Children’s agency in organised sport: Relationships and wellbeing

Abstract

Sport has rarely been addressed in childhood studies’ research, while sport research has only started to call attention to concepts from childhood studies. This article brings both fields together, to explore children’s practices of agency and potential consequences for their wellbeing in organised sport. Such insights are timely, with widespread efforts to increase children’s engagement in sport for its physical and mental health benefits, while recent reports identify wellbeing risks to children who participate. This article draws on case study research from a rugby club in England involving observations of training sessions, followed by interviews and discussions with 31 players aged 14–18, their parents, coaches and officials. Using Leonard’s ‘generagency’, the article explores how the dominant motif of the ‘rugby family’ influenced children’s practices of agency, creating a lattice for trusting relations between children, their parents and coaches. The findings dismantle an unduly individualistic concept of agency, highlighting how relations of trust and emotional affect can be protective and problematic in protecting children from harm or injury. The study underlines the necessity for dialogue and knowledge, in addition to the benefits of belonging, to support children’s practices of agency and their wellbeing in sport.

Introduction

Childhood studies has rarely researched organised sport, ¹ while research on sport has infrequently incorporated insights from childhood studies’ scholarship. Messner and Musto (2014), for instance, find insufficient consideration of children in the sociology of sport: ‘the relative silence among sport sociologists concerning kids and sport, against a backdrop of massive youth sport participation’ (p. 103). When childhood studies’ researchers engage with sport, they have found fault with the failure to take holistic approaches to children’s rights (e.g. David, 2005; Eliasson, 2017), particularly in not attending to children’s agency and participation. Notable exceptions show the potential for cross-fertilisation. For example, research in physical education documents how children influence being categorised by ability (Wilkinson and Penney, 2021), while children’s participation in decision-making is strongly advocated to improve their wellbeing and protection in sport (Lang, 2022). This article takes forward this potential, by bringing together childhood studies’ conceptual developments on agency and children’s involvement in sport.

This agenda is timely given the increased concern around children’s wellbeing and risks of harm in sport. Highly publicised reports have brought attention to abuse, including maltreatment, perpetrated by coaches, parents and peers (Hartill et al., 2023; Whyte, 2022). Concerns have been raised over harms to children in terms of injury and exertion, especially in contact sports and due to specialised training (Carder et al., 2020; West et al., 2023). Such concerns highlight power hierarchies within sport that can work against athletes’ practices of agency and their wellbeing.

This article brings – and develops – insights on agency from childhood studies to research on sport, demonstrating the value of this interdisciplinary approach in exploring children’s practices of agency in sport. It reviews childhood studies’ conceptualisations of children’s agency, discusses the application of children’s agency within sport research, and considers current research themes regarding wellbeing and harm in children’s sport. The article presents findings from a broader study that explored children’s wellbeing and harm, agency and consent and parental consent in a rugby club. Focusing on children’s agency, the article documents the dominance of the ‘rugby family’ motif within the research data and how this interacts with children’s practices of agency and their wellbeing. The article concludes by considering what sport and sport research can learn from considering children’s practices of agency, and, in turn, how concepts of children’s agency can be extended by recognising the ties of trust and ‘family’ as expressed and experienced within sport.

Literature review

Childhood studies has extensively promoted attending to children’s agency, aligned with a children’s rights agenda that recognises children’s right to participate in all matters that affect them (Article 12(1), United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; Tisdall and Punch, 2012). Within childhood studies, James and James (2008) define agency as ‘the capacity of individuals to act independently’ (p. 9). The idea of children’s agency has been embraced widely within the field, especially to counter the disregard of children’s active shaping of their own and others’ lives (James, 2010). However, its widespread and sometimes uncritical use has led to more nuanced conceptualisations (see Esser et al., 2016; Tisdall et al., 2023). Bordonaro and Payne (2012) use the term ‘ambiguous agency’ to explore children’s agency that is contrary to behaviours and ‘spaces and places deemed appropriate for them to inhabit’ (p. 366). Gallagher (2019) goes further to argue that agency in itself is not a normative good, but one that must be judged in its particularities and context. Rather than an individual capacity, agency has been (re)considered as something expressed relationally. Leonard (2016) introduces the concept of ‘generagency’, which recognises that ‘children and adults are part of a wider social order based on generation that permeates and demarcates everyday life’ (p.132). At the same time, Leonard argues, children express agency within this positioning. Generagency brings out the relationality of agency, in terms of generational order between adults and children, and between children themselves. Childhood studies, then, has developed ideas of agency that emphasise its contextuality and relationality.

Examples can be found where research on sport has considered children’s agency, which has reframed problems and offered solutions. In addition to those described in the article’s introduction, Persson et al. (2020) refer to agency when describing children leaving sport: ‘youth have reasons for leaving and a form of agency that will always be part of the process of opting out’ (p. 842). Draper and Coalter (2016) identify benefits to ‘aspects of perceived self-efficacy and a sense of agency’ in the experiences of children in a South African soccer and life-skills programme (p. 58). Cooky (2010) charts girls’ ability to exercise agency within a community sport programme but considers how, concurrently, this agency may reproduce wider social institutions. These studies use agency to articulate the relational aspects of children’s experiences within sport, including links with adults, other children and the sport itself.

Sport literature has attended to the links between children’s wellbeing due to and while participating in sport. Two themes are particularly relevant to this article. First, research has investigated mental health and social wellbeing benefits. Eime et al. (2013) undertook a systematic review, concluding that children experience considerable self-esteem, social interaction and mental health benefits from participating in sport. Such benefits result from children’s sense of belonging, happiness, and attainment of social and life-skills (see also van Woudenberg et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2022). Ommundsen et al. (2014) describe ‘clear evidence that sports, in particular team sports, can enhance well-being in children and youth’, highlighting that such benefits ‘require autonomy supportive and mastery-oriented motivational climates allowing for children’s self-determination, competence development and sense of being socially related’ (p. 934). Thus, research finds that sport, and particularly team sport, has mental health and social benefits for children, although these are conditional on supportive experiences and contexts.

Second, empirical research has addressed wellbeing concerns within sport. A self-report survey of experiences of interpersonal violence in childhood sport found a high prevalence of violence (Hartill et al., 2023). The survey had 10,302 participants aged 18–30 years old who had undertaken sport while children. Participants were recruited from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom. Three-quarters (75.0%) of participants reported experiencing at least one type of interpersonal violence while involved in sport. Prevalence of all forms of interpersonal violence was higher outside of sport at 81.5% compared to this 75.0%, but the survey shows that sport cannot be considered an inherently safe space (Hartill et al., 2023: 6).

Sport research has also considered injury, finding greater risk when children specialise in one sport and raising concern about highly physical sport (Anderson et al., 2023; Carder et al., 2020; West et al., 2023). Research addressing socialisation and sport helps explain why children persevere. Hughes and Coakley (1991) develop the concept of the ‘sport ethic’, which can encourage athletes to push themselves through pain and discomfort in the pursuit of excellence (see also Coakley and Donnelly, 1999; Malcom, 2006). The ‘sport ethic’ has also been explored alongside negative aspects of children’s experiences of competition in sport, including associated experiences of pressure (Alexander et al., 2011). Further, research into children’s sport has provided insights into how parents can become acculturated to sports’ social norms, with Kerr and Stirling (2012) noting how parents can become ‘silent bystanders’ to emotional harm towards their children (p. 201). Parents may also promote such social norms, as Boneau et al. (2020) found in research on American football, where some parents were ‘football-first’, emphasising perceived benefits of playing over concerns about harm. Thus, the social norms of sport, or at least certain types of sport, may weaken protection and attention to wellbeing risks, despite growing attention to protecting children’s wellbeing and preventing harm.

In summary, research on sport has an extensive evidence base charting the wellbeing benefits for children, expanding research addressing concerns of their injury and harm and a considerable body of research on the (problematic) socialisation of both parents and children. Ideas from childhood studies, such as the concept of children’s agency, have been found helpful to consider children’s negotiation of sporting activities. Childhood studies itself has been critiquing the ‘celebration’ of children’s agency, with more nuanced considerations of social norms, relationality and context. These developments can further galvanise – and be galvanised by – how we consider children’s navigation of their wellbeing and harm in sport.

Methodology

This article reports on a selection of findings from a research study that aimed to examine the constructions of, and interactions between, children’s wellbeing and harm, agency and consent and parental consent in competitive sport. To address this aim, the study asked research questions relating to children’s, parents’ and coaches’ views and understandings of: children’s agency and consent; children’s wellbeing and harm; parental consent; and the interactions between them. This article reports findings relating to how children, parents and coaches view and understand children’s agency in competitive sport.

The study undertook in-depth qualitative research with a single embedded case study design. Following Stake (1995), the study sought an ‘instrumental’ case: that is, one that helps gain insights about broader concepts. Selection criteria were built from the main study concepts (wellbeing, harm, agency and consent) and associated literature, which identified entry points for considering wellbeing and harm in certain sports: that is, those involving contact, high physicality or known risk of injury. Rugby Union was identified as a popular sport among children in England that requires considerable physical exertion and is known for increasing contact as children progress through age groups. The study sought a club with a large youth membership and diversity across ages and gender. ‘The Club’, with a population of below 200 players ² in the target age groups (aged 14–18), agreed to participate.

Fieldwork began with observation of five training sessions. Thirty-four children, 15 parents, and 12 coaches provided written or verbal consent to observation (for further details about consent, see below). Observational data were recorded in the researcher’s notebook, using diagrams, description and separately noting the researcher’s reflections. Following the observations, child participants from each team were recruited to group discussions. Selection criteria for these were based on purposive sampling (Patton, 2015), seeking to include a range of experiences and characteristics by: age; team gender categorisation; length of time playing; performance level; family rugby background; and injury experience. While a sampling and selection strategy was developed, the research accommodated all children who were interested, with 29 players across six discussions.

In the next research phase, eight child-parent-coach ‘triads’ were recruited purposively, drawing on Yin’s (2018) ‘theoretical replication’, within which units were sought that may lead to different results from the same theoretical basis (p. 177). The triad units included one child each from the under 14 girls’, under 15 boys’, under 18 girls’ and under 18 boys’ teams, and two from the under 16 girls’ and boys’ teams. Two children who were interviewed had not joined the group discussions. Parents of these eight children chose whether one or multiple parents would participate. Nine parents participated in interviews, all individually. One coach per team was interviewed. Research activities also included the collection and review of over 50 documents from The Club and the Rugby Football Union, the governing body in England, and interviews with 6 club officials.

Data from observations, group discussions, interviews and documents were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, guided by Braun and Clarke (2022). Following their six phases, the analysis began with deep familiarisation with the data set, initial coding and then generation of initial themes, developing and reviewing these themes, fine-tuning the analysis through defining and naming the themes, and writing up. Attention was given to data from each triad, participants’ data across different methods (e.g. a child who was observed in training, participated in a discussion and was interviewed) and considering differences by participant category or data type (e.g. group discussions versus individual interviews). Supporting the ‘reflexive’ component of this approach, the primary researcher engaged in reflexive practices, from considering underlying assumptions and the researcher’s positioning, to keeping a reflexive journal throughout. Attention was given to the researcher’s role in co-creating and interpreting the data (Braun and Clarke, 2022) and of the contexts in which participants offered their responses (see later discussion of Apse et al., 2022). Gender was a salient dimension for some findings, but not for the findings reported in this article.

Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Sub-Committee at Moray House School of Education and Sport, University of Edinburgh. Amongst the range of issues considered, foremost were seeking to ensure voluntary and on-going informed consent of all participants, creating respectful research methods on potentially sensitive issues, and protecting participants’ confidentiality and anonymity during and in reporting on the research (Alderson and Morrow, 2011; Saunders et al., 2015). Exceptions to confidentiality and anonymity were part of informed consent should there have been concerns of someone being at risk of significant harm; the study had a safeguarding protocol, which included a named contact at The Club and supportive materials for all participants.

Research findings

In exploring children’s practices of agency within the research data, three themes were of particular importance: relational ties within the context of the ‘rugby family’; practices of generagency in the decisions to play rugby; and negotiations of (gener)agency in connection to wellbeing benefits and harms. These are explored below.

Relational ties and the ‘rugby family’

Rugby culture has been discussed extensively within sport research, with scholars highlighting socialisation connected to ethos, physicality and masculinities (e.g. Kavanagh, 2024; Malcolm et al., 2000; Pringle, 2001). Literature frequently positions social relationships as central to the rugby experience, including for wellbeing (e.g. Branchu, 2023; Griffin et al., 2021). Aligned with this, a key factor from the research study was the strong relational ties of the ‘rugby family’, within which children’s agency was practised.

At The Club, data suggested three levels to the ‘rugby family’: globally, across clubs; within The Club; and within and across age-group teams. The first level, in terms of rugby generally, was referred to mainly by adult participants. A typical explanation was given by one coach: ‘if you’ve ever been involved in rugby, you are part of the rugby family and you’re in for life’, while a document search of the Rugby Football Union website returned numerous references to the ‘rugby family’ as an established ‘community’. The second level, with The Club as ‘family’, was also expressed primarily by adults. Several parents described The Club as ‘a second family’ and presented the ‘ethos’ as positive for the whole family, not just the child who was playing. The third level was most often expressed by children. Several described their teammates as ‘a second family’, spoke of ‘belonging’ to teams, and explained how players would ‘look out for the younger ones’. Overall, adults were more likely to emphasise a global or Club-based understanding of ‘rugby family’, while children more commonly emphasised their teams.

Such findings complement sport research literature from beyond rugby, which picks up the idea of family practices, where family is actively made, displayed and fluid (Morgan, 2011). For example, Fletcher (2020) investigates experiences of fatherhood within sport, finding that practices create an ‘extended family’ (p. 159). Fletcher (2020) identifies the sports club as a ‘home’ where club members socialise and belong (p. 160). Similarly, Forsdike et al. (2019) examine women’s experiences in a hockey club. They find the club has a ‘ready-made family and friendship network’ and sense of ‘belonging’ and being at ‘home’ (pp. 487–489). As with such literature, participants in this study highly valued their ‘rugby family’. Parents lauded the complementarity of The Club ‘family’ to their own, while children expressed the value of belonging to a supportive peer network. Thus, the ‘rugby family’ was generally perceived positively, as providing social and emotional benefits.

Practicing agency in decisions to play rugby

The strong notions of ‘family’ at The Club support consideration of children’s agency using Leonard’s ‘generagency’ to facilitate understanding of practices set within relations between children, parents and coaches. At a practical level, parental agreement for children to participate in rugby was required by The Club. Parents gave permission, and, especially for younger children, provided resources and support for their children to play (for discussion, see Knight et al., 2020). Reflecting ongoing discussions in the sociology of sport surrounding consent (e.g. Channon and Matthews, 2021), formal permissions were not foremost in participants’ understandings of consent. Parents focused on endorsing their child’s wishes to play, with only one-third mentioning registration or ‘opting in’ as evidence of consent in the first instance. Children rarely offered reference to ‘formal’ consent or permission, though many were able to discuss these when prompted. Instead, child participants expressed how they themselves were making decisions to play (or not play) rugby. While they acknowledged that parents had interest and influence over such decisions, children were clear it was ultimately a child’s choice whether to play.

Several children contrasted their position with younger children, signalling how changes in intergenerational relations as children grew older affected children’s ability to choose. As one player explained: ‘when you just play under 6s, the parents probably just send you to the pitch. Then, if you enjoy it, you’ll keep going’. However, several children also noted that parents could go beyond encouragement, pressuring younger children into playing. In a typical expression of this concern, one child said ‘you can visibly see that the children did not want to be there’, while another explained ‘when we were younger, more people were pushed into it by their parents, whereas, now, if you’ve stuck around, you actually want to be here’. A common finding, therefore, was that younger children were perceived to have less agency to decide to play, with children gaining more agency as they grew older.

Child participants highlighted concerns over parents constraining children’s practices of agency, at whatever age, stating it was unacceptable that a child might be ‘forced’ to play. One player said ‘the parent can encourage you to play rugby, but all in all it’s your decision’, while several noted it would be ‘not fair’ and damaging to a child’s wellbeing to be forced into the sport. Moreover, one player suggested there were physical risks associated with being pressured to play: ‘with rugby, you have to put everything into it, otherwise, you will get injured’. Players were thus highly critical of any child being forced to play rugby by their parents, because it put the child’s wellbeing at risk, both physically and mentally.

For their part, parents and other adults recognised the importance that children wanted to play rugby. The Club’s materials advised adults to ‘encourage’ children to play, including the advice ‘do not force them’, and several parents spoke of not ‘forcing’ their children. This emphasis on not forcing children to play suggests the possibility that children could face this type of pressure across intergenerational relations. In this study, participants advocated against such ‘force’ while acknowledging evolving intergenerational decision-making, with children increasingly deciding on whether to play as they grew older.

Reflecting on this strong consensus that children should lead decisions within rugby, research on socialisation and sport suggests participants may be influenced by awareness of how their views are received during research. Apse et al. (2022) interviewed parents of young children (aged 5–10) playing rugby in New Zealand. They write about the discursive work parents undertake to be viewed as ‘good’ parents, including combining discourses that ‘minimised or normalised risk’ and acknowledged ‘care and protection’ (p. 239). Similarly, the views expressed by children and adults in this research may have been influenced by the internal norms of the ‘rugby family’, the external norms that query the risks of injury and harm, and the public gaze on parenting. Thus, participants’ presentation of their views relating to children’s choices, may reflect awareness of potential public perceptions alongside their concern for children’s wellbeing and agency.

Agency in the context of wellbeing benefits and concerns

As introduced earlier, there are known risks to sport participation, including those associated with injury and with perpetrated harm (e.g. Hartill et al., 2023; West et al., 2023). Adding to discussions relating to agency, child participants were asked about their experiences and understandings of wellbeing in rugby. In response, children often focused on non-physical benefits derived from rugby’s physicality. Several spoke of using physical contact as an ‘outlet’, ‘escape’ or for stress release. Recalling the importance of the ‘rugby family’, children also reflected upon positive outcomes associated with belonging to a team.

To support analysis relating to children’s agency in their ongoing participation in rugby, children in group discussions were asked for their views on the statement ‘children are the ones who decide how hard to work during rugby training’. Unanimously, participants argued it was a child’s choice how hard they worked, but that this could be influenced by others, including coaches, parents and teammates. Indeed, while coaches set the tasks and parental presence could encourage children, the greatest relational influences were reported to come from teammates and seeking to work hard for each other. Child participants indicated they might exert themselves beyond comfort to support peer relationships and intergenerational expectations, as one discussant explained:

I feel like you’re given the choice on everything, it’s just whether you act on it. Like, you might not want to do a contact drill cause like your shoulder’s hurting, or something, but maybe your mates will give you stick if you don’t do it, so you just tank through it instead of doing what you want to do.

Scholars within sociology of sport have long explored aspects of identity and socialisation that can lead to the types of exertion and discomfort described above (e.g. Sparkes, 1998) and the ‘sport ethic’ (Hughes and Coakley, 1991). While adults were not absent from the example above, children were adamant that coaches could not make them work hard – children did so to the benefit of themselves and their teammates. Thus, children were aware of their ‘ambiguous’ agency, that their willingness to risk discomfort or injury could seem problematic but was experienced as bringing benefits to their wellbeing, including by supporting and reinforcing the ‘family practices’ with which they associated positive wellbeing outcomes (Morgan, 2011).

Such benefits can be placed in the context of an increased emphasis in Rugby Union about the need to create safe environments for playing. The study’s findings suggest that coaches felt (and were considered by others) to be responsible for implementing such an environment and took courses, designed trainings and planned match schedules to support this. Further, those with safeguarding responsibilities were attuned to wellbeing concerns – on and off the rugby pitch. The perception and experience of a safe environment reassured children and parents in a sport with known risks, though there were voices of caution, both from a parent who argued against placing too much onus on coaches as they were volunteers, rather than employed professionals, and coaches who highlighted the difficulties parents may have in fully understanding the sport. The study’s findings thus suggest that children made decisions on how they would play that were set within the intergenerational and intragenerational relations of trust and belonging rather than contractual ideas of consent. Their practices of agency were contextual and relational, with a variation of the ‘sport ethic’ that was impelled by their teammates while framed by adults through rules and coaching parameters.

Conclusion

The article brings together ideas familiar to the sport and childhood studies’ literatures – but not to both. From sport literature, the rich research on the rugby culture and socialisation of sport is combined with childhood studies’ more recent and more nuanced concepts of agency and generagency. The results are more complex frameworks of trust, belonging and relational agency to understand children’s agency, wellbeing, harm and consent in a rugby club. Future research could beneficially extend to a comparative case study approach, both within rugby and across different sports. A more extensive study could explore diversity amongst participants, including intersectional aspects such as socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity and disability. The recruitment methods in this study were more likely to reach those who were active in The Club, rather than those who had dropped out or were disengaging; these latter groups could provide important perspectives to the central concerns of the study.

It is a not a surprise, using a childhood studies lens, to find that children practised agency in their decisions on whether or how to play rugby. That there was concern from participants, and within the documentation, that children should not be ‘forced’ to play highlights the important balance between parents providing opportunities for their children, without undue pressure. When older and more experienced in rugby, as the players were in this study, they felt they were leading decisions to play, supported by intergenerational relationships with their parents.

Playing decisions were set within the intergenerational and intragenerational relations of the ‘rugby family’ and its attendant wellbeing benefits. Participants noted the benefits of children belonging to teams and were reassured about wellbeing by playing within the rules and guidelines. Children did so within the context of their teams – their ‘rugby family’ – and trusted their coaches to find suitable parameters. Most parents expressed trust in the coaches and The Club, their local ‘rugby family’, for knowing and mitigating the risks. Coaches, in turn, modified training and game plans to take account of team and individual players’ dynamics. The ‘rugby family’ thus provided a lattice for trusting relations within and between generations and roles, but also assumed sufficient knowledge and attention to risks and their mitigation.

Within the study, the ‘rugby family’ was only spoken of positively by participants in this research but the potential for negative aspects merits attention. Families can be a protective factor in children’s lives, providing resources and support that few other social structures can match (e.g. Clarke-Stewart, 2006). But families can also be locations of harm and problematic dynamics (e.g. Frieze et al., 2020). The playing decisions of parents and players and children’s practices of agency were highly contingent on trust relationships between themselves and coaches. These were often based on expectations of knowledge that, in the case of any gaps or insufficiencies in experience, required sophisticated calibrations by coaches. While processes of signing permission forms may play some role in parental decision-making, they did not address ongoing consent from both children and parents in the macro-decision on whether children should play and the micro-decisions of how to play.

Practical responses to such findings include supporting parents to develop knowledge and awareness of their children’s interests and wellbeing within the sport, and supporting children to express concerns and resist pressure as needed. Peer relationships benefit from supportive team environments that encourage positive team connections – for example through social activities – and in which wellbeing is attended to through appropriate oversight of safety and peer pressure. Open dialogue on expectations of and from the sport, with children, their parents and coaches, and a critical consideration of sporting social norms, need to complement the bonds of trust built up through the ‘rugby family’.

The use of agency, in childhood studies, has long been criticised for being unduly individualistic, valuing autonomy and independence, rather than more collective norms (for overview, see Tisdall et al., 2023). This critique has come most strongly from those researching in and from the ‘Global South’, where mutual responsibilities can be valued over individual autonomy and independence, so that agency is still practised but must be understood and conceptualised within communities (Edmonds, 2019). This study similarly dismantles an undue focus on individualistic agency, but with a tighter focus on the smaller unit of ‘family’. It brings insights of family sociology into childhood studies, while seeking to recognise the role of children as social actors that earlier variations of family sociology had neglected (see James et al., 1998). It brings out how trust and emotional affect can be key in the relational contexts of children’s practices of agency. These can be both or either protective and problematic, in terms of children’s agency, wellbeing and harm, and require nuance and attention by those seeking to ensure children’s wellbeing in sport. Open dialogue and knowledge go alongside the benefits of a sense of belonging to support children’s agency and wellbeing in sport.