Within sport for development (SFD), a continued concentration of research examines the role of sports in youth development (1) and in supporting youth in building, practicing, and transferring valuable life skills off the field (2–4). Across various contexts and youth populations, scholars have developed a well-established line of inquiry into the utility of sport, specifically with young people from marginalized communities. This includes using sport to support positive youth and life skill development (5, 6), social inclusion (7), healing among youth who have experienced complex trauma (8), and sport as a mechanism for social justice for those who have experienced inequitable privilege–power–oppression dynamics (9, 10), among others. Yet, across these different bodies of work, a constant thread is present—the critical role of coaches and strong adult relationships in facilitating such outcomes through sport.

Looking specifically at the literature on positive youth development (PYD) and life skills through sport, youth sport coaches have been found to play an essential role in the creation of constructive program environments, which help young people build healthy relationships with their coaches and one another, as well as facilitating a safe space for learning and practicing valuable life skills (1, 9, 10). Earlier work has identified the importance of intentionality in how coaches teach such skills and in building a “PYD climate” (1). For instance, Bean et al. (2) developed an implicit/explicit continuum of life skills development and transfer, outlining six levels through which coaches can facilitate such processes: (1) structuring the sport context, (2) facilitating a positive climate, (3) discussing life skills, (4) practicing life skills, (5) discussing transfer, and (6) practicing transfer. Yet, Camiré et al. (9) argue that the ability of coaches to play a meaningful role in these processes is often influenced by their involvement in coach education around PYD and the support they receive from learning communities. In more recent years, researchers have raised critical concerns regarding the limitations of the PYD framework in acknowledging systemic issues of power, privilege, and oppression in the lives of young people.

A fundamental critique of PYD and conventional coaching techniques is that they have not accounted for oppression, discrimination, and marginalization in the lived experience of youth athletes across communities (11). Thus, a critical positive youth development framework emerged that positioned critical consciousness within the existing PYD framework as a means to empower all young people in understanding their own personal experiences and those of others within unjust systems and support collective action toward social change (11). This call to center the voices of those who have been traditionally marginalized, along with more critical youth development approaches, has fueled a wave of work among youth sport researchers and practitioners (12, 13). Camiré et al. proposed that a critical perspective could help “reimagine” PYD and life skills in youth sport, whereby life skills (1) take on expanded meanings, (2) are viewed as sociopolitical, and (3) address the social realities of youths (9). Within this body of work, the valuable role that coaches play in bridging toward social justice life skills has been emphasized (14), as well as the necessity of supporting coaches in building their own social justice skills through coach education (10).

Assessing other bodies of work in SFD among youth populations, Morgan and Parker (7) analyzed the impact of sport-based interventions for youths who had been deemed at risk, were gang-affiliated, and/or had justice involvement. Participants reported feeling a greater sense of social inclusion and belonging after being involved in the program, but authors noted that these findings were largely contingent upon “contextual conditions,” the most important of which was young people having a strong, trusting relationship with key program personnel such as coaches. Similar findings were outlined in relation to the role of sport in supporting healing from trauma among young people, wherein this opportunity was contingent on the presence of supportive relationships (coaches, mentors, peers) (8). Thus, looking at the expansive work done in youth sport and on youth sport coaches, it has been well established that the (broad) experiences of young people within sport programs are deeply impacted by coaches (15). Specifically, it has been noted that the knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of coaches (15, 16), and their ability to build trusting, supportive relationships (7), ultimately play a significant role in facilitating beneficial outcomes for young people (16).

In order to support coaches in such an integral role, coach education and professional development have been found to increase coaching skills and effectiveness (16, 17), as well as their ability to empower positive youth sport climates, as mentioned previously (9). Nelson et al. (18) outlined three distinct categories of coach education program interventions (CEPIs): formal, informal, and non-formal. Whereas formal interventions can include certification programs through national sport associations, informal interventions typically describe personal experiences, and non-formal entails structured educational activities that are not endorsed through any one organization but intended to share relevant educational information (i.e., seminars, workshops, clinics). In a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of coach education on coaching effectiveness in youth sport, Li et al. (16) noted that positive effects of CEPIs were observed in 78% of studies. These effects included enhanced knowledge, shifts in attitude and behavior changes among coaches, and improved physical and psychological outcomes for youth on and off the field.

While it has been established that coaching education is important, not all coaches can access it readily due to a lack of programs in certain geographic areas, a lack of local/in-person expertise, financial or time constraints (19–21), and other factors that make it inaccessible. As is often the case, the communities that face the greatest marginalization—and are the primary focus of SFD programs—also experience similar inequities in access to quality coach education (22). To overcome these barriers, virtual or hybrid education has been identified as a potential strategy for broadly disseminating foundational coaching knowledge and skills (16).

As a result of technological advancements, and environmental circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic, online and technology-enhanced methods have emerged as innovative mediums for coach education (23). Driska and Nalepa (24) reported that, over the past 20 years, coaching organizations have increasingly utilized online and self-paced delivery, but reliance on online delivery increased exponentially as a response to in-person restrictions during the global pandemic (24, 25). This “new normal” now appears to be firmly embedded in coach education strategies among national sport federations, youth sport organizations, and higher education institutions (23). The benefits of online coach education include widespread reach and fidelity, low cost, and reduced burden on coaches (24). Additional advantages include enhanced ease of access to information and greater uniformity of content across regions (26). Despite the enhanced use of technology in coaching, teaching, and learning, the practice has outpaced research in this field, and initial reviews of the literature have found only weak support for its efficacy (27). Cushion and Townsend (27) noted that there is a pressing need to better understand how technology is currently used in coach learning as well as the impact of its use.

In reflecting on the literature, our own experiences as two SFD researchers engaged in applied programming largely mirrored these current sentiments. We observed a rise in government- and foundation-sponsored grant applications that required a virtual component. Through our work in sport diplomacy and international coach education for sport-for-social-change organizations, we have utilized virtual trainings in a variety of ways: as follow-up sessions after in-person trainings, as monthly roundtable discussions for knowledge exchange, and as virtual spaces to build community among past and existing partners. The ability to connect with partners in Asia or Africa using Zoom or Teams and conduct a two-hour coaching training—which would otherwise require 20–30 h of travel—was undeniably convenient and economical. Yet, as with other researchers, we grappled with questions of effectiveness, quality, and impact, alongside concerns about equity, accessibility, resources, and technological availability when working with rural and remote communities. Operating in a post-pandemic world, these questions provided an opportunity to pause and reflect on whether, under what circumstances, this universal momentum toward virtual coach education is useful, and whom it ultimately serves?

Therefore, we conducted this research as an opportunity to understand how SFD organizations across the globe are engaging with virtual coaching education. Specifically, we sought to examine what practices are working and what are not, which platforms have demonstrated success, how programs are assessing the effectiveness of virtual coach training. The following research questions guided this study: (1) How have SFD organizations approached virtual education? (2) What are the opportunities and challenges of virtual coach education among SFD organizations? (3) What strategies have SFD organizations implemented in virtual coach education?

Given the exploratory nature of the study, a basic qualitative design was adopted, focusing data collection around interviews that took a post-positivist philosophical approach (28, 29). Post-positivism is an approach that pursues evidenced-based truths through inquiry, while acknowledging that there is no absolute truth (28, 29). Post-positivist research is widely used in educational settings in an attempt to explore a phenomenon and create meaning. Through a combination of convenience and snowball sampling, ten SFD program administrators or directors were recruited for interviews. As this is an exploratory piece, the strategic decision was made to interview program administrators instead of coaches to understand what is being done currently at the organizational level. The research team began by utilizing their own network of SFD colleagues across the globe, choosing only those organizations that self-reported engagement in some form of virtual coach training/education in rural or remote communities. Those interviewed also suggested additional SFD organizations engaging in this work, rounding out the sample. Being strategic in geographic diversity, the sample resulted in ten SFD organizations in ten different countries, in the Global South and the Global North, with most organizations operating in rural or remote communities. Although a standardized definition of “rural” and “remote” is not largely agreed upon in the literature, several characteristics have been identified to help operationalize these multidimensional concepts. These include geographic isolation, lack of social services, thin economies, and limited public transportation (30). Sports utilized in programming included athletics, basketball, frisbee, flag football, karate, lacrosse, roller skating, soccer, and tennis, with some organizations working across multiple sports. Table 1 outlines organization demographics, including geographic location, sports utilized, and full-time staff size.

The interview guide was created utilizing Task–Technology Fit (TTF) Theory, which emphasizes a critical construct in information systems and performance in that technology can have a positive impact only if it “fits” the task for which it is being used (31). As the focus of our study is on SFD organizations working in rural and remote communities, the significance placed on the fit of technology was particularly well aligned with our research questions and sample. The framework includes six constructs: individual computer self-efficacy, technology characteristics, task complexity, execution sequence attractiveness, feedback inquiry, and performance. In addition to the more straightforward concepts of computer self-efficacy, task complexity, and feedback inquiry, Goodhue (31) elaborated on the more complex components of technology characteristics, execution sequence attractiveness, and performance. Technology characteristics are composed of three dimensions: technology reliability, usefulness, and complexity. Execution sequence attractiveness refers to the assessment of effort required relative to the quality of output when considering the use of new technology. Simply put, this concept can be summarized by the following question: “Is it worth it?” Finally, Goodhue (31) considered performance to represent improved efficiency and effectiveness as a result of task–technology fit. In addition to questions specifically related to TTF, we incorporated practical questions to better understand what SFD programs are currently doing with virtual coaching education, how they have chosen which technologies to adopt, and their general impressions of the effectiveness of virtual coach training.

When initially contacted about the study, participants received a description of the study, including the ethics board approval, along with an information sheet outlining confidentiality, risks, and benefits. At the start of each interview, conducted in English via Zoom, the researchers obtained verbal consent, ensuring that participants had reviewed the information sheet and were confident proceeding with the interview. Interviews were conducted between January and June 2025, lasting an average of 42 min (ranging from 34:13 to 54:30 min). Interviews were recorded via Zoom’s built-in audio recording and auto-transcription features. Transcriptions were first checked for accuracy by the research team and then sent to the participant interviewed for verification.

Four major themes were identified through the research process: two themes aligned with the TTF and two additional themes emerged through inductive analysis. The four themes include attractiveness/motivation (related to Execution Sequence Attractiveness in TTF), utility (related to Technological Characteristics in TTF), access/resources, and pedagogy/method of delivery. Table 2 outlines the identified theme, indicating which were aligned with the TTF model and which were not.

While this study was not undertaken as a comparison of the Global North and Global South, some important distinctions did arise. Four of the organizations interviewed are based in Western or Global North countries, while the other six are located within the Global South. The Global South broadly refers to Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania and is often associated with generalizations such as marginalized and low-income communities (34). The terms are often oversimplified and unrepresentative (35), and as Patrick and Huggins note, the Global South has “become a convenient shorthand for a broad swath of nations seeking to overhaul the unjust structures of the global economy” (36). Further, this classification does not represent the heterogeneity of the region. Nevertheless, within the current study, noteworthy differences based on economy and privilege did emerge.

While organizations across all locations celebrated their highly motivated coaches who are eager to access coaching education in any form, those located in rural and remote communities faced significant barriers to doing so. Organizations noted challenges such as the high cost of cellular or Wi-Fi data, the unpredictability of the internet (even in locations where they seemingly have access), the logistics required to bring coaches to a central location for trainings or Zoom/Teams calls, and language barriers. While the knowledge, attitudes, and motivation of coaches were high—factors that have been shown to contribute to successful outcomes in those they coach (10, 16)—these strengths were not sufficient to overcome the real logistical challenges of accessing virtual coach training. Several scholars have noted similar findings in terms of geographic locations, inaccessibility, lack of local expertise, and financial constraints being limiting factors in the impact of coaching education (19–22).

Meanwhile, in North America and Europe, accessing virtual training opportunities was relatively cheap and simple and placed very few resource constraints on the SFD organizations. Coaches in SFD organizations across the Global North were able to tap into a variety of virtual training types—videos posted online, live sessions, and even tailor-made curriculum delivered remotely. Several conclusions can be drawn from this, the most pressing of which relates to equity.

It is true that we have never been a more connected world, thanks in large part to technological advancements. The benefits to virtual or online learning include its relatively low cost, wide reach, and accessibility (24). However, the mere existence of technology does not make it accessible and usable for all. Organizations doing similar work, in very similar ways, experience different barriers to access that exacerbate the equity gap. In this study, SFD coaches in Europe and North America were able to access a myriad of virtual training opportunities, with the only real barrier being a cost in the case of paid programs/subscriptions. In Africa, Asia, and Oceania, cost was but one of the barriers faced. Even if the organizations were able to overcome that, there were many more obstacles to overcome for their coaches to engage in virtual spaces, including poor internet connectivity, limited data availability, and at times transportation of coaches to a central location for a virtual session. As many SFD organizations are grassroots organizations that are under-staffed, under-resourced, and located in the Global South (37–39), the ease or difficulty with which coaches can access virtual learning impacts the result. Is the outcome worth the effort?

In short, the current study revealed a major equity issue in relation to SFD organizations engaging in virtual coaching training. Those who already had access to relatively sophisticated training programs, master coaches, and resources were also the ones who were most frequently engaged in the virtual learning spaces. On the contrary, those who had the greatest need for virtual training still faced too many barriers to utilizing it to its full potential. So, while many believe that virtual coaching education is a strong solution in rural communities where there might not be as many in-person opportunities offered, this study found that not to be the case. Rather, virtual inaccessibility could be contributing to a widening in the equity gap. This is especially concerning given the literature that affirms how important coaching education is in successful programming (9, 16).

Though a lack of equity in access was apparent, the findings were not entirely discouraging. As Hans Rosling stated in Factfulness (35), the reality is both bad and better. While barriers to access, especially in rural or remote communities, were still highly problematic, respondents were also quick to note that the situation was improving. Many expressed optimism that this trend will continue, enabling coaches in remote communities to easily access virtual coach training with the same ease as those in other countries already can. But why wait? Why not think more creatively now, rather than just wait for things to change? Across the SFD organizations interviewed in this study, virtual coach training was most often conceptualized as live sessions (Zoom/Teams) or video tutorials. These strategies are easily accessible, given the widespread use of virtual education in the Global North, especially given familiarity with these methods of delivery following the pandemic (23). Coaching organizations continue to utilize online learning (24, 25), but likely in the same standard ways. Although these “traditional” methods are ineffective in rural and remote communities, we have not moved beyond them. It would be a worthwhile endeavor to bring together SFD practitioners to brainstorm or engage in design-thinking around what access to the global conversations on coach training might look like in more non-traditional ways. How can we tap into improved technology and virtual coach training in ways that have not yet been suggested? What other disciplines might we look to for guidance that have found success in more accessible forms of remote learning that we can utilize now? Insights from broader digital inclusion literature highlight practical enablers to address existing issues of equity, including device sharing, data stipends, and community hubs (40). In addition, low-bandwidth models (such as asynchronous micro-learning via WhatsApp or SMS, downloadable packs, radio options, or local television broadcasts), community-based peer facilitation, and other hybrid pathways are ideas worth exploring.

As an example of thinking beyond Zoom or Teams, two participants interviewed reported attempts their organization had made to offer virtual programming that is more accessible or creative for those in rural areas. One shared, “One of my deliverables that I got to do is create an online free course so that people can log in and take this course for free. We do this course for free in a bunch of those different communities that just don't have the financial resources.” Another participant discussed a “virtual classroom” that was created via a WhatsApp group. In this model, the program recorded short (2 min) videos for the coaches to watch, followed by opportunities to engage and ask questions within the WhatsApp group chat. While initial engagement was high (particularly when the internet connection was reliable), it dropped after a few weeks, with fewer coaches participating. In the participant’s own words, “It would start really well. So the 1st day, the second day, the 3rd day, we'd have 45–50 signing in by the 3rd day we're down to like 30, and then it would continue to trickle off. And it was just that, maintaining the interest in it was really difficult.”

Although neither of these strategies seemed to completely hit the mark, they do demonstrate that SFD organizations are attempting to find more creative or usable strategies for virtual coaching education beyond videos and Zoom/Teams live sessions. SFD organizations are forced to think creatively or “outside the box” regularly, given their often low-resourced functioning (41, 42). However, it appears that this “out of the box” thinking has yet to be applied to virtual coach education. More creative thinking could lead to better ways of utilizing online learning now, while also anticipating future advances in technology and data connectivity in rural settings. It would also be prudent to utilize more creative thinking around coaching education broadly. Are there other barriers (besides technology) that are preventing coaches from fully engaging in the opportunities offered? Although administrators reported that coaches have a high level of motivation for training, some of the behaviors do not necessarily demonstrate this (such as the WhatsApp group described earlier that had high engagement initially, then a sharp decline). Extending this line of enquiry to include conversations directly with coaches would provide valuable insights into their perspectives. Such dialogue could help identify alternative approaches and foster more creative solutions between administrators and coaches.

Given the utilization of Task–Technology Fit as a framework for this study, it is also worth discussing its value here. While there was certainly a value added in the development stage of the study, in framing questions around the different aspects of TTF, our overall assessment is that most of the organizations interviewed are still in their early stages of tapping into technology for coaching education and perhaps have yet to reach a minimum threshold of use to be able to apply TTF. For instance, because of the many barriers faced related to connectivity, resource allocation, and access, most of the organizations were just starting to tap into virtual coach training, and in very basic ways (recorded videos, Zoom or Teams calls, etc.). In many cases, the organizations were accessing the low-hanging fruit of virtual technology for coach training, as most of them were not assessing fit in an intentional way. Task–Technology Fit proposes that users assess aspects including computer self-efficacy, task complexity, feedback loops, effort, quality, and performance (43). These are in addition to the technology characteristics of reliability, usefulness, and complexity. Most organizations interviewed for this study had not yet moved beyond the technology characteristics in their use of virtual coach training. Therefore, for this theory to be most usefully applied, organizations need to meet a minimum usage threshold—one that we did not consider our participants to have met. This raises important issues for future enquiry: When and how do organizations reach a threshold of use for the theory to be able to apply more fully?

In conclusion, it is important to note that none of the organizations interviewed as part of this study explicitly or systematically assessed the effectiveness of their virtual training programs, and information regarding their programs was self-reported without behavioral or learning outcomes. Therefore, any comments on what is or is not working are anecdotal. Li et al. (16) conducted a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of coaching education, but did not distinguish between in person or online, finding that most programs result in better coaching. Meanwhile, Svensson and Woods stated that “Even well-designed SDP initiatives may not necessarily result in positive outcomes” (39). Both these studies indicate that further research and analysis are required in the field of coaching education in SDP. There is a need to more intentionally assess SFD-focused coaching education programs in a way that measures both in-person and online/virtual strategies, so that we can better understand the value each provides.

Future research could benefit from various topic and methodological directions to deepen our understanding in this field. Promising topics include the closer examination of program delivery, content, and curriculum—with particular attention to emerging critiques of traditional coach education—and the transfer of knowledge under a social justice lens (44). There was also an assumption made in this study that coaches want more coaching education and possess the motivation for it. However, further reflection on the purpose of coaching education and what topics are included could be highly valuable. For instance, is knowledge what coaches most need in coaching education, or are there additional—or more important—elements that should be included, such as creating safe spaces, fostering inclusion, and sustaining motivation? Methodologically, subsequent studies could strengthen rigor through data triangulation—incorporating observational methods, pre- and post-assessments, and the inclusion of coaches as key participants in the research process. Our goal is to continue to better understand this subject, contribute to it both practically and theoretically, and help improve the long-term impact of SFD programming.