.
Barriers to S&C employment
When asked about perceived barriers to seeking or gaining employment in the S&C space, 65 individuals provided a response. Overall, three key themes emerged related to barriers: personal factors; role-related factors; and industry factors.
Personal factors
When discussing personal factors, two sub-themes emerged: perception of image-related barriers and impact of gender. In discussing image-related considerations, one participant felt the expectation of what a S&C coach looks like is a barrier, feeling you “typically need to be ‘in shape’ to gain respect” (P83). Another reported that “Perceptions I have of myself and others have of me too” impacted employment obtainment and/or progression (P4). With regards to the impact of gender, this mostly related to challenges of being a female in the industry. This was demonstrated in participants reporting on the “stigma around employing female S&C coaches” (P6) and “being a female in a male dominated sport” (P34), including a perception of it being a “male dominated field, with males even taking up roles as S&C for female teams” (P26). Another participant stated: “As a female, it has been difficult to assert myself in the industry” (P23).
Role-related factors
Another significant group of barriers centred around role-related factors, with sub-themes including financial aspects; limited opportunities available; and position and job environment factors. Multiple participants felt low wages were a challenge to working in S&C, with one participant feeling “if you work elsewhere, you get paid well and accordingly for your time” (P92). There was also a sense it was hard to make a sustainable living in the industry, demonstrated in one participant mentioning a “lack of opportunities to make good money and too many hours to allow for other cashflow options” (P55). Another participant cited funding as a barrier in relation to financial aspects: “Sporting organisations and small clubs don’t have the funding to spend on S&C no matter how much it could improve performance” (P22).
The limited opportunities available sub-theme revolves around a common perception that a poor ratio exists between the number of people seeking employment in S&C compared to the number of jobs available, as evidenced by participant description of “limited vacancies” (P90) and “saturation of those wanting to be employed” (P54). One individual highlighted, “I’ve had one interview in 12 job applications” (P59), and others suggested that not all jobs are advertised and it's “hard to find jobs online” (P23). Some participants noted that this barrier was more prevalent in certain sectors, specifically citing “limited positions in high level sport” (P6) and a “low amount of jobs in professional and private sector” (P78).
Finally, the position and job environment factors represent additional barriers to S&C employment. Regarding the type of positions available, respondents cited a “lack of full-time roles available” (P89) and “limited growth to full-time opportunities or part-time opportunities” (P27). Despite the lack of full-time opportunities, there appear to be unrealistic workload expectations in the industry. Several respondents expressed concerns over the hours of work in relation to “both total volume and specific hours” (P98) and “unrealistic expectations/time commitment” (P51). Other factors within this sub-theme, such as “organisational politics” (P90) and the perceived lack of “freedom to do the job as you wish” (P87), also acted as deterrents. There was also the perception their roles were not always valued, with “devaluation/misunderstanding of what it is we [S&C coaches] actually do and the benefits we bring by clubs” (P20).
Industry factors
Industry factors were identified as a final barrier theme. Key sub-themes within this category included networks and connections, resource and cost challenges, difficulties having and gaining experience, and accreditation and qualification aspects. Several participants perceived having or lacking networks and connections influences success in the S&C industry. This was exemplified in a report of “network-first hiring” (P77) by one participant, with another mentioning, “It is tough to get a job in S&C unless you know and have excellent relationships with people in the organisation” (P66). Getting work was felt to be a “situation of who you know in the industry” (P54) and failure to find roles was felt to “generally be through lack of connections within the industry” (P48).
Another sub-theme related to resource and cost challenges. Participants suggested there was a “lack of resources for clubs/organisations” (P65) that served as a barrier to position opportunities, even if there was a need for S&C. Another barrier to employment related to difficulties having and gaining experience. This included struggling to gain even volunteer experience, with one participant mentioning a challenge to get mandatory accreditation “mentoring hours when no local S&C coaches available” (P53), with another stating “needing experience to be employed but unable to find something to gain the experience” (P18). Multiple participants felt this initial experience had continuing effects, with one participant suggesting: “If you haven’t interned somewhere for free it's hard to get your foot in the door” (P30).
Finally, accreditation and qualification aspects were seen as a barrier to working in S&C. This included reports of feeling they did not have the correct or ‘high enough’ qualifications, with responses such as “not being PhD” (P74) and a perception that “entry level jobs required multiple different extra accreditation” (P32). The actual accrediting bodies in this industry, at least within Australia, were also perceived as a barrier. This included a feeling that not having the ‘right’ kind or number of accreditations were potentially limiting opportunities, with the perception there is “a monopoly on roles [by accrediting bodies] when there needs to be true focus on recognition of prior learning and recognition of prior engagement” (P60). Further, significant frustration was expressed regarding the cost associated with maintaining accreditation, especially given the perceived lack of benefits or support in return. As one respondent explained: “Overwhelmingly it is the inability of the three accrediting bodies to effectively advocate for fair wages. Imagine three organisations that take your money for accreditation but offer very little support. If you are a young person in that position, how do you pay for the accreditations and Continuing Professional Development when you don’t get paid, and then you have to work elsewhere to live (P29).”
Discussion
This exploratory mixed-methods study investigated the demographics and challenges experienced by current Australian S&C coaches. Data were collected from 98 S&C coaches currently working across various levels of sport. A further 18 individuals indicated they were not currently working within the industry, primarily due to complete departure from S&C (40.0%, n = 6) or being between jobs/contracts (33.3%, n = 5). Analysis of demographic and work-related details indicated that Australian S&C coaches were predominantly 25–34 years of age (57.6%), have held S&C accreditation for ≤5 years (36.8%) or 6–10 years (44.1%), and were employed either casually (21.4%) or full-time (39.8%). Of the 55 respondents considering or seeking a different job, financial factors; position-related factors; and issues related to work performed were identified as the key themes driving this decision. Further, 65 participants provided input on what they perceived as barriers to working and progressing in the industry, which centred around personal, role-related, and industry factors.
The demographic of Australian S&C workforce aligns with previous international research, suggesting a consistent trend of a relatively young and inexperienced workforce. The predominance of S&C coaches in the 25–34 years age group (57.6%), with only 10.6% being 40 years and older, found in this study mirrors the demographic of S&C coaches in Canada 2 (34.1 ± 8.6), the USA college system 6 (33.8 years [no SD provided]), and a study of S&C coaches from 17 countries (31.9 ± 8.9). 17 Our finding is also consistent with the demographic of Australian high performance and sport science practitioners (study included eight different sport-related professions, including S&C coaches, sports scientists, biomechanists, and high performance managers; 69.4% aged 35 years and younger). 12 The youthful age profile of the participants is also reflected in the professional experience. In the current study, a majority of coaches had held their S&C accreditation for 10 years or less (≤5 years = 36.8% & 6–10 years = 44.1%), a finding that is in line with previous investigations. For example, Foley et al. 2 found that 53% of Canadian S&C coaches had less than 10 years coaching experience, while Weldon et al. 17 found, amongst 156 S&C coaches from 17 countries, experience averaged 8.35 ± 6.89 years. Within the US college system, S&C coaching experience sits at 8.0 years on average for female coaches, 15 and 42.7% of Division II football S&C coaches reporting between 6 and 10 years of experience.8,9
Taken together, these consistent findings of a workforce dominated by early to mid-career professionals raise questions about the career longevity and sustainability worldwide. Despite the growing number of accredited coaches (e.g., over 6000 registered with ASCA; note: not all registered coaches are currently coaching), our data suggest that coaches do not remain in their role long-term. Supporting this notion was the fact that 18 of the 117 survey respondents in our study were not working in S&C, many of whom left to pursue a different profession entirely. Another fifty-five participants indicated they were actively or considering looking for a new job/contract, including moving out of S&C. This apparent high churn rate, likely driven by the systemic personal, professional and financial barriers identified in this study, threatens the availability of deep, long-term expertise. This, in turn, limits knowledge continuity, the advancement of professional practices, and the overall evolution and culture of the field.
The high rate of attrition observed in the current study appears to be driven by distinct and related factors. The analysis of the reasons provided by the coaches who were actively or considering looking for a new job/contract, indicated that they were driven out of the current roles by poor working conditions and inadequate remuneration, while at the same time experiencing a lack of opportunity to advance their careers. Stability in both pay and position were desired, not just by those coaches considering leaving S&C. While ASCA appears to be one of the few accrediting bodies that have a remuneration guide, 10 participants in the current study still highlight a need for reform in this area. Not only do over half of the coaches report earning less than $50 K annually, which is well below industry guidelines, reports of “bad hours, bad culture” (P34) and a significant mismatch of contracted versus worked hours (40.7% reported working over 40 h per week while only 9.9% are contracted for this workload) also suggest a systemic issue of under-compensation that ultimately pushes coaches away from their current roles. Compounding this issue is the general feeling that their development, through experience or upskilling, were not being financially recognised. A participant reported, “I keep upskilling and have a lot of experience, with no payoff financially” (P17). While accreditation bodies like ASCA and NSCA mandate regular, often costly, professional development to maintain accreditation, our finding suggests this is not being matched by financial rewards. This pressure will likely increase as industry evolves. If predicted industry trends such as enhanced use of technology and data analytics do expand across S&C settings, 17 coaches will require further investment in upskilling to remain competitive.
These findings suggest a need for greater advocacy from accrediting bodies for fair wages and working conditions. This could involve collaborative initiatives with employers to ensure S&C coaches are adequately remunerated for all aspects of their work, including their invaluable and indispensable contribution to mentoring the next generations of S&C coaches. Beyond advocacy, these bodies could also review their own requirements to identify and alleviate unnecessary financial burdens placed on their members. The cost and time associated with maintaining accreditation and upskilling are significant for many coaches. While such requirements are critical for quality assurance for a dynamic industry like S&C, costs associated with this requirement should reflect the reality of the profession. Balancing these burdens with tangible returns in terms of recognition, career progression and monetary value could go a long way to help reduce attrition.
The challenges driving individual coaches to leave their roles appear to be symptoms of broader, industry-wide barriers perceived by the entire cohort. When all participants were asked to identify obstacles to gaining employment or progressing in the S&C field, their responses echoed the themes driving job dissatisfaction. A major obstacle in gaining employment was the perceived scarcity of viable opportunities. Coaches pointed to a “saturation” of the market with a “lack of full-time roles available”, low wages, and a lack of funding in sporting organisations that make a sustainable career difficult. This is compounded by cultural barriers, with the general perception that employment opportunities are less about merit and more about “who you know”. This “network-first” (P77) hiring practice may discourage talents from certain demographics from applying due to lack of industry contacts. Participants also described the paradox where they are “needing experience to be employed but unable to find something to gain the experience” (P18), a problem exacerbated by perceptions that entry-level jobs require multiple costly accreditations. Collectively, these structural and cultural barriers create a challenging and often inequitable landscape, providing a clear context for the profession's high rate of attrition.
The findings from the current study also suggest that the insider culture may be particularly challenging for female coaches seeking new employment or those trying to remain in the S&C industry. This is critical because while the present study captured a more balanced gender representation (42.4% female) than is typically observed in previous research,15,16 this did not translate to equal employment opportunity. Female coaches reported a “stigma around employing female S&C coaches” (P23) and found it difficult to “assert myself” (P6) in what they perceive as a “male dominated field”. While the current study did not seek out to specifically investigate gender bias in the industry, our results suggest a culture of gender bias remains a deep-seated barrier despite a growing female representation in the field. Further investigation is therefore warranted to explore experiences across genders more deeply. Comparative analyses between the perception and experience of male and female coaches would enable an evaluation of gender as a barrier. Such studies will be important in the development of more effective and tailored support for female coaches.
Finally, the difficult industry conditions are exacerbated by an apparent disconnect between the aspirations of many coaches and the reality of the job market. Our finding shows that over half of the participants aspired to work in high-performance sport, including roles in management or at the national and international level. However, as noted by many participants the intense competition for a limited number of these elite positions poses a significant barrier to progression. The mismatch between aspiration for roles in high-performance sport and the scarcity of opportunities risks creating widespread disenchantment, which can directly contribute to the high attrition rate in the profession. This presents an opportunity for accrediting bodies to take a more proactive role in managing career expectations. This could involve providing comprehensive industry insights and actively showcasing diverse, viable career paths beyond the traditional elite sport ecosystem. By broadening the definition of success and celebrating the value of S&C coaching across different sectors, the accrediting bodies can help shift the mindset that elite sport is the sole pinnacle of the profession.
Strengths, limitations, and future research directions
Findings from this research must take into consideration existing limitations. Participants were recruited through Australian-based S&C networks, with recognition that the majority are accredited by ASCA and therefore care must be taken when extrapolating findings to other countries. Additionally, there was no direct question asking about international S&C qualifications coaches held (e.g., NSCA), which should be included in future to better understand participant profile. However, as there is growing consistency in S&C coach accreditation standards, as well as diverse job settings participants in the current study came from (e.g., not limited to ‘Australian’ sports, including some international coaches), findings from this study may still provide value and relevance beyond Australia. With a survey approach, the risk of self-selection bias must be acknowledged. Additionally, qualitative data relied on open-ended survey questions, which not all participants completed. Future research should explore a more robust mixed-methods approach integrating interviews or focus groups to more richly capture S&C coach experience. Further, this study was designed as an observational instead of comparative study. In future, research should seek to power for comparative analyses that allow examining, for example, more novice compared to experienced S&C coaches, those in government compared to private organisations, and male compared to female S&C coaches, to further identify opportunities for enhanced, tailored support. Additionally, there were no questions on the perceived impact of working in S&C on health and wellbeing, areas that may be impacted by the competitive, time-consuming job environment this can be. This would be optimal to obtain as a longitudinal study, a key gap in S&C coaching research. 17 Such information would help guide opportunities to support S&C coaches more holistically, as is being done in the athlete wellbeing space, to further ensure the longevity of coaches and the S&C industry.
It needs to be emphasised that interpreting these results necessitates a consideration of the terminology used to capture S&C coaching experience. The current study asked about ‘accreditation,’ which may not always be synonymous with actual time spent coaching. Additionally, some individuals may interpret S&C coaching experience differently; some may count time spent interning or volunteering, while others might only include periods spent in independent or leading roles. Future research should therefore aim to better distinguish between time accredited at different types of S&C coaching roles (e.g., volunteer, intern, assistant, lead), and total years of S&C coaching practice. Employing more in-depth qualitative methods, such as interviews, could also capture richer detail about individuals’ journey in the industry. Such information would provide valuable guidance to aspiring S&C coaches, 18 as well as identify critical ‘timepoints’ or career stage where support and guidance can be enhanced. Additionally, given the invaluable impact of mentoring in developing S&C coaches, in both technical and interpersonal (e.g., communication, relationship building) skills,3,18,21,22 it is imperative to ensure more experienced S&C coaches are remaining in the industry to ensure the future of the profession and quality over quantity of performance support.
Despite limitations, this study was strengthened by multiple factors. While no data exist on the overall profile of S&C coaches in Australia, making the determination of how representative this sample is of Australian S&C coaches overall difficult, our demographic data were similar to those reported in other national and international studies in this space.2,6,12,17 Further, there was notable diversity in S&C coaches responding to the survey, including a relatively balanced split between genders, all but one Australian state/territory being represented (Northern Territory), and individuals with few (<6) to significant (>19) years of experience. Participants were also working with 19 different sports and across all levels of performance (e.g., school, international-level sport, community-level). As much of the previous S&C research has focused on more experienced or high-performance level coaches, this research presents a diversified cohort who still showcased significant similarities in their industry experiences and perceptions. Additionally, whilst most previous research into S&C coaches has employed quantitative surveys, this study integrated open-ended questions to also allow qualitative understanding of S&C coach experience.
Unique to this study was the relative balance between male (57.6%) and female (42.4%) S&C coaches providing data. This may have resulted from directly targeting women in S&C interest groups as part of the recruitment process, providing valuable information from an under-represented group in S&C research. Previous research not specifically limited to female S&C coaches 15 has highlighted a male-dominated environment in the S&C industry globally, with males making up 75% of S&C coaches in the 16-study systematic review of USA college S&C coaches by Zhong et al., 6 88% in a study of Chinese high-performance sport, 16 and 77.7% in a study of Canadian coaches. 2 However, it is difficult to say how accurate a representation of the industry this is, given these numbers come from individuals self-selecting to complete a survey. Regardless, while this study revealed a more balanced gender representation than previous research, the qualitative findings highlight persistent challenges remain for female S&C coaches. Participants expressed concerns about employment barriers such as “stigma around employing female S&C coaches” (P23) and the feeling that “as a female, it has been difficult to assert myself in the industry” (P6). However, it is worth noting is that this study did not ask participants what they no longer perceive as potential barriers, for example, gender. That is, it is feasible many female respondents do not perceive gender as a key barrier, given only a low portion of female respondents noted this in the qualitative responses. Future research could aim to develop a list of barriers reported from this study and other research, asking respondents to rate how significant a barrier that is, to better capture perception of barriers (or lack thereof). Regardless, while representation of females in the S&C industry may be improving, systematic barriers and perceptions remain as highlighted in qualitative findings of this study, emphasising a need to continue developing and supporting female coaches’ career progression, as well as other potential minority groups in the S&C industry.
Conclusion
This study has provided valuable information around the landscape of S&C coaches in Australia, including demographics, role-related variables, and qualitative perceptions of the industry, filling an existing gap. It has highlighted key areas for review to enhance the support and sustainability of S&C coaches, which is vital to ensure future generations of high-quality, adaptable S&C coaches. The collation of qualitative data not only supports improved understanding of the challenges and needs of S&C coaches, but may ultimately enhance feasibility and translation of research in other areas of the industry (e.g., sports science). 23 Given the consistency of S&C coach information from this study (e.g., demographics) with that of international research, it is feasible many key findings from the current research offer learnings and guidance for the S&C space beyond Australia. Like other studies, factors including mismatches in contracted vs actual worked hours, the financial need to hold multiple roles despite years within the industry, and gender-influenced challenges continue to threaten coach retention, resulting in many S&C coaches being split between progressing in S&C and exploring a transition out. This highlights the urgent need to improve support and enact reform that extends beyond a S&C coaching development focus, and is addressed and implemented collaboratively by industry bodies, performance organisations, and ultimately on a more international level. These findings can begin to guide the development and implementation of sustainable, stakeholder-centred services and support, enabling industry growth and the retention of quality S&C coaches, as well as supporting the transition of those individuals wishing to change or diversify their career pathway.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251377197 - Supplemental material for Exploring the current landscape and aspirations of Australian strength and conditioning coaches
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251377197 for Exploring the current landscape and aspirations of Australian strength and conditioning coaches by Courtney McGowan, Nat Benjanuvatra, Jan Legg, Kristie Sheridan and Jena Buchan in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The researchers wish to thank all the coaches who gave their time to generously to participate in this research, as well as Nicolai Morris for her support in survey development and dissemination.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was provided by Southern Cross University's Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No: 2023/180).
Consent to participate
Potential survey participants were S&C coaches who were invited to participate via social media platform posts (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook) shared by the research team or direct email of the study information and survey link to professional networks of research team members (e.g., coaching interest groups, previous and current colleagues). Written informed consent was obtained with individuals choosing to give their consent to participate required to click “proceed” following their reading of the participant information sheet. Invited individuals were informed that all survey data was collected in an unidentified manner and completion of the survey was considered consent to participate.
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Data availability
Data used to develop this manuscript are available upon request to the corresponding author.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
