Bullying in sports

Bullying in sports happens.

Hazing is likely one of the first things that comes to mind when the topic bullying in sports is introduced. Despite laws being passed, hazing still occurs, but it is not the only form of bullying that occurs in sports. Far from it. I do not possess the expertise to delve clinically into why bullying in sports happens. That said, I will offer my thoughts on this based on personal experience and observations as I provide examples of bullying in sports. And this might come as a surprise but I will also raise the proposition that bullying in the context of sports might have or might of had a beneficial purpose.  So, let's get started.

For our purposes we will define bullying in sports as the physical or verbal abuse, intimidation, humiliation or threats practiced by individuals or groups in order to exert some amount of influence and power over others. These actions can be acute and overt therefore appearing extreme in nature or can be covert taking place subtly and over a longer period of time.

Hazing has taken on an evil connotation in recent years, but can actually be a productive means of acclimating new team members into the culture of a program.  Forcing the rookies to pick up equipment, get water for the team and carry the seniors bags or sing a song in front of the team are all rather benign and harmless ways of initiating players into the team setting. It's bullying because these are tasks the newbies probably do not want to do, but are forced to do because of their status on the team.  Placing icy hot in someone's underwear, taping someone naked to a goal post or the introduction of alcohol to the proceedings are also examples of hazing and the reason we now have laws against it.

So,  I believe bullying in team sports can be classified into two general categories; acclimating individuals socially into the program or intimidatingly establishing a pecking order on the "team". In today's politically correct society any form of bullying is likely to be frowned upon. I'm not here to debate you on that matter.  Rather I would like to explore the effect bullying can have on your program, the team and individual players.

I once coached in a program considered to be among the best in the region. The teams that program produced won a lot year in and year out. It produced all-state players and many went on to play in college. Then the program began to slide and fell on some hard times. Why?  Bullying.

I will point out one case that demonstrates the point.  "Travis" was not a great physical athlete but he was a very smart one. As captain of the JV team he was a tireless work and often pushed his teammates further physically than they thought they could go in training. Travis demanded nothing of his teammates that he himself did not give.  Travis gave a lot though.  He was one of the up and coming stars of a very strong JV team. Travis was called up to varsity late in the season and played in the teams tournament run to a District championship.

The bullying had begun while he led the JV team. A parent of another player felt Travis blocked or threatened her son's advancement to the varsity. Mary rode Travis unmercifully from the stands. Derogatory and offensive comments directed toward Travis that were in extremely poor taste and abusive.  The head coach of the program at the time chose to ignore this behavior. In doing so, he condoned it. And people noticed.

Throughout the next off season, Patrick and a group of friends harassed and bullied Travis to the point that Travis decided it wasn't worth it. The head coach and JV coach met with Travis to convince him he was a valued member of the team and would play a strong role on the field. Their words were not supported by their (in)actions however and the bullies won. They opened a spot on the roster and a role on the team for a friend. This was the beginning of the end. Everything did not come crashing down right away. Rather it was a slow slide into mediocrity.

This is a more common occurrence than the casual observer might be aware.  Bullying often comes with an agenda. A senior player who feels his role on the team is not secure might choose to bully whomever he views as a threat to what he feels entitled to.  The prospect of being relegated to the bench or being cut from the team based on merit is unconscionable to them so a campaign is waged against the perceived threat.  The often underclassman object of the bullying decides not to play or play poorly enough during tryouts to be relegated to the JV team.

Of course, what we are describing is very selfish behavior by bullies. Isn't this often the case, though? Bullies as described above are not team oriented. No, they are "me" oriented.

As mentioned earlier, bullying is not always so dramatic. Freshmen having to pick up equipment, wash pinnies, carry a senior's bags - each of these examples could be considered bullying. And it is fact that being forced to perform has caused people to quit a team.  There is also a servant attitude that can be developed through the performance of such tasks. A player can be humbled and taught to appreciate doing for others. Coaches often preach to the players the need for them to play for one another. There is also an element of earning your way through performing "menial" tasks. And it would be remiss not to mention the mental toughness that can be developed through bullying of this type.  As coaches we must be vigilant that the performance of tasks like preparing water coolers for and getting them to practice does not escalate into something worse.

It's important to remember the transformation Adam Sandler's character undergoes in the movie Water Boy. Bobby Boucher went from a bullied water boy to the star of the team.  Paying one's dues is okay as long as in the balance is the maturation of the player into a competent contributor, starter and even a star for the team. Bullying that makes life so miserable for a player that it brings physical, mental or emotional harm to the athlete and forces him from the team and or sport cannot be allowed nor tolerated.

Have you ever purposefully played a game with 7 players?

One of our readers messaged me last night with this question; Have you ever purposefully played 22 minutes of a game with 7 players on the field and 8 subs on the bench?

I have in fact done this a couple of times. In each instance it was because the opponents could not field enough players. After establishing a two goal lead we withdrew players to play even sided. There have also been a couple of times when I intentionally played down a man because we were lacking subs and an individual player believed I would not. When the player abandoned our team's system to do his own thing he found himself seated on the bench next to me while his teammates played a man (or two ) down.  This is where today's story begins.

When I intentionally removed a player from the pitch with no sub available you can be assured I was plenty upset.  It is a drastic move and a decision to be made with all due and proper consideration. In sending a message to the offending player in this manner the coach is also in effect punishing the innocent remainder of the team by making them unnecessarily play down a man. That is a slippery slope to walk. In the best case scenario the offending player receives the message with peer pressure being a part of the delivery method.  At worst, team morale and chemistry is weakened to the point of impacting not only the game at hand, but future play as well.

As it pertains to the question posed to me last night the issue is apparently attendance at practice sessions. 

Here in west central Ohio we do not have a large pool of athletes who specialize in soccer as their only sport.  Many of our club soccer players are multi-sport athletes at their high schools.  This is both by choice and in some cases by necessity. My philosophy has always been that school sports come first. Practice and even match attendance sometimes suffers because of this, but with careful planning it can be effectively managed.

The team in question is a U16 team so there are plenty of other factors that can impact attendance.  Driver's Education courses is a primary one at this age.  School choir and band rehearsals and performances are another.  Church holidays and festivals should always come before soccer. Family gatherings for weddings, funerals, baptism, confirmation, first communion, spring vacations all take precedent over attending a soccer practice. Players of this age may be working to help pay for a car or to save for college. What of the player who misses training because of illness or doctors appointment?

I understand from a coaching standpoint wanting everyone in attendance at every team function, but it simply is not realistic in our environment ... and quite frankly, it is not necessary for success.  I offer my own spring teams of the last several years as examples.  We have been ultra successful while abiding by the mantra that family / church / school come before soccer. 

Forcing seven players to play against eleven opponents while eight healthy teammates watch from the bench because they missed training is punishing the seven, is it not?  And if the coach is asking players to chose soccer training over family, church or school obligations it is really problematic.  Let's face it, there is not a single player on this team likely to play professionally and therefore soccer should not be the main priority for any of them. 

And place yourself in the boots of those who will be forced to sit out a portion of todays match while their teammates play down.  If I chose church, school, family over soccer and then was punished by the soccer coach for doing so?  Soccer would move down on my priority list.  If I knew I had to miss soccer practice in the future, I might not even bother showing for the next match just to sit the bench and spectate.  How many players can the team afford to lose before it becomes completely dysfunctional?

This subject matter ties in nicely with the recent articles on playing time and where elite kids shouldn't meet and rules  While our family is undoubtedly and without dispute soccer fanatics our mantra is "soccer is something we do, but it does not define who we are."  We live a balanced life placing God first.  Family, school, work, and other aspects of our lives are prioritized somewhere after God ... and before sports.  Not only are these kids not going to play professionally, but none are going to earn a full ride to play soccer in college either.

So, perhaps the coach is attempting to teach a lesson on honoring commitment?  If so, I wonder if the coach has considered the conundrum he is placing kids and families in who have committed to family, church and school activities and events ... often times prior to the spring soccer commitment and almost certainly before spring soccer schedules have been released?  

When it comes right down to it, this is all about the coach who is butt hurt that he is not at the top of the priority list for these kids and their families. He is attempting to exert control that he might not be embarrassed by the product he puts on the field.  Yes, playing down to seven men is a temporary matter and short term solution for getting his way for the (relative) long run. In a word, selfish.  He wants and is taking ownership of the team. This is foolish for the team belongs to the players. The players are the only ones who can truly take ownership of themselves. 

So, shouldn't it be the players who decide the standards for participation in today's match? 

After all, it is the players who must play for one another on the pitch in order to be successful and so it is the players who should decided the standards by which they do so.

In conclusion what we have been addressing is where on the commitment continuum various members of this team fall.  Obviously the coach is compelled whereas at least 8 players in his judgment are not. The coach might view these 8 as resistant and is attempting to force them to be reluctant, maybe in a best case scenario, compliant.  This is not the way to achieve buy-in to the team's culture. In fact, it is a dangerous way of defining team culture in a negative sense.  Here's  a secret all successful coaches must appreciate - while a coach can present a vision for a program's or team's culture it is the players who will actually define that culture. It is only through the coach's sales tactics that he can bring to bear any influence their culture. 

All great teams play for one another.

Each new season starts anew the process of becoming a team.  A group of individuals gathers, some familiar and others new, to share a path for awhile.  Will they travel that path as individuals, in small groups or cliques, or will they learn to travel the path together as a band of brothers?

Some of my earliest memories of participating in sports revolve around the idea of "team".   In fact my first two experiences in sports were defining moments for me.  One was a basketball team and the other a baseball team. The basketball team was ultra successful.  I suppose we had the best talent, but what I remember most about that group was how we all got along.  It showed in how we played the game.  In contrast, that baseball team was not very good and to be quite truthful although we were in elementary school, we just didn't like one another. Teamwork was always secondary to personal agenda.  In elementary school?

Yes.

Now, the personal agendas on that baseball team were fostered by the coaches who were fathers of players on the team. Their kids played the "key positions" and batted lead off or cleanup whether deserving of doing so or not. And trust me, even at a young age players detect favoritism.

The basketball team was coached by a former major college player who enjoyed working with kids. He did not have a son on the team. Everyone earned their spot and had to work to keep it.  Certainly a pecking order was established in terms of best to worst players, but also a recognition that each player was important to the team in their own right.

I grew to love basketball and became largely disinterested in baseball. 

As a 10 year old I did not appreciate these things even though I did recognize on a certain level what was happening. It really wasn't until my family moved to a new location that some of these lessons began to be driven home to me.  At the new school I had a terrible experience with basketball. Despite being a talented group, wins were few and far between. This became the norm for my experiences with team sports throughout my school years.  Talented individuals, but poor teams.

Two different other teams from my teenage years really standout in my memories.  One was a basketball team that to this day was as talented a group of individuals as I have ever seen at the high school level. They had good skill sets and the physical attributes required for success, yet they struggled to reach a .500 record. Height, size, speed, athleticism... they had it all in abundance. Ball handling, shooting, passing, game intelligence... it was all present.  They could never move past their disdain for and jealousy of one another. Instead of competing against other teams that were constantly in competition with one another. To say they underachieved would be an understatement and I really struggled with this.

The other team was a men's softball team.  Now, softball was huge in the area during those years. I began playing with a church team in an church league. We won and won a lot. We moved on from church competition to playing any and all comers... and still we won, a lot.  We did not even have all the best softball players from the congregation playing on this team. Some played for their work based teams or on teams with friends they socialized with.  What was the key to our success?  We liked playing the game together. 

That is far different from liking one another.

In all honesty, there were some people on that team that forced me to struggle upholding my Christian beliefs at times. I just did not care for them as individuals, but I certainly appreciated their abilities as ball players.  As individual players some of us were quite talented and others not so much, but everyone was valued as equals for what they brought to the team. Appreciation of and for one another was our most valuable trait.

Now some 30+ years later as I coach teams I find myself putting a lot of effort into recreating the team atmosphere of those successful teams from my youth.  There is an understanding of  team building being a process and team bonding a critical part of that process. 

It's been a few years now that I have participated in email groups with other coaches.  A couple of these groups have had profound impact on how I approach team bonding. I found that some coaches have made a science of team bonding. They have studied it, defined it and developed methodology to develop and nurture it.  I have learned from them.

I am not about to tell you that I can take any group and mold them into a successful team. No, that remains largely dependent on the players that comprise the team. What a coach can do is make the individual players and collective group aware of the necessity of sacrificing individual agendas for the common good of the collective team. 

"Buy in" is the term I hear used often these days.  Coaches speak to the importance of players buying into the philosophy or system.  Just another way of stating the need to put personal agendas aside for the good of the team.  I refer to this as the need to play for one another. In soccer, we ask players to make a run for a teammate.  I implore ball carriers to pass the ball to the second runner - the first runner manipulates defenders away from an area allowing a teammate to run into the space just vacated to receive the pass.  That's an example of playing for one another.

It goes beyond simply making runs for one another. Another aspect of becoming a team is the defining and accepting of roles on a team.  Coaches often speak of starting the 11 best instead of the best 11.  This is an acknowledgement that the 11 most talented are not always the 11 who work best together.  Sometimes a more talented player is passed over for a player who recognizes, accepts and fills a role on the team. This might be a player who sacrifices his favored position to play where needed.  Sometimes the motivation to do so may well be selfish in the sense the individual just wants to play, but the sacrifice is still very real and tangible to and appreciated by teammates.

It's the attitude of gratitude.

Whether consciously recognized or not players on great teams consistently ask of themselves "what can I do for my team?" instead of approaching things with an attitude of "what can this team do for me?"

In this sense, the decision to be a great team is a choice made by each of its individual players. Buy in or team chemistry is a product of those choices, those decisions. In you are not for your team, for your teammates, then you are surely against them. Even one dissenter can hold a team back from achieving to its full potential.  So, what is your decision?  Are you for yourself or are you for your team?