Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This scoping review explores the concept of ‘sporting success’ by examining its diverse definitions and measures across Olympic Games sports and regions in contemporary research literature. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in SPORTDiscus, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MedLINE, and Scopus databases for articles published from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2023, using the query: (succe*) AND (sport* OR athlet* OR player*). A framework of sporting success definitions and measures was proposed based on thematic analyses of 434 articles, identifying five primary themes: ‘Placing’, ‘Performance Indicators’, ‘Opportunity Milestones’, ‘Accolades’, and ‘Career Capital’. ‘Placing’-related definitions and measures were most prevalent in research literature. These findings underscore the multifaceted nature of sporting success, challenging the notion of universal definitions and questioning the validity of assumed conceptualisations within academic research – particularly as 135 articles failed to provide any explicit definition. The review offers valuable guidance for enhancing talent development research by advocating for greater precision in defining and measuring sporting success through the inclusion of contextual details – age category, sex, level of competition and specific nation – and optional application of arithmetic derivations. The proposed framework provides adaptable criteria for reporting study populations, guiding the selection of variables to be reported and complementing existing classification approaches. Furthermore, sporting organisations may benefit from recognising and addressing mismatches between success metrics and athletes’ aspirations, fostering compromise where needed.

Keywords

Athlete achievement career capital legacy performance indicators talent identification and development

Introduction

Throughout history, societies have established competitive sport as a formalised social institution grounded in shared values of fairness, merit and comparability. Competition systems provide standardised conditions governed by clear rules on goals, scoring, equipment and conduct through which performance can be evaluated on equal terms. In doing so, they fulfil a fundamental purpose that is to generate a ranking of participants based on performance, thereby distinguishing and comparing between athletes or teams. Across cultures and eras, this system has made sport competition an enduring and socially legitimised mechanism for recognising, validating and celebrating superior performance. Sporting success is conventionally entwined with the idea of medals, championships, and titles.^1–6 In sporting events such as the World Championships and the Olympic Games, sport organisations compete to occupy top spots on the medal table, with gold medals being particularly valued.^1,^7–9 For national sporting organisations, these major sporting competitions serve as a platform to showcase the superior athleticism and physical prowess of a country's citizens.⁹ Placing high on the medal table relative to others or improving on the absolute number of medals attained compared to previous editions represents a common objective for sporting organisations.^9,12,13 From a research perspective, understanding how such measures of success are perceived and operationalised is critical to study societal and organisational drivers of elite sport success.^10,11

Numerous talent identification and development policies and interventions have been implemented by various nations across diverse sports.^8,9,^14–16 These initiatives are designed to identify young athletes exhibiting exceptional traits indicative of their potential for success in elite sport and to facilitate their progression through targeted, accelerated development pathways.^14,15 The support provided to these athletes varies in terms of timing, intensity, and delivery methods, with the overarching objective of fostering national success at elite-level competitions.^8,16 For instance, Australia's YouFor2032 Talent Identification Programme, implemented through the Queensland Academy of Sport (QAS), illustrates a case study of programmatic intervention designed to enhance medal prospects for the Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032.¹⁷

Additionally, researchers have investigated the possible cascading effects of high-performance sport success on aspects such as sport participation, health and well-being, national pride, and identity with mixed results.^12,^18–20 Opinions on the value of investing resources to achieve sporting success remain divided.^2,3 For example, a survey in Germany revealed that most respondents believed Olympic medals to be ‘rather important’ yet expressed indifference to the perceived national status based on high rankings on the medal table.² Perceptions of the value of Olympic medal success also varied with age, education level and culture.^2,3,21 In the Republic of Korea, where male citizens are required to serve in the military for a period of 18 to 21 months, an athlete who wins any Olympic Games medal or Asian Games gold medal can be granted exemption. However, the Korean public does not necessarily view military exemption as an appropriate reward for such achievements.³ In sport, only a minority of competitors receive medals, and typically, there is only one winning competitor or team. This suggests that basing the concept of sporting success solely on winning or medalling would effectively render the majority of athletes unsuccessful.

Aside from the attainment of medals, athletes have been differentiated into success groups based on other measures including, but not limited to, the athletes’ competitive levels,^22–26 professional status,22 membership to a programme,²² and national team representation experience.^24–26 Frameworks have been established to evaluate athletic calibre and support empirical study of targeted athlete populations.^22,23 These frameworks serve as guides rather than directives, considering sport-specific nuances. In basketball, for instance, the National Basketball Association (NBA) league, which is the highest domestic league competition in America and Canada, is regarded to be of a higher tier than international leagues, whereas in athletics, the World Championships represents a higher standard than any national-level event. This avenue of research has led to the introduction of sport-specific sorting frameworks.^27–29 For example, World Aquatics assigns swimming points to indicate how close a swimmer's performance was in relation to the world record at that time. The higher the points on the World Aquatics Points Table, the closer to world record performance, the higher the calibre of the swimmer.

While these external frameworks provide structured ways to assess success across athletes, athletes may also set their own benchmarks based on diverse personal definitions of success.¹¹ These definitions can vary widely, encompassing achievements at recreational, junior, or senior levels of competition.^30–32 From a recreational perspective, sporting success could refer to acquiring new skills or making measurable improvements.³¹ Competitively, starting from the junior level, sport can serve as a significant tool for social mobility, particularly in underserved communities. For instance, securing a college sports scholarship is both a gateway to higher education as well as a stepping stone to earning a professional contract.³³ Earning a professional contract represents a notable form of sporting success, providing individuals with opportunities to improve their socioeconomic status in the longer-term future.^34,35

These perspectives indicate that sporting success is not a binary construct but a multi-faceted one. Different aspects of sporting success may be interconnected on a continuum or exist independently in their own dimensions. Recently, there have been increasing calls for semantic clarity on the terminologies used in talent development research such as what defines ‘athlete’, ‘talent’, and ‘elite’.^10,22,^36–39 As with all other scientific inquiries, a key requirement is to first clarify the variable of interest to avoid presumptuous prescription of learnings and recommendations.^36,37

Therefore, a scoping review is essential to provide a comprehensive overview of the diverse definitions and measures of sporting success, paving the way for more nuanced and comparable academic research. Researchers may look to split groups for comparison or seek to identify whether an intervention has impacted on the success level of athletes and teams. For this review, measures refer to the units, instruments or methods used to quantify success in sport whereas definitions refer to the exact or specific level of measure(s) corresponding to what is accepted as success in sport. For example, ranking in the top 100 at Under-18 level in track and field⁴⁰ is a definition of success, and the measure would be the rank order.

This scoping review aims to define the contemporary concept of ‘sporting success’ within the context of scientific literature by exploring definitions and measures across recent and upcoming Olympic Games sports. Rather than attempting to establish a universal definition of sporting success, this review proposes a descriptive framework to map existing definitions and measures of sporting success within the academic literature, grey literature notwithstanding, recognising that practitioner and policy conceptualisations may differ substantially. Additionally, the study examines how sporting success is understood and assessed, with a focus on the profiles of athletes labelled as ‘successful.’ Specific traits or achievements contributing to their recognition in the literature are also identified.

Materials and methods

Scoping review

A scoping review was undertaken to explore the definitions and measures of ‘sporting success’ by examining its usage in scientific literature. Given that the purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of how the concept of sporting success is constructed within peer-reviewed research, and not to synthesise evidence on any particular topic, the scoping review was identified to be the most appropriate approach.^41–43 The scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews⁴² and the a priori protocol for this scoping review was constructed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement guidelines.⁴¹ Prior to the data analysis stage, the scoping review protocol was registered in Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/a9uq8.

Key search terms and search strategy

A preliminary literature search was conducted on SPORTDiscus database where several key words and phrases were trialled to identify the most efficient search terms to use. Synonyms for ‘success’ such as ‘elite’, ‘top’ and ‘world-class’ were excluded in the database query because doing so implies that sport success equates to being ‘elite’, ‘top’ or ‘world-class’. This goes against the purpose of the research which was to investigate how sporting success is defined and measured, free of prior assumptions and bias. Thus, the databases of SPORTDiscus, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MedLINE and Scopus were searched using the query: (succe*) AND (sport* OR athlet* OR player*). These terms had to feature in either the article title, keywords or abstract. The full search strategy used can be found in Appendix I. The search was limited to articles published between 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023 inclusive to obtain definitions and measures of sporting success within the last five years rather than a narrative review of the changing worldview of athletic achievements over a longer period of time.

Selection of sources of evidence

From the database search, all identified citations were exported into EndNote (Clarivate, Pennsylvania, USA) libraries then uploaded on to Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) where duplicates were automatically detected and removed by the software. Additional duplicates that were missed were manually identified and removed by the investigators.

The initial screening involved two independent investigators (NA, CT) evaluating each citation against the eligibility criteria based on title and abstract only. Given the increasing ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a sport, including recent additions such as mind sports and e-sports,^44,45 the review is limited to examining sporting success in the context of sports that have been contested in the two most recent and single upcoming Summer and Winter Olympic Games and Youth Olympic Games as of January 2024 to ensure the inclusion of widely recognised and established sports. Articles had to (a) define or mention sporting success in relation to an athlete or group of athletes, going beyond what will be classified for the purposes of this paper as ‘micro success’ (e.g., not just success in an individual match, but at the competition or season level), (b) use data on athletes at least 12 years old (i.e., the age of the youngest participant in the most recent Olympic Games in 2020) and competing in recognised sports, (c) be empirical studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals, and (d) available in full-text. The full eligibility criteria can be found in Appendix II. Following that, the full texts of selected citations were assessed in detail by the same independent investigators using the same criteria. Any conflicts were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third investigator (HS) if a consensus could not be reached. For articles where the full text was not accessible, a request was made to the authors via ResearchGate or e-mail.

Data charting

A custom data extraction form was prepared via the Covidence software. One investigator (NA) extracted the required information from the selected articles. Metadata collected included the (a) year of publication, (b) lead author's country of affiliation, (c) country where the research is taking place, and (d) sports that are examined by the research question. Regarding the variable ‘countries where research is based’, the research is classified as ‘International’ if it pertains to international sporting events such as World Championships and the Olympic Games. If the international sporting competition targets a specific region, the research will be classified as such. For example, Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Champions League football research will be assigned to the ‘European countries’ label. If specific countries are named that do not fall into known geographical categories, the research is assigned to each of these various countries. For research investigating domestic leagues with international participants, these are classified by the country in which the league is held. For example, research on English Premier League players is assigned to ‘United Kingdom’ rather than ‘International’, despite players hailing from different countries.

Data collected specific to the research aims include (e) given definition(s) of sporting success, (f) measures of success used to operationalise sporting success, and (g) levels in relation to the success measures. Where an athlete or group of athletes had been identified to be ‘successful’ in the research paper, the (h) label or term used to describe the group, and (i) profile of the group was noted. This profile comprised variables such as sport, biological sex, age group, country, professional status, competitive level, medal/title achievements, competition placing, national representation level, ranking outside of specific competition, awards, and any other descriptions provided.

Synthesis of results

Descriptive analyses were conducted to present the geographic distribution of the included studies. Countries were grouped into continents and sports were assigned to categories to facilitate analysis. The sport categories used were adapted^46,47 and new sports that were not featured then were allocated based on the description of categories provided. For example, skateboarding, which was introduced in the 2020 Olympics, was categorised as an ‘artistic composition’ sport because it fit the description of being a sport whereby “a sequence of skills is composed and the execution is rated by judges based on the skills’ difficulty and the accuracy and aesthetic expression of their execution”.⁴⁷ The other categories were ‘CGS-sports’, where performance is measured by distance, weight or time (i.e., centimeters, grams, seconds); ‘martial arts sports’, where the task involves striking an opponent or disturbing an opponent's balance; ‘game sports’, whereby the goal of the performance is to place an implement or team member within a scoring zone while overcoming opponents’ direct opposition; and ‘others’ which refer to sports that do not fall under any of the previous categories.

To address the main objective of the review, which was to clarify the definitions and measures of sporting success as articulated in literature over the last five years, a thematic analysis approach was implemented. Thematic analysis is a versatile qualitative analytic method used to observe and derive patterns or themes within data.^48,49 The recursive process of thematic analysis is guided by six stages: familiarisation with data, formulation of codes, identification of potential themes, review of themes, refinement of themes, and reporting.^48,49 From the data corpus, specific data sets related to definitions, measures and profiles respectively were isolated for detailed analysis. Thematic analysis was applied to each of these data sets. During the initial data extraction phase, preliminary insights were documented as the researcher became acquainted with the data sets and specific data items. Subsequently, the coding process outlined by Strauss and Corbin⁵⁰ was employed to generate codes that capture patterns within the data and facilitate the development of themes. This step involved open coding and axial coding to facilitate emergent definitions and measures of sporting success while simultaneously establishing conceptual links between the codes. For example, the concepts of competition placing and medal attainment are linked, as medals are typically awarded for finishing in top positions. The codes were iteratively integrated and refined during the selective coding process. With reference to Braun and Clarke's phases of thematic analysis,⁴⁸ the second through fifth phases of thematic analysis were conducted in an iterative and overlapping manner, without clear linear transitions between stages. In the reporting phase, the themes were synthesised into a coherent framework, with additional components introduced where necessary. The content of each theme was then elaborated and illustrated using examples drawn from the selected literature.

Results

Selection of sources of evidence

The initial search produced 12,489 records after duplicates were removed (Figure 1). Of those, 434 studies were relevant and included in the review. It was found that 135 studies had not provided a definition for or measure of sporting success despite referencing it in their title or abstract.

Figure 1.

PRISMA-ScR flow chart showing number of records collected and number of eligible records after the screening process.

Characteristics of sources of evidence

Of the 434 studies included in the review, 67 were published in 2019, 83 in 2020, 107 in 2021, 83 in 2022, and 89 in 2023. There were also five online-first studies published in 2024 that had appeared in the database search for 2019 to 2023 and were included in the analysis.

The studies were published by authors affiliated with various institutions around the world however, only the countries based on first-listed institution of the first author's affiliation was examined. Most (71.2%) studies had first authors affiliated to an institution in Europe, 14.1% in North America, 7.6% in Asia, 4.1% in South America, 2.8% in Oceania and 0.2% in Africa.

Based on country of research interest, there were 112 studies classified to be ‘International’, 32 as ‘European countries’, one each for ‘African countries’, ‘East-European countries’, ‘Pan-American countries’ and ‘South American countries’, and five studies were unspecified. Figure 2 illustrates the number of publications by research country, excluding the labels mentioned due to the lack of specificity in listed countries in those cases. Most of the countries (49.8%) were based in Europe.

Figure 2.

Bar chart showing the number of publications by research country and continent. This figure excludes the

Twenty studies examined Olympic Games sports, and an additional 13 and six specifically investigated summer Olympic Games sports and winter Olympic Games sports respectively. One study looked into Asian Games sports in particular. These were excluded from Figure 3 as they could not be categorised. Among the sport categories, ‘Game’ was examined in 71.9% of studies, ‘CGS’ in 43.3%, ‘Martial arts’ in 17.3%, ‘Artistic composition’ in 6.5%, and ‘Others’ in 9.9%. Among the sports, football was examined in 29.7% of studies, followed by athletics with 15.7% and basketball rounding the top three with 9.7%.

Figure 3.

Bar chart showing the number of publications by sport. This figure excludes the 20 studies examining

Definitions of sporting success

A total of 104 excerpts that defined sporting success were identified across 91 studies (Appendix III). The excerpts from the studies were coded iteratively and mapped (Appendix IV). Through repeated comparison and collective deliberation to ensure semantic precision and analytical coherence, the codes were consolidated into five themes and grouped into two overarching categories. The first category Competition-based encompasses definitions of sporting success with a direct competitive focus. This includes the theme ‘Placing’, which refers to the ranked order of participants and the direct outcomes of those positions, such as tournament progression and medal attainment. The other theme in this category, ‘Performance Indicators’, captures non-placing markers of proficiency. The second category Legacy comprises definitions of sporting success that are reflective or cumulative in nature, focusing on longer-term aspects of an athlete's career. Within this category, three themes are proposed: ‘Opportunity Milestones’ which includes earning a position on a selective programme or team or obtaining scholarships and contracts; ‘Career Capital’ that relates to economic and longevity aspects; and ‘Accolades’ which encompasses formal recognition and honours.

Definitions of sporting success related to ‘Placing’ were most prevalent, accounting for 66.7% of the 120 codes surfaced from the excerpts (Table 1). ‘Opportunity Milestones’ (18.3%), ‘Performance Indicators’ (11.7%), ‘Accolades’ (2.5%) and ‘Career Capital’ (0.8%) were less common. Among the specific codes, ‘Placing in top 3/ Podium placing/Winning a medal’ and ‘Placing first/ Winning gold medal/ Winning championship, title, trophy’ were the most frequent contributing 27.5% and 19.2% to the total, respectively.

Table 1.

Table of definitions of sporting success coded into themes.

Category	Theme	n	%	Code	n	%
Competition-based	Placing	80	66.7	Placing first/ Winning gold medal/ Winning championship, title, trophy	23	19.2
				Placing in top 2/ Contesting in the final	3	2.5
				Placing in top 3/ Podium placing/ Winning a medal	33	27.5
				Placing in top 4/ Contesting in the semi-final	1	0.8
				Placing in top 8/ Contesting in the quarter-final/finals	1	0.8
				Placing in top n	4	3.3
				Qualification for a tournament	5	4.2
				Playing at highest international level	2	1.7
				Advancing in a tournament	2	1.7
				Ranking	6	5.0
	Performance Indicators	14	11.7	Winning (games)	3	2.5
				Achieving personal/team/season's best	2	1.7
				Performing close to personal/team/season's best	1	0.8
				Improving one's performance	3	2.5
				Getting high number of points and conceding low number of goals	1	0.8
				Starting in more than 10 games	1	0.8
				Starting in more than 60% of competition	1	0.8
				Acquiring new skills	1	0.8
				Safely complete the course and pass the final veterinary examination	1	0.8
Legacy	Opportunity Milestones	22	18.3	Selected for national representation/ U17/ U19	8	6.7
				Selected to play for foreign club	2	1.7
				Selected for academy programme	1	0.8
				Attaining professional contract/ Becoming a professional	8	6.7
				Attaining scholarship/ Selected into college programme	3	2.5
	Accolades	3	2.5	Winning award	2	1.7
	Accolades	3	2.5	Attaining sport qualifications	1	0.8
	Career Capital	1	0.8	Still pursuing an elite career	1	0.8
Total					120	99.8*

*Note. Due to rounding to 1 decimal place, percentages do not sum to exactly 100%.

Measures of sporting success

The extensive list of measures of success in sport were categorised into the five themes identified earlier and presented in Figure 4. Sporting success had been evaluated through binary measures, such as whether a medal had been obtained, as well as non-binary measures that involved quantitative derivations from those binary outcomes. Additionally, qualitative indicators were used, including specification of the competitive level and athlete age group.

Figure 4.

Proposed framework of sporting success comprising five themes organised under two categories.competition-based success includes ‘placing’, referring to ranked outcomes, and ‘performance indicators’, capturing non-placing markers of proficiency. Legacy encompasses cumulative or long-term measures: ‘Opportunity Milestones’ (selection, scholarships, contracts), ‘Accolades’ (formal honours and recognition), and ‘Career Capital’ (economic and longevity-related aspects). Two components support these themes.Contextual Details specify age category, sex, and level of competition, which may occur at one of eight levels: Global, open to athletes worldwide (e.g., Olympic Games, World Championships); Multi-continental, restricted to regions spanning multiple continents (e.g., Commonwealth Games, Pan-American Games); Continental, limited to a single continent (e.g., Asian Games); Sub-continental, involving regions within a continent (e.g., Southeast Asian Games); Intra-national, held within a single country; Sub-national, involving state- or province-level participation; Local, comprising city- or district-level competition; and Intra-school, occurring within an educational institution. For all levels Intra-national and below, the specific nation should also be identified. Arithmetic Derivations may be optionally applied to raw measures to generate more diverse or precise indicators of sporting success.

Seventy-seven measures could not be attributed to a sport category as the specific sports were not identified in the studies (mentioned earlier in Figure 3). Of the remaining 1132 measures, those related to ‘Placing’, and ‘Performance Indicators’ were the most common, contributing 75.2% and 13.6% of the total measures employed across all sports, respectively (Figure 5). This same rank order was prevalent across all sport categories. In comparison, measures related to ‘Opportunity Milestones’ (5.8%), ‘Career Capital’ (3.3%) and ‘Accolades’ (2.1%) were used sparingly.

Figure 5.

Bar chart showing the percentage of study measures applied across as well as within the five sport

Attributes of ‘successful’ athletes

Terms used to label successful athletes include ‘winning’, ‘expert’, ‘high-ranked’, ‘elite’, ‘world-class’, ‘top-level’, ‘high achievers’, ‘champion’, ‘top’, ‘qualified’, ‘productive’, ‘top-ranked’, ‘high-performance’, ‘competitive’, ‘high-level’, ‘international-class’, and ‘best’. Some terms were used in a relative sense, contrasted to a less successful group, for example, ‘more successful’ and ‘less successful’ or ‘highest success’ and ‘lowest success’.

No universal profile of a successful athlete or team was established. However, the recognition of successful groups was based on several criteria, including: (1) obtaining a professional contract post-graduation or playing for a professional team; (2) competing in high-level competitions such as top-tier sport leagues, senior international events, Olympic Games, and World Championships; (3) achieving medals or titles, particularly at higher competitive levels; (4) placing higher on leaderboards, advancing to later stages of competitions, or securing podium placements; (5) representing the senior national team, making multiple national appearances, or competing at continental or global events; (6) attaining high rankings outside specific competitions, such as being in the top 10/20/50/500; (7) being included in the Team of the Season; (8) receiving coaches’ recognition as important players, meeting or exceeding performance thresholds (e.g., cumulative points, market value of over 10 million Euros), and achieving milestones like advancing past group stages, avoiding relegation, or qualifying for talent programmes.

Discussion

This study sought to investigate ‘sporting success’ by examining its definitions, measures, and the traits of athletes recognised as successful across various sports within the context of scientific literature. Through this analysis, five themes were identified and organised into a framework that highlights the complexities of defining success and the potential for differing interpretations. This, in turn, underscores the need for transparent success criteria to ensure alignment in talent development and assessment in academic research.

Framework of sporting success

The five main themes of sporting success are supported by two components, contextual details and arithmetic derivations (Figure 4). These themes and supporting components are further discussed and explained in the next sub-sections.

Competition-based themes and contextual details

The Competition-based themes in the sporting success framework represent measures of success that are evaluated based on competitive outcomes and processes, namely ‘Placing’ and ‘Performance Indicators’.

Placing

The rank order of participants is the most direct measure of sporting success and appears to be the most-recognised (Figure 5). ‘Placing’ may refer to the order of finish within a defined competition, such as league table positions or final tournament standings,⁵¹ or to rankings accumulated across multiple events, such as in sports like tennis and athletics that maintain rolling world rankings.^52,53 Competition formats typically involve progression through stages, with higher placings sometimes granting advancement to higher-level events. In tournaments, progression offers a broader indicator of performance than solely winning or medalling, especially for athletes and teams without a history of medal success. In leagues, placing can determine qualification for elite tournaments or relegation to lower divisions.^54,55 For example, in first-tier European football leagues like the English Premier League (EPL), typically, the top four teams qualify for the first-tier UEFA Champions League continental tournament, the fifth and sixth-placed teams qualify for the second-tier Europa League continental tournament, while the bottom three are relegated to a lower division.

The salience of ‘Placing’ varies across sports. For example, a swimmer's race time from a regional meet can be compared directly to Olympic Games times, providing an objective measure of performance standards. In contrast, determining where a taekwondo athlete, for example, ranks across competitions is less straightforward as outcomes can be influenced by factors such as competition format, seeding, and the draw of opponents which make it difficult to apply consistent, non-competition-specific rankings.⁵⁶

Among all identified measures, ‘Placing’ emerges as the most prevalent measure of sporting success (Figure 5). The two most common definitions – the attainment of podium finishes and medals and, winning the gold medal or overall competition – are also linked to ‘Placing’ (Table 1). This emphasis aligns with Self-Determination Theory,⁵⁷ wherein visible and socially recognised indicators of competence, such as medals and trophies, strongly reinforce perceptions of success whereas other measures are less immediately tangible. Sporting organisations naturally prioritise medal success, and research in this area reflects this focus, as nations seek strategies to achieve dominance in international sporting events.^7–9

Performance indicators

‘Performance Indicators’ refers to aspects of success in competition that are not determined an athlete's or team's final placing. Whereas ‘Placing’ emphasises competitive outcomes, ‘Performance Indicators’ focuses on the processes of sport performance. These include self-referenced benchmarks such as improving on past performance,⁵⁸ acquiring new skills,³¹ and achieving personal bests.⁵⁹ They also encompass participation-related measures such as games played⁶⁰ and games started,⁶¹ as well as key game statistics such as points and goals.^62–64 Athletes can therefore gain recognition through ‘Performance Indicators’-based measures even if they do not win or medal. For example, a competitor may set a personal best or season's best in a CGS sport without finishing on the podium, or a football player may be recognised for the number of goalscoring chances created or contributing significantly to defensive actions. This contrast highlights how ‘Performance Indicators’ and ‘Placing’ represent complementary yet distinct dimensions of success, with the former emphasising process and individual achievement, and the latter outcome and relative rank positions.

Contextual details

While the preceding sub-sections outlined the competition-based themes of sporting success, the interpretation of these measures can vary considerably depending on contextual circumstances. To address this, the framework incorporates and additional layer of contextual factors that qualify each success measure. These details enhance the interpretive depth by recognising that performance outcomes are influenced not only by the achievement itself, but also by the competitive environment and athlete demographics.

The first detail, age category, specifies the demographic classification of the competition, for example, open, senior, youth or other age-restricted divisions. The second detail, sex category, identifies whether the competition is male-specific, female-specific or mixed. The third detail is the level of competition which distinguishes the competitive setting across eight possible tiers: (1) Global, open to athletes worldwide (e.g., Olympic Games, World Championships); (2) Multi-continental, restricted to athletes from regions spanning multiple continents (e.g., Commonwealth Games, Pan-American Games); (3) Continental, restricted to athletes from a single continent (e.g., Asian Games); (4) Sub-continental, involving competitors from specific regions within a single continent (e.g., Southeast Asian Games); (5) Intra-national, open to athletes within a single country; (6) Sub-national, restricted to state- or province-level participation; (7) Local, limited to the city or district level; and (8) Intra-school, involving competition within an educational institution. For competitions at the intra-national level and below, it is also necessary to identify the specific nation, as the competitive depth and strength of sport systems vary across nations. Güllich & Emrich (2014) proposed a coding system that converts these details into a fine-grained rank scale, which can be treated as a metric variable.⁴⁷ The first digit represents the age category, the second digit represents competitive level, and the final two digits indicate placing. This approach provides a practical method for converting qualitative ordering into quantitative data to facilitate analysis. Incorporating the specific nation into the coding may also allow the inclusion of a measure of that country's strength in the sport, via world rankings for example. However, caution is required when interpreting the resulting codes, as they represent interval variables not ratio variables. Regardless of the specific system used, we strongly recommend that future research report them consistently and transparently to facilitate more meaningful comparisons across studies, allowing for clearer interpretation of how sporting success is defined and measured.

It is also important to recognize that major international events are typically embedded within a progression of qualifying competitions. Athletes often advance from intra-national to continental, and eventually to global events. As a result, the significance of an achievement may vary by perspective—an athlete may win a continental championship but place twelfth at the global level—underscoring the importance of evaluating performance within the hierarchical structure of competition.

Legacy themes

Legacy measures facilitate reflection on the entire sporting journey from beginning to retirement, which could yield insights into the effectiveness of developmental processes and the broader sporting ecosystem in which the athlete operated.

Opportunity milestones

‘Opportunity Milestones’ refer to the attainment of exclusive sporting opportunities, such as admission into talent development programmes or academies, selection for national teams or competition squads, and acquisition of credentials enabling professional contracts or sports scholarships.^{33–35,65,66} In sports like basketball, draft outcomes also constitute key selection milestones.^67,68 This theme can be particularly useful in examining the transition across age groups of youth athletes into senior squads, providing insights into the turnover rate at each stage as well as uncovering patterns in progression and regression along the talent development pathways.^69–71 ‘Opportunity Milestones’ are likely most prominent in Game sports (Figure 5) due to the visibility of professional leagues such as the NBA, EPL, National Hockey League, and Major League Baseball. In this context, securing a professional contract is both a primary aspiration and a widely-recognised definition of success, alongside national representation (Table 1). Beyond immediate prestige, such achievements can yield lasting benefits including improved socioeconomic status and access to higher education through scholarships.^33–35

Accolades

‘Accolades’ covers recognitions of achievement, capability or distinction in sport, ranging from awards⁷² and records⁷³ to internal classifications,⁷⁴ and expert appraisals such as coaches’ assessment of player importance.⁷⁵ Measures within this theme were least frequently referenced (Figure 5). One possible explanation is that the other four themes provide greater granularity in capturing the aspects of sport performance that differentiate levels of success, whereas accolades alone may offer limited information into the underlying processes contributing to that success.

Career capital

‘Career Capital’ reflects broader aspects of the sporting career that may serve as alternative indicators of success. These include an athlete's debut age,⁶⁰ overall career duration,⁷⁶ and the extent to which their participation was continuous or disrupted.77 This theme also encompasses indirect quantitative indicators of performance in the form of popularity,⁷⁸ salary,⁷² earnings,⁷⁹ and market value.^78,80

Arithmetic derivations

Further definitions and measures of sporting success can and have been derived through mathematical manipulation of raw indicators of success. These approaches include aggregation, normalisation, temporal derivation and other derived statistics.

Aggregation

Aggregation involves combining individual indicators to generate a collective measure of success. A common example is the Olympic medal tally, where individual achievements are summed at the national level to identify the most successful country at that Games. The frequency of achieving a particular outcome can also be used to differentiate between levels of eminence, for instance, distinguishing one-time winners from multi-time champions.^81,82 In some sports, such as handball, athletes may be ranked using cumulative statistics such as the total number of national team appearances.^83,84

Normalisation

Normalisation adjusts performance indicators relative to contextual factors. Using the same example of Olympic medal counts, national medal tallies may be normalised against variables such as population size or gross domestic product.⁸⁵ This approach provides a more equitable comparison by controlling for structural advantages and allowing performance to be interpreted on a relative rather than absolute scale.

Temporal derivation

Temporal derivation involves incorporating time-based elements into performance metrics. Elements such as continuity and duration capture consistency, for example the total number of weeks an athlete has been ranked first, as well as the proportion of those weeks achieved consecutively.^81,86 This approach can offer greater precision in evaluating and comparing high-level athletes and teams by highlighting sustained excellence over time.

Derived metrics

Some success indicators are generated by transforming other measures. For example, calculating the proportion of available medals won at the Games (i.e., market share of medals).⁸⁷ Minimum and maximum values of a measure could also be used to derive indicators such as highest competitive level attained.⁸⁸ Additionally, ratios and percentages could be applied to game statistics to generate metrics such as win percentages,⁸⁹ win-loss ratios,⁹⁰ goal differences^51,64 and ratio of medals and gold medals to events contested.¹³

Lack of definitive meaning of sporting success

During the process of study selection for this scoping review, 135 studies that referenced sporting success in their title or abstract were found to lack an explicit definition or measure of the concept (Figure 1). This suggests an assumed universal understanding of sporting success. In contrast, analysis of the 434 studies that did provide a definition and/or measure revealed that sporting success encompasses various interrelated, yet distinct, concepts (Figure 4). The five themes identified reinforce the complexity and multi-faceted nature of success, indicating that a universal understanding of sporting success cannot be assumed, and this is further supported by the profiling of ‘successful’ athletes or teams, where researchers emphasised different aspects of an athlete's activity and history in determining their success level.

While all the studies identified as relevant provided at least a measure of success, only 91 studies clearly defined what success is. Although various methods for evaluating sporting success have been proposed and implemented, there remains conceptual uncertainty regarding how success is positioned along the performance continuum. For instance, teams that place higher in the league standings at the end of a season are generally considered more successful than those placed lower.^91–93 However, even within a continuous scale, questions arise about how the lower end of performance is interpreted: is there a specific point or range that could reasonably be considered non-success? Clarifying this distinction is important for empirical research as it influences how success is operationalised, which indicators or surrogates are used, and the comparability across studies. In applied or policy contexts, defining the lower end is particularly critical, as it informs resource allocation, funding decisions, and accountability for athletes, teams, or programmes.

Applications of proposed framework

Existing frameworks such as those proposed by McKay et al.²³ and Swann et al.²² effectively classify sport research participants based on athletic calibre, which often correlates with their level of success in sport. While valuable, these approaches are not universally applicable, as evidenced by the limitations and inherent ambiguities. In the present study, we propose a complementary framework for conceptualising sporting success. This framework distinguishes between competition-based approaches and legacy-based approaches, incorporates relevant contextual details, and recognises the application of arithmetic derivations for further granularity (Figure 4).

The framework offers flexibility for outlining relevant criteria for a given study. At a minimum, researchers should reference this framework when describing their subject population, as it guides the selection of variables or traits to be reported and complements existing classification approaches. The inclusion of contextual details adds nuance, allowing researchers to distinguish between success at local versus international events, or in youth versus senior competitions. Research indicates that successful junior athletes and successful senior athletes – measured by a combination of competitive level, placing and medals – are generally disparate populations.^24,94,95 Youth success can be conceptualised in two ways: as an achievement in its own right reflected in placements at youth competitions for example, or as a developmental stage in service of future senior success, acting as a predictor. This distinction varies across sports. In sports where peak performance occurs at an earlier age, youth success tends to align with senior success, whereas in sports with later peak performance, success is less predictable due to the age gap between youth and senior competitions. Considering these differences supports a more context-sensitive understanding of “success” at different stages of athletic development.¹⁰ Furthermore, capturing the frequency, duration and continuity of achievement is especially useful for differentiating amongst the highest tier of athletes.³⁶

The framework also supports intervention design and evaluation. By setting clear success criteria prior to implementation, researchers can establish specific goals and thresholds for success, improving both the credibility and interpretability of evaluations. Combining ‘Placing’ and ‘Performance Indicators’ metrics enables a more holistic assessment of a talent development programme that considers outcomes and processes. Considering Competition-based and Legacy approaches allows for the use of leading and lagging indicators that provide a richer understanding of progress and effectiveness to monitor immediate outcomes as well as longer-term trajectories.

Beyond academic research, sporting organisations can also apply this framework. At the national level, success is often measured by the market share or number of medals earned at major international competitions,^87,96 while at the individual level, athletes may aim for professional contracts⁹⁷ or participation in top-tier leagues.⁹⁸ Sporting organisations should consider whether the forms of success they promote align with athletes’ aspirations and be mindful of potential conflicts. This includes balancing priorities between youth and senior performance and determining whether different benchmarks are appropriate for each level.

Limitations of study

The review included only English-language studies, as machine translation still falls short of academic standards.⁹⁹ Thus, the review may overlook valuable insights from non-English-dominant regions like Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. Additionally, a deliberate methodological choice was made not to include synonyms for ‘success’ in the search query (see Methods). This decision may have excluded studies that address concepts related to sporting success but use alternative terminology. Nevertheless, even with the restricted sample, there is substantial variation in the use of the term “sporting success” in research literature. In line with this, several studies appeared to assume a universal meaning of ‘sporting success’ without clarifying the definition (Figure 1). This suggests authors may have been relying on implicit or assumed synonyms – some of which have been identified in this review (see Attributes of Successful Athletes). Future research could expand search terms to include these identified synonyms, broadening the scope for a more comprehensive exploration while carefully avoiding bias.

The analysis assumes the frequency of definitions and measures of sporting success in literature accurately reflects their real-world prevalence. However, potential publication bias may have led to the underrepresentation or omission of certain definitions. Consequently, caution is warranted when interpreting the results as fully reflective of real-world practice. Furthermore, the study did not include grey literature, such as policy documents from national sporting institutes, which could provide direct insight into industry perspectives on sporting success. Exploring perceptions of sporting success beyond academic literature is a crucial direction for future research to capture a broader understanding of how success is defined and measured in practice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study advances the discourse on clarity of terminology in sport development research by addressing the varied and context-dependent nature of sporting success. Through systematically identifying and organising key definitions and measures, we present a structured yet flexible framework that supports more precise description of participant success levels and the setting of clear, context-specific criteria for interventions. Although limited coverage in certain regions constrained the depth of our comparative analysis, the review still highlights patterns in research attention and variation in definitions. It also identifies key athlete traits and achievements most often associated with success in the literature, offering insights into how ‘successful’ profiles are constructed. By focusing solely on academic literature and excluding grey sources such as policy documents, the framework reflects scholarly rather than industry perspectives. Future work should incorporate these sources to refine and test its applicability. Together, these contributions enable more consistent, transparent, and meaningful evaluation of sporting success across research and practice.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251404425 - Supplemental material for A framework for sporting success. Definitions and measures from research on sports featured in the 2014–2028 Olympic games: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251404425 for A framework for sporting success. Definitions and measures from research on sports featured in the 2014–2028 Olympic games: A scoping review by Nur Adilah Masismadi, Matthew Wylde, Clenyce Zi-Xin Tan, Paul B Gastin, Minh Huynh and Haresh T Suppiah in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-spo-10.1177_17479541251404425 - Supplemental material for A framework for sporting success. Definitions and measures from research on sports featured in the 2014–2028 Olympic games: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-spo-10.1177_17479541251404425 for A framework for sporting success. Definitions and measures from research on sports featured in the 2014–2028 Olympic games: A scoping review by Nur Adilah Masismadi, Matthew Wylde, Clenyce Zi-Xin Tan, Paul B Gastin, Minh Huynh and Haresh T Suppiah in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-3-spo-10.1177_17479541251404425 - Supplemental material for A framework for sporting success. Definitions and measures from research on sports featured in the 2014–2028 Olympic games: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-3-spo-10.1177_17479541251404425 for A framework for sporting success. Definitions and measures from research on sports featured in the 2014–2028 Olympic games: A scoping review by Nur Adilah Masismadi, Matthew Wylde, Clenyce Zi-Xin Tan, Paul B Gastin, Minh Huynh and Haresh T Suppiah in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-4-spo-10.1177_17479541251404425 - Supplemental material for A framework for sporting success. Definitions and measures from research on sports featured in the 2014–2028 Olympic games: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-4-spo-10.1177_17479541251404425 for A framework for sporting success. Definitions and measures from research on sports featured in the 2014–2028 Olympic games: A scoping review by Nur Adilah Masismadi, Matthew Wylde, Clenyce Zi-Xin Tan, Paul B Gastin, Minh Huynh and Haresh T Suppiah in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which greatly enhanced the clarity and quality of this work.

ORCID iDs

Nur Adilah Masismadi

Matthew Wylde

Clenyce Zi-Xin Tan

Paul B Gastin

Minh Huynh

Haresh T Suppiah

Ethical considerations

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualisation: Nur Adilah Masismadi, Matthew Wylde, Paul B. Gastin, Minh Huynh & Haresh T. Suppiah; Methodology: Nur Adilah Masismadi, Matthew Wylde, Clenyce Zi-Xin Tan, & Haresh T. Suppiah; Literature search and data analysis: Nur Adilah Masismadi, Matthew Wylde & Clenyce Zi-Xin Tan; Writing – original draft preparation: Nur Adilah Masismadi; Writing – review and editing: Matthew Wylde, Clenyce Zi-Xin Tan, Paul B. Gastin, Minh Huynh & Haresh T. Suppiah.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Youth Sports Institute-La Trobe University Industry-Funded Graduate Research Scholarship and a La Trobe University Full Fee Research Scholarship.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Barth

Güllich

Raschner

, et al. The path to international medals: A supervised machine learning approach to explore the impact of coach-led sport-specific and non-specific practice. PLoS One 2020; 15(9): e0239378.

Haut

Prohl

Emrich

. Nothing but medals? Attitudes towards the importance of Olympic success. Int Rev Sociol Sport 2016; 51: 332–348.

Joo

Baeck

Kwon

. Comparing the values of medal success in international sports events and exemption from active military duty for Korean athletes using the contingent valuation method. Journal of Policy Studies 2023; 38: 15–28.

Rees

Hardy

Güllich

, et al. The great British medalists project: a review of current knowledge on the development of the world’s best sporting talent. Sports Med 2016; 46: 1041–1058.

Collins

MacNamara

McCarthy

. Super champions, champions, and almosts: important differences and commonalities on the rocky road. Front Psychol 2016; 6: 2009.

Oakley

Green

. The production of Olympic champions: international perspectives on elite sport development systems. Eur Sport Manag Q 2001; 8(Suppl 1): 83–105.

De Bosscher

De Knop

Van Bottenburg

, et al. A conceptual framework for analysing sports policy factors leading to international sporting success. Eur Sport Manag Q 2006; 6: 185–215.

De Bosscher

Shibli

van Bottenburg

, et al. Developing a method for comparing the elite sport systems and policies of nations: a mixed research methods approach. Eur Sport Manag Q 2010; 24: 567–600.

Weissensteiner

. The global evolution of talent promotion within Olympic sports: A focus on the national systems and contribution of the former German Democratic Republic, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Front Sports Act Living 2023; 4: 1124234.

10.

Suppiah

Low

Chia

. Detecting and developing youth athlete potential: different strokes for different folks are warranted. Br J Sports Med 2015; 49(13): 878–882.

11.

Carless

Douglas

. Stories of success: cultural narratives and personal stories of elite and professional athletes. Reflective Practice 2012; 13: 387–398.

12.

Shibli

Ramchandani

Davies

. The impact of British sporting achievements on national pride among adults in England. Eur Sport Manag Q 2021; 21: 658–676.

13.

Ramchandani

Wilson

Millar

, et al. New sports and no spectators: Japan’s performance at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic games. Managing Sport and Leisure 2023; 28: 197–208.

14.

Johnston

Wattie

Schorer

, et al. Talent identification in sport: a systematic review. Sports Med 2018; 48: 97–109. 2017/10/31. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-017-0803-2.

15.

Vaeyens

Güllich

Warr

, et al. Talent identification and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes. J Sports Sci 2009; 27: 1367–1380.

16.

De Bosscher

De Rycke

. Talent development programmes: a retrospective analysis of the age and support services for talented athletes in 15 nations. Eur Sport Manag Q 2017; 17: 590–609.

17.

Queensland Academy of Sport [QAS]. YouFor2032, https://www.qasport.qld.gov.au/youfor2032 (last updated 2025, accessed 1 December 2024).

18.

De Bosscher

Sotiriadou

van Bottenburg

. Scrutinizing the sport pyramid metaphor: an examination of the relationship between elite success and mass participation in Flanders. IJSPP 2013; 5: 319–339.

19.

De Rycke

De Bosscher

. Mapping the potential societal impacts triggered by elite sport: a conceptual framework. IJSPP 2019; 11: 485–502.

20.

Seguí-Urbaneja

Inglés

Alcaraz

, et al. Sport pyramid metaphor: trickle down and up effect in Spain. RIMCAFD 2020; 20(77): 1–20.

21.

Khasnis

Chapman

Toering

, et al. Focus on the people: key stakeholders’ perceptions of elite sport in India and its potential for development. Managing Sport and Leisure 2023; 28: 323–343.

22.

Swann

Moran

Piggott

. Defining elite athletes: issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychol Sport Exerc 2015; 16: 3–14.

23.

McKay

AKA

Stellingwerff

Smith

, et al. Defining training and performance caliber: a participant classification framework. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2022; 17: 317–331.

24.

Barth

Güllich

Macnamara

, et al. Predictors of junior versus senior elite performance are opposite: a systematic review and meta-analysis of participation patterns. Sports Med 2022; 52: 1399–1416.

25.

Barreiros

Côté

Fonseca

. From early to adult sport success: analysing athletes’ progression in national squads. Eur J Sport Sci 2014; 14: S178–S182.

26.

Barreiros

Fonseca

. A retrospective analysis of Portuguese elite Athletes’ involvement in international competitions. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2012; 7: 593–600.

27.

Pauw

Roelands

Cheung

, et al. Guidelines to classify subject groups in sport-science research. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2013; 8: 111–122.

28.

Ruiz-Navarro

López-Belmonte

Gay

, et al. A new model of performance classification to standardize the research results in swimming. Eur J Sport Sci 2023; 23: 478–488.

29.

Decroix

De Pauw

Foster

, et al. Guidelines to classify female subject groups in sport-science research. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2016; 11: 204–213.

30.

Rinta-Antila

Koski

Aira

, et al. Sports-related factors predicting maintained participation and dropout in organized sports in emerging adulthood: A four-year follow-up study. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2024; 34(1): e14523.

31.

Levental

Yaffe

Lev Arey

. Goals and success in sport: the perspectives of parents and adolescent girls in Kayaking. Behavioral Sciences 2023; 13(7): 580.

32.

Carless

Douglas

. Stories of success: cultural narratives and personal stories of elite and professional athletes. In: Coaching for Performance: Realising the Olympic Dream. 1st Edition. London: Routledge, 2016, pp.61–72.

33.

Post

Rosenthal

Root

, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of parents of youth basketball players regarding sport specialization and college scholarship availability. Orthop J Sports Med 2021; 9: 23259671211024594.

34.

Jr RT

Henriksen

Stambulova

, et al. “We are their last chance”: a case study of a college basketball environment in an American underserved community. J Appl Sport Psychol 2024; 36: 1–23.

35.

Jr RT

Henriksen

Stambulova

. Oatmeal is better than no meal: the career pathways of African American male professional athletes from underserved communities in the United States. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2021; 19: 504–523.

36.

Baker

Schorer

Lemez

, et al. Understanding high achievement: the case for eminence. Front Psychol 2019; 10: 1927.

37.

Johnston

McAuley

ABT

Kelly

, et al.

Language games and blurry terminology: Can clarity enhance athlete development?

Front Sports Act Living 2023; 5: 1150047.

38.

McAuley

ABT

Baker

Kelly

. Defining “elite” status in sport: from chaos to clarity. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2022; 52: 193–197.

39.

Grainger

Kelly

Garland

, et al. ‘Athletes’, ‘talents’, and ‘players’: conceptual distinctions and considerations for researchers and practitioners. Sports Med 2025; 55(1): 9–15.

40.

Bezuglov

Emanov

Waśkiewicz

, et al. Successful young athletes have low probability of being ranked among the best senior athletes, but this is higher when compared to their less successful peers. Front Psychol 2022; 13: 869637.

41.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169: 467–473. 2018/09/05. DOI: 10.7326/m18-0850.

42.

Peters

MDJ

Godfrey

McInerney

, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth 2022; 20: 953–968. 2022/02/02. DOI: 10.11124/jbies-21-00242.

43.

Munn

Peters

MDJ

Stern

, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18: 43.

44.

Jenny

Manning

Keiper

, et al. Virtual(ly) athletes: where eSports fit within the definition of “sport”. Quest 2017; 69: 1–18.

45.

Hallmann

Giel

. Esports – competitive sports or recreational activity? Sport Management Review 2018; 21: 14–20.

46.

Moesch

Elbe

Hauge

, et al. Late specialization: the key to success in centimeters, grams, or seconds (cgs) sports. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2011; 21: e282–e290. 2011/03/16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01280.x.

47.

Güllich

Emrich

. Considering long-term sustainability in the development of world class success. Eur J Sport Sci 2012; 14: S383–S397.

48.

Braun

Clarke

. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.

49.

Braun

Clarke

. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health 2019; 11: 589–597.

50.

Strauss

Corbin

. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 1998.

51.

Gómez Piqueras

González Víllora

Castellano

, et al. Relation between the physical demands and success in professional soccer players. J Hum Sport Exerc 2019; 14(1): 1–11.

52.

Chen

Meng

, et al. Development of youth tennis players: a study based on the ranking history of top ATP/WTA players worldwide and China. PLoS One 2023; 18(11): e0289848.

53.

Boccia

Cardinale

Brustio

. Elite junior throwers unlikely to remain at the top level in the senior category. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2021; 16: 1281–1287.

54.

Del Coso

de Souza D

Moreno-Perez

, et al. Influence of players’ maximum running speed on the team's ranking position at the end of the Spanish LaLiga. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17(23): 8815.

55.

Lopez-Valenciano

Garcia-Gómez

López-Del Campo

, et al. Association between offensive and defensive playing style variables and ranking position in a national football league. J Sports Sci 2022; 40: 50–58.

56.

Sziklai

Biró

Csató

. The efficacy of tournament designs. Comput Oper Res 2022; 144: 105821.

57.

Deci

Ryan

. Self-determination theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology 2012; 1: 416–436.

58.

Popovych

Hrys

Hoian

, et al. Successfulness in teenagers’ sporting activities: comparative analysis of individual and team sports. J Phys Educ Sport 2022; 22: 2886–2897.

59.

Bahenský

. Success of elite adolescent female runners in adulthood. Studia Sportiva 2019; 13: 6–16.

60.

McCue

Baker

Lemez

, et al. Getting to first base: developmental trajectories of Major league baseball players. Front Psychol 2019; 10: 2563.

61.

Martin-Lopez

Mendes

Castillo-Rodriguez

. Internal and external loads in training week before the competition in U19 high-level soccer players. EJSS 2021; 35: 1766–1772.

62.

Dobos

Novak

Barbaros

. Neuromuscular fitness is associated with success in sport for elite female, but not male tennis players. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18(12): 6512.

63.

Devlin

Uminsky

. Identifying group contributions in NBA lineups with spectral analysis. Journal of Sports Analytics 2020; 6: 215–234.

64.

Lock

Delia

Inoue

, et al. Success interrupted: exploring how supporters interpret their team's success in a postponed competition. Eur Sport Manag Q 2024; 24: 1070–1089.

65.

Wachsmuth

Feichtinger

Bartley

, et al. Psychological characteristics and future success: a prospective study examining youth soccer players at different stages within the German talent development pathway. J Appl Sport Psychol 2024; 36: 276–300.

66.

Morton

. ‘One of the worst statistics in British sport': a sociological perspective on the over-representation of independently (privately) educated athletes in team GB. Sport Educ Soc 2022; 27: 393–406.

67.

García-Rubio

Carreras

Feu

, et al. Citius, Altius,Fortius; is it enough to achieve success in basketball. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17(20): 7355.

68.

Humphreys

Johnson

. The effect of superstars on game attendance: evidence from the NBA. J Sports Econom 2019; 21: 152–175.

69.

Güllich

. Selection, de-selection and progression in German football talent promotion. Eur J Sport Sci 2014; 14: 530–537.

70.

Gulbin

Weissensteiner

Oldenziel

, et al. Pattern s of performance development in elite athletes. Eur J Sport Sci 2013; 13: 605–614.

71.

Güllich

Emrich

. Individualistic and collectivistic approach in athlete support programmes in the German high-performance sport system. EJSS 2012; 9: 243–268.

72.

Vaudreuil

van Eck

Lombardo

, et al. Economic and performance impact of anterior cruciate ligament injury in national basketball association players. Orthop J Sports Med 2021; 9(9): 23259671211026617.

73.

Arderiu

de Fondeville

. Influence of advanced footwear technology on sub-2 h marathon and other top running performances. J Quant Anal Sports 2022; 18: 73–86.

74.

Cheban

Chebykin

Plokhikh

, et al. Emotional and volitional potential of self-mobilization in the organization of time perspective activity of highly qualified rowing athletes. J Phys Educ Sport 2020; 20: 3128–3137.

75.

Albaladejo-Saura

Vaquero-Cristóbal

García-Roca

, et al.

What Variables Allow the Differentiation between More and Less Successful Adolescent Volleyball Players?

J Hum Kinet 2023; 87: 229–242.

76.

Zestcott

Dickens

Bracamonte

, et al. One and done: examining the relationship between years of college basketball experience and career statistics in the national basketball association. J Sport Soc Iss 2020; 44: 299–315.

77.

Siekanska

Wojtowicz

. Impulsive athlete as a self-regulated learner. Can self-confidence and a positive social attitude change a developmental inhibitor into a growth catalyst? IJSSC 2020; 20: 623–629.

78.

Pappalardo

Cintia

Rossi

, et al. A public data set of spatio-temporal match events in soccer competitions. Sci Data 2019; 6: 236.

79.

Kim

Yoon

Magnusen

, et al. Anchored putter ban: an examination of whether anchored putting impacts career success and putting performance. MDE Manage Decis Econ 2019; 40: 941–949.

80.

Ács

Kovács

Toka

. A career handbook for professional soccer players. IJSSC 2024; 19: 444–458.

81.

Grambow

ÒShannessy

Born

, et al. Serve efficiency development indicates an extended women’s tennis world class cohort: analysing 14 years of Ladies Wimbledon championships – implications for coaching. Human Movement 2021; 22: 43–52.

82.

Gasparetto

Barajas

Rodríguez-Guerrero

. Socio-economic factors that affect the demand for tickets in all Brazilian League tiers. Sport Soc 2019; 23(2): 222–233.

83.

Silva

Barreiros

Fonseca

. Exploring the importance of coaches in the development of the sports career in handball. The perception of athletes from higher and lower levels of success. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte 2018; 19: 106–120.

84.

Bon

Wilson-Gahan

Doupona

, et al. CAREER DEVELOPMENT IN WOMEN’S HANDBALL ELITE PLAYERS – MIDDLE RANKING COUNTRIES SPECIFICS. Kinesiologia slovenica 2023; 29: 157–182.

85.

Zare

Géczi

. The influence of Olympic triumph: exploring societal and political outcomes through sports stakeholder views. Sport Soc 2024; 27: 1374–1401.

86.

Kincses

Ormos

Bartha

. Motivational peculiarities of elite women tennis players from the post-socialist countries. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 2021; 8: 582.

87.

Tan

T-C

Zheng

Dickson

. Policy transfer in elite sport development: the case of elite swimming in China. Eur Sport Manag Q 2019; 19: 645–665.

88.

Shima

Tai

Nakao

, et al. Association between self-reported empathy and sport experience in young adults. J Phys Educ Sport 2021; 21: 66–72.

89.

Chu

Wang

. Empirical study on relationship between sports analytics and success in regular season and postseason in Major league baseball. Journal of Sports Analytics 2019; 5: 205–222.

90.

Schild

Zettler

. Linking voice pitch to fighting success in male amateur mixed martial arts athletes and boxers. Evol Hum Sci 2021; 3: e46.

91.

Chmura

Oliva-Lozano

Muyor

, et al. Physical performance indicators and team success in the German soccer league. J Hum Kinet 2022; 83: 257–265. 2022/09/27. DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2022-0099.

92.

Simon

Carson

Faber

, et al. Low prevalence of relative age effects in Luxembourg's male and female youth football. PLoS One 2022; 17(8): e0273019.

93.

Andrzejewski

Oliva-Lozano

Chmura

, et al. Analysis of team success based on match technical and running performance in a professional soccer league. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil 2022; 14(1): 82.

94.

Barth

Güllich

Macnamara

, et al. Quantifying the extent to which junior performance predicts senior performance in Olympic sports: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2024; 54(1): 95–104.

95.

Güllich

Barth

Macnamara

, et al. Quantifying the extent to which successful juniors and successful seniors are two disparate populations: a systematic review and synthesis of findings. Sports Med 2023; 53: 1201–1217.

96.

Knuepling

Broekel

. Does relatedness drive the diversification of countries’ success in sports? Eur Sport Manag Q 2022; 22: 182–204.

97.

Dugdale

Sanders

Myers

, et al. Progression from youth to professional soccer: a longitudinal study of successful and unsuccessful academy graduates. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2021; 31: 73–84. 2021/04/20. DOI: 10.1111/sms.13701.

98.

Bendorff

DKS

Aggerholm

Dalsgaard S

, et al. “All or nothing”: the road to the national hockey league for five successful Danish players born in 1989. CSSEP 2021; 5: 145–153.

99.

Wang

, et al. Progress in machine translation. Engineering 2022; 18: 143–153.

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.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB

0.27 MB

0.72 MB

0.20 MB