Coaches’ definitions of success in sport: A rapid review

Abstract

This rapid review examined how sport coaches conceptualise success, a term widely invoked yet rarely defined within coaching practice and policy. The review synthesised findings from 17 articles published between 2000 and 2024 that explicitly included coaches’ voices. Using a deductive coding framework encompassing performance, sport growth, personal growth, emotional growth, and coach-oriented outcomes, the analysis revealed success as being a multivalent, contextually-driven, dynamic and complex concept. Personal development of athletes and winning were frequently cited as ways in which coaches defined success, but no article cited winning as the only definition of success. The breadth of ways in which coaches understood what defined success presents the potential for tension within sporting contexts, especially if coaches’ definitions do not align with those of other stakeholders. This underscores the importance of establishing shared definitions of success within sporting environments to reduce tensions among stakeholders and promote aligned, holistic approaches to sport experiences.

Introduction

The word ‘success’ is frequently used within sport but rarely explicitly defined. References to success are often multivalent. For example, within the context of Australia (where the research team is based) success may be considered podium placement or winning medals at international competitions, but is also “far more than how many Olympic gold medals Australia wins” ^{1 (p5)} and includes achieving “goals both on and off the sporting field”. ^{2 (p5)} The 2032+ Strategy, Australia's High Performance Sport Strategy, combines performance and non-performance concepts as part of its ‘win well’ definition. More specifically, it considers that to win well is to “balance ambitious performance goals with a culture of care and to prioritise integrity, fair play and pride”. ^{3 (p4)}

Elsewhere, multiple definitions are also evident. The UK Sport Strategic Plan (2021–2031), for instance, outlines that “success looks like” winning and that winning “well” involves growing a thriving sporting system, and to inspire inclusivity, diversity, wellbeing, and sustainability. ^{4 (p10)} In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the vision of the Sport NZ Strategy 2024–2028 ⁵ is “Every Body Active” which involves increasing community physical activity and sport participation, enhancing stakeholder experiences, and increasing the variety of culturally distinct pathways. Here, the 2032 High Performance System Strategy ⁶ exists alongside the Sport NZ Strategy ⁵ and indicates that within the high performance space, success is understood as Olympic, Paralympic, and Commonwealth Games, as well as World Cups, Series, and Championships. ⁶

These multivalent understandings suggest that different sport contexts influence what constitutes or is understood as success. Within elite levels and high-performance sport, success may be widely accepted as performance-oriented, while community-based sports programs or club settings provide opportunities for play and participation.^7,8 Success within community-based sports programs or club sports contexts might be understood, therefore, as an increase in the number of registered players from one season to the next, rather than how many points were scored or games won which is a likely focus of the former. ⁹

Across this vast and dynamic sport landscape, coaches play an integral role in the development of those they interact with. At times, their “main responsibility…is to enable their athletes to attain levels of performance not otherwise achievable”. ^{10 (pS29)} However, they also play a “pivotal role” in providing opportunities to play ^{11 (p655)} and the “social, physical and moral development of individuals”. ^{12 (p1)} Coaches’ roles, therefore, are complex ¹³ as they can range from providing fun and safe experiences for participants, motivating and leading, nurturing players’ personal development,^14,15 and supporting athletes’ skill development. ¹⁶

In Australia, coaches are encouraged to “develop a broader understanding of their players and what success looks like”. ^{17 (p1)} Understanding coaches’ definitions of success is important and warranted given the important role they play within sporting contexts, the multivalent use of the term ‘success’ evident within government and sports organisation communiqué,^2,4,5 the multitude of different sporting contexts coaches operate within, and the focus of the modern coaching approach in Australian sport. As such, the research team conducted a rapid review of literature to identify and understand coaches’ perceptions, globally.

Methods

This study is guided by a constructivist onto-epistemological standpoint that assumes multiple realities exist and are informed by subjective experiences. Further to recognising that coaches will hold multiple and various perspectives, this standpoint acknowledges researchers’ active roles in the interpretation of findings. A rapid review provides methodological rigour within contexts of limited time and resource availability. Within the context of this review, a rapid review was deemed appropriate given the findings were to be used to inform upcoming strategic planning at the organisational level of Author 2. The processes undertaken were predominantly informed by King et al., ¹⁸ Garritty et al., ¹⁹ and Sabiston et al. ²⁰ The protocol was registered on Figshare. ²¹

Search strategy

To locate explicit notions of coaches’ definitions and/or perceptions of what constituted success, we developed a search strategy that was applied to SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar (identified as appropriate databases). Eligibility criteria were collaboratively determined by the research team. Specifically, inclusion criteria related to language (English only), dates (2000–2025) and source types (peer-reviewed and grey literature, but not books, book chapters, or theses). Further, to enable explicit insights into coaches’ definitions and/or perceptions, evidence of coaches’ voices needed to be explicitly included (for example, as study participants). Coaches could be either past or current coaches, from all sports, and from all playing levels. The search strings utilised for each database are located within the Supplementary Material[1]. In keeping with Kazi et al.'s ²² practice, the articles located via Google Scholar were limited to the first one hundred returns.

Study selection

The search strategy located a total of 1038 articles which were initially identified and exported to Covidence. After removing duplicates (n = 16), title and abstract screening was undertaken. An accelerated process meant a single-reviewer (Author 1) methodology was adopted. Although not as advantageous as double-screening, single-reviewer strategies are still considered sufficiently robust within rapid reviews when undertaken by an experienced reviewer. ²³ To augment methodological rigour and to alleviate concerns highlighted by Affengruber et al. ²⁴ about the sensitivity of rapid reviews, two reviewers (Authors 1 and 2) independently screened twenty articles and achieved near-full consensus.

Articles (n = 856) were excluded based on not meeting inclusion criteria. Articles were frequently excluded for being athlete-centric or sport science focussed. Other reasons included (but were not limited to) having a focus on anti-doping, pedagogical approaches to coaching, talent selection strategies and training conditions and strategies. After title and abstract screening, 161 articles were included for full-text review in Covidence. Author 1 reviewed each of these articles and, through the application of the eligibility criteria, excluded 144 articles. The reference lists of all articles that underwent full-text review were pearled ²⁵ by Author 1. This resulted in identification of four more articles; none of which met inclusion criteria following full-text review. The PRISMA diagram (Figure 1) details how the research team arrived at the point of having 17 articles for inclusion.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram.

Data charting

Articles were deductively coded against a comprehensive framework identified within a previously located article ²⁶ that, like our study's intended objectives, explicitly sought to understand coaches’ definitions of success. This framework comprised five categories with eleven different categorisations that we used to deductively code the included articles is shared in Table 1 (below). Further insights about these can be located in Crossan et al.. ²⁶

Table 1.

Coding framework.

Success category	Success sub-categories	Illustrative examples
Performance	Individual Player Success Team Goal Fulfilment Winning	Whether a team or an individual achieves their goal Win / loss records, premiership wins
Sport Growth	Player Development Player Engagement	Tactical or technical progressions Player retention and ongoing engagement
Personal Growth	Develop People Develop Morals	Development of discipline, teamwork, etc. Moral development
Emotional Growth	Enjoyment Satisfaction / Deeper Experience	Expressions of enjoyment Expressions of a meaningful experience
Coach Oriented	Coach Satisfied Coach Recognised	Coaches’ own satisfaction with experience Coaches feeling recognised for their efforts

One inductive code was included following recognition of repeated explicit statements about winning not being ‘everything’ within the literature. Given the purpose of this rapid review was not to compare how coaches from different settings defined success either similarly or differently, but rather to explore how coaches, broadly, understand success, a synthesis of coaches’ narratives has been undertaken instead of a methodological analysis. At times, we have included detail about the coaches (for example, their coaching level) to provide context for the reader, rather than to compare coaches’ responses and, as such, a summary of the studies’ research designs has been included in the Supplementary Material[4].

Results

All articles were published between 2000–2024. Publication types include a research note, ²⁷ industry magazine, ²⁸ and a news article. ²⁹ All remaining articles (n = 14) were peer-reviewed journal articles. Data for these journal articles and research note were predominately collected via semi-structured interviews and in-depth interviews to generate qualitative insights. Two notable exceptions are the studies by Crossan and Bednář ³⁰ and Crossan et al. ²⁶ who used surveys to identify coaches’ definitions of success and reported descriptive statistics pertaining to these. The news article ²⁹ and industry magazine ²⁸ offered quotes from coaches.

Publications emanated from Australia, ³¹ Brazil, ³² Canada,^33,34 Czech Republic,^26,30 Portugal,^27,35 United Kingdom,^16,36,37 and the United States.^{28,29,38–41} Sample sizes within the primary research reported in journal articles and research note (n = 15) ranged from five to 532 coaches. Where reported, coaches were: aged between 18 to 65 years; had between >12 months to 37 years of coaching experience; were engaged as volunteers at grassroots clubs, head coaches within clubs, university coaches, assistant coaches, high performances or elite coaches, or were coaches of regional, national, and international teams. Of these, not all coaches had coaching qualifications, and some held tertiary degrees in areas such as Physical Education and Recreation. Coaches coached athletes aged from under 8 to 39 years of age, and were playing at community or participation levels, in developmental pathways, or in high performance contexts. Coaches from 35 different sports participated in the included studies, and there were more male (n = 609) than female (n = 125) coaches represented. Further information is detailed in the Supplementary Material[2].

Table 2 (below) shows the number and percent of articles coded to each of the subcategories. The Supplementary Materials[3] contain details which subcategories were coded to each article more specifically. A narrative synthesis is offered below and a succinct overview of the article demographics are located in Supplementary Materials[4].

Table 2.

Number and percentage of articles coded to identified categories and subcategories.

Category	Subcategories	No. of articles	% of articles
Sport growth	Player Development	7	41.2
	Player Engagement	3	17.6
Personal growth	Develop People	11	64.7
	Develop Morals	3	17.6
Emotional growth	Enjoyment	5	29.4
	Satisfaction / Deeper Experience	3	17.6
Coach oriented	Coach Satisfied	3	17.6
	Coach Recognised	3	17.6
Performance	Individual Player Success	3	17.6
	Team Goal Fulfilment	4	23.5
	Winning	12	70.6
	(Winning isn’t everything – explicit)	8	47.1

Success is… performance

Winning

Winning was defined as success in over two-thirds (n = 12, 70.6%) of the articles. Examples included “winning a national championship”, ^{34 (p506)} and “the number of medals, titles, finals and personal records”. ^{27 (p1127)} Wins and losses were seen as dichotomous constructs representing success and failure, as evident in the following quote:

…in the end, [winning] is my only KPI [Key Performance Indicator], whether you do or don’t win a gold medal. And it's binary. You either do or you don’t and if you don’t then you’ve failed and if you do then you’ve won sort of thing. It's as simple as that. ^{31 (p30)}

Coaches of professional and national division teams in the study by Santos et al. ^{35 (p152)} considered that winning was “the only top priority” and the goal was “exclusively to win, the rest is music”. However, only a small proportion of coaches in Crossan and Bednář ³⁰ reported that success, generally, was defined by winning (9.6%), and even fewer (1.5%) coaches indicated as such when asked about their personal view of success. The findings by Crossan et al. ²⁶ revealed nearly one-quarter of coaches of the teams with 20+ year olds indicated as such, compared to only 12.5% and 12.6% of the U8 and U9-14 teams. This different emphasis on winning within different age group contexts was also evident in the example provided by one coach in Mitchell et al.'s ^{37 (p1236)} study:

What England 17s objectives were, were different to what England 20s objectives were. England 20s is to win the Junior World Cup; England 17s was to develop a broad based of players who could play the game in many different ways.

In keeping with the idea that context matters, within the context of high school coaching, Collins et al. ^{39 (p44)} reported that high school coaches indicated that “winning was important but not the top priority”, while coaches, also working in context of youth sport, in Varney and Coakley ^{40 (p131)} reported that “we want to win… but you want to just be the best that you can be”. Contractual or employment obligations also appear to influence definitions of success. In the words of one coach “the world defines success by wins and losses. I get paid to win games”, while another suggested that winning was “why we work every day!” ^{27 (p1127)} and what is “going to keep my job”. ^{41 (p85)} Lastly, while winning was the most widely cited definition of success, no articles cited winning as the only measure of success and nearly half (n = 8, 47.1%) of the articles contained explicit statements indicating as such.

Individual player success

Individual player success was not a particularly common way for coaches to define success, with only three (17.6%) articles^26,30,40 indicating as such. This aligns with Crossan et al.'s ²⁶ findings that only a small percentage of coaches identified individual player success as a measure of success. Specifically, in Crossan et al. ²⁶ only 2.0%, 5.5%, and 3.8% of coaches of 20+, U15-19, and U9-14 years old, respectively, indicated as such. Notably, no coaches reported that individual player success was a definition of success for the U8 age group. Findings from coaches of youth sport in the study by Varney and Coakley ^{40 (p131)} align with the perceived enhanced relevance of individual player success for adolescent athletes. One coach shared:

I am all about the little wins for the athlete. It is not about winning overall, but if I see an improvement in an athlete that they might even be extremely enthusiastic about, I am so jazzed and I let them know.

Team goal fulfilment

Team goal fulfilment was identified as a definition of success by coaches within four articles.^26,27,30,34 In Crossan and Bednář, ³⁰ team goal fulfilment (for example, consistently reaching play-offs, winning important games, and playing high quality games) accounted for coaching success (general) for 13.7% of coaches, and for 6% of coaches’ definitions of personal success. For coaches in Crossan et al. ²⁶ success was more frequently defined as team goal fulfilment than individual player success (9.6% compared to 3.6%). It was also more frequently cited for players aged 20+ (17.8%) than players within the U8 (4.7%), U9-U14 (6.0%) and U15-U19 (8.8%) age categories.

This notion that team goal fulfilment is more relevant to coaches of older athletes is also observed in the remaining two studies that cited team goal fulfilment as success which involved head coaches and elite coaches. Their focus on the team is evident through the following quotes:

I don’t talk about winning the national championship— I talk about being the most improved team. ^{34 (p506)}

If the rules are really followed, it is successful. For example, if the training session should start at a given time, it is a success if I see that it really started on time throughout the season. ^{27 (p1125)}

Success is… personal growth

Develop people

Nearly two-thirds of the articles (n = 11, 64.7%) in this review reported coaches’ success definitions which included developing people.^{26,28–30,32,33,35,39–41} Crossan et al.'s study ²⁶ identified that developing people was more frequently understood as success in the U15-19 category (7.1%) and the U8 (4.7%) and U9-U14 (4.4%) groups than in the U20+ (2.6%) cohort suggesting, again, the context matters.

Although the contractual or employment contexts of some coaches appeared to influence their definitions of success as winning, the review also identified coaches’ humanistic views of understanding success as personal development, specifically pertaining to athletes’ education. For example, coaches employed within education institutions considered success as athletes’ making their “grades in school and passing all their classes this year” ^{39 (p46)} and being able to “graduate young people”. ^{29 (p. para 12)} Further, demonstrating how success is understood as the development of people and in being well equipped or set up for non-sport life or life after sport, a coach in Santos et al.'s study ^{32 (p190)} shared:

My objective in university sport is to win medals and have positive results. However, my main objective… is to give athletes an education and then also educate them on sport.

Other definitions included athletes achieving their goals and fulfilling personal ambitions, ³⁰ reaching their individual specific potentials, ⁴¹ developing discipline (for example, “on the football field or walking away from a fight”, ^{39 (p45)} perseverance and persistence, ³³ developing positive attitudes towards others ²⁸ and having a “good experience”. ^{37 (p1235)} Success was also viewed as relating to achieving goals outside of, and after, sport. For example, a coach in Mitchell et al. ^{37 (p1235)} considered success as setting athletes up for “achieving in other ways”. Another coach considered success to be when an athlete's “toolbox will be full and that will help them to succeed in life”. ^{33 (p187)} These sentiments were echoed within Brown ^{29 (p. para 12)}:

I was hired to win basketball games, but I’m also hired to develop and graduate young people so that they have an opportunity to have success in their lives after they’ve left the university..

Develop morals

Moral development was not frequently identified as a way of defining coaching success, with only three (17.6%) articles^26,30,33 indicating as such. The limited focus on moral development is reflected in both Crossan et al. ²⁶ and Crossan and Bednář. ³⁰ In the former, only 3.1%, 3.8%, 1.7%, and 2.0% of coaches of the U8, U9-14, U15-19, and 20 + teams, respectively, indicated moral growth was a definition of success. Similarly, moral values were “rarely given attention” by coaches in Crossan and Bednář. ³⁰ Adopting the lens of morals relating to standards of behaviour regarding what might be considered right or wrong, ⁴² the following quote from Vallée and Bloom ³³ (p189) illustrates how coaches sought to contribute to the moral development of their players:

I probably started with more goals around my program than around winning games… I did not even think about [winning the championship]. We wanted to be the best we could be. We may not always have been the best, but we tried to achieve high standards inside and outside of the program. It is not just about basketball; for me, there is so much more.

Success is… sport growth

Player development

Definitions of success relating to player development were identified within seven (41.2%) articles in this review^{26,30,31,33,36–38} where coaches were in paid and volunteer positions across various competition levels (including participation, development and high-performance areas). In Crossan et al., ²⁶ player development was more frequently reported as a definition of success for younger than older players, with one-quarter of coaches indicating as such for the U8 cohort and only a slightly smaller proportion indicating for the U9-U14 (20.1%) and U15-U19 (22.3%) cohorts. For those 20+ in professional capacities, the proportion of coaches defining success as player development was 17.1%.

Data coded to this category was mostly related to skill development. For example, Crossan and Bednář ³⁰ referred to skill mastery, while Vallée & Bloom ³³ referred to developing an “athlete's athletic abilities”. Coaches in Fiander et al. ³⁶ offered further insights relating to these ideas:

[Coach] holds the view that “success” is about the development of his athletes and not just about winning games.

I think maybe if you’ve made a difference to that individual umm…so if you’ve seen someone come in, you’ve started working with them and they’re not so good but then you’ve worked with them and they’ve progressed and they’re now a good player, I think that's a success.

Skill mastery as player development success is also evident within the following quote from Benish et al. ³⁸ :

A really big backbone of how I coach [is] setting the athlete up for success… I want [athlete] to be able to go out and do this program knowing that [they are] capable of doing just about every element in this program and doing it well.

Player engagement

Three (17.6%) articles were coded to this sub-category.^16,26,30 Responses reflected perspectives of coaches serving as high school coaches, head and assistant coaches, coaches with Level 1–4 qualifications, as well as those ranging from U8 to professional level coaches within Crossan et al.'s ²⁶ large survey pool. Success, when referring to player engagement, was more frequent amongst coaches of the U9-U14 (14.2%) and U15-U19 (10.9%) cohorts than for the U8 (6.3%) and 20+ (7.2%) teams. ²⁶ Player engagement also related to athlete retention in their specific sports and sport generally. For example, coaches in Crossan and Bednář ³⁰ saw players staying in sport as part of their personal success stories, while coaches in Nash et al. ^{16 (p545)} offered the following:

The main role for me is to make sure that if they are 8, 9, 10 year old, they're still playing in their 20's. If I've done that, then I think I've succeeded

Success is… emotional growth

Enjoyment

Coaches within five (29.4%) articles defined success as enjoyment.^{26–28,30,39} Here, coaches considered “success can be having fun” ^{39 (p46)}, having “pleasure in what they [athletes] do regardless of sporting results” ^{27 (p1125)} and the “enjoyment of competing”. ^{28 (p2)} Quantitative reports from Crossan and Bednář ³⁰ indicated over one-fifth of head and assistant coaches of athletes ranging from U8 to adults considered enjoyment (specifically, enjoyment of games and training, enthusiasm and love for the sport, and the joy of movement) as defining general coaching success. Regarding personal coaching success, player-oriented enjoyment (i.e., players enjoy games, have a lifelong love of sport, and enjoy movement) was identified by nearly 24% of coaches. ³⁰ A smaller proportion of coaches in Crossan et al. ²⁶ indicated enjoyment as a definition of success. Differences between age groups of athletes were also noted. For example, only 3.4% and 2.6% of coaches of U15-19 and 20 + reporting enjoyment as a definition of success compared to 7.8% and 8.2% of coaches of U8 and U9-14 athletes.

Satisfaction / deeper experiences

Coaches from three studies (17.6%) provided insights relating to satisfaction/deeper experiences as ways of defining success.^26,28,30 Of coaches (including amateur coaches of young people and professional coaches of adults) in Crossan et al. ²⁶ 15.5% identified satisfaction and deeper experiences. Differences were noted between coaches of different-aged athletes, with coaches of U8 and U9-14 teams more likely to indicate satisfaction and deeper experiences as definitions of success (23.4% and 18.9%) than coaches of U15-19 and 20+ (13.0% and 9.2% respectively). These proportions were more than for the coaches in Crossan and Bednář ³⁰ where only 3% of coaches identified satisfied teams as personal coaching success. Satisfaction or a deeper experience as a way of understanding success was also identified within the commentary by Smoll and Smith ²⁸ who recognised success could be understood as when an athlete invests effort to be the best they are capable of being. In the words of John Wooden (quoted in Smoll and Smith). ^{28 (p2)}

Success is peace of mind, which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing that you did your best to become the best you are capable of becoming.

Success is… coach oriented

Coach recognition

Few coaches (both in terms of number of articles [n = 3, 17.6%] and proportions of coaches within said articles) cited coach recognition as success. General coaching success related to coach recognition (including being thanked by athletes and being given credit) for 2.7% of coaches in Crossan and Bednář. ³⁰ With regard to personal coaching success, coach recognition (felt through positive reactions from others, specifically players showing gratitude, players giving coaches credit and feeling respected by other coaches) was reported by 4.5% of coaches when asked about personal coaching success. This was a slightly higher proportion than coaches in Crossan et al.'s ²⁶ research in which fewer than 2% of coaches (responsible for children under 8 through to professional 18+ athletes) indicated as such. Coach recognition was also only a minor theme within Fisher et al.'s ^{41 (p80)} qualitative study with head coaches, but was evident within the following quote from a coach:

You feel good as a coach when they come back and appreciate what you have done.

Coach satisfaction

Coach satisfaction was defined as success within three (17.6%) articles.^26,30,31 According to Crossan et al., ²⁶ coaches of U9-14 were less likely to report their own satisfaction as a definition of success (with 6.6% indicating as such) compared to coaches of U8, U15-19, and 20+ (10.9%, 10.9% and 13.8% respectively). Within Crossan and Bednář, ³⁰ coach-oriented definitions of general coaching success related to satisfaction (specifically, coaches doing what they enjoy, do things well, and reaching their goals) were reported by 8.2% of coaches. Coach satisfaction (specifically, being a good promoter of sports, being a good teacher, being able to succeed with any team, and having many participants at trainings) related to personal coaching success for 10.4% of coaches. These proportions are similar to the proportions reported by Crossan et al. ²⁶

Coach satisfaction, in terms of their own personal development, was also identified by three-quarters of coaches within the study by McLean and Mallett. ³¹ The following quote from a high-performance coach in this study exemplifies how this related to defining success.

I kept on learning more and I kept on improving and that's what I will classify as being successful as well. I don’t believe that by far that I know everything and there's so much more I can learn and that keeps me hungry. ^{31 (p30)}

Discussion

This review explored current literature related to coaches’ definitions of success in sport. The review identified 17 articles published between 2000–2024 and, to the best of our knowledge, is the first review exploring this topic. This review illustrates the multiple ways in which coaches define success, and recognises these definitions are contingent on a range of factors including their individual coaching philosophies and the specific sporting contexts they coach within.

The analysis identified winning and personal development as frequently utilised definitions of success. Player development, here, is not necessarily unsurprising given that sport is widely understood as a vehicle for participants’ personal development, ⁴³ in addition to it being a major part of the role of the coach. ¹⁶ What constituted personal development in the reviewed articles echoed that within previously published research (see, for example, Banwell and Kerr ¹⁴ and Opstoel et al. ¹⁵ ).

Regarding winning, there are some important points to consider. In the first instance, although the purpose of this review was not to methodically or systematically compare the different context of coaches, we observed some differences. Specifically, it appeared that winning is more frequently emphasised in the context of adult and elite athletes. Secondly and concurrent to the first point, although winning may be a more frequent definition of success in adult athlete and high-performance contexts, it also appears that winning is not necessarily unimportant to coaches of younger cohorts. This is especially evident in examples, such as Collins et al. ³⁹ where winning and fun are inherently intertwined. Thirdly, no articles cited winning as the only measure of success and almost half explicitly stated as such. For many coaches, then, while performance outcomes are a key definition of success, winning isn’t everything. This conflicts with the infamous quote from Henry ‘Red’ Sanders who declared that winning wasn’t the only thing, “it was everything” ^{44 (p. para 1)} but aligns with Schlawe et al.'s ^{45 (p2)} observation that the “traditional ‘win-at-all-costs’ approaches” within elite sport is being challenged.

The situation whereby, within high performance contexts, winning is a definition of success whilst simultaneously not being ‘everything’ is reflected within recent national sport strategies (cf: ^2–5) and their respective emphases on winning “well”. For example, the Australian Sports Commission ³ contends that to ‘win well’ is to have performance, integrity, fair play and cultural pride in symbiosis with one another. Similarly, the UK Sport Strategic Plan (2021–2031) emphasises the goal to “keep winning” whilst highlighting the need to “win well with integrity and inclusivity”. ^{4 (p5)} In other words, winning is important, but it isn’t everything. Although the intention of this study was to understand, broadly, how coaches define success, evidently the research team noted a more substantive emphasis on winning as a definition of coaching success within the context of older and more professional settings. This underpinned our understanding that success is contextually-driven. It is feasible that a lesser-focus on winning in younger and community-based contexts may be related to social norms associated with sport for children and young people where sport is understood to build character, develop life and sport skills, develop friendships, make connections and be part of a team, ⁴⁶ whereas coaches of older and more professional athletes might understand success as winning due to their respective sporting competition demands and employment obligations. We observed that although winning was more frequently cited amongst older and more professional cohorts, it was not absent in contexts involving younger players. This suggests that winning, whilst not necessarily the most important factor, is not unimportant to coaches within these settings which aligns with recent findings from Connolly. ⁴⁶

How success is defined within a specific context fundamentally and necessarily informs decisions and resource allocation within that context. Achieving success, howsoever it is defined, requires strategic decisions and investments (resource allocations). For example, if a club defines success in terms of winning, then decisions and investments are likely aligned with achieving performance-oriented outcomes. If, however, success is understood as fostering personal development or moral character development, then the club's decisions may pertain to providing opportunities to develop non-sport attributes. Ideally there is consensus between key stakeholders within a given context. Finite resources, vague or unstated definitions of success, and/or conflicting priorities can threaten the potential for shared consensus between the stakeholders, and may in fact cause tension if or when one stakeholder's definitions of success is privileged over another's, or when multiple definitions cannot co-exist or be accommodated. A coach who understands success as athletes’ personal growth may find themselves conflicted by contractual obligations that prioritise performance-driven institutional goals, for example being paid to win, particularly if such expectations come at the expense athletes’ personal development. Here, the coaches’ contractual obligations may not align with their personal philosophies, contributing to tension. Another example is a case where a coach's emphasis on winning is not matched by the athlete's, resulting in an environment where the athlete feels pressured to win and the deemphasis on fun augments risk of athlete attrition. Mitigation against tensions associated with incongruence between stakeholders include working to understand, explicitly, key stakeholders’ definitions of success, clear articulation and communication of these, and collaborative efforts to plan and resource accordingly.

This review validated that success, although not universally defined, has important and practical implications for a range of sport stakeholders. For coach development providers, understanding the multiple ways that coaches define success highlights the importance of tailoring or including educative content and activities that equip coaches with the knowledge and skills they need to be successful across a range of different measures. Given our earlier assertion relating to the potential for tension due to lack of shared understanding about the definition of success between stakeholders, understanding other key stakeholders’ definitions is also important and will be pursued in future research by the authors.

For coaches and sports clubs, the findings of this review highlight the value of critical reflexive practices to explore individual and organisational definitions. Being explicit about these provides others, including athletes and families, with valuable information that can help manage expectations and support greater alignment of focus within respective sporting contexts. Future, primary research exploring the perspectives of key stakeholders (coaches, clubs and organisations, athletes and their families, for example) and how each defines success could help identify the potential locations and causes of tension.

Limitations

Respective objectives of reviewed articles were not necessarily related to coaches’ definitions of success. As such, subjective inferences were made. While subjective lenses are valuable, mitigation against unfounded claims was undertaken via ongoing investigator triangulation. ⁴⁷ The variety of professional backgrounds, training, and genders were a strength of the authorship team.

Perspectives from 35 sports facilitated a comprehensive overview. Not all studies, however, attributed findings to coaches from specific sports making it difficult to analyse data according to sport or sport type. Given contexts and settings influence definitions of success, future studies should explore this. Resource constraints meant we excluded articles published prior to 2000, theses, books and book chapters and content written in a language other than English. Valuable content published before this date or in these source-types might not be represented in the review. Additionally, due to the rapid nature of the review we only accessed the first 100 Google Scholar despite recommendations for more. ⁴⁸ It is possible that we missed articles that featured in later pages.

Conclusion

Within the reviewed articles, coaches frequently proffered multiple ways of defining success, suggesting that a singular way of understanding success is uncommon. Further, the review also suggests that how coaches define success is influenced by external factors relating to the sporting context and settings. Further research, however, is needed to fully understand these intricate nuances. Despite this further need to explore how success is defined, this study offers a novel and comprehensive contribution by showcasing the extent to which success, for coaches, is complex, multifaceted, contextual, and dynamic.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541261432364 - Supplemental material for Coaches’ definitions of success in sport: A rapid review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541261432364 for Coaches’ definitions of success in sport: A rapid review by Pip Henderson, Will Vickery and Shane Pill in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-spo-10.1177_17479541261432364 - Supplemental material for Coaches’ definitions of success in sport: A rapid review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-spo-10.1177_17479541261432364 for Coaches’ definitions of success in sport: A rapid review by Pip Henderson, Will Vickery and Shane Pill in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching