Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
EDITED BY
Scott Fleming,
Bishop Grosseteste University, United Kingdom
REVIEWED BY
Lavinia Falese,
University of Cassino, Italy
Pierluigi Diotaiuti,
University of Cassino, Italy
*CORRESPONDENCE
Anna Cecilia Severin
cecilia.severin@ntnu.no
RECEIVED 14 August 2023
ACCEPTED 10 October 2023
PUBLISHED 27 October 2023
CITATION
Severin AC, Skovereng K, Björklund G,
Hemmestad L, Sandbakk Ø and
Bucher Sandbakk S (2023) New insights from
Norwegian and Swedish sports coaches’
employment, practices, and beliefs during the
first COVID-19 restriction period.
Front. Sports Act. Living 5:1277228.
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Severin, Skovereng, Björklund,
Hemmestad, Sandbakk and Bucher Sandbakk.
This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is
permitted which does not comply with these
terms.
New insights from Norwegian and
Swedish sports coaches’
employment, practices, and
beliefs during the first COVID-19
restriction period
Anna Cecilia Severin1*, Knut Skovereng1, Glenn Björklund2,
Liv Hemmestad3, Øyvind Sandbakk1and Silvana Bucher Sandbakk4
1
Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Centre for Elite Sports Research, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway,
2
Department of Health Sciences, Swedish
Winter Sports Research Centre, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden,
3
Department of Sport,
Physical Education and Outdoor Studies, Faculty of Humanities, Sports and Educational Science,
University of South-Eastern Norway, Bø in Telemark, Norway,
4
Department for Teacher Education,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Introduction: This study (i) examined Norwegian and Swedish sports coaches’
employment, practices, and beliefs during the first wave of the COVID-19
pandemic, (ii) compared these aspects between coaches in Norway and
Sweden, two countries with clearly different movement restrictions strategies in
this period.
Methods: An online survey was distributed to coaches via email and social media.
The survey was open between June and August 2020. In total, 348 coaches
responded, 141 from Norway, and 207 from Sweden.
Results: Among responders, 2% had lost their job due to the pandemic, 17% had
been furloughed, 28% worked from home office, and 39% worked as usual.
Norwegian coaches were more likely to work from home (48% vs. 15%,
p< .001), while Swedish coaches were more likely to work as usual (60% vs. 9%,
p< .001). Coaches in both countries communicated less frequently with their
athletes (p< .001) and had less in-person communication ( p< .001) compared
to pre-Covid levels. Larger declines existed among Norwegian coaches
regarding communication frequency (p< .001) and in-person communication
(p< .001). Video calls and phone calls usage increased ( p< .001 and p= .009
respectively). We recorded low levels of concern among coaches about the
effects of the pandemic on their relationship with their athletes. There were
considerable levels of concern about athletes’maintaining their motivation to
train (Norway: 43.3%, Sweden: 50.7%), and low levels of concern about the
coaches’relationships with their athletes (Norway: 14.1%, Sweden: 17.8%).
Discussion: Overall, this study showed the imposed movement restrictions had
several negative consequences for the employment and work practices of
sports coaches in Norway and Sweden. However, it also highlighted that
coaches were able to adapt their work practices to the constraints and were
able to maintain relationships with their athletes. The consequences raised in
this paper can act as a guide during possible future lockdowns.
KEYWORDS
lockdown, social distancing, training, Scandinavia, home confinement
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 27 October 2023
|
DOI 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 01 frontiersin.org
Introduction
Four months after the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) was
first identified, the World Health Organization declared
COVID-19 a global pandemic. Governments around the world
adopted restrictive measures to curb the spread of the disease,
changing the day-to-day life for most people. While the nature
and severity of these restrictions differed between countries, they
often included closing schools, enforcing social distancing, and
prohibiting public gatherings of more than a few people.
Consequently, many industries struggled to cope and were forced
to shut down or reduce their staff, leaving workers without a job
or furloughed (1,2). Reports from both the USA and mainland
Europe have shown that the hospitality, leisure, retail, and
entertainment sectors were among those hit hardest by
unemployment and reduced work hours (3–5). The decreased
employment was attributed to social distancing measures such as
administrative closings, school closings, and confinement (5).
One of the many industries that were affected by the restrictions
was the sporting industry. While Fana, Tolan et al. (4), indicated that
sport can be included in the leisure sector, none of the reports
detailed the effects of the pandemic on the sporting industry
directly. However, the COVID-19 pandemic caused the most
extensive disruption to sports practices since World War II (6),
with world-wide cancelled competitions, halted seasons, and closed
training facilities (7). Despite this, athletes still had to maintain
their training, often on their own (8), in preparation for the
staggered restart of competitive sport (9). A large number of
reports highlight the many negative effects of the pandemic on
athletes, such as increased risk of injury fur to insufficient training
stimuli (e.g., 7,8), poor nutrition, decreased motivation, and
altered sleep patterns (10). Indeed, since the lifting of the
restrictions, several research reports have shown higher injury rates
amongst athletes than what was seen before the pandemic (e.g.,
11–13). It is possible that cancelled seasons and competitions
affected the employment of coaches, which, in turn contributed to
these negative effects on the athletes.
In contrast to the many studies on athletes, the effects on the
sports coaches are less examined and remains unclear (14). One
recent study by Battaglia and Kerr (14) asked Canadian sports
coaches how they perceived they were affected by the pandemic.
The responses highlighted several concerning consequences, such
as insufficient support services, lack of interactions with athletes,
negative effects on coaches’mental health, and financial
instability. On the other hand, the literature highlight that the
pandemic provided coaches with an opportunity to further their
own professional development and adapt their practice to new
(online) formats (14,15). The halted competitions, limited ability
to meet and train in person, and a potentially increased risk of
unemployment, meant that the coaches had to follow up their
athletes as good as possible and quality assure the training
process during the pandemic. They also had to appropriately
plan the return to “normal”training without much experience or
scientific knowledge to rely on (8). It remains unclear how these
constraints affected how sports coaches perceived that their work
tasks were accomplished and how their relationships with their
athletes were affected.
Modern technology allows coaches to perform many aspects of
their job digitally, such as communication, deliver training
programs, and monitor training load, despite the restrictions (8).
However, it is unclear how this technology has been adopted and
how the responses to the pandemic have affected the working
practices of sports coaches. Understanding how the pandemic
affected sports coaches in terms of employment and coaching
practices may help federations and governments to understand
the consequences of the imposed restrictions on coaching and
sport. Further, an insight into how sports coaches maintained the
training of athletes during the COVID-19 pandemic would
provide an understanding where the coaching profession stands
due to the pandemic. This information can help guiding the
development of strategies to create more robust organizations of
sports in the future.
Norway and Sweden are two Scandinavian countries that are
considered similar in many aspects, including political, social,
economic, and cultural (16). While the Norwegian and Swedish
sport organizations are based on similar foundations (17,18), the
governments’strategies to tackle the first wave of the COVID-19
pandemic differed substantially. Norway closed schools and
gyms, and cancelled all cultural and sporting events (16), with
legal consequences imposed on those violating the restrictions
(19). Sweden took a less restrictive approach where e.g., gyms
and training facilities remained open (16), and the government
relied more on the populations’own responsibility in controlling
the spread of the virus through recommending social distancing
measurements (20). While evaluating the success of these
strategies in the short and long term is outside the scope of this
paper. It is, however, likely that the different strategies affected
the sporting industry, and coaches, differently during the first
wave of the pandemic.
Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to examine how
the first wave COVID-19 pandemic, during the spring and
summer of 2020, affected the employment, work practices, and
beliefs among sport coaches in Scandinavia, described from the
coaches’perspective. It was hypothesized that the pandemic had
negative effects on the coaches’employment and beliefs, and that
they would adapt new work practices that included online
communication and program prescription. The secondary aim
was to compare how the different strategies employed by Norway
and Sweden may be associated with different consequences for
employment and work practices among sports coaches. Finally,
aimed to evaluate learning points for sports coaches when facing
similar situations.
Materials and methods
Overview
This study was conducted through an online open survey
targeting sports coaches working in Norway and Sweden. The
Severin et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 02 frontiersin.org
survey was created and reported according to The Checklist for
Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) (21), which
is a well-established tool for conducting research from web-based
questionnaires. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from
the Norwegian Centre for Research Data in accordance with the
institutional requirements and approval for data security and
handling. The survey was created in Norwegian, Swedish, and
English and was disseminated via Google Forms. The link to the
survey was e-mailed to coaches via sports federations in Norway
and Sweden, as well as shared via social media (e.g., Facebook
and Twitter, Supplementary Material S1), and any active coach
in either country could participate in the study. The first page of
the survey contained information about the study and its
purpose, clarified that participation was voluntary and that no
incentives were offered in return for participation. This page had
a mandatory tick-box to indicate participants’informed consent
before proceeding to the questions. Participation was anonymous,
coaches were not asked to provide their name or email address,
and no identifying information, such as the IP address, was
collected during the web-based data entry. It was consequently
not possible to ensure that each coach only completed the survey
once. Data was collected over a period of 51 days between the
29th of June 2020 and the 18th of August 2020.
Data collection
The survey had 25 questions and was designed to assess
employment, work practices, and beliefs among sports coaches in
Scandinavia during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It
was divided into three sections (pages), addressing participants’
coaching background, communication with their athletes, and
their practices during the pandemic (Supplementary Material S2).
The Background section asked about: sex, sport, employment status
(professional: 100% of salary from coaching, semi-professional:
partial salary from coaching, or volunteer: no financial
compensation), education, years of coaching experience, job
situation during COVID-19 (worked as usual, worked as usual but
from home-office, furloughed, lost job, or other), and whether they
were affected by government-imposed movement restrictions at the
time of answering the survey. The Communication section asked
about the communication frequency with their athletes before and
during the pandemic, and the methods used for communication
before and during the pandemic. The Practices section asked about
which tools they used to monitor training load and to deliver
training programs during the pandemic and asked how they
perceived that the situation had affected their athletes in terms of
training quality, relationships with the coach and with other
athletes, skill development, and motivation. To ensure that
translated surveys were equivalent to the original version, which was
writteninEnglish,thefirst draft was forwarded to other bilingual
native researchers/colleagues for evaluation. The translated survey
was sent back to the native researchers/colleagues who were
required to recruit two participants to complete the survey and
identify any concerns or difficulties, and this was adjusted accordingly.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using Stata version 16.1
(StataCorp, TX, USA). Continuous and categorical variables are
displayed as means (standard deviation, SD) and frequencies
(percentage), respectively. For continuous variables, the Shapiro–
Wilk test and standard visual inspection was used to examine the
assumption of normality. Responses were converted to
percentages to aid interpretation and comparison. An alpha level
of ≤.05 was considered statistically significant.
Pairwise differences between countries were assessed with
Pearson’s chi-square tests of independence for proportions and
independent samples t-tests for continuous variables. Changes in
communication frequencies were assessed with Wilcoxon signed
rank tests, both stratified within countries and in the whole
sample. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess between-
country differences in change scores in communication frequency
and level of concern for the athletes’maintenance of training
during the pandemic. McNemar’s test for dependent proportions
was used to compare modes of communication before vs. during
the pandemic. One-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used
to test the coaches’beliefs on the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic on the athletes’training quality, relationships with the
team, motivation to train, skill development, and relationship
with athletes, using “neutral”on the Likert-scale questions as
reference.
Results
A total of 348 coaches responded to the survey, of which 141
(41%) were from Norway and 207 (59%) from Sweden (Table 1).
We had coaches representing 43 sports, and 29 of these (67%)
had less than 5 responding coaches. The largest sports were
football n= 57, cross-country skiing n= 49, golf n= 40, shooting
n= 29, and equestrian n= 28. Among all respondents, 25% were
women, with a larger proportion among the Swedish coaches
[X2(1, n= 347)] = 7.677, p= .006). Most of the responders (45%)
worked professionally as coaches, meaning that all their income
came from coaching, while 22% obtained part of their income
from coaching (semi-professional) and 32% had a volunteer
position, without financial compensation. There was no
difference between countries in level of coaching position [X
2
(2,
n= 345) = 3.274, p= .195]. A larger proportion of Norwegian
coaches (58%) reported to have a university degree (i.e.,
Bachelor, Masters, or Doctorate), while 21% of Swedish coaches
had an academic coaching education [X
2
(2, n= 348) = 48.153,
p< .001]. No differences between countries were found for
coaching experience, i.e., years of coaching (t= 1.268, p= .206).
At the time of the survey, 44% were under movement
restrictions, while 42% were no longer under restriction
(Table 1). There was no difference between countries in terms of
how many coaches still experienced limited mobility at the time
of participating in this study [45% vs. 41% for Sweden and
Norway, respectively; X
2
(1, n= 348) = 0.623, p= .430]. Fifty-three
(15%) coaches reported to not have had limited mobility at all
Severin et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 03 frontiersin.org
during the pandemic, with most of these coaching in Sweden [19%
vs. 9%, for Sweden and Norway respectively; X
2
(1, n= 348) =
12.003, p= .001].
Figure 1 shows the type of position (“Professional”,“Semi-
Professional”,“Volunteer”, and “Something else”) and
employment situation (“As usual”,“Home office”,“Furloughed”,
“Lost job”, and “Other”) amongst the responding coaches.
Among all 348 coaches, 39% reported that their work
continued as usual despite the COVID-19 pandemic, while 29%
worked from home, 17% were furloughed, 2% lost their coaching
jobs (Figure 1). Forty-seven (14%) coaches reported that their
job position was affected in “other”ways than those listed in the
survey (Figure 1), and the most frequent answers among those
included “increased workload”(n= 6), “decreased workload”
(n= 10) and “no organized training”(n= 12). A between-country
comparison revealed that a significantly higher proportion of
Swedish coaches reported that their job position remained
unaffected by the pandemic compared to Norwegian coaches
[56% vs. 9%, X
2
(1, n= 348) = 93.046, p< .001]. Additionally,
Swedish coaches were less likely to be furloughed [11% vs. 26%,
respectively; X
2
(1, n= 348) = 14.521, p< .001] or to work from
home [15% vs. 48%, respectively; X
2
(1, n= 348) = 45.556,
p< .001] compared to their Norwegian colleagues.
Figure 2 shows how often the coaches communicated with
their athletes before and during the pandemic. The coaches
communicated less frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic
than before (z=−9.784, p< 0.001, within Norway: z=−7.533,
p< .001; within Sweden: z=−6.161, p< .001) (Figure 2).
However, the decline in communication frequency was
significantly larger among Norwegian coaches compared to their
Swedish colleagues (z=−4.590, p< .001).
There was a significant reduction in the amount of “in-person”
communication among all coaches [89% before to 51% during the
pandemic; McNemar’sX
2
(1, n= 348) = 126.45, p< .001] (Table 2).
This observed decline differed significantly by country (z=−6.304,
p< .001), as 68% (83 of 123) of Norwegian coaches and 28% (53 of
188) of Swedish coaches completely ceased to communicate with
their athletes in-person during the pandemic. The use of video
calls [18% to 44%; McNemar’sX
2
(1, n= 348) = 87.17, p< .001]
and phone [57% to 61%; McNemar’sX
2
(1, n= 348) = 6.74,
p= .009] increased significantly among the responders, while no
significant changes were observed in communication by email
[53% to 56%; McNemar’sX
2
(1, n= 348) = 2.78, p= .096] and
text messages/social media [81% to 83%; McNemar’sX
2
(1, n=
348) = 0.76, p= .384]. No significant differences were found
between countries in changes of use of email (z=−0.658,
p= .511), phone (z= 1.552, p= .121) or text messages/social
media, except for the use of video calls, which increased more in
Norway (n= 54 started) compared to Sweden (n= 39 started;
z= 3.933, p< .001).
In 51% of cases, the training programs were designed in
collaboration between athletes and coaches, with no significant
difference between countries [X
2
(1, n= 348) = 3.602, p=.058].
Cases where the coach alone prescribed training plans summed up
to 26% and differed by country [31% vs. 18% for Sweden and
Norway, respectively; X
2
(1, n= 348) = 7.296, p=.007]. Overall,
training plans and inspirational content were most frequently
delivered by e-mail (39%), online collaboration tools (36%)
and via links to online videos (31%) during the pandemic.
However, Swedish coaches were less likely to use these methods
(X
2
[1, n= 348] = 4.500, p= .034; online collaboration tools:
X
2
[1, n= 348] = 14.828, p< .001; and online videos: X
2
[1, n= 348]
= 15.517, p< .001). Instead, 33% of Swedish coaches reported that
they did not deliver any training plans and inspirational content
to their athletes during the pandemic, which differed significantly
compared to the Norwegian coaches [12%, X
2
(1, n= 348) = 20.407,
p< .0.001]. Conversely, 18 Swedish coaches (9%) indicated in
free-text answers that they deliver training plans and inspiration
TABLE 1 Sample characteristics of the responding coaches.
Total Norway Sweden
Number of respondents 348 141 [41.0] 207 [59.0]
Gender
Female 86 [24.7] 24 [17.0] 62 [30.0]
Male 261 [75.2] 117 [83.0] 144 [69.6]
Prefer not to say 1 [0.3] 0 [0.0] 1 [0.5]
Athletes
Able-bodied athletes 278 [79.9] 111 [78.7] 167 [80.7]
Athletes with a disability 7 [2.0] 4 [2.8] 3 [1.5]
Both 63 [18.1] 26 [18.4] 37 [17.9]
Team or individual sport
Individual 249 [71.6] 118 [83.7] 131 [63.3]
Team 85 [24.4] 17 [12.1] 68 [32.9]
Both/unclear 14 [4.0] 6 [4.3] 8 [3.9]
Number of athletes per coach
Individual sports (n= 249) 18.8 ± 13.8 18.4 ± 13.9 19.1 ± 13.8
Team sports (n= 85) 11.6 ± 10.1 7.6 ± 10.5 12.6± 9.8
Coaching position
Professional 156 [44.8] 71 [50.4] 85 [41.1]
Semi-professional 77 [22.1] 27 [19.2] 50 [24.2]
Volunteer 112 [32.2] 41 [29.1] 71 [34.3]
Another 3 [0.9] 2 [1.4] 1 [0.6]
Highest coaching qualification
Ph.D. 3 [0.9] 2 [1.4] 1 [0.5]
M.Sc. 41 [11.8] 25 [17.9] 16 [7.7]
B.Sc. 81 [23.3] 54 [38.6] 27 [13.0]
Official certificate
a
152 [43.8] 34 [24.3] 118 [57.0]
Other certificate
b
40 [11.5] 16 [11.4] 24 [11.6]
Other/past athlete 2 [0.6] 1 [0.7] 1 [0.5]
None 28 [8.1] 8 [5.7] 20 [9.7]
Years of coaching 13.9 ± 10.8 13.0 ± 10.1 14.5 ± 11.2
Indoor or outdoor sport
Indoor 82 [23.6] 52 [36.9] 30 [14.5]
Outdoor 208 [59.8] 76 [53.9] 132 [63.8]
Either 57 [16.4] 12 [8.5] 45 [21.7]
Other 1 [0.3] 1 [0.7] 0 [0.0]
Currently under restricted movement
Yes 152 [43.7] 58 [41.1] 94 [45.4]
No 143 [41.1] 70 [49.7] 73 [35.3]
Never had restricted movement 53 [15.2] 13 [9.2] 40 [19.3]
Data is shown as: N [percent within total sample or country] or mean ± SD.
a
Official certificates refer to certification through an official organization (e.g., FIFA,
FIS).
b
Other certificates refer to certification through other coaching courses.
Severin et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 04 frontiersin.org
in-person, while only 2 (1%) Norwegian coaches reported in-person
delivery.
The most frequently reported means of athlete monitoring
were email/phone (54%) and online diaries (43%). While no
significant differences existed between countries in the use of
email/phone [X
2
(1, n= 348) = 1.413, p= .235], more Norwegian
coaches used training diaries for athlete monitoring [62% vs.
30% for Norway and Sweden, respectively; X
2
(1, n= 348) =
36.033, p< .001]. Interestingly, the most frequent response with
regards to monitoring training load amongst the responders was
“none at all”(45%), with significantly higher proportion amongst
the Swedish coaches (54% vs. 33% for Swedish and Norwegian
coaches, respectively; [X
2
(1, n= 348) = 14.936, p< .001]. Among
the 42% of coaches who used training diaries to monitor training
load, a higher proportion was Norwegian (57%) compared to
Swedish [31%; X
2
(1, n= 348) = 24.285, p< .001].
The most frequently reported persons for providing
professional support and discussion for the coaches during the
pandemic (henceforth referred to as “sparring partners”) were
other coaches (56%), the athletes (45%) and partners/families
(42%) (Table 2). Swedish coaches used other coaches as for
support more frequently than Norwegian [X
2
(1, n= 348) =
10.307, p= .001], but no significant differences between countries
was found for athletes [X
2
(1, n= 348) = 0.007, p= .932] and
partner/family [X
2
(1, n= 348) = 3.830, p= .050]. In addition,
Norwegian coaches reported a higher level of concern for how
the pandemic has affected their athletes’training (z= 2.356,
p= .019).
Figure 3 shows the frequency of responses on the Likert-scale
questions, ranging from “very positive”through to “very negative”.
One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests revealed a significantly
negative perceived impact of the pandemic on the athletes’daily
training quality (z=−2.348, p= .019), relationships with the team
(z=−5.472, p< .001) and motivation to train (z=−5.036,
p< .001) (Figure 3). No significant difference existed between
countries for impact on training quality (z= 0.675, p= .499),
relationships with the team (z= 0.388, p= .698) and motivation
to train (z= 0.837, p= .383). Although the largest proportion of
coaches reported that the pandemic neither positively or
negatively affected the athletes’skill development (45%) or their
own relationship with their athletes (57%), statistical analyses
revealed that coaches perceived a significantly negative impact on
skill development (z=−4.494, p< .001) and a positive impact on
their relationships with their athletes (z= 2.900, p= .004), with
no significant differences between countries (skill development:
z= 1.639, p= .101; relationships: z= 1.241, p= .215).
FIGURE 1
Alluvial diagram showing how the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic affected the employment of (A) all coaches, (B) Norwegian coaches, and (C)
Swedish coaches. Numbers represent % of responders. Situation “Other”includes Increased workload (n= 6, all Swedish), Decreased workl oad (n= 10,
Norwegian = 4 and Swedish = 6), and No training (n= 12, all Norwegian). Number of responses per category is presented in Supplementary Material
S3—Table 1.
Severin et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 05 frontiersin.org
Discussion
This study assessed how the first wave (spring and summer of
2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic affected sports coaches in
Norway and Sweden in terms of their employment situation,
work practices and beliefs. Our first hypothesis was that the
pandemic had negative effects on all three areas, which was
supported by the data. The analysis showed that 61% of the
sports coaches reported a change in their work situation and that
almost half of the responders communicated less frequently with
their athletes. The data also showed that the more liberal
approach in Sweden allowed most coaches to continue to work
“as usual”and to meet with their athletes in-person, while most
Norwegian the majority of coaches worked “from home office”
and used video calls to communicate with their athletes.
Effects on employment
More than two thirds of the 348 participating coaches reported
that they worked either “from their home office”or “as usual”
during the time of the survey. Considering the reported high
levels of unemployment and loss of work hours in the leisure
and entertainment sectors (3,4) (where sport arguably can be
included), it is encouraging that most of our coaches continued
to work during this time. While the unemployment levels in
both Norway and Sweden increased during the first wave of the
COVID-19 pandemic (16), only 2% of the coaches reported that
they lost their employment, (Figure 1). However, close to one
fifth (17%) of the coaches were furloughed, which testifies to the
pandemic indeed having negative effects on the work hours in
the profession. Considering that both Norway and Sweden
cancelled sporting competitions and banned gatherings of more
than a few people, it is not surprising that some coaches were
left without work. Importantly, half of the coaches who were
furloughed or lost their jobs worked professionally and thus
relied fully on coaching for their income.
Coaches in Norway were at a higher risk of being furloughed
than their Swedish colleagues (26.2% vs. 10.6%), which likely
reflected Norway’s stricter strategy (16). Almost 30% of
Norwegian coaches reported that they were not working during
the period referred to in the survey, while the equivalent number
among Swedish coaches was 13.5%. Keeping coaches employed
and working should be a priority since it may prevent many of
the negative health effects that has been reported to originate
from unemployment, such as boredom, and lack of social
support, increased levels of stress, anxiety, and depression
(16,22,23). It is therefore likely that a more liberal strategy
would be beneficial for the well-being of coaches, especially
during prolonged restrictions.
FIGURE 2
Alluvial diagrams of how the communication frequency changed due to the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic for all responding coaches (A),
Norwegian coaches (B) and Swedish coaches (C) numbers represent % of responders. Number of responses per category is presented in Supplementary
Material S3—Table 1.
Severin et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 06 frontiersin.org
TABLE 2 Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on communication methods and work practices.
Total Norway Sweden
Communication methods before the pandemic
E-mail 183 [52.6] 67 [47.5] 116 [56.0]
Video Call (e.g., Skype, Zoom, etc.) 62 [17.8] 33 [23.4] 29 [14.0]
Phone 197 [56.6] 83 [58.9] 114 [55.1]
Text messages and/or social media 281 [80.7] 115 [81.6] 166 [80.2]
In-person 311 [89.4] 123 [87.2] 188 [90.8]
Other 1 [0.3] 0 [0.0] 1 [0.5]
Communication methods during the pandemic
E-mail 193 [55.5] 69 [48.9] 124 [59.9]
Video Call (e.g., Skype, Zoom, etc.) 153 [44.0] 86 [61.0] 67 [32.4]
Phone 213 [61.2] 94 [66.7] 119 [57.5]
Text messages and/or social media 289 [83.0] 118 [83.7] 168 [81.2]
In-person 177 [50.9] 40 [28.4] 137 [66.2]
Other 6 [1.7] 5 [3.5] 1 [0.5]
No communication 4 4 0
Person prescribing training programs during the pandemic
Athlete writes their own programs 50 [14.4] 22 [15.6] 28 [13.5]
Coach 91 [26.2] 26 [18.4] 65 [31.4]
Collaboration between athlete and coach 176 [50.6] 80 [56.7] 96 [46.4]
Other 31 [8.9] 13 [9.2] 18 [8.7]
No program 17 7 10
Other coach 9 5 4
Method of delivering training plans and inspiration during the pandemic
E-mail with written instructions 137 [39.4] 65 [46.1] 72 [34.8]
Links to pre-existing online videos 107 [30.7] 60 [42.6] 47 [22.7]
Online collaboration tools (e.g., Google docs, Teams, Slack, etc.) 126 [36.2] 68 [48.2] 58 [28.0]
Links to own online videos 66 [19.0] 26 [18.4] 40 [19.3]
None 86 [24.7] 17 [12.1] 69 [33.3]
Other 38 [10.7] 10 [7.1] 28 [13.5]
In-person 20 2 18
Social media 7 5 2
Phone 312
Method for monitoring athlete training during the pandemic
Online diary 150 [43.1] 88 [62.4] 62 [30.0]
Smart technology (e.g., GPS, apps etc.) 42 [12.1] 23 [16.3] 19 [9.2]
Email/phone reports from athletes 189 [54.3] 82 [58.2] 107 [51.7]
Other 85 [24.4] 22 [15.6] 63 [30.4]
In-person 44 3 31
Social media 12 9 3
No monitoring 39 11 28
Most important sparring partner during the pandemic
Athlete 157 [45.1] 64 [45.4] 93 [44.9]
Partner/spouse/family (not coach) 146 [42.0] 68 [48.2] 78 [37.7]
Friend (not coach) 49 [14.1] 20 [14.2] 29 [14.0]
Sports federation 68 [19.5] 22 [15.6] 29 [14.0]
Other coach 194 [55.7] 64 [45.4] 130 [62.8]
No one 46 [13.2] 22 [15.6] 24 [11.6]
Other 1 [0.3] 1 [0.7] 0 [0.0]
Level of concerned that the athletes have failed to maintain training during the pandemic
Not at all concerned 127 [36.5] 41 [29.1] 86 [51.6]
Slightly concerned 88 [25.3] 39 [27.7] 49 [23.7]
Somewhat concerned 52 [14.9] 22 [15.6] 30 [14.5]
Moderately concerned 59 [17.0] 27 [19.2] 32 [15.5]
Very concerned 22 [6.3] 12 [8.5] 10 [4.8]
Data is shown as: N [percent within total sample or country]. the questions regarding methods for communication, delivering training plans, and athlete monitoring, along
with the question regarding the most important sparring partner allowed multiple responses from each coach, so the number of responses does not add up to the number
of coaches who responded to the survey.
Severin et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 07 frontiersin.org
Effects on work practices
Communication
In both nations, sport events were cancelled, and training was
restricted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, outdoor physical activity and training remained
unrestricted, thereby allowing athletes and coaches to maintain
the training to some extent. Still, our analysis shows that coaches
communicated less frequently with their athletes during the
pandemic (48% of all coaches, Figure 2). Although this decrease
was larger among Norwegian coaches (62% vs. 38% in Sweden),
the considerable drop in communication frequency is
concerning. Both elite and recreational athletes were shown to
have reduced training load during the first wave of the pandemic
(10,24,25), which together with the reduced communication
frequency between athletes and coaches likely has contributed to
the elevated injury rates reported in the seasons following the
pandemic (11–13).
The methods of communication also shifted during the
pandemic, with fewer coaches meeting their athletes “in-person”
(before: 89%, during: 61%) and an increase in the use of video
calls (such as Zoom and Skype, before: 18%, during: 44%)
(Table 2). This trend has also been observed among Brazilian and
Canadian coaches (14,26), and can be seen across several
professions, with more digital meetings and less physical contact.
It is possible that the increased communication through video
calls, in part, can compensate for the lack of meeting physically,
since they allow for both verbal and nonverbal communication
(27). Modern technology has certainly made it easier for coaches
and athletes to communicate digitally, and a shift from text
messages to video calls may have occurred even without the
pandemic. The high proportion of responders that used electronic
systems to deliver training plans and inspirational material to their
athletes, and online tools for monitoring training loads, further
shows that coaches generally transitioned well to digital solutions
(Table 2). The benefits of an accelerated reliance on digital
communication may extend even further: It has for example been
suggested that coaches are increasingly in contact with both other
practitioners and researchers (15), which may have large benefits
for networking and the dissemination of new knowledge.
Further, Fana, Tolan et al. (4), suggested that jobs where
employees were able to work digitally were likely to be less
affected by the restrictions and closures compared to other
sectors that experienced devastating effects. The authors
specifically highlighted education and professional services as
examples of jobs with the potential to work digitally and it
appears that sports coaches were able to, at least partially, benefit
from of this option. Digital communication is common in
modern society, and the ease of contacting a coach or athlete
likely enhances the relationship. Therefore, it is possible that the
transition to increased reliance on modern technology would
have occurred regardless of the pandemic and was merely
accelerated by it.
The scientific literature on the quality of “online”vs. “in
person”communication is currently biased to education and
professional development (28,29), with limited empirical
analyses of the effects on coaching. While this literature
highlights both positive and negative aspects of “online”delivery,
it is not clear if these apply to sports coaches since they often
have limited training in blended learning methods. Although it
FIGURE 3
Illustration of how the coaches perceive the COVID-19 pandemic has affected their athletes. (A): all coaches, (B): Norwegian coaches, (C): Swedish
coaches. Numbers represent % of responders for each category. Number of responses per category is presented in Supplementary Material S3—Table 2.
Severin et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 08 frontiersin.org
is possible that the quality may decline with prolonged
digital communication, it is important to recognize that reduced
communication frequency does not necessarily reflect a reduced
communication quality. Regardless, this new environment where
coaching has been moved to digital platforms to a larger extent
may place larger emphasis of sports coaches receiving proper
training in conducting online sessions and employing blended
learning approaches into their practice.
Practices
More than of half of the coaches continued to collaborate with
their athletes in developing the training programs, including
communication, feedback, and follow-ups, during the pandemic
(Table 2). It is possible that the coaches who maintained the
communication with their athletes, also managed to maintain a
positive coach-athlete relationship and could therefore be less
concerned about the effects of the pandemic on performance-
development. It is also likely that such an approach is beneficial
for both the athletes’and coaches’mental wellbeing and may
facilitate the transition back to pre-Covid training. This study did
not assess the mental well-being of the coaches, however,
Battaglia and Kerr (14) reported an increase in mental health
challenges among the Canadian coaches, including perceived
stress, depression, and isolation. This highlights the importance
of establishing support systems for coaches so that they can seek
help when needed.
The large proportion of coaches who reported that their
athletes were among the most important sparring partners
during the pandemic (Table 2) further highlights the important
relationships between coaches and athletes and the lack of
professional support systems. The support from their athletes was
comparable to that from colleagues and family members and
indicates a high level of trust between the coaches and their
athletes. However, it is concerning that >10% of the coaches
reported an absence of sparring partners during the pandemic. A
lack of professional support may have a negative effect on their
wellbeing and motivation to continue in the coaching role (30).
In fact, less than 20% of coaches reported that they could rely on
support from their federations. This issue was also highlighted by
the Canadian coaches, who reported that the available support
services during the pandemic were insufficient (14). Paoli and
Musumeci (7) called for sporting federations worldwide to take a
stand for athlete health during the pandemic but did not
mention coaches and other support staff. While we support this
call, also urge sporting federations and governing bodies to reach
out to coaching staff and offer personal and professional support.
Beliefs
Many coaches in this study (48%), reported that they perceived
thepandemictohavea“negative”or “somewhat negative”effect
on the athletes’motivation to train (Figure 3). This was expected
since the pandemic has been reported to negatively affecting
athletes’motivation (10,26,31). However, motivation is complex
and individual (30), so while research is showing a general negative
effect of the pandemic, the effects will likely differ between
individual athletes. Regardless, it is indisputable that the coach has
an important role in developing and maintaining motivation in
their athletes (32). The relationship between the coach and athlete
has been described as “one of the most important influences on
athletes’motivation and subsequent performance”(30). It was
somewhat unexpected that few coaches reported that the pandemic
has had a “negative”(2%) or “somewhat negative”(14%) effect on
their relationship with their athletes (Figure 3). Conversely, the
Canadian coaches reported that the response to the pandemic had
negative consequences on their personal connections with their
athletes and that the digital solutions failed to compensate for the
lack of personal interaction (14). However, based on our data, it
seems coaches in Norway and Sweden were successful in
maintaining a satisfactory relationships with athletes during the
first wave of the pandemic and corresponding lockdowns.
It is encouraging that, the data showed relatively low levels of
negative perceptions and concerns among coaches in how the
pandemic affected their athletes (Table 2,Figure 3). This was in
contrast to another study where coaches expressed concerns
about the effects of the pandemic on athletic performance (26).
It was unsurprising that more Swedish coaches were “not at all
concerned”compared to Norwegian coaches, since more training
facilities remained open in Sweden. Perhaps the more liberal
strategy adopted in Sweden provided athletes with better
opportunities to maintain their own training and thus caused
lower concerns amongst the coaches.
Limitations
This study is based on data collected during the first wave of
the pandemic (spring and summer 2020) and it is likely that the
prolonged time with updated and revised restrictions further
affected the coaches beyond what is discussed here. A follow up
study would provide valuable insights into the prolonged effects
of the pandemic on sports coaches and offer an insight into
whether current practices have changed as a consequence. In
addition, using online surveys has some inherent risks, for
example, the quality of self-reported data, and participants
misunderstanding a question. Efforts were made to ensure
quality by following specified suggestions (21), however, the
anonymity of the questionnaire prevented us from contacting
individual coaches and asking for clarification or elaboration.
Finally, it is not known whether the adaptations made in
response to the pandemic were temporary or resulted in a new
standard, and whether, or to what extent, coaches and athletes
considered them to be successful. Further investigations should
assess the effects of these new practices and examine the extent
to which they persist after the pandemic, as well as whether
coaches have reverted to their pre-pandemic practices and
communications methods.
Conclusions
In this study, we show that the imposed movement restrictions
had several negative consequences on the Norwegian and Swedish
Severin et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 09 frontiersin.org
coaches in terms of lost work, less frequent communication with
their athletes, a lack of support from their federations, and a
concern about their athletes’ability to maintain their training.
These consequences are concerning and it possible that they now
contribute to the increased injury rates seen in post-pandemic
sports. However, we also highlight some positive outcomes, such
as the adaptability of coaches to work around the restrictions by
relying on modern technology, and that they felt secure in their
relationships with their athletes. Finally, we note some
suggestions for measures that may help protect coaches, and
similar professions, in case of future situations of a similar
nature. These include establishing professional support systems,
aiming to maintain employment to prevent negative side effects
of unemployment, and developing strategies for conducting their
work digitally. We further show that the more liberal approach
in Sweden allowed more coaches to work as usual, keep
communicating with their athletes in-person, and maintain work
practices that were more similar to those used before the
COVID-19 pandemic, which may reduce negative long-term
consequences. These new insights into the effects of movement
restrictions on Norwegian and Swedish sport coaches can help
provide guidance during possible future lockdowns.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The requirement of ethical approval was waived by Norwegian
Centre for Research Data (ID: 379903) for the studies involving
humans. The studies were conducted in accordance with the
local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants
provided their written informed consent to participate in this
study.
Author contributions
ACS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation,
Visualization, Writing –original draft, Writing –review &
editing. KS: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology,
Writing –review & editing. GB: Conceptualization, Data
curation, Writing –review & editing. LH: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing –review & editing. ØS: Conceptualization,
Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project
administration, Writing –original draft, Writing –review &
editing. SBS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing –
original draft, Writing –review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all coaches who participated in this
study by responding to our survey. We would also like to thank
Dr. Julia Kathrin Baumgart, Jan Schmid, Dr. Dionne Noordhof,
Maria Hrozanova, Maja Olsen Østerås, and Sindre Østerås for
their valuable input in designing the survey.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or
those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made
by its manufacturer, is not guaranteedorendorsedbythepublisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.
1277228/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Bauer A, Weber E. COVID-19: how much unemployment was caused by the
shutdown in Germany? Appl Econ Lett. (2020) 28(12):1053–8. doi: 10.1080/
13504851.2020.1789544
2. Kong E, Prinz D. Disentangling policy effects using proxy data: which shutdown
policies affected unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic? J Public Econ.
(2020) 189:104257. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104257
3. del Rio-Chanona RM, Mealy P, Pichler A, Lafond F, Farmer JD. Supply and demand
shocks in the COVID-19 pandemic: an industry and occupation perspective. Oxf Rev
Econ Policy. (2020) 36(Supplement_1):S94–S137. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/graa033
4. Fana M, Tolan S, Torrejón S, Brancati CU, Fernández-Macías E. The Covid
Confinement Measures and Eu Labour Markets: Publications Office of the
European Union Luxembourg (2020).
Severin et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 10 frontiersin.org
5. Barrot J-N, Grassi B, Sauvagnat J. editors. Sectoral effects of social distancing. AEA
Papers and Proceedings. (2021).
6. Bok D, Chamari K, Foster C. The pitch invader-COVID-19 canceled the game:
what can science do for US, and what can the pandemic do for science? Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. (2020) 15(7):1–3. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2020-0467
7. Paoli A, Musumeci G. Elite athletes and COVID-19 lockdown: future health concerns
for an entire sector. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. (2020) 5(2):30. doi: 10.3390/jfmk5020030
8. Sarto F, Impellizzeri FM, Sporri J, Porcelli S, Olmo J, Requena B, et al. Impact of
potential physiological changes due to COVID-19 home confinement on athlete
health protection in elite sports: a call for awareness in sports programming. Sports
Med. (2020) 50(8):1417–9. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01297-6
9. Timpka T. Sport in the tracks and fields of the corona virus: critical issues during
the exit from lockdown. J Sci Med Sport. (2020) 23(7):634–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.
05.001
10. Pillay L, Janse van Rensburg DCC, Jansen van Rensburg A, Ramagole DA,
Holtzhausen L, Dijkstra HP, et al. Nowhere to hide: the significant impact of
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) measures on elite and semi-elite South
African athletes. J Sci Med Sport. (2020) 23(7):670–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.05.016
11. Platt B, Abed V, Khalily C, Sullivan B, Skinner M, Jacobs C, et al. Injury rates
remained elevated in the second national football league season after the onset of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. (2023) 5(2):e325–e9.
doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2022.11.026
12. Mannino BJ, Yedikian T, Mojica ES, Bi A, Alaia M, Gonzalez-Lomas G. The
COVID lockdown and its effects on soft tissue injuries in premier league athletes.
Phys Sportsmed. (2023) 51(1):40–4. doi: 10.1080/00913847.2021.1980746
13. Seshadri DR, Thom ML, Harlow ER, Drummond CK, Voos JE. Case report:
return to sport following the COVID-19 lockdown and its impact on injury rates in
the German soccer league. Front Sports Act Living. (2021) 3:604226. doi: 10.3389/
fspor.2021.604226
14. Battaglia A, Kerr G. Examining the impact of COVID-19 on sport coaches. Int
Sport Coach J. (2023) 10(1):102–11. doi: 10.1123/iscj.2022-0025
15. Callary B, Brady A, Kiosoglous C, Clewer P, Resende R, Mehrtens T, et al.
Making sense of coach development worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Intl J Sprot Commun. (2020) 13(3):575–85. doi: 10.1123/ijsc.2020-0221
16. Helsingen LM, Refsum E, Gjostein DK, Loberg M, Bretthauer M, Kalager M,
et al. The COVID-19 pandemic in Norway and Sweden—threats, trust, and impact
on daily life: a comparative survey. BMC Public Health. (2020) 20(1):1597. doi: 10.
1186/s12889-020-09615-3
17. Skille EÅ. Sport for all in scandinavia: sport policy and participation in Norway,
Sweden and Denmark. Int J Sport Policy P. (2011) 3(3):327–39. doi: 10.1080/19406940.
2011.596153
18. Andersen SS, Ronglan LT. Same ambitions—different tracks: a comparative
perspective on nordic elite sport. Manag Leis. (2012) 17(2-3):155–69. doi: 10.1080/
13606719.2012.674392
19. Departementenes Sikkerhets- og Serviceorganisasjon. Koronaviruset:
Informasjon Fra Regjeringen: Departementenes Sikkerhets- og Serviceorganisasjon
(2020). Available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/Koronasituasjonen/
id2692388/ (Accessed December 3, 2020).
20. Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap. Restriktioner Och Förbud:
Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap (2020). Available at: https://www.
krisinformation.se/detta-kan-handa/handelser-och-storningar/20192/myndigheterna-
om-det-nya-coronaviruset/restriktioner-och-forbud (Accessed December 3, 2020).
21. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting
results of internet E-surveys (cherries). J Med Internet Res. (2004) 6(3):e34. doi: 10.
2196/jmir.6.3.e34
22. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N,
et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review
of the evidence. Lancet. (2020) 395(10227):912–20. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)
30460-8
23. Rajkumar RP. COVID-19 and mental health: a review of the existing literature.
Asian J Psychiatr. (2020) 52:102066. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102066
24. Metzl JD, McElheny K, Robinson JN, Scott DA, Sutton KM, Toresdahl BG.
Considerations for return to exercise following mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the
recreational athlete. HSS J. (2020) 16(Suppl 1):102–7. doi: 10.1007/s11420-020-09777-1
25. Muriel X, Courel-Ibanez J, Cerezuela-Espejo V, Pallares JG. Training load and
performance impairments in professional cyclists during COVID-19 lockdown. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. (2021) 16(5):735–8. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2020-0501
26. Musa VDS, Santos WRD, Menezes RP, Costa V, Aquino R, Menezes RP.
COVID-19 and Brazilian handball coaches: impacts on training prescription and
professional learning. Mot Rev de Educ Fís. (2020) 26(4). doi: 10.1590/s1980-
65742020000400127
27. Mehrabian A. Nonverbal communication. New York, NY: Routledge (2017).
28. Bartley SJ, Golek JH. Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face
instruction. Educ Technol Soc. (2004) 7(4):167–75.
29. Díaz LA, Entonado FB. Are the functions of teachers in E-learning and face-
to-face learning environments really different? JEducTechnolSoc.(2009)12
(4):331–43.
30. Mageau GA, Vallerand RJ. The coach-athlete relationship: a motivational model.
J Sports Sci. (2003) 21(11):883–904. doi: 10.1080/0264041031000140374
31. Henriksen K, Schinke RJ, Noce F, Poczwardowski A, Si G. Working with
athletes during a pandemic and social distancing: international society of sport
psychology corona challenges and recommendations. Int Soc Sport Psychol
(ISSP).(2020).Availableat:https://www.issponline.org/index.php/component/
k2/item/49-issp-corona-challenges-and-recommendations
32. Jowett S, Cockerill IM. Olympic medallists’perspective of the althlete–coach
relationship. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2003) 4(4):313–31. doi: 10.1016/s1469-0292(02)
00011-0
Severin et al. 10.3389/fspor.2023.1277228
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 11 frontiersin.org
