A couple of weeks ago, I had a discussion with a fellow coach who was completing his MSc sport science studies at the university of Ghent. The young man in question stated that he started with a bachelor in physiotherapy but after his first internship realized he wouldn't enjoy it as much and consequently changed his topic to sport science. Now, on the verge of his graduation, he was wondering if he made the correct choice and even contemplated re-starting his physiotherapy studies after graduation. Why? He noticed that his degree was not receiving the value it deserves.

Let's start with how movement is undervalued. The medical cost of our sedentary lifestyle is costing society millions. It has long been proven that if we could include more movement and by extension sport in our daily life, the health benefits would be enormous. Yet, movement coaches are nowhere to be seen in our medical care. People are advised to include enough movement into their lives, but personal coaches are still a thing of luxury. Why are we waiting for people to feel the negative effects of their everyday routine? Doctors are often over-demanded and have little time left for real patient care. A preventive policy rather than a responsive policy would most certainly help.

Similarly, let’s see how society looks at PE-teachers. These are the people that need to introduce children to sports and movement. They are the ones to let people experience from a young age the joy of movement and sports. They are also the ones to educate children and provide them with sufficient “movement literacy” for the rest of their lives. And yet, these people are often seen as the least important teacher. Failure on a score card for physical education is minimalised. Society often even mocks the PE-teacher, the lazy teacher who has no correction work, who’s biggest task is to “iron his tracksuit”.

Society might undervalue movement. But is the sector doing enough to improve its image? One part of the problem is the lack of standard certifications within the industry as well as professional accreditation. Qualification with the sports, movement and fitness industry is quite diverse. Generally speaking, there are a number of qualification levels:

• Undergraduate degrees
• Postgraduate degrees
• S&C accreditation courses (such as for instance UKSCA)
• Professional development courses (such as a UEFA A-coaching badge)
• Specialization courses

The problem is however that holding a certain degree or certificate does not protect the holder or necessary give him/her an advantage towards other coaches within industry. Simply put, one club or organisation might require a certain degree or certificate to fill in a certain position while another club or organisation might fill in the position with a lower qualification or maybe even a short specialization course. While it might be understandable from an economical point of view - less qualification usually means lower wages – but by doing so, the sector supports the view that anybody can become a sports coach. Yet, people want quality assurances when they invest in a "luxery" item such as coaching. As a result, some people prefer to be coached by a physiotherapist simply because they know this person has at minimum a higher education degree. Others prefer to be “treated” by a physio simply because their link to the medical branch, thinking this offers them some form of quality assurance.

There are of course efforts to standardize the qualifications such as for instance the International Qualification Framework (IQF). And within sports federations and governing bodies a certain degree of standardization is more and more common. But standardisation requires that it happens on a large enough scale, as well as clarity in roles and responsibilities within the sector. Within my own sector, football, there a vast majority of roles for practitioners such as for instance: performance director, fitness coach, strength and conditioning coach, sport scientist or return to play coach. Given the difference in tasks it seems logical that these roles require different qualifications, yet this is not always the case. And smaller clubs might even give double roles to a practitioner due to budgetary constraints. The physiotherapist might also be the return to play coach - despite not having sufficient understanding of the demands of the sport - or clubs choose “hybrid” coaches who are a one-man department taking on all roles.  Should society not demand more elite standards from their elite clubs and organisations? Duo roles might be acceptable, but only if they come with duo qualifications.

Maybe it is time for sport governing bodies and governments in general to demand a higher standard in qualification in return for an upgrade on how coaches are viewed by society? At the same time, it is important that sport science degrees are seen as such: science degrees. In return, coaches might be taking on a more prominent role in today’s health care system as well as work in a sport & movement sector where standards are perceived as high. 

There is no denying that having certain body characteristics gives athletes an advantage within their sport. Elite sprint swimmers aren’t usually the smallest people on the planet and jockeys are found on the opposite side of the spectrum. Yet, having sufficient strength, stamina, speed, mobility and body awareness are needed to participate in most sports.  Nevertheless, within the world of strength & conditioning (S&C) there seems to be a tendency to specialize faster and earlier. I fell into this trap myself over the past few years. As your understanding of S&C improves, you tend to want to use all this knowledge to improve your athletes. However, the big question coaches often forget to ask themselves? “Is my athlete physically already enough developed that specialisation is needed or is there more to be gained by improving the basics?” Yes, one of the seven general training principles is specificity. To make gains in a certain aspect of the game, you do need to train that aspect. However, there are enough examples of carry-over in training improvements. To name just one: it has been proven that improvements of leg strength after a training program containing back squats improves endurance  and running economy. Could it not be argued that – especially in sports where a large technical and tactical component is required – S&C coaches should provide a strong base and training physical specificity should be done on the pitch or court rather than in the gym? Maybe it is time to stop looking at clips of elite S&C coaches who are working with Olympians and elite level competitors? After all, these are athletes with a very strong physical base who need specificity to gain that extra one to two percent on their competitors. For coaches of these athletes, being inventive and finding an edge is an important requirement within the job. But too often, this gets projected onto lower-level athletes. But is this necessary?