With this in mind what can organisations and coaches do to help change the tone of children’s sport and focus on what is really important?

How important is winning?  The answer to this – apparently spurious – question massively influences the success criteria of children’s sport. If winning is the most important thing, it has implications that are far reaching. It influences how the game is coached, refereed, team selection, substitution, as well as the attitudes of players, coaches and parents to the opposition, the referee, cheating and their respect for the game.

The tone and spirit of children’s sport has changed significantly in the last twenty years. And not for the better. In the absence of more compelling success criteria, the default position has become the value system of the Daily Telegraph and Sky Sports – what are the results? Who has won? Who is unbeaten?

What is the implication of it all?

When winning becomes the driving force of children’s sport, lots of things change. The atmosphere becomes more unforgiving, and the values change from those of education to those of professional sport. The locus of blame shifts subtly. The referee ceases to be the respected figure of facilitation, and is now under intense scrutiny for signs of incompetence, blindness and bias. Players, coaches and parents feel at liberty to comment negatively on referee performance, and opposition performance: coaches are eager to discuss shortcomings with all constituencies, both candidly and critically. Taking their lead from this, and the additional influence of the referee microphone at Sky Sports, children of all ages are not reluctant to offer the referee advice, or to question his competence or partiality.

The losing team is slow to accept that the opposition simply outperformed them, preferring to blame outside forces, including the opposition, the referee or even the competence of their own coach. This inclination is not discouraged by their parents or coaches, who are also keen to allocate blame. Experienced coaches and teachers feel at liberty to comment publicly and emotionally to their pupils, parents and colleagues. Vanquished teams are slow to congratulate their victors for a superior performance, or simply to recognise the opposition’s contribution – or that of the referee – to a great sporting contest. The idea that a great game can end in defeat (and still be a great game) is infrequently acknowledged.

“Well done, you were better than us” is an expression falling into disuse. “Thanks for a great game” gives way too often to a cursory and sullen handshake.

When winning is the most important thing, the the beauty of the game, the earnestness of the endeavour and the spirit of the game are consolation prizes for the wrong result. The atmosphere is soured, and half the participants depart embittered. Victory is a zero sum game, and can, by definition, be enjoyed by only approximately half of participants. Unlike participatory achievements, which can be simultaneously enjoyed by both teams. Children must learn to value the intrinsic satisfaction of taking part in the contest, not just recognise the extrinsic result. The question, “How did you get on?” can legitimately be answered without numbers.

The power of the role model is massive. The shop window of professional sport cannot be depended upon to establish or reinforce traditional values. At a time when these are under constant threat, the parent/coach role model becomes more important. Proactively teaching the values of sportsmanship, and celebrating them begins with example. If all parties are prepared to tolerate children, parents, coaches and organisations behaving histrionically in defeat, and resorting to blame, then the educational value of the game is massively impoverished. The last time I looked, there wasn’t an Under 11 B World Cup, but the atmosphere of some games would suggest that there might be.

The power lies with the clubs and schools. They can choose to properly teach the values and culture of games, and to challenge declining standards of parental behaviour, or indeed find ways of engaging parents in a more positive way. Or they can shrink from this, and tolerate a sour, aggressive, match atmosphere on many weekends. The deteriorating ambience of children’s sport will not change itself.

The great majority of parents like to see their offspring participate in sports or physical activity.  Rarer is the carer who sees no value in this.  The reasons why they approve of this type of involvement vary, though they are infrequently thought-out beyond the vague conviction that it’s somehow “good” for the kids.  What parents want their kids to get out of their experience of youth sport will determine the environment they choose to put them into, and the achievements that they wish to celebrate and encourage.

Research is quite clear what children enjoy in sport.  Having fun, being with friends, getting better at something, the excitement of competition: these are fairly consistent conclusions.  All these regularly appear above the desire to win trophies.  Whether the influential adults who determine the youth sports environment reflect these priorities is crucial.  It is the parents and coaches who establish the prevailing culture. They determine whether or not this is in line with children’s motivations, or whether it reflects the performance oriented values of elite adult sport.

If adults pursue a performance agenda, it informs all subsequent decisions.  The early developers monopolise the game time and the influential positions. They are allowed to reign supreme, scoring multiple goals every week.  They become dominant players, but lack the physical and emotional qualities to become great players once maturation has evened everything out.  The less able and late developers receive little game time or encouragement, and eventually drift away from the game carrying into later life the badge of dishonour – “I’m not sporty”.  Some become government ministers who sell off playing fields.

Is there an alternative?  One that aligns with kids’ motivations?  Is it as binary as a performance or participation culture? Is it possible to have joy and achievement? Is the joy of achievement available to all, or just the strong and fast?  Or is an inclusive approach the consolation prize for those whose trophy cabinets are bare?  Is finishing the game with more goals the only way to win?

A culture which values mastery over outcomes can serve both.  It encourages all to strive earnestly, and some to excel. But celebrates both.  It teaches the early achievers to empathise with the less able as they take their share of game time, and celebrates improvements individually and collectively.  Its success criteria include retaining players, and joy on all faces.  It chooses a competition programme that allows all players to be challenged, and all to experience success and defeat – in order to learn from both.

Striving for improvement is a central part of sport.  Success in competition is one of the measures of this at all levels, though the only measure in elite sport. A minimum level of winning is essential to maintain motivation: losing every week is demoralising.  A positive youth sports environment chooses a competition programme that supports wider aims, allows challenge, and provides experience of winning and losing. A team that wins – or loses – every week limits the development of its players.

The culture of a youth sports organisation – whether it is a club or a school – is too important to be left to individual adults to define.  The essence of quality control is that the leadership of the organisation establishes the values and operational procedures, and communicates them widely. Parents introducing their children into each environment should be able to do so completely aware of what is valued, and the experience that their children will have. At every age group, with every coach.

That would allow and require mothers and fathers to give some careful thought to what they want to witness; pressure to win in a zero sum game dominated by the early maturers, or a smile on red faces and a first step towards lifelong activity.

This scene is not reserved for the oldest, or highest performing, children.  It is immune to variations in sport, sex, age and ability.  It is driven by a primal desire. To win. And a fundamental misunderstanding of what winning means in youth sport. That finishing the game with more goals than the opposition is only one of the victories in schools and clubs.  Certainly, an important one. Learning the pursuit of competitive success is a central purpose of all sport.  But how victory is achieved, and an atmosphere of adaptive competition, is at least as important as whether it is achieved.

One of the many ironies of this situation is the contrasting sector expectations of self control.  Schools and clubs expect their players to display discipline, respect the referee and treat opponents with dignity.  The sanctions for moments of onfield hot-headedness are clear and uncompromising.  But these creditable expectations evaporate at the white line.  Beyond the pitch, onlooking adults often display the opposite.

A second inconsistency is that no one believes that winning comfortably every week is a worthwhile developmental experience.  One sided games are widely dismissed as a “waste of time” from which “no one benefits”.  But on the touchline, in the heat of the moment, this is what many spectators celebrate.

Sport brings out the best and worst in people.  It takes the human condition and adds unmanageable emotion.  Without a clear culture of self control, it can strip the occasion of much of its joy.  Pressure to win discourages creativity, experimentation, risk taking and joy.  It leads to playing opportunities being unevenly distributed.  It seeks to humiliate the opponent, rather than recognise their contribution to the contest.  “Thanks for the game” is not always communicated with sincerity. The RFU’s controversial Age Grade Competition Review is based on incontrovertible evidence that a trophy on the table changes behaviour in youth sport – but it’s not the behaviour of the players. It’s the adults.  And it doesn’t change it for the better.

Educating parents can be a bigger challenge than shaping the values of children.  But the future of school and club sport is dependent upon it.  As is quality controlling coach behaviour on the touchline.  Both constituencies are exemplars: where adult conduct is poor, player behaviour is rarely better.  Schools and clubs need to be more proactive to ensure that the environment is appropriate and developmental.  The role of the adults in contributing to this has been overlooked and underestimated.  The reasons for this need to be communicated away from the cauldron of emotion, and both parents and coaches should be held to account in the way that the children certainly would be.

In the cold light of day, medium term objectives are easy to agree.  Development, love of the game, playing with friends are readily acknowledged as important.  But talk is cheap.  The measure of the strength of an organisation’s development culture is whether it can survive the destructive surge of touchline emotion on match day.  Schools and clubs need to be clear what combination of things they value in sport, and articulate the reputation they seek.  If everything is confined to scores and results, it is easy to assume that this is what is valued ahead of all else.