One might assume that sport coaches are experts in coaching relationally as they do, after all, have to consider how their lieutenants work together in any given practice. If true, then coach developers, who coach the coaches, might be thought of as superior experts in relational provision. If also true, then a relational inquiry into coach education programmes is necessary for conceptualising learning. But previous conceptualisations of learning have neither considered relational analyses nor viewed learning as something that is not derivative from the coach. In this article, I examine how materials participate in and the ways materiality shapes two coach developers’ practices. Methodologically, I draw inspiration from actor-network theory, which is a sociomaterial approach that focuses on the relations of humans and nonhumans in practices. Methods include the ‘interview to the double’ ( Nicolini 2009 ), followed by observations during two level one coach education programmes: children and youth. Two vignettes of cones and the CD-ROM describe how social and material relations come together and shape coach developers’ practices in surprising and unexpected ways. The coach developers grappled with their ‘educator’ role so that coaches were better prepared to articulate the materiality of practices. Based on my analysis, I conclude by making a case for a material engagement with coach development.

While there is increasing recognition that sport is sociomaterial, little is known about what this means for an analysis of coaching practice. This paper develops a cartography of coaching based on an actor–network theory ethnography of two volunteer football coaches’ practices in Scotland. A sociomaterial analysis generates anecdotes that are reordered into five parts: (a) moving from the eleven-a-side game toward a field of practice, (b) delegation, (c) quasi-object, (d) interruptions, and (e) manufacturing. Each part is accompanied with an analytical move inspired by Latourian actor–network theory. Coaching is conceptualized as a field of practice resting on three propositions. The first proposition is that coaches intervene by fabricating passages in practices which are always under construction. The second proposition is that materials and materiality shape practices in ways which can make players more, or less, disciplined. And the third proposition is for a local and situated sociomaterial competence where nonhumans are matters of concern. Coaching with Latour paves the way for a new space in the sociology of sport for studies dedicated to the sociomateriality of sport.

Sport coaches continue to coach without reference to a conceptualisation of coaching. Indeed, coaching research has been caught in a chasm between process and practice conceptualisations, further widening the application of theory to practice. And coaches are often the protagonists in both of these accounts. Yet, as we will see, this is controversial for several reasons. Inspired by actor-network theory and the theory of the quasi-object (Serres, M. [1980] 2007. The Parasite. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press), I go to the local, material, mundane sites where coaching is practiced and follow the ball (the 12th player!) in action. Three anecdotes are described: moving from the game towards a field of practice, to be seduced, and or not to be seduced. This article presents an innovative way of observing the coaching process that brings about new insights for how coaching is conceived, understood and practiced. I conclude with some implications of articulating the sociomaterialities for coaching education.

Summary The UEFA EURO 2020 football tournament was one of the largest Sporting Mega Events (SMEs) to take place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mitigating the risk of virus transmission requires a multi-layered approach for any large event, more so in this case due to staging the tournament across eleven host countries. Yet, little is known about COVID-19 risks and mitigation from attending an event of this scale and nature. We examined the implementation of mitigation and messaging at EURO 2020 matches hosted at venues in the UK. The tournament was postponed from the summer of 2020 and played in June and July of 2021. Structured observations were conducted by 11 trained fieldwork-supporters at 10 matches played at Wembley Stadium, London, or Hampden Park, Glasgow. Fieldwork-supporters observed one-way systems and signage, and hand sanitizing stations inside the stadia, but reported significant variation in the implementation of staggered timeslots, testing upon entry, and procedures for exit. Adherence to planned measures by ticket holders and implementation by stewards waned as the tournament progressed culminating in an absence of enforced measures at the final. The non-compliance with COVID-19 mitigation measures was likely to have led to a significantly increased risk of transmission. Future events should consider how COVID-19 mitigation measures could become ‘new norms’ of fan behaviour, learning from what is already known about football fandom. Tournament organizers of SMEs can use these findings to promote clearer messaging on pandemic-driven changes in fan behaviour and best practices in mitigating risk at future sporting and cultural events.

No abstract