Philosophical and methodological orientation

A qualitative research design was used following the ontological relativism and constructivist epistemology detailed in Rausch et al. [19]. For a comprehensive description of the research philosophy and methodological orientation, see Rausch et al. [19]. Accordingly, this study is framed as qualitative, exploratory research, following Stebbins’s tradition [23]. This approach involves a broad, purposeful, and systematic method to maximize discovery. The goal is to gain a better understanding of an understudied social phenomenon. In this case, the discovery includes coaches’ perceptions of systemic vulnerabilities, triggers, and escalating dynamics in performance crises.

Since the cyclical framework of Jekauc et al. [6] served as the theoretical foundation for this study, the data analysis followed an abductive approach, which integrates both inductive and deductive reasoning. Rooted in the pragmatist philosophy of Peirce [24], abduction balances openness to empirical data and theory, allowing iterative refinement of theories based on observations. This approach is especially useful when findings challenge existing assumptions (for an example see S2 File), supporting theory development and/or refinement through a dynamic, reflective process [25,26].

Sampling and participants

Prior to data collection, ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. Coaches were contacted via email or telephone and invited to volunteer for this study. A combination of convenience, purposive, and snowball sampling was employed to access a hard-to-reach population of professional soccer coaches with limited availability. The first two coaches were recruited based on availability (convenience sampling), while the remaining ten were selected using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Snowball sampling was initiated at the end of each interview, where participants were asked whether they could refer to other coaches who might meet the study’s inclusion criteria. If referrals were provided, these individuals were first screened to ensure they met the following criteria: (a) they must have experienced a performance crisis during their coaching career, and (b) they must be considered professional coaches, as these coaches’ expertise and specialized knowledge enabled information-rich data [27]. To ensure that participants had indeed experienced a performance crisis, the lead author reviewed each coach’s career history prior to the interview (e.g., media reports, match records) and explicitly inquired about crisis experiences during the interview. Coaches were classified as professional if they had coached a team within one of Germany’s top three soccer divisions, coached a national team, or held the UEFA Pro License, each indicating a high level of professional qualification. While all other coaches clearly met the professional criteria by coaching in one of Germany’s top three divisions, one coach required further consideration, as he coached a team in the fifth division. However, despite coaching in the fifth division, the coach was leading a historically successful club with high public expectations and media attention. He had navigated the team through a period of intense performance pressure and internal instability, providing him with relevant experience comparable to that of coaches in higher divisions. Importantly, the lead author did not have any personal connections with these coaches.

This procedure allowed for the identification of twelve relevant participants while maintaining the study’s focus on professional-level performance crises. All participants were male coaches from German professional men’s soccer leagues. Their ages ranged from 32 to 51 years (M = 42.92, SD = 5.87), and their coaching experience ranged from 7 to 23 years (M = 15.5, SD = 5.2). The sample comprised various coaching roles, including eight head coaches, two assistant coaches and two goalkeeper coaches. Additionally, the sample included coaches with various qualifications: nine UEFA Pro Licenses, one UEFA A License, one UEFA Goalkeeping A License, and one coach without an UEFA License. Recruitment was concluded after twelve interviews, which provided sufficient depth and richness of data to address the research questions.

Data collection

The interviews were conducted from 11/28/2022 until 03/16/2023. The duration of the interviews ranged from 39 to 97 minutes (M = 68.92; SD = 18.49). The interviews were carried out in German and the quotes were translated into English for the presentation of the results. At the beginning of each interview, participants were informed about the general purpose of the study. Coaches were assured that the data would be treated confidentially and anonymously. Furthermore, they were informed that participation was voluntary and that withdrawal was possible at any point during the interview. All participants had previously given their written consent to participate as well as agreed to the audiotaping of the interview. After this initial briefing, semi-structured interviews were conducted. This format was chosen because it offers a balance between comparability across participants and openness to new insights. Due to geographic distance, online interviews were conducted with eleven coaches via video call, while one interview took place in person.

Data analysis

All interviews were audio recorded and manually transcribed verbatim by the first author using the software f4 (dr. dresing & pehl GmbH, Marburg), resulting in 190 pages of single-spaced text. The data were analyzed using a data-driven and concept-driven content analysis based on thematic qualitative text analysis by Kuckartz [29], guided by the cyclical framework of performance crisis [6]. All coding was conducted using f4, which facilitated code management. A detailed description of the analysis process, based on the five-phase model proposed by Kuckartz [29], is provided in the supporting information (S4 File).

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness was ensured in accordance with the guidelines proposed by Elo et al. [30]. Particular attention was given to enhancing the credibility of each phase of the qualitative content analysis, including preparation, organization, and reporting of results.

In the preparation phase, several measures were taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the study. First, semi-structured interviews were selected as the preferred method of data collection, as the study pursued both data-driven and concept-driven aims. Second, the development of interview questions involved a “critical reference group” [31], meaning that the questions were co-constructed with individuals for whom the research is intended to be meaningful and beneficial. Given that performance crises affect multiple stakeholders, the interview guide was developed in collaboration with researchers specializing in sport psychology and practicing sport psychologists, and subsequently refined through feedback from one active player and coach. As Elo et al. emphasize, involving a critical reference group can help ensure that researchers are “asking the right questions in the right way” [30 p4]. Finally, since coaches are central to the theoretical framework proposed by Jekauc et al. [6], purposive sampling was employed to recruit participants with the most relevant expertise. A diverse sample of coaches was selected to capture a range of perspectives on the phenomenon of performance crises, thereby enhancing the credibility and richness of the data.

Trustworthiness in the organization phase mainly focused on consensual coding [32]. In alignment with our ontological relativism and constructivist epistemology, intercoder reliability was achieved through consensus coding [32], which acknowledges the inseparability of the coding process from researchers’ subjectivities [33]. Accordingly, CR and a research assistant engaged in frequent critical dialogues and weekly meetings to reflexively discuss, examine, and resolve coding discrepancies until a shared understanding was achieved. This collaborative process was further supported by DJ, who acted as a “critical friend” [33], challenging assumptions and encouraging reflexivity by questioning interpretations and prompting deeper analytical engagement. Furthermore, concept mapping [34] was conducted using freehand drawings on paper during in-person interviews and shared screens with drawing tools during online interviews. These maps were included in the coding dataset as visual presentations of the structure of various concepts and patterns, having been scanned or saved beforehand.

In the reporting phase, the study aimed to achieve resonance, defined as the capacity of research to meaningfully echo with its audience [35]. Rather than relying on formal generalizations, qualitative research seeks resonance through transferability [36] or naturalistic generalization [37], both of which are determined by the reader. Resonance is achieved when the research provides a vicarious experience, and the story of the research overlaps with the reader’s own situation [35]. In this sense, the reader is encouraged to judge whether the results are transferable to other contexts and resonate with the reader.

General overview

Performance crises in professional soccer do not arise from isolated factors, but from the interplay of pre-crisis vulnerabilities, acute triggers and escalating dynamics at individual, team, organizational and external levels (Fig 1). Rather than unfolding in a linear sequence, these components interact continuously. Pre-crisis vulnerabilities increase susceptibility to disruption, acute triggers catalyze instability, and mutually reinforcing escalation processes perpetuate dysfunction. Coaches’ accounts reveal that this network of interacting influences, shaped by dynamic relationships among psychological, social and structural dimensions, drives both the emergence and persistence of a crisis. The following sections will describe these three core components in detail, exploring how performance crises develop, escalate, and persist in professional soccer.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. General overview of the findings: Vulnerabilities, triggers, and escalating dynamics in professional soccer.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343985.g001

Definition of performance crisis

Following the statements of the coaches, six main categories could be identified using a category-based analysis that ultimately led to a definition of performance crisis in soccer, which states:

A performance crisis in professional soccer is a prolonged state in which both results and performance fall significantly short of expectations, characterized by a loss of control on an individual level, dysfunctional team dynamics, and destabilizing external conditions.

A performance crisis in professional soccer was described as “when you fall short of general expectations over a longer period” (Coach 11). It is not solely characterized by objective failures such as defeats or poor league standings, but rather emerges from the interplay of multiple factors at the individual, team, organizational, and external levels. At the individual level, a crisis often manifests as psychological strain, self-doubt, a sense of overload, or loss of control as expressed by Coach 4: “You don’t have the solution at hand in the moment [of crisis]. In the worst case, you start trying lots of things and don’t get anywhere, which reinforces that feeling of being helpless”. At the team level, dysfunctional processes may arise, including disrupted communication, lack of collaboration, internal conflicts, or a decline in team cohesion: “In crisis situations, you always face the problem that your team is no longer a unit” (Coach 9). Furthermore, the crisis is intensified by external pressure, such as media scrutiny, fan expectations, or demands from club leadership, all of which shape and reinforce the perception of crisis as expressed by Coach 10: “And in soccer, it’s usually the case that external factors start to carry more weight. That means people from outside begin to exert strong influence when things aren’t working”.

Pre-crisis vulnerabilities

Pre-crisis vulnerabilities describe underlying vulnerabilities that increase the likelihood for a crisis to emerge: “[Pre-crisis vulnerabilities are] factors that lead to continued defeats”. Players operate within a high-pressure environment in which influences from external sources (e.g., media, fans), club-internal structures (e.g., leadership dynamics), and team-internal processes (e.g., cohesion, role clarity) converge. These vulnerabilities often operate subtly and may not immediately impair performance. Coach 5 described these vulnerabilities as “micro-crises”, noting:

For me, these would be what I’d call micro-crises, because they’re very small factors that may not last very long but still create stress for a team. And in the worst case, they might even influence results, maybe just for one, two, or three matches, but I definitely believe they have an impact on the atmosphere within a club and its team.

However, when they converge or intensify, especially under pressure, they can significantly disrupt team dynamics and undermine the ability to respond effectively to challenges:

But when those little things start piling up, like, more and more players begin to question stuff, some feel hurt, some lose trust. (…) That’s when it starts to snowball. And if it gets too much, too intense, that’s when things really break apart. (Coach 2)

Crucially, these vulnerabilities also reduce a team’s probability of success in the short term, thereby increasing the likelihood of disappointing results. Therefore, these vulnerabilities have the potential to significantly influence the interpretation of both success and failure and play therefore a defining role in shaping expectations of upcoming matches. The following sections will go into more detail about pre-crisis vulnerabilities at the different levels.

From pre-crisis vulnerabilities to crisis dynamics

Success often acts as a temporary stabilizer that masks pre-crisis vulnerabilities. According to Coach 7: “When you win, there’s no crisis, everyone just bites the bullet”, suggesting that winning can suppress emerging conflicts or dissatisfaction. When performance declines, previously hidden tensions within the organization can quickly surface. Coaches described how the absence of success acts as a catalyst for criticism and conflict across all levels: “When the results aren’t there, people around you suddenly find plenty to criticize” (Coach 10). Similarly, Coach 7 emphasized the accumulating pressure beneath the surface: “When there is no sporting success, even if it doesn’t show on the outside, there is always potential for conflict (...) That’s why the potential for conflict is extremely high when you lose.” These reflections illustrate that while success may temporarily mask existing differences, it does not resolve them. A central reason why these tensions intensify in times of declining performance lies in the gap between expectations and actual results. This mismatch between expected and actual outcomes not only fuels conflict but also marks a critical turning point in the development of a performance crisis.

Crisis trigger

Crisis triggers refer to acute events or developments that catalyze the development of a performance crisis: “There’s a trigger, and that sets off a whole chain of other things” (Coach 10). These triggers often take the form of negative match outcomes, unmet performance expectations, or critical incidents that expose and activate underlying tensions. From the coaches’ perspective, such events are rarely isolated but acquire significance through accumulated pressure from various stakeholders. As Coach 7 noted: „Yes, that was on a certain match day when we lost. It was in [name of the club]. And then, wow, so many things happened, so many incidents. We lost the game, and at that moment, I knew we were in a crisis”. In this sense, crisis triggers function as psychological and organizational turning points: they intensify scrutiny, shift internal dynamics, and mark the moment at which pre-crisis vulnerabilities manifest into visible instability.

Escalating dynamics

While pre-crisis vulnerabilities represent latent weaknesses that increase the susceptibility to crisis, escalating dynamics capture the processes of intensification and maintenance. Once initial stressors or performance drops activate these underlying vulnerabilities, they can set in motion self-reinforcing processes across different levels (e.g., external, club-internal and team-internal). The escalating nature of these dynamics is reflected in Coach 10’s description, showing how initial negative results can trigger a chain of interpersonal and organizational disruptions: “At first, only the match outcomes were negative, but later, disagreements emerged between the people, leading to mood issues, discrepancies in content, and differences of opinion”. These dynamics illustrate how crisis development is rarely linear: interactions between external influences, club structures, team processes occur in overlapping waves that amplify instability and complicate recovery. The following section provides a detailed overview of the three levels at which these escalating dynamics unfold.

Pre-crisis vulnerabilities

Drawing on ecological systems theory by Bronfenbrenner [9], the identified pre-crisis vulnerabilities operate across multiple levels that shape team functioning. Teams are inevitably embedded in a complex system in which individual-level variables are nested within team contexts, which in turn are shaped by broader organizational and external environments [38]. Coaches in the current study illuminate how these systemic pre-crisis vulnerabilities could set the stage for destabilization before any trigger unfolds the crisis. This perspective of vulnerabilities being prevalent before the development of a performance crisis builds upon and nuances earlier phase-based models such as the collective team collapse framework [21], the multidimensional momentum model [39], and the performance crisis model in team sports [5], all of which highlight factors that increase susceptibility to negative outcomes.

In line with the terminology by ecological systems theory [9], external vulnerabilities such as public expectations represent exosystem influences that indirectly affect team dynamics, while club-internal factors like organizational incongruence reflect mesosystem disruptions. Team-internal vulnerabilities operate at the microsystem level, involving direct interpersonal interactions among players, coaches, and staff. This ecological framework demonstrates how performance crises emerge not from isolated incidents but from the dynamic interplay between nested environmental systems that either support or undermine optimal team functioning [40]. For example, public expectations and extreme criticism can accelerate the crisis development process by injecting external narratives that increase uncertainty and pressure [41,42]. Furthermore, club-internal vulnerabilities, such as organizational incongruence and power struggles can diminish the team’s strategic clarity and psychological safety [43]. Consequently, these pre-crisis vulnerabilities can create a fragile environment that increases team’s susceptibility to destabilization, which could increase psychological strain among members, and ultimately impairs on-field performance [41,44].

Our findings identify coaches as a significant pre-crisis vulnerability, explicitly addressing an aspect not covered in the framework by Jekauc et al. [6]. Unlike their model, our findings highlight the critical function of pre-crisis vulnerabilities across external-, club-internal, and team-internal levels and underscores how coaches’ ambivalence and difficulty in acknowledging their influence can contribute to team susceptibility to crises. Notably, this dynamic often results in problem-solving being delegated to the same actors (e.g., coaches) who contributed to the vulnerabilities, perpetuating ineffective interventions and vicious cycles that impose psychological strain on fans alongside tangible/intangible losses for stakeholders like employees, sponsors, and partners. This expands the understanding of crisis development by incorporating latent factors that set the stage for acute triggers, thereby refining and enriching the cyclical framework of performance crises in professional soccer.

Crisis trigger

Crisis triggers often act through the underlying mechanism of expectations, which shape how acute events are perceived and interpreted within the team and organization. According to self-regulation theory [45], expectations serve as a reference point that determines whether negative outcomes are viewed as simply poor results (e.g., a results crisis) or as a performance crisis reflecting deeper issues within the team. As coaches described, when expectations are high or unrealistic, even minor failures can significantly intensify frustration and scrutiny, accelerating the transition from pre-crisis vulnerabilities to a crisis. This finding is consistent with the study of Szymanski and Weimar [4], who found that deviations from the expected performance are the crucial driver for insolvency in professional soccer. In this sense, the interplay between expectations and pre-crisis vulnerabilities creates a complex dynamic. Pre-crisis vulnerabilities such as extreme criticism, organizational incongruence, or role-related ambiguities can increase susceptibility to disruption, while unmet or unrealistic expectations can amplify the psychological consequences of triggers. This amplification could exacerbate emotional responses like frustration and anxiety, fueling adverse group dynamics and accelerating crisis progression [6]. Thus, expectations seem to act as a critical psychological mechanism that links acute triggers with pre-crisis vulnerabilities, shaping the trajectory and intensity of performance crises.

Escalating dynamics

While Jekauc et al. [6] provided detailed insights into team-internal processes during performance crises, the coaching perspective in this study enriches the existing framework by providing a deeper understanding of how organizational factors interact with psychological and team-level processes, and by highlighting the critical role of organizational dynamics. This aligns with Jones [46], who argued in his reflections on excellence in sport and business, organizational issues may exert the greatest impact on performance. The club-internal dynamics described by coaches can be explained by the lens of sensemaking theory [11]. For example, organizational incongruence, diffuse responsibilities, or erosion of leadership trust identified in this study represent specific resilience deficits that amplify rather than buffer against performance-related stressors. These club-internal factors reflect a collapse of collective meaning-making processes [11]. When organizations fail to develop shared interpretations of critical situations, the resulting uncertainty can create fertile ground for crisis escalation. For example, coaches described how leadership behaviors, such as top-down transmission of pressure or the intrusive engagement in the coaching process, can reinforce the conditions it seeks to resolve. In this sense, organizational actors actively shape the performance crisis through their responses [47], creating fertile ground for systemic patterns of reactive decision-making.

From an ecological standpoint, this reactive decision-making is comprehensible, as scapegoating the coach is economically less costly and strategically more secure than confronting the squad. Players are reflected as intangible assets on balance sheets [48], drive broadcasting revenues through media value [49], and significantly enhance enterprise value [50], while coaches of higher-budget teams face elevated dismissal risks due to inefficient cost-per-point performance, reflecting their expendability relative to squad investments [51]. Especially “when the narrative demands a solution and the media chase in herds; when coaches become victim of the ‘media-hunt’” [52 p169], scapegoating avoids terminating high-value player contracts, potential legal disputes, and controversy with fans/media emotionally attached to players over staff. This aligns with organizational theory where scapegoating thrives amid attributional ambiguity, enabling blame-shifting to individuals while avoiding costly squad restructuring [53]. These reactive interventions, exemplify the systemic pattern of ‘fixes that fail’ [54]. Coaches reported experiencing rapid leadership changes, such as the erosion of coaching authority and intrusive engagement in the coaching process. These changes were an attempt to provide temporary relief by helping the coach but created deeper structural problems. These findings provide empirical support for ‘fixes that fail’ that short-term solutions often neglect underlying causes, thereby perpetuating the dynamic club leaderships intend to solve [55].

As mentioned by Jekauc et al. [6], coaches play a key role in managing pressure and mediating team psychological processes during crises. This view is also supported by coaches, who consider them to be important pressure buffers. Coaches see themselves as mediators between external expectations and internal team dynamics, absorbing and regulating pressures to protect team cohesion and performance capacity. This dual function of the coach illustrates the complex and dynamic influence coaches exert during escalating crisis phases, aligning with the framework of Jekauc et al. [6].

Implications

Building on organizational stress research in sport [56,57], enhancing organizational resilience should be a strategic priority for professional soccer clubs. Coaches described how club-internal processes, such as organizational incongruence, and institutional mistrust contributed to crisis escalation. These findings reflect key resilient organizational features described by Fasey et al. [43]: structural clarity, flexible improvement, shared understanding, reciprocal commitment, and operational awareness. Thus, systematically identifying and diagnosing pre-crisis vulnerabilities at all levels is a crucial first step. In the interconnected sports ecosystem, crises affecting professional soccer clubs can strongly impact surrounding stakeholders, including fans, employees, and sponsors, thereby amplifying their consequences. This interdependence highlights the importance of shared responsibility in strengthening collective resilience and preventing cascading failures [4]. Organizations could adopt tripartite stress management approach as described by Fletcher and Arnold [44]: primary interventions to optimize the organizational environment, secondary interventions to support individual stress responses, and tertiary interventions to minimize stress consequences. Implementing ecological, system-wide interventions [58] targeting multiple organizational layers simultaneously could strengthen resilience through cultural change rather than individualized coping strategies.

Communication mediates the positive effect on athletic performance and serves as a key regulator of team performance within teamwork processes, thereby predicting team success in complex environments like professional sports [38,59]. However, divergent perspectives during performance crises can lead to organizational incongruence and institutional mistrust. Since crises are socially constructed through interpretive interactions [60], all parties should share similar situational understanding for effective resolution. Fostering constructive communication channels and cultivating mutual trust emerge as key levers for mitigating crisis escalation and enhancing multi-level resilience.

A key insight from this study is that performance crises are often triggered by unmet expectations rather than poor performance alone. Coaches emphasized that the gap between expected and actual outcomes initiates the escalating dynamics, highlighting the need for proactive expectation management. In this sense, goal setting is closely linked to managing expectations, as goals serve as reference points shaping athletes’ motivation and self-regulation [61]. Healy et al. [62] emphasize collaboratively setting realistic, specific goals aligned with athletes’ capabilities, implying the need for shared understanding between athletes and coaches. Extending this, this study suggests that clubs should systematically reflect on and align expectations across leadership, coaching staff, and players to ensure goals are realistic, transparent, and grounded in accurate assessments, thereby reducing pressure from mismatched expectations.

Strengths and limitations

This study offers several methodological and conceptual strengths. First, it provides an innovative perspective by examining performance crises through the lens of professional coaches, who possess unique insights into the multi-level dynamics affecting team performance. Second, the sample of experienced professional soccer coaches from various competitive levels provided rich, contextually grounded insights that enhance the credibility and depth of findings. Third, the bounded focus on male German professional soccer coaches intentionally illuminates context-specific norms and structures, prioritizing qualitative transferability over statistical generalizability to other cultures [37]. Fourth, the structured qualitative approach, following a data-driven and concept-driven content analysis based on thematic qualitative text analysis, ensured comprehensive exploration of complex crisis phenomena.

However, there are limitations that should be considered. First, each coach has a different perception and perspective on a performance crisis. The proposed framework integrates diverse perceptions to reach common consensus but should be understood as one possible perspective shaped by specific contexts and subjective experiences rather than a definitive representation. Second, because performance crises are a highly sensitive topic that affects coaches, it is possible that despite rapport-building, coaches might not have been fully transparent in their responses.

Future research

Based on this study, several directions for future research could be of interest. Firstly, this study should be seen as complementary to that of Jekauc et al. [6]. Complementing the research of the crisis from the players’ perspective, new insights were obtained from the coaches’ perspective. However, to draw a more comprehensive picture of a performance crisis, it would be fruitful to incorporate the perspectives of sport psychologists, fans, or club officials. Second, this study generates numerous testable hypotheses that warrant quantitative investigation through targeted research designs. Fruitful areas for investigation could include a longitudinal study tracking of professional soccer teams to identify predictive risk factors; an intervention study evaluating the effect of organizational resilience training on crisis frequency and recovery; and a multi-level analysis testing the relationships between expectation-performance discrepancies, escalating dynamics and crisis persistence across different stakeholders. Such designs could reveal mechanisms of sensemaking and escalation in real-time, advancing theory and informing interventions. Lastly, for a deeper understanding of the performance crisis and how it differs in various contexts, it would be useful to conduct similar studies in other types of sports as well as in women’s professional soccer and other national soccer cultures, where differing norms around leadership, fan expectations, and organizational structures may shape distinct crisis dynamics [63].