Some form of abuse has always taken place in sport. After all it is but one facet of a society with many ills. Concerns are increasingly framed against challenge which is (coupled with support of course) essential for growth [cf (14)]. Importantly, this essential extends beyond progress in sport to general life, albeit generating some significant but transitory emotional turmoil [cf. (15)]. Perhaps we need to clarify what abuse actually is. Interestingly, overcoming challenge may be an essential component of wellbeing “well-being can be observed by the extent to which [people] are resilient, build capacity for action, and are prepared to transcend challenges” [my italics, Health Promotion Glossary of Terms 2021, p.10, (16)].

Our recent work applying a Rationale-Intention-Behaviour (RIB) model to coaching behaviour is one example of this. In evaluating whether the Behaviour is abusive, it's important to examine the Rationale and Intention underpinning the decision. The desires of the performer must also be taken into consideration, so long as they are sufficiently well informed and of an age to make a decision. For example, many action and adventure sports require coaches to encourage attempting skills and/or training loads which may be harmful and/or bring discomfort. In free skiing and snowboarding for example, the bond between coach and athlete is a crucial one; the athlete must trust the coach's judgement on whether they attempt a new trick or leave it for the moment (17). In other words, athlete disquiet alone is not a sine qua non for spotting abusive behaviour.

It is also important to recognise the pressures which these mixed agendas exert. Recent work by Voelker et al. (13) offers a good example of this, with the clashing demands of performance and aesthetics of body image against the challenges of good health for female athletes can result in neither objective being satisfied. Once again, open discussion of objectives, framed against approaches such as the RIB Model and informed by research may offer some reconciliation.

Another significant step has been the development of child and young person (CYP) initiatives: in England, this has been led by Play Their Way (18). Termed child-first coaching, the approach is presented as grounded on the UN convention on the rights of the child (UNCRC). This offers a new perspective reflecting the rights of children and young people (CYP) and is operationalized in three ways (18). •

Voice – space to share their views, which are acted on together in a meaningful way.

I might suggest that, whilst the UNCRC is indisputable and focused on somewhat more global issues, the genericity of play their way as a universal lead strategy is more questionable. For example, is “play their way” looking at a sub-species of coaching? The de-emphasis on skills and syllabi both contrast with conventional educational practice and seem at odds with CYP pursuing excellence/senior achievement [cf. (19)]. There are also questions to be raised about the primary responsibility for safety, exercised by the coach, most notably in action or adventure sports, which must surely dictate certain actions over and above the wishes of the participants.

My intention here is not to review this or any other recent initiative. What I am saying is that, before National Sports Organisations take a (welcome and overdue) lead in coaching, one would expect to see these evolve from clear and critically-reviewed research. Furthermore, the rationale and intention, together with the possible consequences, should have been unpacked. As such, please consider this as a call for more evidence grounded initiatives, and careful evaluation of same, as appropriate.

There is no doubt that this is a much-debated concern within our society and sport is no different. As Figure 1 shows, interest in well-being and the associated mental health issues has boomed over the last few years.

Such evidence is important: but it doesn't demonstrate that such issues are common, have grown, or are peculiar to sport. As such, data need to be carefully and critically evaluated to look at the nature as well as the numbers of self-reported and externally diagnosed/confirmed mental health issues or MHIs.

Interestingly, this issue was raised by Wessely (20), first psychiatrist president of the Royal Society of Medicine, albeit his concerns were also related to the challenges of increased awareness of MHIs on already scant resources. My point is not to challenge that people are concerned; but rather, to suggest that over awareness and medicalisation may exacerbate the situation.

Once we have accurate information on the scope, the next thing is to decide on the best combination of treatments. Again, questions need to be asked. For example, literature is raising questions about the efficacy and impact of solutions commonly in use in sporting environments. In short, is generic education useful/effective (21, 22) or perhaps even be doing more harm than good, at least in some cases [cf. (23)].

Benefits of PA are clear; so clear that many cannot understand why people don't engage. For coaches, the increasing societal importance of PA has added yet another demand; specifically, that sports have an impact on the physical health and fitness of their athletes. Fitness is an inevitable feature of engaging in sports training, so this comes down to attracting and then enthusing rather than any particular structure. These motivational factors are emerging as a feature of the coach's leadership and systemic approach, which are addressed by Social Identity Leadership [SIL – (24, 25)]. Consequently, and against the importance of PA as an agenda, work on SIL and how coaches may serve to change behaviour leading to a lifelong habit would seem desirable (26).

Additionally, it is important to contrast coach and sport led approaches with other initiatives. Often targeted at CYP, many make a mistake of thinking that activity now inevitably equals activity for life. As one example, the UK's school-based scheme, the Daily Mile (27), which sees primary kids required to run/stagger/walk a mile every day. Unsurprisingly, initial enthusiasm was high (after all anything is better than lessons) and several studies showed immediate benefits to fitness and cognitive measures. Notably, however, a lack of logic (how will this work later) and monitoring has seen this fall away. Once again, I suggest, overly simplistic and insufficiently thought through ideas to address a poorly operationalised issue. Indeed, with research suggesting that later benefits are mediated by the early development of skills and confidence [e.g., (28, 29)], the role and focus for coaches in early years becomes more than just a provider of PA.

With clear relationships to PA and “play their way”, coaches (at least in the UK) are under increasing pressure to offer activities which engage and enthuse CYP. This has led to a focus on fun as a key measure of coaching impact. One oft cited example is the excellent and impactful research of Visek et al. (30) which has generated “fun maps”. This has, in my opinion, been seized by many as the blueprint which should underpin work with CYP. The importance has also overlapped into high level sport; for example, the growing meme that “a happy athlete is a fast athlete”!

In potential contrast, there is growing evidence for the positive benefits of challenge as a developmental tool, albeit offered in the right balance (14). I feel that this is another example where a lack of criticality, coupled with a failure to focus on enjoyment rather than fun per se, has led to mixed messages and societal pressures on coaches. The point is that, for many at all ages, improvement is the source of enjoyment, even if this s accomplished by hard, not inherently enjoyable effort [cf. (19, 31, 32)]. It might be that a more nuanced consideration of coaching (and coaching expertise) is needed, recognising that coaches, coaching and coaching consumers come in many shapes and sizes! After all, it may be that a fast athlete is a happy athlete!