University of Southern Denmark, Campus Odense July 2015

Department of Marketing and Management

MOTIVATION IN GRASSROOTS YOUTH FOOTBALL

MASTER THESIS

Written by: Supervisor:

Allan Bisgaard 280888-XXXX Kim Skjoldborg

Alexander Geertsen 300587-XXXX Characters: 276,179

MSc in Communication Management and Leadership Pages: 115.1

SUMMARY

The purpose of the dissertation was examine to what extent current motivation of grassroots U13-U19 football
players in Copenhagen is influenced by age and level of competition. The findings are to be used for strategic decision
making at DBU Copenhagen as little academic attention has been given to the field of grassroots youth football in a
historical perspective of which non examines the influence age and level of competition has on motivation. The
analysis of age and level of competition in relation to motivation was segregated meaning that two parallel
investigations took place.

The answer to the research question was sought through a primarily quantitative questionnaire with both closed and
open questions. A total of 1130 players from the eight handpicked clubs spread across Copenhagen participated in
survey. The extent to what motivation was influenced by age was examined by comparing the motivation of U13, U14,
U15, U16, U17 and U19 players just as low level, mid level and top level players were for level of competition.

The theoretical foundation was built on Frederic Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory. The theory is based on the
assumption that motivation is a twofold concept where job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are obtained through
motivation and hygiene factors respectively. The statistical tool ANOVA Single factor was used to compare the means
of the different age groups and levels respectively in order to determine significant differences in the responses.

The analysis revealed that motivation is influenced by both age and level of competition. Significant differences were
found in the responses for U13-U19 players on most accounts and only for level of competition on approximately
every second account. Thus age was found to have a greater impact on motivation than level of completion. In general
younger players performed better than older players in terms of both motivation and hygiene factors. The most
drastic drop in motivation was found between U15 and U16 implying a problematic transaction from U15 to U16.
Younger players, i.e. U13-U15, had higher motivation and fewer complaints than older players, i.e. U16-U19. Only
limited differences were found in responses from the different levels. All three levels were some way off the ideal
scenario with highly motivated players and with only a few complaints even though the results were mainly positive.

A number of potential focus areas were developed to minimize job dissatisfaction and improve job satisfaction but
most importantly it was found that coaches must acknowledge that there is simply no ideal approach to managing a
team as motivation is influenced by both age and level of competition.

The findings are limited by the fact that the dissertation primarily makes use of quantitative data to examine to what
extent current motivation is influenced by age and level of competition. The underlying reasons for the detected
patterns remain unexplored meaning that further qualitative research within single elements of the dissertation is
recommended.

2
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Research questions ............................................................................................................................................. 8
3 Literature review ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Motivation .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Maslow.............................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.3 Herzberg ........................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.1 Duality of Man ............................................................................................................................................ 11
3.3.2 Motivation-Hygiene Theory ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.4 Hackmann & Oldham ........................................................................................................................................ 19
3.4.1 Job characteristics model............................................................................................................................ 20
3.5 Latham & Locke ................................................................................................................................................ 24
3.5.1 Goal-setting theory ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.6 Choice of theory ................................................................................................................................................ 27
4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................ 28
4.1 Research philosophy ......................................................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Research approach ........................................................................................................................................... 30
4.3 Research design ................................................................................................................................................ 31
4.4 Data collection .................................................................................................................................................. 35
4.4.1 Questionnaire design .................................................................................................................................. 35
5 Analysis of data ......................................................................................................................................................... 46
5.1 Question 1: I feel motivated to play football .................................................................................................... 46
5.2 Question 2: I play football to become a better football player ........................................................................ 47
5.3 Question 3: I play football to be with friends ................................................................................................... 48
5.4 Question 4: I play football to win matches ....................................................................................................... 50
5.5 Question 5: I play football to stay fit ................................................................................................................ 51
5.6 Question 6: I play football to become professional .......................................................................................... 52
5.7 Question 7: I feel good at my club .................................................................................................................... 53
5.8 Question 8: I am pleased with the club’s facilities ............................................................................................ 55
5.9 Question 9: I shower after training and matches ............................................................................................. 56
5.10 Question 10: I would recommend a friend to join my club .............................................................................. 57
5.11 Question 11: I have considered changing club within the last month .............................................................. 58
5.12 Question 11a: Why have you considered changing club .................................................................................. 60
5.13 Question 12: I have considered quitting football within the last month .......................................................... 61
5.14 Question 12a: Why have you considered quitting football .............................................................................. 62
5.15 Question 13: I feel like part of the team ........................................................................................................... 63
5.16 Question 14: I have become a better football player during the last year ....................................................... 64

3
 5.17 Question 15: I feel pressured by the expectations from my coach and teammates ........................................ 66
5.18 Question 16: I forget everything about everyday challenges when I play football .......................................... 67
5.19 Question 17: I get along well with my coach .................................................................................................... 69
5.20 Question 18: My coach encourages me to become a better football player ................................................... 70
5.21 Question 19: I have received recognition or praise from my coach within the last week................................ 71
5.22 Question 20: My coach cares about me as a person ........................................................................................ 72
5.23 Question 21: I am pleased with the number of social activities that my club offers........................................ 74
5.24 Question 22: My teammates encourage me to become a better football player ............................................ 75
5.25 Question 23: I have received recognition or praise from my teammates within the last week ....................... 77
5.26 Question 24: My teammates are always giving their best................................................................................ 78
5.27 Question 25: I have a best friend on the team ................................................................................................. 79
5.28 Question 26: I spend too much time on transportation when travelling to away games ................................ 81
5.29 Question 27: It is important for me to play in a tournament where I can both win and lose .......................... 82
5.30 Question 28: It is important for me to play in a tournament with potential promotion and relegation ......... 84
5.31 Question 29: Which match days are right for you? .......................................................................................... 85
5.32 Question 30: Additional comments .................................................................................................................. 86
6 Discussion based on Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory .................................................................................. 88
6.1 Hygiene factors ................................................................................................................................................. 88
6.1.1 Company policy and administration ........................................................................................................... 88
6.1.2 Supervision.................................................................................................................................................. 90
6.1.3 Interpersonal relations ............................................................................................................................... 92
6.1.4 Working conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 94
6.1.5 Salary........................................................................................................................................................... 96
6.1.6 Status .......................................................................................................................................................... 96
6.1.7 Job security ................................................................................................................................................. 97
6.1.8 Personal life ................................................................................................................................................ 99
6.2 Motivating factors........................................................................................................................................... 101
6.2.1 Recognition ............................................................................................................................................... 101
6.2.2 The job itself ............................................................................................................................................. 103
6.2.3 Level of responsibility ............................................................................................................................... 105
6.2.4 Career advancements ............................................................................................................................... 106
6.2.5 Growth possibilities .................................................................................................................................. 106
6.3 Sum of up Herzberg ........................................................................................................................................ 108
7 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 111
8 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 112
9 Limitations and future research ............................................................................................................................. 113
10 List of references ................................................................................................................................................ 115
11 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................. 118

4
2 INTRODUCTION

This dissertation investigates the impact that age and level of competition has on motivation in youth football for
grassroots, i.e. the technical term for non-elite, youth football players in Copenhagen. The report is made in
cooperation with Dansk Boldspil Union Copenhagen, later addressed as DBU Copenhagen, for the reasons mentioned
below.

- DBU Copenhagen is in need of research on motivational drivers for strategic decision making
- Prior research has given little attention towards grassroots youth football
- Prior research within the field of motivation does not take age and level of competition into consideration

Strategic discussions about player motivation and player retention for U13, U14, U15, U16, U17 and U19 are currently
taking place at DBU Copenhagen. Unfortunately, not all argumentations are based on concrete findings as the amount
of research within this field is limited. Little attention has been given to grassroots football compared to elite football
due to commercial interest. The development and well-being of highly talented players has been more appealing to
researchers as professional clubs and football federations invest billions in optimising their youth development setup.
Today it is not unusually that professional clubs have e.g. football coaches, goalkeeping coaches, physical coaches,
mental coaches, performance analysts and scouts assigned specifically to their youth departments whereas grassroots
clubs barely can find enough funds to manage the daily operations with only a few voluntary football coaches.

The majority of the research already conducted within the field of motivation in grassroots youth football and youth
sports in general does not take age and level of competition into consideration. This has created a gap within the field
of academic research. DBU Copenhagen and the authors would therefore like to examine if players of different ages
have different opinions about motivation. From U13 to U19 a player is going through puberty and develops his
identity, starts high school, starts working, finds new leisure activities and begins dating. Such changes are likely to
affect motivation. Research about motivation is particular interesting in the teenage years as statistics shows that it is
during this age span that the drop out of football starts kicking in (Laub, 2013, p. 28 & 70) (Østergaard, 2007, p. 20).
DBU Copenhagen and the authors would also like to examine if players in the grassroots top divisions and players in
the lower leagues have different opinions about motivation as well. The dream of becoming a professional football
player, the level of dedication and the pressure of expectations from coach and teammates are some of the issues
that are likely to differ across different levels of competition.

It has been important for DBU Copenhagen to undertake this study sooner than later as declining birth rates and
toughened competition with new emerging sport and leisure activities provide threats to their membership in the
years to come. Membership statistics for DBU on a national level indicates that approximately 67% of all members are
below 19 years (Dansk Boldspil Union, 2015). It can therefore be assumed that major variations in the birth rate are
likely to influence the membership base within a relatively short time frame. The graph below illustrates the
population in Denmark based on age for both men and women who are 50 years or younger. As it can be seen the

5
birth rate has dropped significantly over the last six years. Today the birth rate is at its lowest point in more than fifty
years and approximately 10.000 fewer are born today compared to the number just six years ago.

Population in Demark based on age as of 2015

50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Men Women

(Danmarks Statistik, 2014)

The graph below illustrates the scope of the birth rate issue in relation to the target market for male U13-U19. More
specifically the graph shows the projected number of living males in Denmark as of October 2014 in the age of 12-18
years – i.e. the potential U13-U19 target group for DBU (Danmarks Statistik, 2014). It should be kept in mind that the
graph is based on actual births and not predicted birth rates. The graph reveals a significant drop in the potential
target market for U13-U19 which will eventually become a problem for DBU in the future. The target market for U13-
U19 will decrease from around 240.000 to 220.000 during the next ten years which equals a decline of approximately
8%.

Males living in Denmark in the age 12-18 years based on years

270000

260000

250000

240000

230000

220000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026

(Danmarks Statistik, 2014)

The toughened competition with new emerging sport and leisure activities represent another obstacle for DBU
Copenhagen. Fitness is probably the best example of a new emerging trend that has changed the competitive
landscape within sporting activities. In January 2014 it was estimated that up to 750.000 people in Denmark had a

6
membership card to a fitness centre (Røndbjerg-Christensen, 2014). A survey by Idrættens Analyseinstitut shows that
1
fitness/weightlifting has gained ground in the Danish population whereas football is still struggling to maintain the
members once they get older than 15 years (Laub, 2013, p. 28 & 70). The graph below shows popularity in per cent for
both football and fitness for different age groups.

Popularity of football and fitness in percent for different age groups

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
7-9 10-12 13-15 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+

Fitness Football

(Laub, 2013, p. 28 & 70)

Sports analyst Kasper Kirkegaard claims that "We see a drastic drop-out of teenagers in the traditional sports
associations as swimming clubs and football clubs. The clubs are focusing on the talented players and that means
thousands of teenagers who are not great talents must find other ways to do sports. Some of them join a fitness
2
centre.” (Vesterberg, 2014). The traditional sports associations are, according to Kirkegaard, indirectly contributing to
the success of fitness. DBU Copenhagen acknowledges that grassroots football often is given a lower priority than elite
football. As a result this report takes the grassroots youth players into consideration. The emphasis on to what extent
age and the level of competition impacts motivation will help examine both variations in motivation for different age
groups and variations in motivation for players competing on different levels.

1
The term weightlifting and not fitness is used in the report by Idrættens Analyseinstitut. The percentages might
therefore be inaccurate as fitness centres offers more than just traditional weightlifting.
2
Translated from Danish: “Vi ser også et drastisk teenagefrafald i det traditionelle foreningsliv som svømmeklubber og
fodboldklubber. Klubberne satser på de dygtige, og det betyder, at tusindvis af teenagere, som ikke er store talenter,
må finde andre måder at dyrke idræt på. Nogle af dem går til fitnesscentrene.”

7
2.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This report seeks to describe the current level of motivation for U13-U19 grassroots players in Copenhagen while
examining the impact of age and level of competition in relation to motivation. The analysis of age and level of
competition in relation to motivation is segregated meaning that two parallel studies take place at the same time. For
age the following six segments will be compared U13, U14, U15, U16, U17 and U19 whereas the segments for level of
competition are low level, mid level and top level. The overall objective for this report is to provide new insights that
can boost motivation and ultimately improve retention in grassroots youth football in the area of Copenhagen. Ideally,
DBU Copenhagen can make use of such findings on a more practical level by optimising the DBU education for coaches
and leaders; providing DBU Copenhagen’s club consultants with new knowledge and for optimising the tournament
structure to suit the actual needs of the players. With this in mind the following research question have been
constructed:

To what extent is current motivation of U13-U19 grassroots football players in Copenhagen influenced by age and level
of competition?

3 LITERATURE REVIEW

As the concern arose about player retention in Danish youth football and that numbers were dropping when players
reach 15-16 years of age, it was argued by DBU Copenhagen in correlation with the authors to determine the cause
for this decrease as well as highlight the mental state of youth players around that age group. Suggestions are made
that motivation drops as a result of the given level one plays at, just like age becomes an important factor as other
activities start to be preferred when players get older. Satisfaction levels accordingly may vary due to facilities at the
club as well at the general society that exist on the given team. In order to clarify these concerns it was suggested to
perform at satisfaction survey within the age groups of U13 – U19 in order to gain an inside in the thoughts and
motivators of youth football players. Attempts were then made to incorporate those findings with theoretical
frameworks that would address issues regarding motivation and satisfaction. In order to understand those concepts
correctly, the authors came across the ideologies of Herzberg who has investigated which factors prevent
dissatisfaction and what drives motivation among workers and hence decided to investigate this topic further through
other theories that also drew resemblance to that of Herzberg. As all theories do not directly relate to the society of
youth football players they were still important in determining factors that influence behaviour patterns and were
therefore considered highly relevant for the study.

Accordingly, as it was described in previous chapters, the core of the progress will be centred on the theoretical
frameworks presented and discussed by Maslow, Herzberg, Hackman & Oldham and Latham & Locke. All theories
have certain elements that overlap and can be drawn out in order to emphasize the arguments being suggested by the

8
authors. This will found the basis for the henceforth suggestions regarding retention of soccer players as a
consequence of motivation and satisfaction matters.

3.1 MOTIVATION

Motivation is a concept that is included in many organization theories. Beardwell & Claydon define motivation as “(...)
a certain level of willingness on the part of the employee to increase their effort, to the extent that this exertion also
satisfies a predefined need or desire they hold” (Beardwell & Claydon, 2007, p. 491). In more specific terms they argue
that “(...) work motivation is often considered as a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond
an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behaviour and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration”
(Beardwell & Claydon, 2007, p. 491). Hereby it is acknowledged that both internal and external factors influence
motivational issues and even though an individual is of the appropriate mindset in terms of thriving for personal
growth, external factors might conflict in his or quest to achieve it. Thus motivation is seen as the willingness workers
hold to achieve results for the organization and search for personal development. It is also very individual and should
not be seen as a general restraint in company policies.

Alternatively, motivation could be seen as “the process that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and
persistence of effort toward attaining a goal” (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 202). Robbins & Judge explain that intensity
describes the amount an individual tries to obtain a goal. Direction is accordingly used to guide individuals towards an
overall aim and persistence dictates to what extent one is able to keep the level of motivation (Robbins & Judge, 2013,
p. 202). This take on motivation is more specific and centres on fewer elements, but within sport in general,
motivation can be viewed in a slightly different manner.

In youth football, motivation is primarily derived from the aim of being with one’s friends, playing a sport they love,
and becoming a better football player (Østergaard, 2007, p. 18). Søren Østergaard conducted a survey on retention
issues in youth football and argued that these were among the main issues for youngster to be motivated to attend
training and matches. Motivation as a term and point of reference is to some extent very vague and does not have a
consistent definition amongst researchers in the field of operation (Roberts & Treasure, 2012, p. 6). Instead of aiming
to define a concrete term for motivation, effort is made to analyze the process that individuals go through in their
quest for growth and drive. Hence, motivation should be seen as “(...) the process that influences the initiation,
direction, magnitude, perseverance, continuation, and quality of goal-directed behavior” (Roberts & Treasure, 2012,
p. 7). In order for sports clubs to retain their members it could accordingly be argued that being able to fulfil all of
these aspects and keep their players motivated will automatically benefit their loyalty. However, reality differs a bit
from this assumption, but by following these parameters it creates a better guideline and understanding in generating
motivation and hopefully retention amongst the members. Thus this report will focus on motivation and satisfaction

9
in youth football in the Copenhagen area. However, prior research is not age or level specific which enables this report
to cover a blank part in the field of research.

In order to evoke motivation in workers many theorists have come up with theories concerning this matter and some
of the most useful and efficient for this study are to be discussed later on. They will accordingly be held up against
industries with youth football players and adjusted in an appropriate manner that will encompass the different factors
that are present when dealing with that type of industry.

3.2 MASLOW

As a basis for discussing personal motivation and satisfaction it is necessary to reflect upon the measurements set up
by Maslow. The foundation for analyzing motivation and satisfaction is derived from the inclusion of a range of
elements that affect the fulfilment of needs in any individual; the basis function of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Nevertheless, it is to be acknowledged that even though the theory is in widely accepted and perceived as a
breakthrough in psycho-analysis, some precautions are to be taken when implementing theoretical approaches in
praxis.

It is argued that when dealing with drive forces it is theoretically unsound to portrait them in lists as “(…) the
probability of any one desire emerging into consciousness depends on the state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of
other prepotent desires” (Maslow, 1970, p. 25). By listing drive forces it would include an equality of potency which
for motivational purposes is untrue (Maslow, 1970, p. 25). It was then proposed that the basic needs were divided
into five categories; physiological, safety and security, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization in a pyramid
scheme where individuals would climb the latter whenever one had fulfilled a need. The physiological needs would
centre on the basic needs that humans require in order to survive. Hereby it should be noted that physical needs can
be partly covered, as it varies from individual to individual whether a hunger feeling is actually due to hunger, or in
some cases is caused by a psychological state of mind. Alternatively, hunger feelings can sometimes be minimized by
drinks or even cigarettes. Therefore, the physiological needs cannot be completely isolable even though they might
appear that way (Maslow, 1970, p. 36). Nevertheless, the physiological needs will unquestionably function as the most
dominant need in human behaviour. In that context Maslow argues that “a person who is lacking food, safety, love,
and esteem would most probably hunger for food more strongly than for anything else” (Maslow, 1970, p. 37). Safety
and security refers to individuals’ desire for a state of well-being. They appear as soon as the physiological needs have
been partially or completely covered. The safety level naturally has many forms and will differ when seen from
different perspectives. “The healthy and fortunate adult in our culture is largely satisfied in his safety needs. The
peaceful, smoothly running, stable, good society ordinarily makes its members feel safe enough from wild animals,
extremes of temperature, criminal assault, murder, chaos, tyranny, and so on. Therefore, in a very real sense, he no
longer has any safety needs as active motivators” (Maslow, 1970, p. 41). However, when dealing with individuals from

10
other types of societies, their view on well-being and safety will differentiate immensely. Security moreover not only
covers the present state of mind, but refers to a notion of lasting for the future (Skriver, Staunstrup, & Kærgård, 2007,
p. 101). After having covered these two elements, attention turns to a belongingness need. The individual will seek for
social belonging in a group or family and put all effort into achieving this goal (Maslow, 1970, p. 43). Individuals will
seek acceptance from others in another thrive for self-realization and for that to be achieved it entitles that one
develops means for adjusting and adapting to surroundings. Subsequently, intention turns to the esteem needs.
Generally speaking, people seek to have a high self-esteem as well as being appreciated by society (Maslow, 1970, pp.
45-46) (Skriver, Staunstrup, & Kærgård, 2007, p. 102). It is furthermore important to acknowledge that the most
fulfilling level of self-esteem is derived from deserved respect from society rather than the level that is enforces on
individual due to i.e. fame, status (Maslow, 1970, pp. 45-46). Self-imposed esteem developed through own
determination and drive accordingly creates a stronger transition to one’s self-actualization. This concludes the latter
of needs. The self-actualization need aims individuals to seek evolvement around one self, hereby pushing the comfort
level to a new degree in order to achieve complete self-fulfilment.

The works of Maslow have been widely recognized as it was found logical and easy to understand. Nonetheless, it was
later argued that “there is little evidence that need structures are organized as Maslow proposed, that unsatisfied
needs motivate, or that a satisfied need activates movement to a new need level” (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 204).
The concepts are therefore solely considered as inspiration for other theorists which will be used to analyse the topic
at hand.

3.3 HERZBERG

The described pyramid of needs developed by Maslow has been widely used as means for analyzing behavioural
patterns. Herzberg used Maslow’s theory to develop a refreshed take on motivational factors concerning humans’
work ethics. Herzberg acknowledges the beliefs of Maslow in the sense that “(…) the supreme goal of man is to fulfil
himself as a creative, unique individual according to his own innate potentialities and within the limits of reality”
(Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 56). Nevertheless, Herzberg was of the perception that this theory in itself does not concretize
and discuss criteria for psychological growth. He argues that “such a philosophy in itself, however, fails to define self-
actualization or psychological growth and fails to specify the factors relevant and necessary for research progress”
(Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 56). Therefore, in order to properly understand motivational factors it is necessary to realize the
core concepts that these are determined by.

3.3.1 DUALITY OF MAN

Early ways of thinking, as well as current beliefs, dictate that humans have two sets of needs, i.e. a basic need for
avoiding pain, hunger and other primary factors or in other words the basic drives to avoid deprivation (Herzberg(a),

11
1968, p. 70) and on the other side a set of factors that enforce humans’ quest for perfection (Herzberg(a), 1968, p.
70). Humans are by their nature determined to overcome issues as hunger and pain. The long lasting saying ‘survival
of the fittest’ is thus very coherent with the evolutionary process of human behavior. It is explained that “higher forms
of life emerge as a result of the evolutionary process of natural selection, and at the zenith of development of
adaptability stands the human being” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 46). Humans deal with basic survival and are then
determined to explore their satisfaction level to the outmost. If individuals are to succeed as a human they are
required to be challenged and to use their brain in the quest for personal growth. “The implication is that man
requires cortical stimulation (thinking) in order to stay awake beyond the time necessary to serve more than just his
animalistic needs” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 52).

The search for personal development, or as referred to by Herzberg as psychological growth, is key for understanding
motivation factors and human behaviour. The concern is raised that personal development is stagnated due to
decreased challenges at the work place. Humans are being asked to perform tasks that they can fulfil, but where no
learning curve is maintained. Therefore, the growing potential stagnates and the basic search for self-development
deteriorates. Herzberg subsequently argues that what is required is “(…) an understanding of normal personal growth
in work equal to the understanding of persons with emotional retardations” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 57). With this in
mind, six core concepts are proposed to accumulate the issue of personal growth, i.e. knowing more, seeing more
relationships in what we know, being creative, being effective in ambiguous situations, maintaining individuality in the
face of the pressures of the group and attaining real psychological growth (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 70).

It is argued that first and foremost it is important to establish “(...) whether there is a difference today from yesterday
in what one knows” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 59). All work experiences are formed from what is familiar and what is
unfamiliar. Hence, some tasks can be figured out based on the information that already exists and where humans do
not acquire new knowledge and on the other hand some assignments demand search for new facts and solutions.
During the latter process lies the potential for psychological growth (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 59). Secondly, the search
for more relationships in knowledge is discussed. “It is possible to acquire isolated bits of information, but a growing
individual tries to place new information in context by relating it to other information” (Herzberg, 1968(a), p. 60). Even
though two individuals might by on the same page in terms of the first psychological growth issue, they might differ in
their perception and way of relating the newly acquired information to the knowledge at hand. Thirdly, the concept of
creativity is discussed in relation to personal growth. Creativity refers to the human mind and the way it is able to
process facts and information with a set of unfamiliar tools in order to achieve greater understanding. Herzberg
argues that “creativity is […] a concept not limited to the spectacular or origin, in the sense of what is new to mankind,
but rather it encompasses any knowledge, understanding or principle that originates with the individual” (Herzberg(a),
1968, p. 61). Humans might have tendencies where neglect of challenging assignments becomes an issue as they are
to break free of their comfort zone. These individuals will find it very difficult to reach further growth as their creative
sides not being out folded, but their work however still remains acceptable. These three factors, i.e. knowing more,
seeing more relationships in what we know and being creative can be categorized as cognitive processes dealing with

12
humans’ knowledge and search for new information. The following three factors on the other hand deal with the
motivational aspect of psychological growth.

Effectiveness in ambiguity refers to the uncertainties that rely in humans living experiences. All work related tasks as
well as everyday issues are met with a degree of uncertainty. It is how individuals come about all decision-making
processes and how they are to find confidence in the choices they make, hereby enabling personal growth.
Alternatively, “the inability to tolerate ambiguity must then lead to ineffectiveness, and it is the ineffectiveness that is
evaluated and provides the cue to the failure of psychological growth in this dimension” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 65). It
is required that a level of change is enforced to work situations in the sense that challenges are vital in providing
individuals with the necessary cause for action and decision-making. If individuals consider their jobs as strictly routine
it implies a lack of growth and stagnation of potential (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 65).

Individuation refers to the natural process every individual goes through in a lifetime, where a differentiation from any
given society is obtained. Humans start out by being part of a social unit, the family, and will later adapt to a proper
society. The society choice will form a ground for well-being and sense of belonging and will form the basis for the
individual. Accordingly, it is the separation process from each society that defines each individual. It is this particular
element that creates the point of individuation. Herzberg explains that “one of the highest levels of psychological
growth is becoming an individual – desocializing and separating the individual from his environment, as his organic
condition suggests is a natural thing to do” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 67). He accordingly concludes that “this means a
man’s having, in addition to what the socialization process makes of him, his own feelings, beliefs, values, judgments,
ideas and behaviors, as a mark that he himself exists and not merely as a protest to society” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 67).

Lastly, the psychological growth process focuses on real growth. “One of the most difficult surrenders that people are
forced to make when they grow up is to cleave fantasy from the real, to stamp it as fiction to be used only for
recreation” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 68). Some situations, where people are enforced to perform a role they are not
used to, it may provide the individual with a sense of unreal growth, meaning they adapt to situations that could lie
outside their comfort zone. Accordingly, factors such as job title, organizational structure and relationships with
others all contribute to divert essential means away from potential real growth (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 69).

These core concepts, in association with the basic needs of man, form the foundation for the duality of man’s nature
and are considered the framework for entering the two-factor theory also referred to as the motivation-hygiene
theory (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 71) (Skriver, Staunstrup, & Kærgård, 2007, pp. 102-104).

3.3.2 MOTIVATION-HYGIENE THEORY

Like the ideology behind Maslow’s hierarchical needs listing, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene concept is constructed
under the bottom and up principle. It is not until the hygiene factors have been covered to a satisfied amount that the
motivational elements kick in. The theory additionally suggests that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are
obtained through various factors. On one side, areas that increase satisfaction, also referred to as motivators, are

13
achievements, recognition for achievement, interesting work, increased responsibility, growth, and advancement. On
the contrary, elements that make people unhappy, also named dissatisfiers, refer to the treatment they receive at the
work place, i.e. company policy, administration practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions,
salary, status, and security (Herzberg(b), 1974, p. 18). Herzberg furthermore explains that “since the dissatisfier
factors essentially describe the environment and serve primarily to prevent job dissatisfaction, while having little
effect on positive job attitudes, they have been named the hygiene factors” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 74). Moreover, “the
satisfier factors were named the motivators, since other findings of the study suggest that they are effective in
motivating the individual to superior performance and effort” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 74). It is therefore concluded that
“at the psychological level, the two dimensions of job attitudes reflected a two-dimensional need structure: one need
system for the avoidance of unpleasantness and a parallel need system for personal growth” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p.
75). With this in mind it is accordingly fundamental to realize that “the opposite of job satisfaction would not be job
dissatisfaction, but rather no job satisfaction; similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction, not
satisfaction with one’s job” (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 76).
Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
Hygiene factors Motivating factors
Company policy and administration Achievements
Supervision Recognition
Interpersonal relations The job if self
Working conditions Level of responsibility
Salary Career advancements
Status Growth possibilities
Job security
Personal life

The theory is consistent of 14 factors that deal with motivation and satisfaction issues. They are to be discussed in
order to highlight their significance for the remainder of the study.

3.3.2.1 HYGIENE FACTORS

The first factors that are to be considered aim to avoid job dissatisfaction. They are not fixed in the sense that some of
the elements may be substituted to others depending on the industry that is operated within. The following topics are
the most commonly mentioned.

COMPANY POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

It relates to the level that employees are able to perform the designated tasks to a satisfying level. It moreover aims to
highlight whether the employee is in accordance with the overall goal of the company (Hein, 2009, p. 131).

In youth football the policies and structures are being designed by DBU Copenhagen and all participating clubs are to
accept and work by these guidelines in order to participate in official tournaments.

14
SUPERVISION

Many employees refer to a supervisor or leader on a daily basis. The relationship between those two parties therefore
is required to be intact and proactive in order for the employee to cope with this type of monitoring personality.
There are a set of requirements that are accordingly asked from the supervisor. It is essential that the leader is able to
delegate out assignments and provide feedback to improve corporate goals. Furthermore, elements such as
favouritism of certain employees or the daily language in the work place might affect employee satisfaction (Hein,
2009, p. 131).

Supervision is very closely related to the football industry as it refers directly to the coaching staff. Coaches are the
direct informant between club and player and also play a large role in the well-being of every player. For players to
develop and feel valued it is important to have individuals who are able to communicate and relate to their concerns.

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

It encompasses all types of relationships internally in the company; i.e. with subordinates, superiors and colleagues. It
moreover emphasizes to what degree employees are on the same page as their colleagues and how they are able to
work together to achieve company goals (Hein, 2009, p. 130).

This element is closely related to supervision in youth football, but it also incorporates teammates and other
individuals influencing the well-being at the club. For players to develop and feel comfortable in their club they rely
heavily and both personal development and social acceptance.

WORKING CONDITIONS

Working conditions primarily refer to physical restraints and surroundings; i.e. facilities. Additionally they reflect the
sheer amount of work that is required to be done by individuals (Hein, 2009, p. 132).

For youth football players facilities play a role in terms of their likelihood to stay with a club or seek new paths. As
Copenhagen and Denmark in general is suffering from poor weather conditions generally speaking, the facilities play a
significant role when the rainy and snowy seasons are upon them. Artificial turfs enable clubs to provide training
pitches even during tough conditions. Having year round training options might tempt players to favour these clubs
prior to others where the season might be put on hold due to weather restraints.

SALARY

The factor is one of the most decisive elements in avoiding dissatisfaction with the employee. It is important to realize
that salary as a factor does not solely dictate a monetary pay as compensation, but it encompasses all types of
compensation an individual might get in return for a service provided. However, it does also reflect issues regarding
expected raises, amount of salary, unexpected raises, and whether the salary is fair in regards to others working with
the same topics (Hein, 2009, p. 130).

15
For grassroots football players the aspect of monetary rewards is not applicable. Therefore this factor is of no direct
relation. Nonetheless, the parallel could be made that player receive the ‘salary’ in a reward system in terms of having
good efforts on the training ground rewarded with matches and good performances in matches rewarded with
victories.

STATUS

This factor solely refers to situations where an employee’s status is affecting job dissatisfaction. It encompasses issues
that are related with a certain status that a job title carries with it, i.e. company car, secretary, office space,
memberships, etc (Hein, 2009, p. 132).

In close relation to salary, status is not directly applicable to grassroots youth football players. However, as with
salary, a close resemblance can be drawn to the hierarchical positions of the players, i.e. top level, mid level or low
level. As there only exist a certain amount of slots on the respective teams there will be some players who are left out
of the better teams and therefore status can become relevant.

JOB SECURITY

Job security reflects the degree an employee feels his or her job is under scrutiny or if signs of a permanent job offer is
more likely. It may raise comfort if there is a future aspect related to the job and on the contrary it may cause
nervousness if the organization is restructuring (Hein, 2009, p. 132).

A major concern in youth football is the number of drop-outs and club change a club experiences throughout a
season. Job security therefore highlights the concerns players experience as well as describes to what extent their
specific position is under threat due to new arriving players. Job security, in the sense of retaining players, therefore
becomes highly relevant as clubs are very reliant on the income from player membership fees.

PERSONAL LIFE

Within certain job sectors, some employees are required to move location both domestically and internationally.
These issues might influence their personal life in a sense where their family is not able to find ground in the new
environments. The personal life therefore can be affected directly due to situations that happen at the work place
(Hein, 2009, p. 132).

Like in every work environment, players can experience having to change clubs due to issues in the family. Not all
concerns are directly influenced by their actions and therefore some issue might arise when things happen regarding
the personal life.

16
3.3.2.2 MOTIVATION FACTORS

Having discussed the hygiene factors, there has been generated an insight in how to avoid dissatisfaction. Intention
afterwards lies in generating work motivation. The most commonly used topics for this means is discussed in the
following.

ACHIEVEMENT

Employee achievement is very closely related to growth potential. It highlights both positively and negatively to what
degree en employee is capable of solving problems, getting innovative ideas, provide results and thereby generate
money for the respective company or on the contrary is struck in certain situations, unable to provide results and
lastly cost the company money (Hein, 2009, p. 129).

Football players are highly reliant on their performances in terms of how they are perceived by coaches and by other
teammates. For players, their contribution lies during training sessions and matches and might both positively or
negatively affect the decision-making process of the coaches. When decision start to cost results on the pitch it might
cause the player to sit out or perform extra sessions in order to compensate for the lack in form.

RECOGNITION

Recognition is one of the most significant elements in discussing satisfaction as it determines the level that other
employees and superiors demonstrate their satisfaction with ones results. Again, recognition is a twofold concept as
both positive and negative outcomes of the job that is being delivered might influence the perception of the employee
(Hein, 2009, p. 128-129).

For football players recognition is a very important issue as it is formed on the effort that the particular player
performs during matches and practices. If efforts are usually high, teammates might be more forgiving should the
player enter a period with mixed results. Having the ‘blessing’ of one’s teammates is a very important issue for most
players as they are more likely to keep fighting for even better results.

THE JOB ITSELF

This element naturally remains a top priority in deciding the level of satisfaction amongst employees. The job itself is
required to fulfil a set of demands in order for the individual to find it having a positive or negative effect on job
satisfaction. The job itself therefore could be found too easy, too hard, creative, challenging, varied, or based on
routine (Hein, 2009, p. 132).

The job itself also highlights a very important area within team sports. For football in particular it is highly relevant
that practices in general as well as specific drills are differentiated and adjusted to the level that is operated under.
Players seek to improve their competences and require the means for doing so. The background of the coaches

17
therefore becomes very important as they are directly responsible for setting up these drills and enhancing their
players’ performances.

LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY

An element that is very important when discussing motivation and the possibility of growth is the degree in which
employees are dealt with loser constraint and the opportunity to demonstrate the knowledge and skills. By having no
direct supervision employees are more likely to feel directly responsible for the task at hand and are accordingly
experiencing a higher level of satisfaction for tasks well done (Hein, 2009, p. 131).

Responsibility in general is far less seen in a leisure activity such as football compared to traditional business life.
However, for clubs and team to be able to achieve their overall goals it requires players to take on responsibility on
the pitch. Players need to feel comfortable with their skills and be able to express their motivation and drive for
achieving better results, hereby taking on responsibility for the overall team performance.

CAREER ADVANCEMENTS

This topic relates directly to promotions or demotions that accordingly influence the employee’s status or position
within the company (Hein, 2009, p. 130).

For youth players this directly relates to the different levels of competition they are divided into, the age group they
belong to, whether they are considered a starting player in matches or primarily function as a substitute, or whether
they have a high or low status amongst the players on their team.

GROWTH POSSIBILITIES

This topic refers to issues concerning the work situation of an employee which accordingly influences his or her
opportunity for growth. It encompasses both the element of potentially climbing in status through an internal
promotion or the opportunity to acquire new knowledge through courses or other skill improving activities (Hein,
2009, p. 129).

For youth players or players in general, remains the possibility that new players might join the club. This may entitle
that a player that has been performing to a satisfying level might be substituted with a new player who is of an even
higher level in attributes. Growth possibilities in terms of playing time and personal development therefore is a very
large degree influenced and regulated by the players that decide to join the club. On the other hand, having a high
level of competitiveness in a squad could also help push players to new heights that they might not have been able to
explore without the extra competition.

18
3.3.2.3 SUMMING UP

The hygiene factors function as the eliminators of dissatisfaction. They do not enforce any motivational value when
implemented, but they have a de-motivational effect when being neglected. They are not to be mistaken for factors
that aim to evoke job satisfaction. Hygiene factors function as controlling elements for ensuring that unhappiness is
avoided. By assuring this, it is possible to implement motivational elements that ensure humans’ strive for personal
growth. Thus the motivators are concrete factors that deal with personal growth and are being exploited within the
given job itself (Herzberg(a), 1968, p. 74).

It is argued that by covering a set of factors, humans are more likely to avoid dissatisfaction at the work place, in this
case the football pitch, and are accordingly subject to motivational influences. It is moreover suggested that the
decision-making process is not solely relying on avoiding dissatisfaction and generating motivation, but subsequent
factors could eventually also dictate behaviour patterns. “Personal growth is the end goal of the motivators, while
achievement is the starting point for any personal growth” (Herzberg(b), 1974, p. 20).

The above mentioned walkthrough regarding human potential within reality sum up the ideas that are the backbones
for Herzberg’s two factor theoretical framework that is to be used in order to illustrate work ethics and potential
factors among youth football players in the Copenhagen area. Furthermore, it will point out factors that affect players’
decision-making and their affection towards certain elements concerning their sport.

The theory suggested by Herzberg has been widely accepted and applied by many managers. Due to the sheer
popularity, many individuals have come up with thoughts for alteration though only the most common and relevant
for this particular study are mentioned as they have been used on a later stage. The most common issue is the fact
that the theory “is limited because it relies on self-reports. When things are going well, people tend to take credit.
Contrarily, they blame failure on the extrinsic environment” (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 207). Moreover, “no overall
measure of satisfaction was utilized. A person may dislike part of a job yet still think the job is acceptable overall”
(Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 207). Lastly, the theory is not context specific which makes it very generalizing meaning
that it e.g. does not take the skills of the players into consideration.

3.4 HACKMANN & OLDHAM

Hackman & Oldham are under the belief that there lies a very thin line between the employee and what the employee
is actually being asked to do when it comes to motivation. By having a bad match between the two elements it will
result in demotivation and unsatisfying results for the company (Hein, 2009, p. 146).

Hackman & Oldham are drawing upon the concepts that have already been explored by Maslow and Herzberg.
However, they aim to concretize what motivates the individual in a given job situation. They perceived Herzberg’s
theory to lack in individuality when it came to motivational issues. Every individual is basically being perceived as the

19
same with the same issues affecting them in the same likely manner and therefore they incorporated certain demands
that were to be fulfilled in order for motivation to be possible (Skriver, Staunstrup, & Kærgård, 2007, p. 147) (Hein,
2009, p. 151).

3.4.1 JOB CHARACTERISTICS MODEL

The basis for the ideology accordingly is stated by Hackman & Oldham who claim that “when people are well matched
with their jobs, it rarely is necessary to force, coerce, bribe, or trick them into working hard and trying to perform the
job well. Instead, they try to do well because it is rewarding and satisfying to do so” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 71).
The ideology centres on generating internal motivation through a mix of element. By having employees who thrive
within their given atmospheres and in the tasks they are asked to do, it evokes a sense of self-reward which is an
essential incentive in getting employees to continue to do so (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 72). They lastly conclude
that “the result is a self-perpetuating cycle of positive work motivation powered by self-generated (rather than
external) rewards for good work” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 72). They accordingly suggest the following job
characteristics model:

The complete Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 90)

In order for employees to feel high internal motivation there are three critical states that are to be achieved, i.e.
meaningfulness in the work, responsibility for the outcome of the work and knowledge of the actual results. It is
essential that individuals are made aware of the results they produce through their work. Without this information it
is impossible for employees to reflect upon their work and accordingly generate internal motivation. Furthermore, it is
essential that employees experience responsibility for the work they deliver in terms of being held accountable for
their service. If there is no responsibility attached to the work itself it will be unthinkable that an employee will sense
any motivation in performing the same task on consecutive times. Lastly it is required that the work is experienced as

20
being meaningful. Trivial tasks are less likely to evoke internal motivation, but do exist in work places, and it therefore
requires even larger attention to the responsibility feeling in these types of jobs in order for motivation to be held
high. Tasks are supposed to be meaningful and with the sense of valuable services that are being dealt on (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980, p. 72-73). In order to understand the significance of these aspects as well as being able to understand
how they are best maintained and influenced, theory suggests to look at more tangible issues related with the work
space. To do so focus is turned to “(...) reasonably objective, measurable, changeable properties of the work itself that
foster these psychological states, and through them, enhance internal work motivation” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p.
77). Five topics sum up the core job characteristics. As demonstrated in the model, the three first topics influence the
meaningfulness of the work while to two latter affect responsibility and knowledge respectively.

SKILL VARIETY

It is referred to as “the degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the work,
involving the use of a number of different skills and talents of the person” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 78). As soon
as individuals are required to drawn on various skills in order to solve tasks, it instantly generates a higher level of
meaningfulness to the worker. It lies in human nature to be able to explore some boundaries in order to test their
skills (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 78).

For a football player the concept of skills is usually defined in a different way. Nevertheless, skills are always to be
looked at as the ability one individual possesses in order to accomplish any given task or goal. However, players are
required to demonstrate a large range of skills in order to achieve the overall goal by the team. By being able to
perform a larger number of skills it also naturally generates an increase in player performance and happiness in his or
her game. For this to be achieved it also demands for a variety in drills for the players to perform.

TASK IDENTITY

It is referred to as “the degree to which a job requires completion of a ‘whole’ and identifiable piece of work, that is,
doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 78). It is hereby argued that
the sense of belonging and contributing factor to the entire job creates meaningfulness to the employee. By delivering
a job where an individual is taking part during the entire process from start to finish will increase the value of this job
for the individual in comparison to jobs where one only provides part of the entire product or service. Being able to
identify with the job accordingly is a main factor in defining the level of meaningfulness to the job.

For football players this draws a very close resemblance. Players are required to take part in many different aspects of
games and practices. Normally, players are not solely required to perform defensive or offensive tasks, but take part
in both. The concept here is thus much more complex, but is in fact a very important aspect that is to be
acknowledged when analyzing identity for football players.

21
TASK SIGNIFICANCE

It is referred to as “the degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives of other people, whether those
people are in the immediate organization or in the world at large” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 79). It is hereby
argued that some task are considered of higher significance to the people they are performed for. When operating in
industries where other individuals are involving, tasks become more high risk and the reward, in terms of
meaningfulness, automatically increases (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 79). Nevertheless, this issue is to be
considered very objectively as some jobs might not be considered of meaningful by some, but in the eyes of others
they are of very high significance.

In the industry that is being targeted for this survey, there lies no do or die factor of any kind. Hence, the significance
in terms of affecting others is not at all present. On the other hand, this topic can be argued for in another equally
important manner. Every performance, whether on or off the pitch, can be very influential in the eyes of fellow
players. Appearance therefore is a very high and important aspect to consider which lies very close to the issue of
significance. If players are touched or in any manner influenced by the efforts of any other given player, the
experienced meaningfulness automatically increases in accordance with Hackman and Oldham’s theory.

AUTONOMY

It is referred to as “the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the
individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out” (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980, p. 79). It is therefore suggested that the level of autonomy that is associated with the designated job
will affect the responsibility that workers have towards the results, both positively and negatively (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980, p. 79). Individualism therefore is a key point in highlighting a sense of responsibility in work places.

A parallel can be drawn to the industry under review. Football players will seek a certain amount of freedom in
exploring their proper way of fulfilling the aims set by the coaches or the respective clubs. Certain instructions are to
be met by the players, but a compromise is usually made in terms of the way these instructions can be met by the
players. Allowing for proper thinking and decision-making enables players to grow.

FEEDBACK

Is referred to as “the degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job provides the individual with
direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 80). The
concept of feedback is to some degree twofold. It can come both mechanically and orally. Either an individual will
comment on a job that has been provided, whether a co-worker, supervisor, or customer, or feedback can be seen as
the outcome of the service an employee has done; for instance changing a light bulb and seeing it glow when the
switch is turned on. Both provide the worker with a sense of satisfaction or at least knowledge of the job done. Focus
in this theoretical approach is on “(...) feedback directly from the job” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 80). Feedback
accordingly enables the employee to gain knowledge of the work that is being delivered.

22
Equally important is the aspect of feedback when it comes to youth football players. The responses they are given by
other teammates and coaches are vital in their quest for improvement and in order to achieve the goal that have been
set up. Players need to have knowledge of the efforts they give on a consistent basis and thus communication
between the two parties is not an area that should be neglected.

The five above mentioned factor all influence the critical psychological states which eventually will lead to high
internal work motivation. The aspect where Hackman & Oldham then differentiate themselves from previous theories
set out by i.e. Herzberg is the claim that some factor are to be met in order for workers to become subject to
motivational influences. In order to closely discuss the aspect of including other variables in order to determine
motivation potential, Hackman & Oldham suggest a motivating potential score, MPS, which functions as an index that
allows organizations to gain a numeric insight in thoughts amongst employees as well as determine to what degree
they would lastly respond to motivational efforts. The index thus functions as point of reference and as a means to
prove the adaptability of employees. Nevertheless, even though an employee would score high on the index, hereby
implying a high likelihood of motivation potential, Hackman & Oldham claim that some factors will determine “(...)
who will (and who will not) respond positively to high MPS jobs” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 82).

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL

“For jobs high in motivating potential, then, people who have sufficient knowledge and skill to perform well will
experience substantially positive feelings as a result of their work activities” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 84). On the
contrary people who lack in skill and knowledge will not have the same experiences.

GROWTH NEED STRENGTH

It is highly important for workers to be determined in their quest for achieving more under their restraints. These
individuals seek self-improvement and thrive to develop their skill set in order to progress in status. “These people are
said to have strong ‘growth needs’ and are predicted to develop high internal motivation when working on a complex,
challenging job” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 85).

SATISFACTION WITH THE WORK CONTENT

It is argued that “(...) it is also the case that how satisfied people are with aspects of the work context may affect their
willingness or ability to take advantage of the opportunities for personal accomplishment provided by enriched work”
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 86). Hence, (...) individuals who are relatively satisfied with pay, job security, co-
workers, and supervisors will respond more positively to enriched and challenging jobs than individuals who are
dissatisfied with these aspects of the work context” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 86). Therefore it is the work itself
that becomes important. If employees see work as fulfilling and giving they will more likely be positive towards
changes and new challenges given to them.

23
For youth players it very well relates to the tasks they are asked to perform. If players are not on board with drills they
are asked to do, tactics they are asked to learn or position they are asked to play they will most likely express their
concern and lastly look into the possibility of changing clubs.

3.4.1.1 SUMMING UP

Hackman & Oldham have developed a theory that enables organizations to individualize research in the area of work
motivation. Their ideology is based on the fact that individuals react differently to job tasks and are accordingly
different subjects to motivational implementations. It has been argued that five core job characteristics will influence
the psychological states of workers which eventually dictate the outcome of motivation opportunities. In order for
workers to be able to increase in motivation and more importantly to gain in knowledge, skill and work morale, some
moderators define to what degree the workers a likely to react positively to motivational influences. With these
aspects in mind it is clear that Hackman & Oldham have come up with an ideology that exceeds that of Herzberg
within certain organizations. It allows for a more differentiated approach and for workers to be analyzed and
researched on an individual scale. Nevertheless, it should then be highlighted that for the purpose of this particular
report, the individualisation process is not an opportunity that favours the outcome. This analysis is conducted as a
means for an overall insight in youth football with focus on a particular set of questions that regard motivation in
terms of playing level and age. For the job characteristics model to be put into full use, it is therefore recommended to
adapt this way of thinking for any future research in particular clubs or teams, meaning on a smaller scale with insight
in the environment of each player. The theory is a very obvious choice for teams who want to investigate their
particular team where there are specific roles for each player, depending on the level they operate at. It would
therefore function as an important tool in increasing work motivation and the likelihood of better efforts on the pitch.

The primary force is that the concept focuses on the situation of the individual but this is also considered a drawback
as extensive research is required for larger sample sizes. Studies have shown that the job characteristics model is not
equally applicable in all cultures meaning that the relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction was
vas variable depending on the culture being individualistic or collectivistic (Robbins & Judge, 2003, p. 242).

3.5 LATHAM & LOCKE

Another angle that can be taken, again with point of origin in the groundwork of Herzberg, is to take use of a
theoretical approach that targets a more specific group and aims to provoke motivation through goal-setting efforts;
the basic function of Latham & Locke’s goal-setting theory. Again motivation is considered a process oriented matter
and in order to establish goal-directed efforts emphasis lies with three attributes, namely self-generation, value-
significance and goal-causation ((b)Latham & Locke, 1991, p. 212). Accordingly, “goal setting theory approaches the
issue of motivation from a first-level perspective; its emphasis is on an immediate level of explanation of individual

24
differences in task performance” ((b)Latham & Locke, 1991, p. 213). An important issue to regard is the fact that goal-
oriented efforts are very much dependent on the ability to self-regulate. By being able to put emphasis on the
importance of self-regulation it increases the likelihood of individuals being able to adjust goals to their own desire
and within their capabilities. It furthermore opens up for individuals to assess the positive and negative outcomes of
performances and hereby created a sustainable commitment throughout the process ((b)Latham & Locke, 1991, pp.
233-234). It is therefore concluded that “(...) a high goal makes self-satisfaction, one’s judgment of one’s success,
contingent upon a higher level of performance than the attainment of an easy goal. People with high self-efficacy set
their goals high, because they are not satisfied with less ((c)Latham & Locke, 2006, p. 332). Therefore there lies a very
close relationship between the wellbeing of individuals and their respective goals. If they are able to obtain them they
will be subject to motivational influences. It can therefore be concluded that “The greater an individual’s success in
attaining high goals that this person deems to be important, the greater the individual’s subjective well-being in terms
of pleasure, satisfaction and happiness” ((c)Latham & Locke, 2006, p. 333).

3.5.1 GOAL-SETTING THEORY

Herzberg operated with a theory that focussed on hygiene and motivational factors in order to evoke psychological
growth. Hackman & Oldham went one step further and suggested a job characteristic model where emphasis is on
matching workers with fitting tasks in order to maintain motivation. As a contrast to these two theories Latham &
Locke suggests focussing on goals for individuals or groups to achieve in order to obtain motivation. Focus henceforth
is turned to keeping individuals goal oriented in order to increase their specific performances.

Goal-Setting Model ((a)Latham & Locke, 1979, p. 79)

Latham & Locke discuss a process taking point of departure in three overall areas. Other topics are also presented in
the model, but are described as means to the whole instead of separately.

25
INPUT SOURCES

The goal itself should first and foremost be specific and secondly have a time stamp attached to it. It is argued that by
having a concrete goal in form of for instance a sales increase of 10% instead of simply suggesting an overall increase
in sales will enable a higher commitment by employees. Additionally, demanding results within a given time frame will
accordingly push workers to achieve the overall goal ((a)Latham & Locke, 1979, p. 77). Intention then lies in
developing ambitious, but realistic goals. Depending on the level and knowledge of the respective employees goal
should be adjusted accordingly, hereby striving for pushing each worker to the limit, but within restraints of his or her
capabilities. By having too ambitious goals that are never met will most likely result in demotivation and lack in trust
to the superiors. The reward on the other hand will be of greater significance as workers will have a large sense of
satisfaction and belief in one’s achievements (Hein, 2009, p. 178) ((a)Latham & Locke, 1979, p. 77) ((b)Latham &
Locke, 1991, p. 231) ((c)Latham & Locke, 2006, pp. 332-333). If the reward was high, whether in monetary terms or in
personal development, there is a greater likelihood that future goal will be addressed in the same positive manner
and with the same amount of effort. Subsequently, it needs to be discussed whether goal theories are to be aimed at
an individual level or towards a group. Group goal setting is likely to promote cooperation and team spirit, whereas
individuals would on their own be likely to experience a sense of greater responsibility and attachment towards the
service provided ((a)Latham & Locke, 1979, p. 78).

For the youth soccer industry this aspect would be highly relevant for individual teams. Coaches are able to perform
goal oriented processes with individual players and will have clear measurements for analyzing individual
performances. This aspect is not necessarily result oriented in terms of winning matches, but could be used on a
smaller scale as well, i.e. measuring training effectiveness and development. By pinpointing individual goals for players
that are to be obtained within a given time, would lastly benefit the entire team.

ACHIEVING GOAL COMMITMENT

In order to obtain goal commitment there are a set of pitfalls that are to be dealt with. It is vital that the goals are
appropriate and realistic for the designated group or individual to accomplish. Alternatively there will emerge
resistance to achieving the desired goal due to either overambitious goals, lack of knowledge of the tasks at hand, or
increase in competitiveness amongst the team members (Hein, 2009, p. 179) ((a)Latham & Locke, 1979, p. 78)
((c)Latham & Locke, 2006, p. 334). Subsequently, having a trustworthy relationship between the leader and the
workers is vital in having successful goal commitments. If the workers are of the belief that goals are being set in order
to take advantage of them, commitment will automatically drop (Hein, 2009, p. 180) ((a)Latham & Locke, 1979, p. 78).
It is therefore highly important to assure both manager and employee are of the same mindset when issuing goal
approaches.

26
SUPPORT ELEMENTS

I order to achieve goals there lays a natural set of elements that can influence the outcome of such efforts. Here
emphasis is partly on the workers themselves and whether they are of sufficient knowledge and ability to reach the
desired goal. Otherwise, it is to be acknowledged whether company policies are in accordance with the intention of
the goal ((a)Latham & Locke, 1979, p. 79). It is furthermore important that employees are dealt a certain amount of
freedom in reaching the goals as too many restrictions will limit the sense of development and hence deprive
individuals of motivation. Lastly, attention is put on managers being able to provide proper feedback for employees
during their goal setting process. It is argued that “(...) the supervisor must ensure that the employee is provided with
precise feedback so that he will know to what degree he's reaching or falling short of his goal and can thereupon
adjust his level of effort or strategy accordingly” ((a)Latham & Locke, 1979, p. 79). The topic of feedback is a sensitive
matter though as feedback is the direct link between manager and employee. If the feedback is consistently positive it
automatically causes little incentive to improve. “Positive feedback normally raises self-efficacy, but it should not be
concluded from this that such feedback always enhances performance” ((b)Latham & Locke, 1991, p. 226). It seems to
be the case that individuals seek a development curve and not a stagnating, all positive, process. It is therefore
concluded that “(...) the key to performance improvement (...) seems to be that the person be dissatisfied with his or
her present performance and (or will be so in the future) yet confident that performance can be improved, thus
leading to the setting of goals above the level of previous performance” ((b)Latham & Locke, 1991, pp. 226-227).

In youth football the relationship between manager and player is equally important. Efforts should be made in having
coaches who are able to address issues in a motivating manner where players do not feel overshadowed or
suppressed. It is equally important that managers are able to provide proper feedback for players to make use of.

3.5.1.1 SUMMING UP

When implementing goal-setting theories, both in business life and grassroots youth football, it is important to assure
that all implemented parties are aware and have accepted the intention with the theory. Troubles may arise if goals
become too narrow-minded and individuals get to self-centred in achieving this goal, hereby neglecting other overall
purposes. Furthermore, critics such as Welsh and Ordóñez argue that “high goals can increase unethical behaviour by
depleting self-regulatory resources” (Welsh & Ordóñez, 2014, s. 88). However, Latham and Locke proclaim that these
scholars have breached the principle of good scholarship by making false accusations ((d)Latham & Locke, 2009, p.
17).

3.6 CHOICE OF THEORY

At this point, four separate theories have been discussed which would all fit the main research topic to a certain
extent. However, it was decided that in order to encompass for a large sample size Herzberg’s theory fitted the issue

27
most adequately even though some of the topics has to be adjusted in order to fit the research question. The most
important adjustment was the combination of achievement and growth possibilities as these categories are closely
related within youth football.

Maslow’s need hierarchy was highlighted to explain the foundation for the latter theories. Herzberg took point of
departure in some of these concepts in order to develop a remodelled take on how to analyse motivation amongst
workers. Furthermore, the theory was chosen as it made it enabled generalization from a large sample size opposed
to the other theories by Hartman & Oldham and Latham & Locke. Moreover, it was argued that the content of the
theory could be related to youth football in a fashion that was found usable and interpretable. In terms of going into
depth with some of the finding it would be wiser to adapt the approaches from Hackman & Oldham or Latham &
Locke. The latter would suit concrete teams or clubs in a manner where they would be able to goal-orient their players
as well as highlight specific areas instead of getting the overall picture which the chosen theory and survey
highlighted.

4 METHODOLOGY

The methods used to investigate the research questions are described in the following subchapters. The methodology
is divided into the four sections: research philosophy, research approach, research design and the data collection.

4.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY

Research philosophy relates to the development and nature of new knowledge in a particular field (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2009, p. 107). It is important to clarify for how knowledge is developed as the different research
philosophies have different views on what acceptable knowledge is. All research philosophies contain assumptions
about the way in which the researcher views the world that ultimately affect the nature of the knowledge (Saunders,
Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 108).

The list of different research philosophies is long and diverse as each is useful for specific purposes. The research
question is a decisive factor when evaluating the different philosophies (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 109).
There is no research philosophy that fits all research questions. However, more than one research philosophy might
applicable for any given research question.

CHARACTERISTICS

A research philosophy is characterised by its view on ontology, epistemology and axiology. Ontology is about the
constitution of reality and covers the discussion about objectivism versus subjectivism (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill,

28
2009, p. 110). Objectivism “(…) represents the position that social entities exist in reality external to social actors”
whereas “The subjectivist view is that social phenomena are created from the perceptions and consequent actions of
social actors” (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, pp. 110-111). Epistemology is about the constitution of valid
knowledge and covers the discussion about how knowledge can or cannot be developed through observable
phenomena and subjective meanings (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 112). Axiology concerns the judgement of
values and covers the discussion about whether research can be undertaken in an objective and value-free way or
whether research is value laden as the researcher is biased due to different circumstances such as world views,
cultural experiences and involvement in the research process (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 119).

RESEARCH PHILOSOPHIES

Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill highlight four major research philosophies: Positivism, Realism, Interprevitism and
Pragmatism (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 119). All four research philosophies will be described and
evaluated in relation to the overall problem definition i.e. how age and level of competition impact motivation of
youth football players in Copenhagen.

Positivism is characterised by ontology with an objective reality independent of social actors, epistemology based on
observable phenomenon free of subjective meanings, axiology undertaken in a value-free way meaning that the
researcher is truly objective, and with a strong focus on quantitative data (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 119).
Positivism was discarded partly because the research questions is best analysed by means of both quantitative and
qualitative data. Subjective opinions raised by the youth players are considered relevant for the research questions.
Moreover, the authors are engaged as voluntary football coaches in KB and B.1903, i.e. two of the clubs included in
the analysis, which in return makes is difficult to achieve a truly objective axiology.

Realism is characterised by ontology with an objective reality independent of the human mind, epistemology based on
context specific and observable phenomenon, axiology undertaken in a value laden way, and with both qualitative and
quantitative data depending on the context (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 119). Realism is quite similar to
positivism in scientific approach to the development of knowledge but with a more subjective and value laden
approach. Realism was discarded as the analysis includes both assessments of subjective opinions raised by the youth
players and numerical data analysed statistically from a large sample size. In-depth qualitative research methods are
most often used in realism to understand the complexity of the context (Sobh & Perry, 2006, p. 1206). Realism was
not fully compatible with the research questions due to strong emphasis on quantitative data as “(…)Quantitative
results from a positivist method like a survey are unlikely to provide understanding of this deeper reality and therefore
should not be a major part of any realism research project” (Sobh & Perry, 2006, p. 1201).

Interprevitism is quite different from both positivism and realism. Interprevitism is characterised by ontology that is
subjective and socially constructed, epistemology based on subjective meaning and social phenomenon, axiology
undertaken in a value laden way as the researcher is part of what is being researched, and with a strong focus on
small samples of qualitative in-depth investigates (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 119). Interprevitism was

29
discarded due to the strong emphasis on small but highly detailed investigations. The research questions call for an
approach combing both quantitative and qualitative data on a large scale. It is simply too time consuming to conduct
such a comprehensive investigation thoroughly with such a detail oriented research philosophy.

The research question of how age and level of competition impact motivation does not suggest that one of the three
abovementioned research philosophies should be adopted unambiguously. Thus pragmatism became the research
philosophy of choice as it enables a wider approach to data processing. Pragmatism is characterised by a flexible view
on ontology, epistemology and axiology meaning that the researcher can adopt a view on each of the three
parameters that fits the research questions the best. “Pragmatism argues that the most important determinant of the
epistemology, ontology and axiology you adopt is the research question – one may be more appropriate than the
other for answering particular questions” (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 109). The research questions in this
report suggest a mixed method approach consisting of both qualitative and quantitative data collection. A
quantitative approach leaning towards the research philosophies of positivism and realism is suitable for
comprehensive analysis with many respondents where the research is undertaken as value-free as possible. On the
other hand the qualitative approach leaning towards the interprevitism research philosophy is suitable for the
qualitative in-depth analysis of subjective opinions raised by the youth players. Thus, pragmatism can be considered a
flexible mixed-method approach to research philosophies (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 109).

4.2 RESEARCH APPROACH

A research approach is either deductive, i.e. testing theory, or inductive, i.e. building theory (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2009, pp. 124-125). The kind of evidence produced is determined by the choice of research approach.
Deduction has its origins in natural science where the emphasis is on quantitative data whereas induction has its
origins in social science where the emphasis is on qualitative data (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 127).

Deduction seeks to explain casual relationships between two or more variables or concepts through existing theory
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 125). The applied research approach in this report is deductive as pre-existing
theories, i.e. primarily Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory, has been used to investigate the topic of motivation of
youth football players.

Deduction is characterised by a highly structured methodology to facilitate replication and a sufficient sample size to
generalise statistically about regularities in human social behaviour (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 125). The
applied methodology has been described thoroughly to ensure that similar analysis can be conducted by DBU
Copenhagen in the years to come in order to monitor the development in motivation over time. The research
question is best examined with a sufficient large sample size where statistical generalisations across age and level of
competition can be made.

30
The inductive research approach, on the other hand, is theory build on an analysis of the collected data. The inductive
approach often makes use of a relatively small sample size as the need to generalise is smaller (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2009, p. 127). Induction was discarded for three reasons. Firstly, data collection methods with a large
sample size are usually associated with the deductive research approach (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 144).
Secondly, generalisation is a central element in this report as DBU Copenhagen is in need of data that can paint a
picture of all male grassroots U13-19 players in Copenhagen. Thirdly, induction is considered a risky approach where
useful data patterns and theory might not emerge whereas deduction is considered a low-risk strategy (Saunders,
Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 127).

4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design encompasses the research purpose, research strategy, time horizon, credibility and ethics.

RESEARCH PURPOSE

The classification of research purpose is in the majority of research methods literature divided into three categories:
descriptive, explanatory and exploratory studies (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 139). More than one type of
research purpose can be applied and thus a descripto-explanatory research purpose has been applied in this paper -
i.e. a combination of the descriptive and explanatory research purposes.

A descriptive study is used “(...) to portray an accurate profile of persons, events or situations” (Robson, 2002, p. 59).
As the name implies it is primarily used for descriptive purposes only and not for developing new knowledge by
evaluating data and synthesising ideas (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 140). A descriptive study is suitable for
describing the current level of motivation among the youth players.

The explanatory study is used to establish causal relationships between variables (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009,
p. 140). Thus the explanatory study is suitable for establishing the causal relationship between age and level of
competition in relation to motivation. Combining these two research purposes enables the authors to both describe
the current motivation levels while investigating the underlying causal relationships of age and level of competition in
relation to motivation.

An exploratory study is often used to find out “(...) what is happening; to seek new insights; to ask questions and to
assess phenomena in a new light” (Robson, 2002, p. 59). It is useful in situations when the precise nature of the
problem in question is unknown as it seeks to assess the problem from a new perspective. It is considered a flexible
study where the initial focus is broad and progressively becomes narrower as the nature of the problem, with a bit of
luck, is revealed along the way. An exploratory study could have been more relevant if the research questions
proposed a much stronger emphasis on the qualitative part of the analysis where in-depth focus group interviews
could replace a comprehensive study with large sample size (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 140).

31
RESEARCH STRATEGY

The applied research strategy in this paper is the survey strategy. More specifically a questionnaire was designed to
collect information from a large group of players in order to accommodate DBU Copenhagen’s need to measure the
current motivation level of the youth players in Copenhagen. The questionnaire is considered an excellent tool for
creating standardised data that enables easy comparison across different parameters such as age and level of
competition. The survey strategy aligns well with the applied research approach and the research purpose as the
survey strategy is closely related to deduction. Moreover the survey strategy “(...) is most frequently used to answer
who, what, where, how much and how many questions (...) It therefore tends to be used for exploratory and
descriptive research” (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 144).

Another research strategy that could have been applied is case study. It is “(...) a strategy for doing research which
involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple
sources of evidence” (Robson, 2002, p. 178). Veal claim that “To some extent all social research is a case study at
some level, since all research is geographical and temporally unique (...) To be seen as case studies in full sense,
however, these studies would need to involve more than just a survey – they would require additional information”
(Veal, 2006, p. 109). Additional information about e.g. demographics, environment and history would enrich the
description of a case. Thus additional information about the youth players, the clubs and coaches should have been
included for this report to be a case study in the full sense. Moreover, the focus in this report is on establishing causal
relationships between age and level of competition in relation to motivation through generalisation opposed to case
studies where understanding of the phenomenon is created by studying single examples in specified social and
physical settings (Veal, 2006, p. 108) (Robson, 2002, p. 179).

A third research strategy that could have been applied is autoethnography. It is a research strategy related to
ethnography that allows a flexible analysis of the problem in question on a deeper and more detailed level (Bryman &
Bell, 2011, p. 27). “Autoethnography refers to an autobiographical genre of research in which researchers study
cultural phenomena by analysing the ways in which they themselves are engaged in cultural practice” (Moisander &
Valtonen, 2006, p. 63). Thus, autoethnography could have been use to support the survey strategy as both authors
have been engaged in the football environment as voluntary football coaches prior to and during the process of
collecting questionnaires. Observations related to motivation made by the authors during the daily life could therefore
be used in the analysis to shed light on the findings from the coach perspective. Autoethnography was ultimately
discarded due to its subjective nature and its roots in induction (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 149). Instead,
the authors have attempted to be as objective and value-free as possible despite their engagement in the local
football environment.

TIME HORIZON

The time of when the primary data is collected has potential influence on the findings. According to Saunders et al a
study can be either cross-sectional or longitudinal (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 155). A cross-sectional study

32
presents a snapshot of a phenomenon at a particular time whereas a longitudinal study has the capacity to explain
change and development over a longer period of time (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 155).

Data collection in deductive research is, in this report, as well as more commonly based on a cross-sectional design
where all measures are taken over a short period of time or even the same time (Robson, 2002, p. 157). This report
represents a snapshot of the motivation taken at a particular time in order to accommodate the requests from DBU
Copenhagen. The time frame for the primary data collection was adjusted to the tournament structure. As in
professional football the season is divided into two parts: the spring season and the autumn season. Player
movements from one club to another are more likely to take place in between the two seasons due to e.g.
membership fees and DBU regulations. To minimize the effects of recent player transfers all data was collected in the
last three months of 2014 before the players went on winter holiday. It was time consuming task due to logistics and
different training schedules for each team since 1130 players from 114 teams representing eight different clubs in
Copenhagen responded to the questionnaires. At best all questionnaires would have been collected at the exact same
time rather than over three months if additional labour and resources had been available.

DBU Copenhagen intends to conduct a similar cross-sectional motivation survey in the years to come. A comparison
between the two cross-sectional studies would enable a longitudinal study that could shed light on the change and
development in motivation over time (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 155). It could be used for e.g. evaluation
of initiatives launched after this report or for the development of new initiatives.

CREDIBILITY

The credibility of the research findings in this report is subsequently reviewed in relation to reliability and validity.
“Reliability refers to the extent to which your data collection techniques or analysis procedures will yield consistent
findings” while “Validity is concerned with whether the findings are really about what they appear to be about”
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, pp. 156-157).

Colin Robson claims that there are four threats to reliability: (1) subject or participant error; (2) subject or participant
bias; (3) observer error; and (4) observer bias (Robson, 2002, p. 102). Firstly, subject or participant error might have
had a slight impact on the reliability of these findings as not all data is collected at the same neutral time. The
objective was to collect all data before, during or after a training session. In the ideal scenario all data would have
been collected before the training session as the actual training might have had a strong impact on the player’s mood
– both positively or negatively. Such factors could not be eliminated, as not all teams were available before the
training sessions. However, the impact of subject or participant error is thought to be relatively low at training
sessions compared to the alternative scenario where data is gathered on match days. Secondly, subject or participant
bias is kept on a minimum by application of anonymity which makes it easier for the respondents to answer honestly.
In addition respondents are encouraged to take the questionnaire seriously and to answer honestly as their answers
will be used for improving player motivation through new DBU Copenhagen and club initiatives. Thirdly, observer
error is kept on a minimum by usage of a highly structured and standardised questionnaire for all respondents

33
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 157). The design of the questionnaire and the precautions taken to eliminate
contaminated or distorted answers is described in the corresponding chapter later in this report. Lastly, observer bias
is kept low as the authors function as independent researchers on behalf of DBU Copenhagen. The objective of this
report is only to assess the current level of motivation and to establish causal relationships between age and level of
competition in relation to motivation as indicated in the research questions. The authors have no incentive to tweak
the findings to enhance the level of motivation at their current teams or any other teams or club for that matter.

There is a series of threats to validity as well where (1) history; (2) testing; (3) ambiguity about causal direction; (4)
generalisations are considered the most relevant threats in relation to this report (Robson, 2002, pp. 105-106). Firstly,
history is considered a threat to validity when major changes in the respondents’ environments occur shortly before
the data was collected. In this case the employment of a new coach or a player transfer is among the most influential
changes in the respondents’ environments in the eight respective football clubs. These changes might impact the
results but the scope of them is considered fairly small taking the sample size and the timing of the data collection into
consideration. Employment of new coaches and players joining new clubs are taking place throughout the entire year
meaning that the problem can never be eliminated completely. To minimize these effects all data was collected in the
last three months of 2014 before the players went on winter holiday as described previously. Secondly, respondents
might act differently when being tested. Precautions taken to minimize data contamination are accounted for in the
chapters about designing, pilot testing and distributing the questionnaire. Thirdly, the ambiguity about causal
direction is difficult issue to control as it can be complicated to verify whether A causes B, or B causes A (Robson,
2002, pp. 105-106). Collecting data from a large sample size helps quantifying the issue which in return makes it easier
to detect patterns in the completed questionnaires. Lastly, generalisations can be a threat to validity as well. All
questionnaires are collected in eight clubs with large youth departments located in Copenhagen. The sample size does
not represent the total population perfectly as no clubs with small youth departments are included. However, the fact
that many respondents participated in the survey adds to the validity in terms of generalisation. The findings in this
report remain specific for the eight clubs but can still be of significant value for other clubs in Copenhagen and
perhaps even for other regional departments of DBU.

In addition Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill claim that “The design of your questionnaire will affect the response rate
and the reliability and validity of the data you collect. Response rates, validity and reliability can be maximised by:
careful design of individual questions; clear and pleasing layout of the questionnaire; lucid explanation of the purpose
of the questionnaire; pilot testing; and carefully planned and executed administration” (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill,
2009, p. 362). Thus a detailed description of the questionnaire design and the precautions taken to maximize response
rates, validity and reliability can be found later in this report.

ETHICS

The purpose of this analysis is to determine the current level of motivation for U13-U19 players in Copenhagen which
involves ethical considerations in relation to collecting data from young players. The eight participating clubs were

34
handpicked by the authors and DBU Copenhagen. Formal invitations were sent to the respective sporting mangers
asking if the clubs would be willing to participate in the survey. The authors were in contact with the sporting
managers regularly during the process of data collection. In addition no questionnaires were collected without a prior
agreement between the authors and coaches for the respective teams. This approach enabled full understanding of
the purpose of the study for clubs, coaches and players. Ethical considerations about collecting information from
young players on behalf of DBU Copenhagen at the eight clubs lead to this approach to ensure full support from all
participating parties. Having full support from all parties led to a high response rate even though participation in the
study was voluntarily

The questionnaire contains questions that might cause the respondent to feel discomforted or even embarrassed
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 185). For instance the evaluation of the coach and teammates might be
uncomfortable while it might be embarrassing for some players to evaluate the sense of belongingness on the team if
the particular player is being bullied. As a result certain precautions were taken to ensure an acceptable level of
privacy, namely full anonymity. All questionnaires were filled out independently and silently; and an option to tick ‘not
applicable’ has been included for each question so respondents could skip a question when in doubt or if the question
was found to be too uncomfortable. More information about the design and the questionnaire distribution process
can be found later in the following chapter.

4.4 DATA COLLECTION

A large questionnaire survey was conducted for this report. The survey includes both closed and open questions
meaning that both quantitative and qualitative data was gathered at the same time. This chapter describes the entire
process from finding a suitable and cooperative sample size, designing the actual questionnaire, pilot testing the
questionnaire, distributing the questionnaire and to the data entry and statistical analysis once all data was gathered.

4.4.1 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

The questionnaire was designed as a self-administered delivery and collection questionnaire (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2009, p. 362). One of the advantages of the self-administered survey is that it allows anonymity (Robson,
2002, p. 234). All responses to the survey are anonymous in the sense that only the club and team affiliation is
registered. In addition all respondents were told in advance that their individual responses would not be accessible for
their coach and teammates afterwards. It was a deliberate precaution to ensure more accurate findings and thereby a
higher degree of validity.

35
4.4.1.1 SAMPLE SIZE

The sample size was very comprehensive as DBU Copenhagen wanted it to be representative for all U13 to U19
grassroots players in Copenhagen. The objective was to collect enough data to be able to determine the differences in
motivation related to a player’s age and level of competition.

In 2013 there were a total of 36.236 registered football players in DBU Copenhagen of which 6.104 were male players
in the age of 13-18 years (DBU Copenhagen, 2014). This number gives a solid indication of the total population that
this survey represents even though this report also includes male players that are 12 years old and excludes all elite
players.

The survey is considered representative with 1130 respondents from eight different clubs. The following eight clubs
took part in the survey: Amager Boldklub Tårnby, Boldklubben 1903, Boldklubben af 1893, Frederiksberg Alliancen
2000, Frederiksberg Boldklub, Gentofte-Vangede Idrætsforening, Hellerup Idræts Klub and Kjøbenhavns Boldklub -
later addressed as AB Tårnby, B.1903, B.93, FA2000, FB, GVI, HIK and KB. The clubs were handpicked by the authors
and DBU Copenhagen due to locations and sheer size. The eight clubs are spread across Copenhagen to ensure a
better geographical representation of the total population. Collecting data from clubs with large youth departments
enables a more time and resource efficient data collection. However, clubs with large youth departments are typically
organised slightly differently than clubs with small youth departments. DBU Copenhagen and the authors came to the
conclusion that the advantage of gathering more data with the resources available outweighed the disadvantage of
not including clubs with small youth departments in the analysis. The data is therefore not entirely representative as
only large clubs were included. A total of 1130 player from 114 teams representing eight different clubs were included
in the survey. The table below shows the overall distribution of participating teams based on club affiliation.

AB Tårnby B.1903 B.93 FA2000 FB GVI HIK KB Total

No. of teams 8 15 14 14 15 12 15 21 114
No. of players 49 184 147 122 120 119 172 217 1130
Players/ team (AVG) 6 12,3 10,5 8,7 8 10 11,5 10,3 10
Number of participating teams and players based on club

The data was collected at training sessions where the number of attendees varied. One team could therefore consist
of five players whereas another team could consist of fifteen players. One might argue that motivated players are
likely to attend more training sessions than demotivated players meaning the data might not represent the total
population accurately if this hypothesis holds true. A higher number of players per team could have improved the
accuracy of the findings. However, gathering the data at training sessions was considered the most efficient way to
obtain a high response rate while maintaining a satisfactory degree of validity and reliability. On the positive side, the
response rate was in general very high although it was voluntary for the players to participate in the study. This high
response rate is a result of the positive attitude and support from the respective coaches and sporting managers
during the data collection process.

36
In the analysis all respondents are divided into subgroups based on age and level of competition. The analysis of age
and level of competition is segregated meaning that two parallel studies take place at the same time. The respondents
are split into six subgroups, i.e. U13, U14, U15, U16, U17 and U19, when divided on the basis of age. The split is easy
to administer as the players are already split into different age groups in their respective club due to the tournament
structure. The table below shows the number of participating players in each age group. More players are represented
in the youngest age groups which reflect the distribution in the actual membership base. It should be kept in mind
that U16 is a new age group in the official DBU tournament structure. The low proportion of U16 players is
consequently not considered a problem in this report.

U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19 Total

No. of players 223 318 217 111 149 112 1130
Percentage 19,7% 28,1% 19,2% 9,8% 13,2% 9,9% 100%
Number of participating players based on age

Low level Mid level Top level Total

No. of players 344 445 341 1130
Percentage 30,4% 39,4% 30,2% 100%
Number of participating players based on level of competition

The respondents are split into three subgroups, i.e. low level, mid level and top level, when divided on the basis of
level of competition. This split was more complicated to administer as the tournament structure differed across the
different age groups - for instance U13 consisted of eight grassroots tiers whereas U19 consisted of only four
grassroots tiers meaning a customised selection had to be made to ensure valid foundation for comparison. The sub
groups in the table below were created in cooperation with DBU Copenhagen.

U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19

Top level East 2 East 2 East 2 East 2 Div. 2 Div.
M M M M 3 Div. 3 Div.
Mid level 1 1 1 1 M M
2 2 2 1
3 3 3 2
Low level 4 4 4 2 3 1
5 5 5 4
6
Breakdown by level of competition

The split by age and level of competition results in segments of different size. Thus statistical precautions have been
taken to create a solid basis for comparison. The statistical approach to analysing the data will described later in the
report.

37
4.4.1.2 DESIGN

The questionnaire was developed in cooperation with DBU Copenhagen. Many resources have been allocated to
producing a questionnaire that could provide the information needed to answer the problem formulation. Prior
research has been used for developing the questions and the overall design. Inspiration has been found both in
research about player motivation, retention and dropout in football and in general research and literature about
employee motivation. Football players and employees in the traditional business life are considered fairly similar in
terms of motivational drivers and thus it was decided to develop the questionnaire with inspiration from both
branches. The list below shows the three primary sources of inspiration:

- Research about player motivation, retention and dropout in football clubs by Søren Østergaard (Østergaard,
2007).
- Research about the twelve best questions for measuring the strength of a workplace by Marcus Buckingham and
Curt Coffman (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).
- The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire regarding the psychosocial work environment created by the
National Research Centre for the Working Environment in Denmark (The National Research Centre for the
Working Environment, 2014).

The questionnaire consists of a total of 35 questions – i.e. three non-numbered background questions followed by 32
numbered questions consisting of 29 closed and three open questions. Each question and the assigned number are
listed below. All but one closed question are based on a Likert scale “(…) in which the respondent is asked how
strongly she or he agrees or disagrees with a statement” (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 378). A six-point Likert
scale has been applied with following answer possibilities: (1) Strongly disagree; (2) Moderately disagree; (3) Slightly
disagree; (4) Slightly agree; (5) Moderately agree; (6) Strong agree. The scale does not include a neutral option as for
instance the five-point Likert scale. It forces the respondent to either somehow disagree or agree when in doubt
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 379).

Buckingham and Coffman claim that “A question where everyone always answers ‘Strongly Agree’ is a weak question”
(Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 29). As a result all statements are strong as extreme language has the power to
discriminate between highly motivated players and somehow motivated players (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p.
29). Both positive and negative statements have been integrated to ensure that respondents pay full attention when
answering (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 378). The option to tick ‘not applicable’ has been included to
eliminate random answers. Matrix questions, also called a grid of questions, have been applied throughout most of
the questionnaire to enable faster recording of responses (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 382).

The questionnaire is divided into following categories: background information, motivation, club, personal, coach,
teammates, tournament, match day and additional comments. The content in each category and the reasons behind
the question order will be described subsequently in this chapter. A blank version of the original questionnaire used
for the survey can be found in Appendix A. It should be mentioned that original questionnaire used for the survey was

38
in Danish to minimize the risk of linguistic barriers whereas the description of the questionnaire design below is in
English. The direct translation might have had an impact on the structure of some sentences and slight changes in the
perceived meaning as some words have somewhat different meanings in different languages (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2009, p. 385).

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Accurate background information about the respondents was essential as all classifications in the analysis are made
on the basis of this information. The section was placed at the top of the questionnaire as it contains important
characteristics about the respondent. The questions are easy to answer and include no sensitive person data. The
section could have been moved to the end of the questionnaire given that it had contained sensitive personal data
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 388). The respondents were to fill out the three following points on:

- Club affiliation i.e. AB Tårnby, B.1903, B.93, FA2000, FB, GVI, HIK and KB
- Age group i.e. U13, U14, U15, U16, U17 or U19
- League/tier i.e. the level of competition on which the respondent’s team is currently playing.

MOTIVATION

The questions serve as a basic introduction to the questionnaire and are as a result placed in the beginning right after
the background information.

Strongly Strongly Not

Motivation
disagree agree applicable
1. I feel motivated to play football
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
2. I play football to become a better football
player □ □ □ □ □ □ □
3. I play football to be with friends
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
4. I play football to win matches
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
5. I play football to stay fit
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
6. I play football to become professional
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
The questions are based on research about motivational drivers in youth sports by Søren Østergaard (Østergaard,
2007). The questions are included in this analysis to gain information about how age and level of competition have an
effect on motivation as prior research only provide an overall measurement for all respondents regardless of age and
level of competition. Østergaard’s research revealed that young people play football to become better football
players (59%), to have fun (56%), be with friends (39%), to win matches (25%), stay fit (15%) and play on the best team
(6%) (Østergaard, 2007, p. 24). For this analysis the questions have been modified slightly. Firstly, a general question
on motivation has been added at the top. Secondly, the numbers above indicate that football should be fun to ensure
high motivation but the concept of fun is somehow intangible and lacking substance. Fun is therefore not on the list of
questions in this report as the report seeks to develop concrete knowledge that can be used for developing new

39
initiatives to improve player motivation. Playing on the best team has been replaced with a question of becoming
professional as it might reveal information about drop out in relation to age and level of competition.

CLUB

There are eight questions in this section including two filter questions that are applicable for some respondents only.
Note that filter questions have been named differently. The club section was placed before the three sections
personal, coach and teammates as the club section mainly relates to hygiene factors such as facilities whereas the
three other sections mainly relate to motivation factors according to Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene theory (Hein,
2009, p. 137).

Strongly Strongly Not

Club
disagree agree applicable
7. I feel good at my club
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
8. I am pleased with the club’s facilities
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
9. I shower after training and matches
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
10. I would recommend a friend to join my club
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
11. I have considered changing club within the last
month □ □ □ □ □ □ □
a. If yes, why have you considered changing club
12. I have considered quitting football within the
last month □ □ □ □ □ □ □
a. If yes, why have you considered quitting
football

Question 7 is an overall measurement of the respondent’s current level of wellbeing at the club. Question 8 covers the
aspect of facilities as theory indicates that hygiene factors are relevant for the level of dissatisfaction (Hein, 2009, p.
137). Question 9 is interesting as young players do not make use of the possibility of taking a bath after training and
matches to the same extent as previous generations did. Viewed in isolation it might seem irrelevant but time spent in
the locker room is argued by the authors and DBU Copenhagen to have a direct impact on the social relations on the
team. It is a very sensitive question that the authors would rather be without as it only gives an indication on the
scope of the ‘problem’. The question was purely included on request by DBU Copenhagen. Question 10 gives an
indication of how content the respondent is as only satisfied players would recommend a club to a friend. Question 11
and 11a shed light on considerations about switching clubs. Such consideration might be caused by dissatisfaction, a
wish to compete on a higher level or perhaps the desire to play with friends. Question 11 measures the scope of these
considerations whereas Question 11a, an open filter question where only those who consider joining another club
need to reply, reveals the underlying reasons for the potential club transfer (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p.
387). The same goes for Questions 12 and 12a where the considerations are about quitting football. Knowing the
reasons for people to quit football is important for both the clubs and DBU Copenhagen in order to improve player
retention.

40
PERSONAL

The three sections personal, coach and teammates are all considered more or less equally relevant as they all include
elements of personal growth and recognition and praise from coach and teammates which are all highly important
elements when measuring motivation (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 28) (The National Research Centre for the
Working Environment, 2014) (Hein, 2009, p. 137). The three sections could have been placed differently in the
questionnaire. In this case the layout was taken into consideration as this specific order ensured that the entire
questionnaire could fit on two pages.

Strongly Strongly Not

Personal
disagree agree applicable
13. I feel like part of the team
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
14. I have become a better football player during
the last year □ □ □ □ □ □ □
15. I feel pressured by the expectations from my
coach and teammates □ □ □ □ □ □ □
16. I forget everything about everyday challenges
when I play football □ □ □ □ □ □ □
Question 13 is about belongingness and feeling like part of a group. It is inspired by similar questions found in The
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (The National Research Centre for the Working Environment, 2014). It is also
the first question about the social ties on the team. Prior research indicates that 39% of youth players play football to
be with friends (Østergaard, 2007, p. 24). At the same time poor friendship on the team is likely to cause the player to
either switch club or ultimately quit the sport (Østergaard, 2007, p. 15). Question 14 is important as development of
skills is considered important in relation to measuring the strength of a workplace (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p.
23) (The National Research Centre for the Working Environment, 2014) and in youth football as well where 59%
consider it a key motivational driver (Østergaard, 2007, p. 24). Question 15 and 16 explain how the respondents feel
while playing football – a football player pressured by expectations from the coach or teammates or by everyday
challenges is unlikely to enjoy football as much as a player who is not.

COACH

Strongly Strongly Not

Coach
disagree agree applicable
17. I get along well with my coach
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
18. My coach encourages me to become a better
football player □ □ □ □ □ □ □
19. I have received recognition or praise from my
coach within the last week □ □ □ □ □ □ □
20. My coach cares about me as a person
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
Work environment research indicates that managers thump companies meaning that “It is better to work for a great
manager in an old-fashioned company than for a terrible manager in a company offering enlightened, employee-
focused culture” (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 34). The same applies in football where the coach is a central

41
figure in both training and matches. Prior research about drop out in youth football support indicates that a poor
relationship with the coach is likely to result in drop out (Østergaard, 2007, p. 35). Question 17 describes the
relationship between the coach and the player on a general level whereas Questions 18, 19 and 20 reveal more in-
depth information about the relationship with regards to development, feedback and interpersonal relations. The
three lasts questions are rewritten versions of three of Buckingham and Coffman’s twelve best questions for
measuring the strength of a workplace (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 28).

TEAMMATES

Strongly Strongly Not

Teammates
disagree agree applicable
21. I am pleased with the number of social activities
that my club offers □ □ □ □ □ □ □
22. My teammates encourage me to become a
better football player □ □ □ □ □ □ □
23. I have received recognition or praise from my
teammates within the last week □ □ □ □ □ □ □
24. My teammates are always giving their best
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
25. I have a best friend on the team
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
The social aspect is important in youth football both in relation to attraction and retention of players (Østergaard,
2007). Question 21 has the potential to reveal information that could be used for evaluation the current setup of
social activities or the creation of new social activities. Questions 22 to 25 are also rewritten versions of the twelve
best questions for measuring the strength of a workplace (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 28). The questions cover
the aspects of encouragement, feedback, attitude and friendship which are all relevant for the social ties when
evaluating the psychological work environment (The National Research Centre for the Working Environment, 2014).

TOURNAMENT

The following three questions are placed in the tournament section. The tournament section and the match day
section are not directly related to traditional motivation theory. The questions are relevant for the evaluation of the
current tournament structure in youth football in Copenhagen. The questions are giving low priority in this report due
to their nature but they are included upon request from DBU Copenhagen. The two sections are placed in the final
part of the questionnaire due to their relatively low importance for the motivational analysis.

Strongly Strongly Not

Tournament
disagree agree applicable
26. I spend too much time on transportation when
travelling to away games □ □ □ □ □ □ □
27. It is important for me to play in a tournament
where I can both win and lose □ □ □ □ □ □ □
28. It is important for me to play in a tournament
with potential promotion and relegation □ □ □ □ □ □ □

42
Discussions about changing the tournament structure are currently taking place at DBU Copenhagen. Logistics,
tournaments with equally skilled opponents and relegation/promotion are all important topics in the discussion.
These questions can provide useful data for the discussion.

MATCH DAY

Not
Match day Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
applicable
29. Which match days are right for you
(multiple choices allowed) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
The question of match days is closely related to the ones found in the tournament section. A separate section was
created as another scale than the Likert scale was applied. The question can provide valuable information when
designing the match day schedule for the different age groups.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Additional comments
30. Please write any additional comments here:

An open question was included in the end of the questionnaire for several reasons. Firstly, the respondents might
have important insights that could not be submitted in the closed question. An open question enables the respondent
to clarify these thoughts. Secondly, an open question enables gathering of qualitative data (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2009, p. 485). Thirdly, the information might not only be information to this specific research project but
also to future research projects.

4.4.1.3 PILOT TESTING OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

“The purpose of the pilot test is to refine the questionnaire so that respondents will have no problems in answering
the questions and there will be no problems in recording the data” (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 394). As a
result it was decided to pilot test the questionnaire to ensure that all questions were clear, simple and unambiguous
(Robson, 2002, p. 254). It is essential to find and resolve concrete issues in relation to both the introductory
presentation of the questionnaire and the actual questionnaire during the pilot testing as it could be extremely time-
consuming to spot such problems at a later stage (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 394).

Pilot testing has the potential not only to refine the questionnaire in terms of understanding but it might also provide
additional information e.g. about how much time it takes for a respondent to fill out the questionnaire and if certain
topics should be investigated differently. It is recommended to ask following questions in relation to pilot testing (Bell,
2005, pp. 147-148).

- How long did it take you to complete?

- Were the instructions clear?

43
 - Were any of the questions unclear or ambiguous?
o If so, will you say which and why?
- Did you object to answering any of the questions?
- In your opinion, has any major topic been omitted?
- Was the layout of the questionnaire clear/attractive?
- Any comments?

Pilot testing took place in Boldklubben Skjold located in Copenhagen. The test was conducted in conjunction with U14
players to promote validity and understanding by testing with a group of respondents as similar as possible to the final
population (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 394).

During the pilot testing all players were briefly introduced to the questionnaire before they were asked to fill it out.
The completed questionnaires seen in isolation produced little insight. However, the feedback session afterwards
provided the authors with valuable insight in potential linguistic barriers. As a result certain questions were rephrased
to be fully understandable for respondents regardless of age. In addition the feedback session led to minor
adjustments in the introductory presentation of the questionnaire. The introduction focused on describing the overall
motivation for conducting the analysis, ensuring correct data entry on the background information points, explaining
the Likert scale and emphasising that all data would be treated confidentially. These focus points were established and
refined as it is argued that a proper introduction of a self-administered questionnaire affects the response rate
positively (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 389).

4.4.1.4 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE

Hard copies of the questionnaires were handed out to the respondents directly after the brief introduction, filled out
immediately and independently by the respondents and collected right afterwards by the authors. The authors were
available if assistance was needed for completing the questionnaire. The process for a team typically took 10-15
minutes from the initial presentation of the research until all data had been gathered. The respondents were
encouraged to fill out the questionnaires independently and silently to minimize the risk of the answers being
contaminated by consultation with teammates or other parties (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 364).

4.4.1.5 DATA ENTRY AND STATISTICS

All data was registered manually by the authors. All questionnaires were entered separately which enables
comparisons across various factors. It is therefore possible to both describe the current level of motivation for
different teams and clubs, but more importantly it is possible to establish causal relationships between age and level
of competition in relation to motivation (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 140).

Coding of responses has been applied to help organising, quantifying and analysing the data efficiently (Robson, 2002,
p. 257). Each possible answer on the scale was given a number that was used for both data entry and the statistical

44
analysis afterwards. The codes were (1) Strongly disagree, (2) Moderately disagree, (3) Slightly disagree, (4) Slightly
agree, (5) Moderately agree, (6) Strong agree, and (7) Not applicable.

Each question in the analysis and discussion encompasses the following statistical elements:

a) A response rate
b) A visual frequency distribution based on either age or level of competition
c) Results from ANOVA Single factor
d) Average scores

The response rate (a) is the proportion of the total population that answered strongly disagree, moderately disagree,
slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, or strong agree. A high response rate is positive as it indicates that
most respondents understood the question fully while it adds to the credibility of the findings whereas a low response
rate adds to the uncertainty of the findings.

The frequency distribution (b) takes form as a column chart showing the frequency of each response for each question
based on either age or level of competition. Only code 1 to 6 responses have been accounted for in the analysis
meaning that blank responses and responses registered with code 7 ‘Not applicable’ have been left out.

The ANOVA Single factor (c) is a technique used to compare the means scores of three or more groups. In this case the
samples were U13, U14, U15, U16, U17 and U19 for age and low, mid and top level for level of competition. “ANOVA
operates by comparing the sample score variation observed between groups with the sample score variation observed
within groups” (Rutherford, 2001, p. 18). Significant differences between at least two of the group means are found
when the between scores vary more than the within scores. A significance level of 0.05 was used of all analyses in this
report. The premise of ANOVA is that the underlying populations are normally distributed and have equal variance. It
should be noted that the premise has not been tested as it is beyond curriculum. The ANOVA analyses have only been
used to determine whether or not the differences found in the frequency distribution and the average scores should
be accounted for. Thus differences in the responses have only been accounted for once statistically significant
differences emerged.

Average scores (d) are based on same the coding of responses as mentioned above – i.e. a scale from one to six. For
instance an average score of 5.5 means that the average is right between moderately agree and strong agree. Please
note that average scores for all age groups were based on equal weights for all age groups regardless of the number
of players each group represented just as the average scores for all levels were based on equal weights for all levels
which result in two different averages for age and level of completion respectively for each question even though the
averages are based on the same data. It was a deliberate choice to form the best basis for comparison within each
segment.

45
5 ANALYSIS OF DATA

The following subchapters examines the raw data found in the questionnaire for each question based on age and level
of competition.

5.1 QUESTION 1: I FEEL MOTIVATED TO PLAY FOOTBALL

Question 1 is a broad question describing the overall level of motivation. The response rate for Question 1 is 98.76%.

Question 1: I feel motivated to play football

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.66 for
U13, 5.58 for U14, 5.63 for U15, 5.39 for U16, 5.32 for U17, 5.31 for U19 and 5.48 for all age groups. Younger players
are in general more motivated to play football than older players. However, the average score of 5.48 for all age
groups indicates a high level of motivation for playing football regardless of age. The positive tendencies continue
when all respondents who somehow agree with the statement “I feel motivated to play football” are combined as
97% of U13 and U14, 98% of U15, 93% of U16, 94% of U17 and 96% of U19 have answered either ‘slightly agree’,
‘moderately agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. There is still room for improvement despite these positive tendencies as some
players are not motivated for playing football. U16 is the age group that have the highest percentage in the three
negative response options – i.e. ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘slightly disagree’ with a total of 7%. The percentage is 3% for
U13 and U14, 2% for U15, 6% for U17 and 4% for U19. These numbers align well with the tendency in drop out in
football which typically kicks in around U16-U19 (Laub, 2013, p. 70).

46
 Question 1: I feel motivated to play football
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 5.44 for low
level, 5.54 for mid level, 5.59 for high level and 5.52 for all levels. The average score of 5.52 for all levels indicate a
high level of motivation regardless of the level of competition. 96% of all respondents agree to some extent with the
statement “I feel motivated to play football” meaning that the remaining 4% do not feel motivated to play football.

5.2 QUESTION 2: I PLAY FOOTBALL TO BECOME A BETTER FOOTBALL PLAYER

Question 2 is interesting as traditional motivation literature claims that growth possibilities are important for
motivation. Prior research reveals that 59% of youth players in the age 13-18 years considered to possibility of
becoming a better football player as one of the most important reasons for playing football in a club (Østergaard,
2007, p. 24). The response rate for Question 2 is 98.85%.

Question 2: I play football to become a better football player

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.68 for
U13, 5.58 for U14, 5.50 for U15, 5.36 for U16, 5.16 for U17, 5.04 for U19 and 5.39 for all age groups. Younger players
find it more important to become a better football player than older players. The average score of 5.39 for all age
groups indicate that most players regardless of age give growth possibilities a high priority. A potential problem arises

47
as not all players are concerned with growth possibilities. 3-4% of U13-U15, 7% of U16, 12% of U17 and 15% of U19
disagrees to some extent with the statement “I play football to become a better football player”. These numbers
represent a potential problem as it is difficult for the coach to find common ground at training and match as the
players have different preferences.

Question 2: I play football to become a better football player

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 5.20 for low
level, 5.48 for mid level, 5.67 for high level and 5.45 for all levels. Low level players are less concerned with growth
possibilities than top level players. The average score of 5.45 for all levels indicate that most players regardless of level
of competition give growth possibilities a high priority. However, 11% of low level players have answered either
‘strongly disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’ or ‘slightly disagree’ whereas only 5% of mid level and 2% of top level
players disagrees with the statement “I play football to become a better football player”. Low level players have more
scattered opinions about growth possibilities than top level players. A low level coach might therefore have a hard
time finding common ground as the players have different drivers for playing football whereas almost all top level
players are motivated to become better football players.

5.3 QUESTION 3: I PLAY FOOTBALL TO BE WITH FRIENDS

Question 3 reveals information about the importance of playing football with friends. Prior research reveals that 39%
of youth players in the age 13-18 years considered to possibility of playing with friends one of the most important
reasons for playing football in a club (Østergaard, 2007, p. 24). The response rate for Question 3 is 96.02%.

48
 Question 3: I play football to be with friends
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.29 for
U13, 4.59 for U14, 4.56 for U15, 4.59 for U16, 4.77 for U17, 4.67 for U19 and 4.58 for all age groups. The average
score of 4.58 for all age groups indicate moderate desire to play with friends regardless of age. 78% of all respondents
agree to some extent with the statement “I play football to be with friends” meaning that the remaining 22% do not
give the social element a high priority.

Question 3: I play football to be with friends

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.89 for low
level, 4.41 for mid level, 4.42 for top level and 4.57 for all levels. Low level players find it more important to play with
their friends than top level players. The average score of 4.57 for all levels indicate that the average player only finds it
fairly important to play football with friends. Not all players play football to be with friends. 14% of low level, 24% of
mid level and 25% of top level players have answered either ‘strongly disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’ or ‘slightly
disagree’. It is important to acknowledge and accommodate the players desire to be with friends during training
sessions – especially at the low level where 47% of the players have answered ‘strongly agree’.

49
5.4 QUESTION 4: I PLAY FOOTBALL TO WIN MATCHES

Question 4 reveals information about the importance of winning football matches. Prior research reveals that 25% of
youth players in the age 13-18 years considered winning matches as one of the most important reasons for playing
football in a club (Østergaard, 2007, p. 24). The response rate for Question 4 is 96.73%.

Question 4: I play football to win matches

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.78 for
U13, 5.03 for U14, 5.30 for U15, 5.35 for U16, 5.29 for U17, 5.46 for U19 and 5.20 for all age groups. Older players find
it more important to win matches than younger players. The score of 5.20 for all age groups indicate that the average
player value the competitive element of winning matches. At the same time 19% of U13, 13% of U14, 9% of U15, 8%
of U16, 10% of U17 and 5% of U19 disagree with the statement to some extend implying that they play football for
other reasons that winning matches. Seen in isolation is can be considered positive that the players have developed a
winning culture, but a potential problem arises as the desire to become a better football player decreases as the
players grow older, as seen in Question 2, whereas the desire to win matches increases simultaneous.

Question 4: I play football to win matches

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.77 for low
level, 5.13 for mid level, 5.54 for top level and 5.14 for all levels. The scores indicate that top level players find it more

50
important to win matches than low level players while the average score of 5.14 for all levels indicate that the average
player to a large extent plays football to win matches. 19% of low level, 11% of mid level and only 6% of top level
players have answered either ‘strongly disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’ or ‘slightly disagree’. Question 2 regarding the
desire to become a better football player is interesting when evaluating question 4. These two questions reveal that
top level players are not only more motivated to become better football players – they are also more motivated to
win matches. Thus no potential problem arises when combining Question 2 and 4 in relation to level.

5.5 QUESTION 5: I PLAY FOOTBALL TO STAY FIT

Question 5 reveals information about the importance of staying fit. Prior research reveals that 15% of youth players in
the age 13-18 years considered the possibility of staying fit as one of the most important reasons for playing football
in a club (Østergaard, 2007, p. 24). The response rate for Question 5 is 96.19%.

Question 5: I play football to stay fit

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.52 for
U13, 4.86 for U14, 5.00 for U15, 4.92 for U16, 5.09 for U17, 4.98 for U19 and 4.89 for all age groups. Younger players
and in particular U13 do not consider staying fit as an important motivational driver for playing football as older
players. The score of 4.89 for all age groups suggest that staying fit is moderately important for the average player
even though 25% of U13, 14% of U14, 11% of U15, 16% of U16, 12% of U17 and 11% of U19 disagrees with the
statement ‘I play football to stay fit’. No definitive recommendations can be made from this data but coaches ought to
acknowledge the players’ desire to stay fit when developing the training schedules. Additional data is needed to
determine whether the players are current content with the current training or if a stronger emphasis on fitness
related activities are in demand.

51
 Question 5: I play football to stay fit
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.85 for low
level, 4.91 for mid level, 4.83 for top level and 4.86 for all levels. The average score of 4.86 for all levels indicate that
staying fit is moderately important for the players regardless of level of competition. In average 16% of all players
regardless of level have answered either ‘ strongly disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’ or slightly disagree’ meaning that a
fairly large percentage do consider the element of staying fit as an important motivational driver for playing football.
Additional data is needed to determine whether a stronger focus on fitness related activities are in demand as
described in Question 5 for the different age groups.

5.6 QUESTION 6: I PLAY FOOTBALL TO BECOME PROFESSIONAL

Question 6 reveals information about the dream of becoming a professional football player. It is very difficult to
become a professional football player as “(...) the transition from talented youth level to professional level is
considered the most difficult and complex transition in sports” (Larsen, Alfermann, Henriksen, & Christensen, 2014, p.
91) and that only 0.04% of all footballers in the world play in a professional league (Haugaasen & Jordet, 2012, p. 177).
The response rate for Question 6 is 94.34%.

Question 6: I play football to become professional

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

52
Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.52 for
U13, 4.41 for U14, 4.19 for U15, 3.95 for U16, 3.60 for U17, 3.70 for U19 and 4.06 for all age groups. Younger players
are highly ambitious even though possibility of becoming professional is small whereas older players have a slightly
more realistic view on the dream of becoming professional. The average score of 4.06 for all age groups is very high
compared to fact that only 0.04% of all footballers in the world are professional (Haugaasen & Jordet, 2012, p. 177).
The scope of the problem becomes more tangible when looking at the numbers of players who have answered either
‘strongly agree’, ‘moderately agree’ or ‘slightly agree’ - i.e. 73% of U13, 72% of U14, 66% of U15, 64% of U16, 52% of
U17 and 56% of U19. The players will eventually realise that their potential is insufficient to become professional
which will result in an imminent risk of the players quitting football.

Question 6: I play football to become professional

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Low
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 3.59 for low
level, 4.05 for mid level, 4.89 for top level and 4.17 for all levels. The scores indicate that top level players are more
ambitious than low level players. The average scores of 4.17 for all levels suggest that most players still pursue the
dream of becoming professional despite the bad odds. 53% of low level, 63% of mid level and 83% of top level agree
to some extent with the statement “I play football to become professional”. The unrealistic view on becoming
professional is a potential threat to player retention as the players are inclined to quit football once their dreams
burst.

5.7 QUESTION 7: I FEEL GOOD AT MY CLUB

Question 7 is a broad question where the players are asked to make an assessment of their overall wellbeing in their
club. Evaluating the wellbeing of the players is crucial to player retention as poor wellbeing at the club is considered
one of the single most important reasons why boys quit football (Østergaard, 2007, p. 35). The response rate for
Question 7 is 98.14%.

53
 Question 7: I feel good at my club
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.58 for
U13, 5.65 for U14, 5.39 for U15, 5.21 for U16, 5.11 for U17, 5.00 for U19 and 5.32 for all age groups. The scores clearly
indicate an overall sense of wellbeing among youth players in their respective clubs. However, younger players feel a
little better at their club than older players. The average score of 5.32 for all age groups indicate that the vast majority
of the players feel good at their club regardless of their age. Despite the positive scores 5% of U13, 3% of U14, 6% of
U15, 10% of U16, 10% of U17 and 12% of U19 disagree to some extent with the statement “I feel good at my club”.
These percentages represent a potential problem as players feeling uncomfortable at their club are inclined to switch
club or even quit football.

Question 7: I feel good at my club

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 5.46 for low
level, 5.43 for mid level, 5.33 for top level and 5.41 for all levels. The average score of 5.41 for all levels is very high
indicating a strong sense of wellbeing regardless of level. The average score for all levels seen in isolation appears
positive but yet 8% of all players feel uncomfortable at their club – i.e. players who have answered either ‘strongly
disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’ or slightly disagree’. These players are, as described previously, inclined to either
switch club or even quit football.

54
5.8 QUESTION 8: I AM PLEASED WITH THE CLUB’S FACILITIES

Question 8 is used for evaluation of the club facilities – i.e. training ground, locker rooms, cafeteria etc. In recent year
the importance of modern sports facilities has been discussed intensively. The opinions are scattered with clubs
suggesting that the facilities are rundown and outdated whereas Søren Østergaard claims that young people are more
or less content with the facilities as long as they remain functional (Østergaard, 2007, p. 14 & 19). The response rate
for Question 8 is 96.37%.

Question 8: I am pleased with the club's facilities

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.27 for
U13, 4.99 for U14, 4.77 for U15, 4.56 for U16, 4.56 for U17, 4.85 for U19 and 4.84 for all age groups. The scores
indicate that the vast majority are moderately content with the facilities with younger players and in particular U13
players being more pleased with the facilities than older players. The average score of 4.84 for all age groups is
moderately high but leaves room for improvement. 6% of U13, 14% of U14, 15% of U15, 22% of U16, 20% of U17 and
14% of U19 are to some extent dissatisfied with the clubs facilities having answered either ‘strongly disagree’,
‘moderately disagree’ or ‘slightly disagree’. The data suggest that the truth concerning the importance of modern
sports facilities is somewhere in between the two extremes presented by the clubs on the one side and Søren
Østergaard on the other side as roughly 85% of all players are somewhat pleased with the current facilities. This
percentage aligns well with a former study conducted by Søren Østergaard where 15% of the considered the facilities
poor (Østergaard, 2007, p. 19).

55
 Question 8: I am pleased with the club's facilities
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.95 for low
level, 4.92 for mid level, 4.79 for top level and 4.89 for all levels. The average score of 4.89 for all levels is moderately
high suggesting that most players are moderately pleased with the current club facilities. At the same time 14% of all
players regardless of level are dissatisfied with the facilities. Once again the numbers align well with Søren
Østergaards study where 15% of the considered the facilities poor (Østergaard, 2007, p. 19).

5.9 QUESTION 9: I SHOWER AFTER TRAINING AND MATCHES

Question 9 comes as a continuation of Question 8 regarding the club facilities. Question 9 investigates the usage of
the shower facilities as young players today tend not shower after training and matches. The question was included in
the survey as time spent in the locker room is considered to have a direct impact on the social relations on the team.
The response rate for Question 9 is 96.11%.

Question 9: I shower after training and matches

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 2.72 for
U13, 2.73 for U14, 2.95 for U15, 2.32 for U16, 2.67 for U17, 3.40 for U19 and 2.80 for all age groups. The diagram
reveals large spread in the response for all age groups which is also reflected in all scores being located around

56
‘slightly agree’. Older players shower more often after training and match than younger players. The average score of
2.80 for all age groups indicate that an average player slightly disagree with the statement raised in Question 9. Only
36% of U13, 37% of U14, 42% of U15, 28% of U16, 33% of U17 and 48% of U19 agrees to extent with the statement “I
shower after match and training” whereas 47% of all players answered ‘strongly disagree’.

Question 9: I shower after training and matches

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 2.08 for low
level, 2.64 for mid level, 3.68 for top level and 2.80 for all levels. Top level players shower more often than low level
players even though all scores remain low. The average scores of 2.80 for all levels suggest that the average player do
not make use of the shower facilities at the club. 22% of low level, 34% of mid level and 57% of top level players
answered either ‘ strongly agree’, moderately agree’ or ‘slightly agree’ while 46% of all players answered ‘strongly
disagree’.

5.10 QUESTION 10: I WOULD RECOMMEND A FRIEND TO JOIN MY CLUB

Question 10 investigates whether a player would recommend a friend to join the club. The question is interesting as
measures the degree to which a player serves as an ambassador for the club. Such data can also be used for
evaluating the attractiveness of any given club. The response rate for Question 10 is 90.27%

57
 Question 10: I would recommend a friend to join my club
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.63 for
U13, 4.83 for U14, 4.58 for U15, 4.68 for U16, 4.54 for U17, 4.43 for U19 and 4.61 for all age groups. The average
score of 4.61 for all levels indicate a moderate willingness to recommend the club to a friend with 80% being willing to
recommend the club to some extent.

Question 10: I would recommend a friend to join my club

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.74 for low
level, 4.64 for mid level, 4.57 for top level and 4.65 for all levels. The average score of 4.65 for all levels is moderate
with 80% having answered either ‘slightly agree’, ‘moderately agree’, or ‘strongly agree’.

5.11 QUESTION 11: I HAVE CONSIDERED CHANGING CLUB WITHIN THE LAST MONTH

Question 11 shed light on considerations about switching club by measuring the scope of these considerations. Such
considerations can be caused by many different factors such as low motivation for playing football, a desire to play on
a higher level, poor relationships with the coach or teammates or external factors such moving to a new city. The
underlying reasons for eventual considerations will be addressed later in Question 11a. The response rate for

58
Question 11 is 89.12%. The findings are not entirely accurate due to the relatively low response rate. Thus precautions
should be made when evaluating the results.

Question 11: I have considered changing club within the last month
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 1.86 for
U13, 1.82 for U14, 2.01 for U15, 2.42 for U16, 2.62 for U17, 2.58 for U19 and 2.22 for all age groups. The scores are
fairly low for all respondents, as reflected in the relatively low average score of 2.22 for all age groups, meaning that
the majority of the players have not considered switching club within the last month. However, older players are more
inclined to have these thoughts than younger players. There is still room for improvement as 19% of U13, 17% of U14,
22% of U15, 30% of U16, 34% of U17 and 35% of U19 have had considerations about switching club within the last
months.

Question 11: I have considered changing club within the last month
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 1.97 for low
level, 2.00 for mid level, 2.35 for top level and 2.10 for all levels meaning that top level players spend more time
thinking about switching clubs than younger players even though the all scores are fairly low. The average score of
2.10 for all levels indicates that most players do not consider changing club. There is a potential for improvement on
all levels despite the low average scores with 21% of low level, 22% of mid level and 29% of top level have considered
changing clubs within the last month.

59
5.12 QUESTION 11A: WHY HAVE YOU CONSIDERED CHANGING CLUB

Question 11a is designed as an open question where players are given freedom to explain their response from
question 11 regarding changing clubs. In order for responses to be taken into consideration, the demand was set that
a response of either ‘slightly agree’, ‘moderately agree’, or ‘strongly agree’ was depicted in question 11. The answers
have been grouped in fitting categories to illustrate patterns and certain trends.

Question 11a: Why have you considered changing club?

Development/desire to play on higher level 68

Social matters 14
Unsatisfied with coach 14
New challenge 11
Unsatisfied with teammates 8
Unserious practices 5
Lack of players 5
Lack of playing time 5
Distance to club/transport 3
Other 3

Responses

To answers retrieved from this question are highly relevant in determining aspects where club or the particular team
can improve in order to retain its players. Even though comments may be made out of context or be written in a
manner that only dictates the mood the player was in a that given time, it still enable the club to take action towards
the concerns that at least to some degree represent the overall attitude of the player. Of all players who were
considering changing clubs, and provided a response of ‘slightly agree’, ‘moderately agree’, or ‘strongly agree’ a total
of 68 players reasoned they considered switching from their current club due to a setback in development or a desire
to play for a higher level team. This is a massive problem for those clubs who operate with large age groups and were
there can be only one best team. Players will always have an opinion towards where they see themselves capable of
playing, but in the end it is the coach who decides who plays for whom. The importance of this particular topic could
lastly lead individuals to not only change clubs, but quit football all together. This aspect will be explored in question
12a. Another important fact to be investigated is that 15 players argued the reason for changing clubs was due to their
respective coaches. Not all coaches might be able to cope with the pressure from many players and emphasis then lies
in providing them with the proper set of tools to provide satisfying practices. The relationship between player and
coach is very important, i.e. as it will be described in question 17-20. Not only is the relationship an important issue,
but moreover the ability the coach possesses to run team training and is able to differentiate training passes and
make sure the players are challenged and do not sense their development is stagnating. Another prime factor for
changing clubs lies in the prospect of playing alongside close friends, or not fitting into the current team strictly
socially. For some players the social element becomes a serious matter as they find it difficult to adapt without the

60
presence of familiar faces. For this, 14 players argued that social matters were behind their reasoning for considering
changing clubs. Closely behind, with 11 respondents, the desire for a new challenge becomes important for some
players. Some find self-motivation easy and do not consider it an issue staying at the same club for numerous years.
Others stagnate in the process and need new influences and coaching manners in order to exploit their respective
talents. From that point of view it is not an easy topic to tackle for clubs, but more an acceptance of way of life. From
DBU Copenhagen’s point of view the assurance lies in players deciding to switch clubs rather than quitting football
altogether which would be a bigger issue to address.

5.13 QUESTION 12: I HAVE CONSIDERED QUITTING FOOTBALL WITHIN THE LAST MONTH

Question 12 explains the degree to which the players’ have considered quitting football within the last month. It is an
important issue to address if player retention must be improved. Players consider changing clubs for many different
reasons such as a desire to spend more time the friends and family, work, school, poor relationship with the coach or
teams mates, too much competition or the lack of resources allocated to low level teams just to mention a few
(Østergaard, 2007, p. 15). The underlying reasons for the responses presented in this report will be presented and
discussed in Question 12a. The response rate for Question 12 is 92.83%.

Question 12: I have considered quitting football within the last month
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 1.33 for
U13, 1.34 for U14, 1.35 for U15, 1.49 for U16, 1.64 for U17, 1.72 for U19 and 1.48 for all age groups. The scores for
younger players and in particular U13 to U15 are slightly lower than the scores for older players. This means older
players spend more time thinking about quitting football than younger players. The average score of 1.48 for all age
groups indicate that only a small fraction of the players consider quitting football. On the positive side most players
regardless of age have answered ‘strongly disagree’. At the same time 6% of U13, 6% of U14, 7% of U15, 10% of U16,
12% of U17 and 17% of U19 have to some extent considered quitting football within the last month.

61
 Question 12: I have considered quitting football within the last month
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 1.54 for low
level, 1.48 for mid level, 1.25 for top level and 1.42 for all levels meaning that low level players spend more time
thinking about quitting than low level players. It should be noted that all scores are fairly low which is reflected in the
average score of 1.42 for all levels. It differences between the different levels becomes evident when combining the
players who have answered either ‘slightly agree’, ‘moderately agree’, or ‘strongly agree’ where the percentages are
11% for low level, 10% for mid level and 4% for top level. It is noteworthy that an average low level is approximately
2.5 times more likely to consider quitting football than an average top level player.

5.14 QUESTION 12A: WHY HAVE YOU CONSIDERED QUITTING FOOTBALL

Question 12a aims to analyse why players have considered quitting football all together. In order for responses to be
taken into consideration, the demand was set that a response of either ‘slightly agree’, ‘moderately agree’, or
‘strongly agree’ was depicted in question 12. The answers have been grouped in fitting categories to illustrate
patterns and certain trends.

Question 12a: Why have you considered quitting football

Lost interest 10
Too unserious 9
Other 7
Too much stress from school 7
Other things are prioritized 6
Other sport activities 5
Feel pressured 4
Due to teammates 3
I play for the lowest team 2

Responses

62
As a point of reference Østergaard highlighted in his report about retention certain elements that influence leisure
activity dropouts among kids. Among the reasons were (Østergaard, 2007, p. 15):

- Wanting to spend more time with friends/girlfriend/work

- Poor friendship on the team
- The coach and his or hers pedagogical abilities
- Being tired of the team or club
- Stronger emphasis on education and homework
- The competition is too strong – including the distribution of resources between the different teams on
different levels
- The activity is too scheduled and thus more flexible offers such as fitness appeal

Even though the abovementioned causes are based on leisure activities all together they are very much in line with
reasons provided by respondents to this survey. 10 players responded they had lost interest which would dictate they
were getting tired with the team and club and simply did not bother to play football anymore. Additionally, 7 players
responded that stress from school was affecting their football which is a highly relevant aspect to consider. All players
in the age groups between 13 and 19 are presumably attending some sort of education which automatically equals
homework. Many individuals then feel the workload from school affects their leisure time and by being in school every
day they are to prioritize these elements higher than attending leisure activities. Nonetheless, an aspect that is not
highlighted in the survey conducted by Østergaard is the factor that individuals consider dropping football due to
unserious training environments. From this survey it is realized that 9 players illustrate unserious training as a
motivator for quitting football. These inclinations are commonly experiences on mid to low level team where
competition might be less of a fact and where the social aspect exceeds the sportive. It nonetheless poses a genuine
threat that unserious environments will affect the morale of far more players than those who actually sees it as a
disturbance at this present time. According to Østergaard, an aspect that appears refers to activities being too
monotonous. For football practices it become a real concern when coaches are not able to differentiate practices in a
sense that players do not get the feeling they are only repeating exercises and do not experience an increasing
learning curve. 2 respondents from the ‘other’ category directly blamed their coaches for their reason to quit football,
moreover, 10 players argued they had lost interest which also could be due to the environment the coach sets up, and
9 players argued training was too unserious, again, an element that the coach is directly responsible for.

5.15 QUESTION 13: I FEEL LIKE PART OF THE TEAM

Question 13 is the first question to explore the social ties on the team. The sense of belongingness and feeling like
part of a group is in focus here as prior research suggests that 39% of youth players play football to be with friend

63
(Østergaard, 2007, p. 24). However, poor social relation can also cause a player to either switch club or even quit
football (Østergaard, 2007, p. 15). The response rate for Question 13 is 97.96%.

Question 13: I feel like part of the team

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.54 for
U13, 5.50 for U14, 5.50 for U15, 5.47 for U16, 5.32 for U17, 5.24 for U19 and 5.43 for all age groups. The average
score of 5.43 for all age groups indicate a strong sense of belongingness. Only 5% of all players disagree to some
extent with the statement having answered either ‘strongly disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’ or ‘slightly disagree’.

Question 13: I feel like part of the team

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 5.43 for low
level, 5.46 for mid level, 5.47 for top level and 5.45 for all levels meaning that most players experience a strong sense
of belongingness on their team. It is worth mentioning that only 5% do not feel like part of the team.

5.16 QUESTION 14: I HAVE BECOME A BETTER FOOTBALL PLAYER DURING THE LAST YEAR

Development of skills is considered highly important in relation to motivation and when measuring the strength of
work place (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 23) (The National Research Centre for the Working Environment, 2014).

64
The same applies in youth football where 59% of the players consider it a key motivational driver (Østergaard, 2007, p.
24). Question 14 measures whether a player feels he has developed in the last year. The response rate for Question 14
is 96.73%.

Question 14: I have become a better football player during the last year
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.61 for
U13, 5.61 for U14, 5.40 for U15, 5.26 for U16, 5.02 for U17, 4.94 for U19 and 5.31 for all age groups. The youngest
players experience a highly noticeable development of skills with an average score well above 5.5 whereas the
average scores for the older age groups are somewhere around 5. The average score of 5.31 for all age groups indicate
that the majority of all players have become better football players within the last year. The gap between the different
age groups become even clearer when comparing the number of respondents having answered either ‘strongly
disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’ or ‘slightly disagree’ – i.e. 4% of U13, 2% of U14, 7% of U15, 10% of U16, 15% of U17
and 14% of U19. It is a negative tendency that the players experience a slower learning curve once they grow older.
Perhaps the differences can be partly explained by the hypothesis that younger players spend most of their time
learning new skills while older players spend most of their time on improving previously learned skills as the latter is
not nearly as tangible and measurable as learning new skills.

Question 14: I have become a better football player during the last year
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

65
Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 5.33 for low
level, 5.36 for mid level, 5.49 for top level and 5.39 for all levels. It means that most players have become better
football players within the last year. There is still potential for improvement as 7% of all players do not feel like better
football players now than they did a year ago having answered either ‘strongly disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’ or
‘slightly disagree’.

5.17 QUESTION 15: I FEEL PRESSURED BY THE EXPECTATIONS FROM MY COACH AND
TEAMMATES

Football is a sport where the saying ‘the winner takes it all’ fits very well. Morten Bruun believes that many youth
coaches are treating their players as professionals in an attempt to win the next match, trophy or promotion. “In my
eyes there are too many clubs who treat their teenagers as elite players and coach them as such with requirement for
3
the amount of training, passion and punctuality. And it is a huge mistake” (Bruun, 2014, p. 13) Question 15 examines
whether the players feel pressured by the expectations from both their coach and their teammates. The data
gathered in Question 15 can be used to either support or oppose this hypothesis. In addition the data can be used to
examine the social relations between their player and his coach and the player and his teammates. The response rate
for Question 15 is 93.36%.

Question 15: I feel pressured by the expectations from my coach and teammates
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
U19
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 3.09 for
U13, 3.12 for U14, 3.37 for U15, 3.02 for U16, 3.27 for U17, 3.31 for U19 and 3.20 for all age groups. The average
score of 3.20 for all age groups indicate that the players have fragmented views on feeling pressured by the coach and
teammates. The graph clearly shows the fragmented opinions. On the negative side 47% of all players feel pressured

3
Translated from Danish: I mine øjne er der alt for mange klubber, som behandler deres teenagere som elitespillere
og træner dem derefter med alt, hvad dertil hører af krav om træningsmængde, passion og punktlighed. Og det er en
kæmpefejl.

66
by the expectations from the coach and their teammates meaning that Morten Bruun might be on to something when
claiming that the players are being coaches too seriously.

Question 15: I feel pressured by the expectations from my coach and teammates
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 2.75 for low
level, 3.25 for mid level, 3.54 for top level and 3.18 for all levels. The responses from the different levels are very
diverse with top level players feeling more pressured by the expectations from the coach and their teammates than
younger players. The average score of 3.18 for all levels is slightly negative with the average being somewhere
between ‘slightly disagree’ and ‘slightly agree’. 35% of low level, 47% of mid level and 56% of top level players feel
pressured by these expectations to some extent. The problem is present on all levels but it is more marked on top
level.

5.18 QUESTION 16: I FORGET EVERYTHING ABOUT E VERYDAY CHALLENGES WHEN I PLAY
FOOTBALL

Football is a leisure activity along with other sports with potential to serve as a breather from everyday challenges.
Question 16 measures the extent to which the players forget about everyday challenges when playing football. The
response rate for Question 16 is 94.69%.

67
 Question 16: I forget everything about everyday challenges when I play football
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.12 for
U13, 5.24 for U14, 4.92 for U15, 5.03 for U16, 5.19 for U17, 5.20 for U19 and 5.12 for all age groups. The average
score of 5.12 for all age groups indicate that most players are capable of letting go of all everyday challenges and
worries when playing football. This is very positive taking the findings from Question 15 ‘I feel pressured by the
expectations from my coach and teammates’ into considerations. However, 12% of the respondents cannot forget
about everyday challenges when playing football meaning that these players cannot enjoy football fully as their
thoughts are elsewhere.

Question 16: I forget everything about everyday challenges when I play football
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.98 for low
level, 5.15 for mid level, 5.23 for top level and 5.12 for all levels. The average score of 5.12 for all levels imply that
most players are able to abstract from everyday concerns while playing football. There is still potential for
improvement as 12% of all players cannot forget about these concerns while playing football having answered either
‘strongly disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’ or ‘slightly disagree’. Football does therefore not serve as a breather to this
group of players.

68
5.19 QUESTION 17: I GET ALONG WELL WITH MY COACH

Question 17 aims to illustrate if players get along with their coaches. Having a mutual understanding and respect for
one another is highly relevant when it comes to team sports. This question aims to solely perceive the overall
relationship between player and coach where question 18 and 19 will centre on encouragement and recognition
respectively. The response rate for this particular question is 97.61%.

Question 17: I get along well with my coach

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.43 for
U13, 5.49 for U14, 5.36 for U15, 5.25 for U16, 5.06 for U17, 5.11 for U19 and 5.29 for all age groups. The averages
suggest an overall satisfying relationship between player and coach. The main aspect to realize is the fact that the
younger age groups have better relationships with their coaches. It is stated that 70% of U13, 64% of U14, 65% of U15,
58% of U16, 52& of U17 and lastly 56% of U19 are in strong agreement with the question. Coaches in younger age
groups are making a better effort of familiarizing themselves with their players and making them feel appreciated on
the team. On the other hand it should be noticed that 10% of U19 answered ‘slightly disagree’ which, even though it
is only on minor scale, still represent a type of dissatisfaction with the coach. Coaches are not supposed to represent
and act as a best friend, but they are to be able to communicate and interact with their players in a productive
manner.

Question 17: I get along well with my coach

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

69
Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 5.46 for low
level, 5.33 for mid level, 5.24 for top level and 5.34 for all levels. The averages demonstrate a moderate agreement to
the question. The interesting aspect assess from the diagram is that low level players have better relationships with
their coaches. Even though the total score will level if the ‘moderately agree’ numbers are included it still provides a
fair picture of the situation. By answering strongly agree it emphasises that players have no troubles at all with their
respective coaches. The moderately agree still provides a positive result, but with the small deviation that they at
some point did not agree or have a solid relationship with them. Nonetheless, by having overall agreement results of
95% for low level, 93% for mid level and lastly 91% for top level it still provides a clear picture that coaches aim to
build up positive relationships with their players.

5.20 QUESTION 18: MY COACH ENCOURAGES ME TO BECOME A BETTER FOOTBALL PLAYER

Question 18 illustrates how much coaches encourage individuals to become better football players. Encouragement in
this case is primarily focuses on on-pitch motivation whereas praise and recognition will be highlighted in question 19.
The response rate for this particular question is 95.93%.

Question 18: My coach encourages me to become a better football player

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.27 for
U13, 5.29 for U14, 5.19 for U15, 4.54 for U16, 4.47 for U17, 4.69 for U19 and 4.91 for all age groups. The averages
show a moderate agreement to the topic under review. The graph shows a significant difference in responses from
the three lower age groups to the three older groups. 91% from U13, 94% from U14 and 91% from U15 do to some
degree feel encourage by their respective coaches whereas the number drop to 79% from U16, 77% from U17 and
83% from U19. It should also be acknowledged that the score of 94% from U14 is highly impressive and demonstrates
a great ability the coaches for this age groups posses in order to drive their players. In question 19 it will be
highlighted if coaches are able to praise their players and therefore this particular aspect is not included for this topic.
In general the numbers are highly positive and it demonstrates that youth coaches are very capable of encouraging
players in a productive manner.

70
 Question 18: My coach encourages me to become a better football player
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.98 for low
level, 5.02 for mid level, 5.09 for top level and 5.03 for all levels. All levels carry strong resemblances to each other and
therefore no concrete tendency can be retrieved. Nonetheless, it is seen that op level players receive more
encouragement from their coaches.

5.21 QUESTION 19: I HAVE RECEIVED RECOGNITION OR PRAISE FROM MY COACH WITHIN
THE LAST WEEK

Question 19 focuses on recognition or praise players have received from their respective coaches within the last week.
As motivation is largely a result of external factors, first and foremost the coach, this issue is very significant in
determining player behaviour and satisfaction. The response rate for this particular question is 93.10%.

Question 19: I have received recognition or praise from my coach within the last week
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.25 for
U13, 5.10 for U14, 5.35 for U15, 4.83 for U16, 4.70 for U17, 4.60 for U19 and 4.97 for all age groups. The averages are
all relatively high with an average of ‘moderately agree’ trough out the age groups. It is very interesting however that

71
the score decrease on a consistent basis, U15 being the only exception, from U13 to U19. Recognition or praise
therefore becomes less present in the older age groups. 9% from U13 were to some extent disagreeing with the
statement were the number more than doubled to 20% for U17 and U19. The significant difference is also very
illustrative in the ‘strongly agree’ section. 60% from U13, 57% from U14, 67% from U15, 50% from U16, 48% from U17
and lastly 41% from U19 are in strong agreement and have received praise or recognition within the last week. These
nd rd
numbers only represent every 2 or 3 player which should be seen as a topic for improvement. Without the support
of the coach players are more likely to seek new challenges as they do not feel appreciated.

Question 19: I have received recognition or praise from my coach within the last week
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 5.01 for low
level, 5.01 for mid level, 5.14 for top level and 5.05 for all levels. All levels carry strong resemblances to each other and
therefore no concrete tendency can be retrieved. Nonetheless, top level players have the highest score and therefore
it is stated that these players are more likely to have received praise or recognition within the last week.

5.22 QUESTION 20: MY COACH CARES ABOUT ME AS A PERSON

Question 20 highlights whether the players feel their coach cares about them as a person. This will illustrate the
amount players feel appreciated by their respective coaches. The response rate for this particular question is 80.00%.
The findings are not entirely accurate due to the relatively low response rate. Thus precautions should be made when
evaluating the results.

72
 Question 20: My coach cares about me as a person
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.91 for
U13, 4.82 for U14, 5.07 for U15, 4.61 for U16, 4.54 for U17, 4.76 for U19 and 4.79 for all age groups. The averages
indicate a slight to moderate agreement towards the question. There is very large difference of opinion in the
‘strongly agree’ section with 43% of U13, 34% of U14, 47% of U15, 28% of U16, 35% of U17 and 42% of U19 sharing
that opinion. The data retrieved show a slightly different picture than question 17 regarding the relationship with
one’s coach. Responses are spread across the scale providing a more differentiated picture than previously. The
average of 4.79 proves a close to moderate overall agreement, but separates greatly from the 5.29 retrieved from
question 17. Even more interesting is that the responses rate only hit 80% which could indicate that this particular
topic is very sensitive. The issue nevertheless, is a very important factor when analysing perceived value by others
(Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 43-44), in this case the coaches. Lastly it should be mentioned that the question
might have been misleading or misinterpreted which would highlight the large amount of missing respondents.

Question 20: My coach cares about me as a person

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Low
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.76 for low
level, 4.90 for mid level, 4.79 for top level and 4.82 for all levels. The averages are very closely related within the three
levels and demonstrate a moderate agreement towards their respective coaches caring about them as a person. 86%
of top level players, 88% of mid level players and 85% of low level players are responding either ‘slightly agree’,

73
‘moderately agree’, or ‘strongly agree’. Data suggests that coaches on all three levels demonstrate an equal amount of
interest in their respective players. Yet again the low response rate should be realized when discussing this topic.

5.23 QUESTION 21: I AM PLEASED WITH THE NUMBER OF SOCIAL ACTIVITIES THAT MY CLUB
OFFERS

Question 21 shows if players are pleased with the number of social activities offered by their respective clubs. In order
to create a homogenise team it is important to investigate means for doing so off the pitch; i.e. through social
activities. This question will illustrate the sense players have of their respective club offering this solution, however, it
does not analyse whether it actually generates a tighter bond on the respective teams. Previous research also
illustrated that many players desire social activities and not just focus on football (Østergaard, 2007, p. 44).

The response rate for this particular question is 87.61%. It should be noticed however that the response rate for this
question only rather low which highlights a large group of non-respondents. The overall picture of this should
therefore only be seen as a pinpoint, rather than a conclusion due to the amount of uncertainty that follows when
approximately 13% have not answered the question. This lack of responses could be due to a misunderstanding of the
question, the fact that the player has only recently changed club and has therefore yet to experience social activities,
or that the club simply does not offer any activities.

Question 21: I am pleased with the number of social activities that my club offers
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.86 for
U13, 5.01 for U14, 4.21 for U15, 4.50 for U16, 4.25 for U17, 4.17 for U19 and 4.50 for all age groups. The averages
indicate a significant difference in opinion regarding the satisfaction of the number of social activities at the club. It is
very obvious that the younger age groups are more pleased with the social activities with 50% of U13 and 45% of U14
players responding ‘strongly agree’. In contrast 32% of U15, 33% of U16, 29% of U17 and 27% of U19 players are in
strong agreement. Moreover is it very interesting that particularly U14 have done very well in offering social activities

74
with a total of solely 11% responding ‘strongly disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’, or ‘slightly disagree’.

Question 21: I am pleased with the number of social activities that my club offers
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.65 for low
level, 4.57 for mid level, 4.58 for top level and 4.60 for all levels. The averages indicate a very similarity in opinion
throughout the three levels regarding the number of social activities at the club. Approximately every third player
from each level responded ‘strongly agree’. Furthermore, four out of five players from each level does to some extent
agree with 80% of top level, 78% of mid level and 81% of low level players responding either ‘slightly agree’,
‘moderately agree’, or ‘strongly agree’.

5.24 QUESTION 22: MY TEAMMATES ENCOURAGE ME TO BECOME A BETTER FOOTBALL

PLAYER

Question 22 shows if teammates encourage players to become a better football player. In order for players to fulfil
their potential it is vital that their teammates are able to push players by providing them with encouragement
throughout practices and matches. By being encouraged it creates a will for further achievements that enables players
to seek their true potential. The response rate for this particular question is 93.10%.

Question 22: My teammates encourage me to become a better football player

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

75
Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.90 for
U13, 4.91 for U14, 4.63 for U15, 4.43 for U16, 4.07 for U17, 4.48 for U19 and 4.57 for all age groups. The diagram
shows significant differences and a large spread in the responses for the different age groups. The number of players
who answered ‘strongly agree’ varies a lot with 47% for U13, 42% for U14, 33% for U15, 24% for U16, 26% for U17,
and 28% for U19. U16 is the age group with the least amount of encouragement from fellow teammates which is a
strong pinpoint that this particular issue is a large retention problem. The patterns remain fairly intact when taking all
respondents who somehow agree into consideration. 84% of U13 players, 88% of U14 players, 83% of U15 players,
79% of U16 players, 71% of U17 players and 77% of U19 players have answered ‘slightly agree’, ‘moderately agree’ or
‘strongly agree’. The teammates should be the second most important motivator for constant development and it is
therefore problematic that the players do not support the development of each other more than is the case.

Question 22: My teammates encourage me to become a better football player

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.67 for low
level, 4.58 for mid level, 4.74 for top level and 4.66 for all levels. The averages indicate that the level of
encouragement is relatively static between the three levels. The diagram moreover shows a very monotonous spread
of responses for the different levels. The number of players who answered ‘strongly agree’ remains very consistent
with 38% of top level, 35% of mid level and 36% of low level players. When the areas of ‘slightly agree’ and
‘moderately agree’ are included top level players responded with 85%, mid level player with 79% and low level players
with 83%. Support from teammates is most present within top level teams. By training with the best players it would
also boost the level of commitment and motivation to perform better and to be acknowledged for these
performances.

76
5.25 QUESTION 23: I HAVE RECEIVED RECOGNITION OR PRAISE FROM MY TEAMMATES
WITHIN THE LAST WEEK

Question 23 shows if players have received recognition or praise from my teammates within the last week. With
strong similarities to question 22, receiving recognition or praise for any task will encourages individuals to continue
their development. The response rate for this particular question is 92.04%.

Question 23: I have received recognition or praise from my teammates within the last
week
100%
90% U13
80%
70% U14
60%
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.04 for
U13, 5.20 for U14, 5.19 for U15, 4.96 for U16, 4.68 for U17, 4.85 for U19 and 4.98 for all age groups. The averages
show a moderate agreement towards the topic at hand. It is noticeable however that the younger age groups, namely
U13-U15, are most accustomed to receive recognition or praise in comparison to U16-U19. It should also be noticed
th
that 10% of U17 are in strong disagreement with the question referring to every 10 player not experiencing appraisal
at all from teammates. When summed up it is demonstrated that 12% for U13, 9% for U14, 10% for U15, 16% for U16,
18% for U17 and lastly 17% for U19 have all answered either ‘strongly disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’, or ‘slightly
disagree’. Even though these numbers might not be considered as being excessive they still highlight a large potential
for exiting players.

Question 23: I have received recognition or praise from my teammates within the last
week
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

77
Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 5.01 for low
level, 4.92 for mid level, 5.20 for top level and 5.05 for all levels. The averages indicate a fairly high level of positive
recognition or praise received from the teammates for all levels. Where the results differentiate however, it is noticed
that mid level players only responded ‘strongly agree’ with 49% in comparison to top level at the highest end with
57%. As it is also shown by the average of 4.92 in contrast to 5.20, mid level players are less used to receive
recognition from other players than top level. Even though a contrast is seen the averages remain fairly high and
based on level separation the results can be seen as satisfying.

5.26 QUESTION 24: MY TEAMMATES ARE ALWAYS GIVING THEIR BEST

Question 24 aims to illustrate whether teammates always give it their best. In order for players to realize their
potential it requires a competitive environment. When teammates are on the same page and prepared to make an
effort in practices it naturally pushes players. The environment players operate in is therefore highly relevant in order
to motivate players. The response rate for this particular question is 92.65%.

Question 24: My teammates are always giving their best

100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.80 for
U13, 4.50 for U14, 4.38 for U15, 3.74 for U16, 3.61 for U17, 4.09 for U19 and 4.19 for all age groups. The average
responses indicate a declining effort to perform their best from U13 to U17. The averages are fairly low which might
result in relatively poor training sessions where the players cannot exploit growth possibilities to the fullest. The
diagram reveals a large spread of the responses for the different age groups. The percentage of people having
answered either ‘slightly agree’, ‘moderately agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ is 87% for U13, 78% for U14, 77% for U15, 66%
for U16, 56% for U17, and 70% for U19. The statistics are positive for the youngest players and relatively poor for the
oldest players – with U19 being the only exception. Almost 44% of U17 players, the age groups with the most negative
responses, answered that their teammates do not always perform at their best which makes it difficult to achieve a
high level of intensity and dedication at training sessions and in matches.

78
 Question 24: My teammates are always giving their best
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.24 for low
level, 4.14 for mid level, 4.59 for top level and 4.32 for all levels. The average responses indicate a slight agreement in
whether teammates always give it their best. The averages are again on a rather low side which could imply that
training sessions are not satisfactory or at least are subject to improvement. The diagram reveals a large spread of the
responses for the different levels. The percentage of people having answered either ‘slightly agree’, ‘moderately
agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ is 81% for top level, 71% for mid level and 73% for low level. It is acknowledged that the top
level experiences more serious training sessions as a larger part of their respective teams give it their best on a
consistent basis. It is accordingly interesting to look at the number from the mid level category. 12% argue ‘strongly
disagree’, 8% ‘moderately disagree’ and 10% ‘slightly disagree’ which in total provides a very large disagreement
factor of 30%. This implies that approximately every third player within the mid level teams does not give it his best at
practices.

5.27 QUESTION 25: I HAVE A BEST FRIEND ON THE TEAM

Question 25 highlights whether players have a best friend on the team. The social element is a very important factor
in youth football as it bolsters performance and increases motivation. It has also been argued in previous research
that bad camaraderie is directly related to player drop-outs (Østergaard, 2007, p. 15). Nonetheless it should be
noticed that by incorporating the word ‘best’ in the question some might argue they have a lot of good friends but no
‘best’ friend on the team; hence the results should be seen as a pinpoint rather than a solid result. The response rate
for this particular question is 91.33%.

79
 Question 25: I have a best friend on the team
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.40 for
U13, 4.21 for U14, 4.46 for U15, 4.47 for U16, 4.29 for U17, 4.41 for U19 and 4.37 for all age groups. The averages
suggest a slight agreement towards having a best friend on the team. All age groups draw a close resemblance to each
other in the ‘strongly agree’ section where all groups lay in the 40% area. By having responses between 37 and 45% it
equals approximately every third player throughout who has a best friend on the team. Furthermore, 25% of U13,
30% of U14, 31% of U15, 38% of U16, 36% of U17 and 34% of U19 responded with ‘slightly agree’ or ‘moderately
agree’ which further highlights that players have good friends on their respective teams. On the other end of the scale
however, there remains a relatively large potential for unmotivated players. 14% of U13, 17% of U14, 11% of U15,
11% of U16, 17% of U17 and 9% of U19 responded ‘strongly disagree’ to having a best friend which could become a
demotivational factor. As the question was constructed with the word ‘best’ these numbers could also simply
represent players who have many friends, but no so-called ‘best’ friends and therefore their disagreement.

Question 25: I have a best friend on the team

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Low
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.38 for low
level, 4.27 for mid level, 4.43 for top level and 4.36 for all levels. 73% of low level, 68% of mid level and 76% of top
level players are to some extent agreeing with the statement of having a best friend of the team. The interesting
aspect to emphasize in this case is that it is top level players who score the highest. The social and motivational aspect
in having a best friend in the team might encourage better performances by the respective players.

80
5.28 QUESTION 26: I SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON TRANSPORTATIO N WHEN TRAVELLING TO
AWAY GAMES

Question 26 aims to illustrate the significance of spending too much time on travelling to away games. By being a
competitive sport, the level as well as the diversity of the competitors will have an impact on player satisfaction. The
topic then arises how far away competitors should be found and whether players seek to encounter new challenges.
The response rate for this particular question is 89.73%.

Question 26: I spend too much time on transportation when travelling to away games
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
U19
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 2.75 for
U13, 2.55 for U14, 2.69 for U15, 3.48 for U16, 3.19 for U17, 3.06 for U19 and 2.96 for all age groups. The overall
average of 2.96 demonstrates a disagreement in terms of travelling too much to away games. The results to this topic
however where very inconsistent and it is clear that there remains a much differentiated view towards transportation
issues. 62% from U13, 71% from U14, 68% from U15, 49% from U16, 55% from U17 and 52% from U19 where all
arguing either ‘strongly disagree’, ‘moderately disagree’, or ‘slightly disagree’. Hereby they argue that they would not
mind away games to be of further distance which also opens up for DBU Copenhagen to include other clubs in the
respective tournaments. The aspect of facing unknown teams from other parts of the country might be one of the
main issues that this addresses. The average scores also emphasize this argumentation as they are all under the 3.50
boarder that separates dissatisfaction from satisfaction. Duly noticeable is it though that 25% from U19 respond
‘slightly agree’ and 24% from U16 respond ‘strongly agree’ which is in great contrast to other findings. They prefer
competing against local teams and teams they might know very good, hereby being able to compare previous results
and efforts.

81
 Question 26: I spend too much time on transportation when travelling to away games
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 2.84 for low
level, 2.76 for mid level, 2.99 for top level and 2.86 for all levels. The averages demonstrate a large discrepancy in
opinion where only 13% from the top level, 10% from the mid level and 13% from the low level are in strong
agreement with the topic under review. As it was described in the previous diagram, most players do not feel that
they spend too much time on transportation for away games. When assessed with focus on playing level it is
interesting to see that of those who responded ‘strongly disagree’, the largest group was not the one that was playing
at the highest level. It would be suggested that the higher the level the more players would seek to challenge
themselves with new opponents. However, when taking all disagreements into consideration it still provides a solid
picture with 60% of top level, 64% of mid level and 63% of low level players who argue that they to some degree do
not feel they spend too much time on transportation.

5.29 QUESTION 27: IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO PLAY IN A TOURNAMENT WHERE I CAN

BOTH WIN AND LOSE

Question 27 highlights the importance of playing in a tournament where players can both win and lose. For older age
groups it might be seen as a natural part of the game, to keep score, both for younger age groups the topic arises
whether football should incorporate a competitive aspect or whether it should primarily focus on improving player
attributes and creating a social foundation. The response rate for this particular question is 94.87%.

82
 Question 27: It is important for me to play in a tournament where I can both win and lose
100%
90%
80% U13
70%
60% U14
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 5.53 for
U13, 5.56 for U14, 5.40 for U15, 5.20 for U16, 5.15 for U17, 5.38 for U19 and 5.37 for all age groups. The averages
clearly highlight a strong importance for all age groups to play in a tournament where a score is being kept. The
competitive part of the game is therefore proven to be important for all age groups as 72% of U13, 72% of U14, 68%
of U15, 59% of U16, 62% of U17 and 65% of U19 all responded ‘strongly agree’. This statement is further backed by
24% of U13, 25% of U14, 25% of U15, 31% of U16, 28% of U17 and 30% of U19 who are slightly or moderately in
agreement. By operating with a result driven activity, intention would remain in players thriving for wining matches
but it is very interesting that 11% of U16 and 10% of U17 are to some extent disagreeing with this claim. Additionally,
it is very noticeable that U13 has the highest response rate in ‘strongly agree’ with 72%. They have been used to
participate in matches where scores are not kept for public display in order to decrease the competitive aspect of the
game. This could explain the very high response rate for the younger age groups in familiarising themselves with this
aspect.

Question 27: It is important for me to play in a tournament where I can both win and lose
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 5.26 for low
level, 5.45 for mid level, 5.53 for top level and 5.42 for all levels. The averages accordingly indicate a strong
importance of playing in a tournament with loses and wins. All three levels have very similar responses throughout.
The largest notion is though a strong agreement towards playing with wins and losses represented by 70% of top

83
level, 69% of mid level and 64% of low level players. The overall assessment hence is very clear with 97% of top level,
95% of mid level and 90% of low level players being in either strong, moderate, or slight agreement. Nonetheless,
lower level players have 10% who are in disagreement with this and therefore focus might turn from the winning and
losing aspect to the social aspect.

5.30 QUESTION 28: IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO PLAY IN A TOUR NAMENT WITH POTENTIAL
PROMOTION AND RELEGATION

Question 28 aims to illustrate the importance of playing in a tournament with potential promotion and relegation. In
strong resemblance with question 27, focus here lies with investigating if players require a league structure where the
at the end of the season, depending on the result, are to be promoted to a higher level of competition, or relegated to
a lower ranged league which suits the teams overall level more adequately. Playing for the highest level possible will
for many players be a prime motivational factor. The response rate for this particular question is 90.53%.

Question 28: It is important for me to play in a tournament with potential promotion and
relegation
100%
90% U13
80%
70% U14
60%
50% U15
40%
30% U16
20%
10% U17
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree U19
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show no significant differences in the responses for the different age groups. The average scores are 4.95 for
U13, 4.96 for U14, 5.14 for U15, 5.28 for U16, 5.19 for U17, 5.21 for U19 and 5.12 for all age groups. The average
score of 5.12 clearly indicates a desire from the players to participate in competitions where efforts are rewarded with
potential promotion. A combined percentage of 87 for U13, 87 for U14, 88 for U15, 92 for U16, 89 for U17 and 91 for
U19 do to some degree feel it is important which very conclusively dictates that tournaments structures are highly
important for youth players. This is further highlighted by the fact that 89% of all respondents to some agreed with
the statement. It is noticeable however that 49 % from U13 and 49% from U14 answer ‘strongly agree’, whereas the
number rises to 69% from U17. This could be due to the fact that the age groups below U13 do not keep scores on a
classification. Scores are kept during matches, but never published, hereby not provoking the competitive state of
mind neither with players or their parents. When getting older, the element of keeping score and a having a physical
proof for one’s efforts increases.

84
 Question 28: It is important for me to play in a tournament with potential promotion and
relegation
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Low
50%
40% Mid
30%
20% Top
10%
0%
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly agree Moderately Strongly agree
disagree disagree disagree agree

Statistics show significant differences in the responses for the different levels. The average scores are 4.86 for low
level, 5.05 for mid level, 5.35 for top level and 5.08 for all levels. The averages for low, mid and top level indicate an
increase in desire to play for promotion depending on the level their represent. Top level players are more eager to
acquire higher level of competition through their performances with a score of 5.35 whereas low level players range
significantly lower with 4.86. It is to be acknowledged however that all scores range high on the scale and the average
of 5.08 clearly indicates this.

5.31 QUESTION 29: WHICH MATCH DAYS ARE RIGHT FOR YOU?

Question 29 is designed to provide players an opportunity to express their respective desires for when match days
would fit them best. The question was designed so that each respondent was able to select as many days as they felt
were fitting. Response rate 92.1%.

Question 29: Which matchdays are right for you

100%
90%
80% U13
70% U14
60%
50% U15
40% U16
30%
20% U17
10%
0% U19
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

The graph shows a very clear and unanimous picture of when players from the different age groups prefer to play
their matches. Monday to Thursday where all age groups have the majority of their practices are natural secondary
choices when it comes to matches. All players are available at these days s they attend practices and would therefore

85
also be able to play matches. For the younger age groups (U13 to U16) it is interesting to realize that they also regard
Friday as a suiting day for matches whereas U17 and U19 are believed to have other preferences on that particular
day. A hypothesis could therefore be put up that the dropping number in players after the U15 and U16 age groups is
due to an increase in other activities that takes away focus from their football. Saturday and Sunday which function as
the typical match days are most fitting for all age groups with a minimum of 50% responses on these two days. Yet
again it is noticeable however, that U17 and U19 only just cross the 50% boarder and the assumption again could be
made that they prefer spending their weekends on other types of activities.

Question 29: Which matchdays are right for you

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Low level
50%
40% Mid level
30% Top level
20%
10%
0%
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

When responses are looked at from a playing level point of view the pictures remains fairly consistent. All three levels
are similarly represented in the span from Monday until Thursday. It then becomes, to some degree, a slightly
different pattern. It is noticeable that top level players prefer playing on Fridays with a 45% hit rate. In comparison
only 39% of mid level and 35% of low level players are of the same opinion. Saturday and Sunday naturally have the
largest response rate. Again a clear pattern can be seen with top level players demonstrating a stronger interest in
having games with 67% on both days. The curve is clearly declining and it could be argued that low level players are
more interested in other activities rather than participating in games.

5.32 QUESTION 30: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Question 30 aims to illustrate any further comments players might have that have not been covered throughout the
survey or where they feel further explaining is required. The answers have been grouped in fitting categories to
illustrate patterns and certain trends.

86
 Question 30: Additional comments
Desire more seriousness 10
Generally satisfied with club/team 9
Desire more practices 8
Desire more attention to low level teams 6
Other 5
Desire new equipment 3
Desire changes in match/practice times 3
Desire more differentiated practices 2

Responses

Many of the comments made by the players bare close resemblance to questions they were being asked about during
the survey. 10 respondents were expressing a desire for a better and more serious training environment. They might
not be on the verge of changing clubs at this very moment, but by raising their concern it might be a consequence for
the foreseeable future. Furthermore, there were 8 players who demanded more practices. When individuals have an
affection for any given thing, the desire to perform or practice that thing becomes stronger and stronger and
therefore there lies a natural intention in increase the amount of time that is possible to spend on doing the thing one
loves. Reality on the other hand has it that practice times are very valuable and clubs aim to encompass all teams
equally with the amount of time they are able to spend on the pitches. A very interesting topic that is to be discussed
is the transparency in the different age groups regarding their respective teams. Some clubs have a large members
base which results in age groups having more than just one team (represented in the survey by A,B and C teams). With
this in mind, most teams are determined by level, i.e. which are solely created based on the perception of the coaches
on that specific age group. Some players will therefore argue that they are placed in the wrong team, i.e. typically
those who are assigned for the B or C team, and accordingly develop frustration and dissatisfaction. 6 players decided
to illustrate this topic and that they desired more attention from the coaches from the higher level teams. As a
motivational factor for all age groups all in players in general it is therefore argued that club are to take this matter
very serious and urge their coaches to put focus not only on ‘their’ team, but mingle with the others as well to
demonstrate interest and awareness. This is further highlighted with the responses from question 11a that
demonstrated that 68 players argue they are considering changing clubs due to lack in challenges or a desire for
playing on a higher level. This clearly states an issue of dissatisfaction and associated demotivation where clubs need
to improve in order to retain players. Lastly, results from question 12a can be included where 2 players responded
they considered quitting football all together due to the fact that they were playing for the lowest team. Even though
it only remains an assumption, these individuals could hypothetically be convinced into staying if they found out there
was a chance for higher competitiveness if they fought for it. On a positive note it can be stated that 9 players decided
to express their overall satisfaction with both team and club.

87
From the ‘other’ section answers included statements concerning referees, too expensive membership fees and
players who disliked everybody on their team. These however where only single statements and do not fit the
parameters investigated in this particular survey.

6 DISCUSSION BASED ON HERZBERG’S MOTIVATION-HYGIENE THEORY

The findings from the analyses of the questions above will be compared and discussed in the following subchapters
based on The Motivation-Hygiene Theory by Herzberg. The division of questions is presented in the table below.

Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory

Hygiene factors Motivating factors
Company policy and 21, 27, 28, 29 Recognition 19, 23
administration
Supervision 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 The job if self 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Interpersonal relations 10, 13, 15, 22, 23, 25 Level of responsibility -
Working conditions 8, 9 Career advancements 11a, 30
Salary - Achievements/ 2, 14, 18, 22, 24
Growth possibilities
Status 30
Job security 11, 11a, 12, 12a
Personal life 16, 26

6.1 HYGIENE FACTORS

6.1.1 COMPANY POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Company policy and administration in this report relates to the tournament structure provided by DBU Copenhagen
and the number of social activities provided by the eight participating clubs. It should be noted that Question 29
concerning the match days makes use of a different scale and is therefore not illustrated in the graphs below and that
Question 21 is subject to statistical uncertainty due to a relatively low response rate.

Some political decisions about the tournament structure in grassroots youth football should be taken into
consideration. Firstly, U13 is the first age group with the potential for promotion and relegation as official scores are
being kept. The scores demonstrated by U13 in the following discussion should therefore not be seen as an absolute
but more as a point reference for future research as it would be more interesting to compare these scores with those
of U12 and below. Secondly, U16 is a new age group in the DBU tournament structure that was implemented only one
year ago. It was developed to improve player retention as the jump from U15 to U17 in a historical perspective results

88
in large drop outs (Laub, 2013, p. 28 & 70). Accordingly these considerations should be kept in mind when evaluating
the results for U16 in this dissertation.

COMPANY POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION IN RELATION TO AGE

6,00
Q21 I am pleased with the number of social
5,50 activities that my club offers

5,00 Q27 It is important for me to play in a tournament

where I can both win and lose

4,50
Q28 It is important for me to play in a tournament
with potential promotion and relegation
4,00
U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19

Question 27 and Question 28 reveal somewhat scattered opinions on how the tournament structure ought to be. All
age groups, except U16 and U17, consider it more important to play in a tournament where they can win and lose
rather than play in a tournament with promotion and relegation. High scores are achieved for all ages in Question 27
regarding the element of winning a losing even though the averages are relatively low at U16 and U17. At the same
time it becomes gradually more important for the players to play in a tournament with promotion and relegation as
seen in Question 28. This trend aligns well with the findings from Question 4 ‘I play football to win matches’ were the
desire to win matches increased significantly from U13 to U19. Question 29 addressing the preferred match days
shows fairly similar preferences for U13-U16 and U17-U19 respectively. U13 to U16 prefer playing their matches
during the weekend but have no strong preferences for either for the weekdays. The preferences of U17 and U19 are
similar to those of U13 to U16 with the exceptions that Friday and Saturday are less appealing which is assumed to be
related to activities such as parties, relationships and work.

The different age groups have highly scattered opinions about the number of social activities provided by their clubs.
In general U13 and U14 are more pleased with the amount of activities provided by their club than the older age
groups. The average scores for U15, U17 and U19 are particular low with average scores only slightly above the
response category ‘slightly agree’. There is definitely room for improvements with 15% of U13, 11% of U14, 31% of
U15, 21% of U16, 27% of U17 and 29% of U19 to some extent being dissatisfied with the number of social activities.

89
COMPANY POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION IN RELATION TO LEVEL OF COMPETITION

6,00
Q21 I am pleased with the number of social
activities that my club offers
5,50
Q27 It is important for me to play in a
5,00 tournament where I can both win and lose

4,50 Q28 It is important for me to play in a

tournament with potential promotion and
4,00 relegation
Low level Mid level Top level

Question 28 and Question 29 are considered important on all levels and both graphs increases rather consistently
from low level to top level. On all three levels the players give more importance to the element of playing in a
tournament where one can both with and lose rather than playing in a tournament with promotion and relegation. In
Question 29 it becomes clear that all players, regardless of their level, prefer playing matches during the weekend.
Small differences were found in the preferences for the various weekdays but no interesting pattern was detected.

Question 21 measuring the satisfaction with the number of social activities provided by the club revealed no
significant differences. Thus all players are considered equally satisfied with the social activities with an average score
around 4.6 located between ‘slightly agree’ and ‘moderately agree’.

6.1.2 SUPERVISION

For youth football players, supervision refers directly to the coaching staff. They function as the direct person or team
of responsibility for major decisions and the overall wellbeing of the players. It furthermore should be noticed that
focus also lies on the ability of the coaches to support the development of the players, establish reasonable
expectations and develop positive relations to each player.

SUPERVISION IN RELATION TO AGE

6,00
Q15 I feel pressured by the
expectations from my coach and
5,50
teammates
Q17 I get along well with my coach
5,00

4,50 Q18 My coach encourages me to

become a better football player
4,00
Q19 I have received recognition or
3,50 praise from my coach within the last
week
3,00 Q20 My coach cares about me as a
U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19 person

90
Responses indicate that there were significant differences in Questions 17, 18, 19 and 20 which concludes that
supervision is influenced by age. Question 17 indicated that the relationship with the coach decreases from U13 were
the score is 5.43 to U19 who scores 5.11. Although the score is declining responses still remain above moderate
agreement which determines an overall satisfaction with the respective coach. Questions 18, 19 and 20 follow very
similar patterns, though with significant differences. U13 to U15 players generally have better relationships with their
respective coaches – presumably because the coaches in these particular age groups are better at motivating and
praising their players. The curves then take a drop of 0.65 for Question 18, 0.52 for Question 19 and lastly 0.46 for
Question 20 between the ages 15 and 16. As the overall concern behind this research was the large drop-out in
players around U16 and U17, this aspect becomes a prime contender for an increase in dissatisfaction and lack in
motivation. It must be mentioned that the scores demonstrated are still on a positive end with a moderate agreement
towards the questions under investigations, but the issue remains fairly clear as all three curves drop around the same
age group. Question 15 aims at creating a profound picture of the pressure players feel they are put under from both
teammates and coaches. Even though scores are under the 3.5 barrier, hereby representing a slight disagreement, it
still proves a valid point to consider. It would be argued that scores should be far lower than reality demonstrates.
Pressure in the sense of pushing and eventually enhancing performances is one thing, but as soon as pressure starts
equalling lack of motivation and dissatisfaction, it negatively affects both team cohesion and personal development.

SUPERVISION IN RELATION TO LEVEL OF COMPETITION

6,00
Q15 I feel pressured by the
5,50 expectations from my coach and
teammates
5,00 Q17 I get along well with my coach

4,50
Q18 My coach encourages me to
4,00 become a better football player

3,50
Q19 I have received recognition or
3,00 praise from my coach within the last
week
2,50 Q20 My coach cares about me as a
Low level Mid level Top level person

Questions 15 and 17 show significant differences, hereby indicating that supervision is slightly influenced by level of
competition. Top level demonstrates far more pressure from teammates and coaches than mid and low level which is
presumably caused the competitiveness found on higher levels. This tendency aligns well with the findings from
Question 4 in which top level players demonstrated a stronger desire to win matches than other players. It is also
interesting to highlight that top level players are experiencing poorer relationships with their respective coaches than
mid and low level players. The relationship between the player and coach might therefore be directly affected by the
pressure from the coaches. Questions 18 and 19 do not demonstrate significant differences and follow close to

91
identical patterns. All levels show very high scores of around 5.0 and above illustrating a moderate agreement
towards being praised and encouraged from their coaches. Question 20 shows no significant differences but
nonetheless highlights that players feel valued by their respective coaches regardless of the level of competition. One
might think that lower ranked teams would experience larger dissatisfaction regarding practices and team cohesion
leading to poorer relationship between coach and player, but reality demonstrates that they actually have closer
bonds with their coaches than mid and top level players. It should be kept in mind that Question 17 and 20 only assess
the relationship with the coach and not the quality of the training.

6.1.3 INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

One of the main aspects that influence team cohesion and personal motivation is the amount that a player feels like
part of the team and is able to talk to both teammates and coaches. Players will experience both ups and downs
during their time at a club and it therefore becomes a huge benefit if he has a positive relationship with his
teammates and coaches.

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS IN RELATION TO AGE

6,00
Q10 I would recommend a friend to join my club
5,50
Q13 I feel like part of the team
5,00

Q15 I feel pressured by the expectations from my

4,50
coach and teammates

4,00 Q22 My teammates encourage me to become a

better football player
3,50 Q23 I have received recognition or praise from my
teammates within the last week
3,00
U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19 Q25 I have a best friend on the team

Research indicates that the majority of players across all age groups would recommend a friend to join their club.
Answers from Question 10, however, are strongly divided within U13 and U16 as responses draw a very remarkable
picture. Both outer poles are heavily occupied with U13 having 50% answering ‘strongly agree’ and 14% ‘strongly
disagree’. For U16 the numbers add up to 49% for ‘strongly agree’ and 10% for ‘strongly disagree’. These numbers are
highly interesting as it indicates that around half of the players would definitely recommend their club, but a large
percentage would not dream about doing so. This indicates that there remains a relatively large dissatisfaction of
some sort with many of the players.

92
The dissatisfaction might be partially caused high expectations from coach and teammates as all age groups
demonstrate only a slight disagreement towards feeling pressured by the expectations from their coach and
teammates. For younger age groups players should not have any sense of pressure that is put upon them, but results
paints a different picture. Players should be very careful in demanding too much from their teammates and make sure
their ambition does not surpass that of the team. Hereby it should also be acknowledges that even though ambitions
might be high the current level of the teammates should always be assessed before setting individual goals.

Another very interesting aspect to consider is the fact that encouragement from teammates drop from U13 to U17.
These significant differences over time sums up to nearly 1 score point which illustrates a large concern for the clubs.
The large decrease indicates that younger players are more accustomed to assist their teammates in reaching their
potential. As described in ‘The job itself’ later in the dissertation, younger players simply seek to develop their skills
rather than win matches, hereby not stating that winning becomes superfluous. Closely related to these finding lie the
results of whether players have received praise or recognition from their teammates. The overall scores are slightly
higher for younger players and further backs to tendency that they are more accustomed to praise teammates in
order to motivate and provoke better performances. The curve then drops until U17. This could be due to players
becoming more self-aware and focussing on personal growth rather than what is best for the team. Personal
development therefore becomes the main drive force and motivator as discussed later under motivation factors.

Nevertheless, players demonstrate a high score on whether they feel as part of the team. The score remains around
the 5.50 line throughout all ages and dictates that no matter how the social matters or personal development appears
to influence player motivation, the vast majority still consider themselves as part of the team. Moreover, the average
of 4.37 suggests that most players claim they have a best friend on the team. The results from this question are to
some degree a bit blurred as many argued they had a lot of good friends, but no best friend. However, it draws a solid
picture that for the most part players have a positive social experience on their team.

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS IN RELATION TO LEVEL OF COMPETITION

6,00
Q10 I would recommend a friend to join my
5,50 club

Q13 I feel like part of the team

5,00

4,50 Q15 I feel pressured by the expectations from

my coach and teammates
4,00
Q22 My teammates encourage me to become a
3,50 better football player

Q23 I have received recognition or praise from

3,00 my teammates within the last week
2,50 Q25 I have a best friend on the team
Low level Mid level Top level

93
Most players regardless of level of competition would to some extend recommend a friend to join their club which
demonstrate a strong sense of satisfaction with the product being offered by the clubs. However, 20% of the players
would not consider recommending the club to a friend. These players are therefore believed to be somewhat
dissatisfied with the product provided by the club.

The most obvious issue that demands attention is the fact that top level players feel more pressure by expectation in
comparison to mid and low level players. This could be due to the fact that the coach requires more from those who
are given the opportunity to play for the best ranked team. Moreover there are some players, attached to the lower
ranked teams, who only play for the social element of team sports and in order to have a good time. These particular
players would not sense the same pressure as they do not have any intention of making a career of football later on.
Even though the responses remain around and below the 3.50 score barrier, hereby stating that all players within the
three given level to some extent disagree to the question, the difference still remains very significant. 35% from the
low level where in some agreement, 47% from mid level, whilst the number climbed to 56% for top level. This might a
topic that is to be addresses among top level coaches that even though player aim to play for their team, ambitions
and expectations are to be adjusted depending on the team at hand.

Top level players receive the most recognition and praise from their teammates but with low and mid level still
achieving high scores whereas no significant differences were found in the responses for Question 22 measuring the
level of encouragement to become a better player.

Interestingly enough there proves to be no difference of opinion between all levels regarding feeling like part of the
team. This could conclude that teams on all levels are fairly homogenous and that every player feels he has something
to offer. No significant differences were found in Question 25 assessing the element of having a best friend on the
team.

6.1.4 WORKING CONDITIONS

In order for players to be able to produce their best, the physical attributes of the club need to live up to a certain
standard. Facilities that allow individuals to socialize are in high demands as the players’ well-being and understanding
of each other has the potential to improve as a direct consequence. According to previous research it was determined
that younger players were demanding facilities to be functional rather than modern and preferably with common
areas where they could socialise (Østergaard, 2007, p. 14). New facilities are in even higher demand as many
newcomers decide to establish themselves in Copenhagen meaning that the more people are likely to start playing
football (Pedersen, 2015). For this research focus has been put on facilities in general and the aspect of whether
players shower after matches and practices.

94
WORKING CONDITIONS IN RELATION TO AGE

5,50
5,00
4,50 Q8 I am pleased with the club's facilities
4,00
3,50
3,00
2,50 Q9 I shower after training and matches

2,00
U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19

Younger players were in general more pleased with the facilities of their club. In relation to training it could partially
be because U13 still play matches on smaller fields, with fewer players on the pitch, and most importantly with
smaller goals, which could indicate that they have sufficient equipment for their practices whereas the older age
groups required larger goals that are more in demand as they are to be shared with all older age groups. With this in
mind it is also important to acknowledge that three players decided to add a comment to their questionnaire
requesting new equipment as mentioned in Question 30.

On another level it becomes very interesting to see that only U19 appear to be showering on a regular basis after
training and matches. It proved to be a rather sensitive topic amongst younger players which most probably I caused
by the physical transformation of the human body. Moreover, players tend to have busy schedules that make them
leave the pitches directly after practices. Younger age groups are under the schedule of their parents and if they do
not allow for extra time after practices they are also not able to shower accordingly. This raises a huge concern not do
to hygienic purposes but due to social restraint. Being able to talk to the teammates afterwards is highly important as
it brings the players more together and enables a stronger social bond. Despite the limited use of shower facilities one
player stated in Question 30 that “I would like to shower, but we do not change in the dressing rooms which I consider
4
a huge minus” meaning that proper shower facilities are not available at all clubs.

4
Translated from Danish: “Angående nummer 9, kunne jeg godt tænke mig at gå i bad, men vi klæder ikke om i
omklædningsrum og det synes jeg er et stort minus”.

95
WORKING CONDITIONS IN RELATION TO LEVEL OF COMPETITION

5,50
5,00
4,50
4,00 Q8 I am pleased with the club's facilities
3,50
3,00 Q9 I shower after training and matches

2,50
2,00
Low level Mid level Top level

All players regardless of level were found to be equally satisfied with the facilities. The level of satisfaction was
surprisingly high with an average score of 4.89 taken into consideration that most clubs claim that their facilities are in
poor conditions.

In terms of using shower facilities it became clear that top level players are more accustomed to showering with a
score of 3.68 while low level players only score a modest 2.08. The relatively scores for all three levels is reflected in
the fact that only 22% of low level, 34% of mid level and 57% of top level agree to some extent with the statement
that they shower after match and practice. It differences in the responses are presumably caused by coaches on top
level team are making a stronger effort in convincing their players to use club facilities. It should be noted that the
potential effect on team cohesion is not accounted for in this report.

6.1.5 SALARY

The topic under review is more likely to be of great significance in ‘normal’ work situations as salary is considered a
monetary payment. As for this survey, focus remains with grassroots youth football players, hence no salary being
present.

Nevertheless, it could be illustrated how rewards affect motivation for youth players. In order to determine this factor
it is suggested to make use of Latham & Locke’s Goal-setting Theory that has been described earlier on as the element
of rewards and incentives is incorporated. Rewards and incentives would eventually cover areas such as more first
team appearances, more playing time and better team coherence.

6.1.6 STATUS

Status will in working environments be illustrated through job benefits, which for youth football is not directly
applicable. Therefore, job benefits are not directly related in a conventional sense, but more likely relates to the
hierarchical positions of the players. The hierarchy in the club is largely determined by the respective coaches as it is
up to them to decide who plays for which team. Hereby it could be implied that the different teams within the various

96
age groups naturally provide a hierarchy as some players will form the best teams, also referred to as A-teams, while
others will form the lower ranked teams, namely B, C, etc. Many players have a dream and desire to play for the best
possible team and they will do everything within their powers to accomplish that. Therefore it becomes a key issue for
all coaches to create a transparent line between the different teams and not only focus their energy on their specific
team. It has been illustrated through this research that many players feel neglected because they play for lower
ranked teams, but feel they have the competences to compete on a higher level. As it was demonstrated in question
30, six players highlighted that they felt neglected by coaches from the higher ranked teams. One U14 mid level player
5
argued that “there should be more trial practices with the team above them” . This statement does to some degree
state that trial periods are offered, but in order to keep players satisfied they need to come on a regular basis. The
concern is backed up by another player from a U16 low level who argues that “A and B teams are often given
preferential treatment. One does not feel important in the eyes of the coaches from the higher ranked teams.
6
Therefore it also becomes harder to move up” . Here the player clearly states that A and B players are favoured on a
continuous basis and this has become a major concern for him. Lastly a player from U17 mid level concludes that
7
“there is not enough focus on the B team” . This player clearly has a strong feeling about this matter.

The second most important element in relation to status is the role of team captains. As this is a team sport a captain
is a standard item to implement, especially for the older age groups. The captain role will for some be of higher
influence and therefore will cause team dissatisfaction if neglected completely. No player during this research has
expressed their concern about this matter, but it nevertheless is a topic that should be acknowledge by the respective
coaches.

6.1.7 JOB SECURITY

Job security plays a large role as it not only secures the foreseeable future but moreover gives indication towards
future personal development possibilities. Job security for grassroots football players does not exist per say, but it can
be very closely related to whether players have gotten fed up with their current club and team and want to seek no
paths or whether they have come to realize that they no longer have a desire to play football all together.

5
Translated from Danish: ”der måtte gerne være flere prøvetræninger med holdet over mig”
6
Translated from Danish: ”der bliver tit favoriseret i forhold til A og B holdene. Man føler sig på ingen måde vigtig i de
højre holds træneres øjne. Derfor er det også sværere at rykke op”
7
Translated from Danish: ”der bliver ikke kigget nok på 2. holdet”

97
JOB SECURITY IN RELATION TO AGE

3,00

2,50 Q11 I have considered changing club within the last

month

2,00

1,50
Q12 I have considered quitting football within the
last month
1,00
U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19

Research indicates that there are significant differences regarding players considering switching clubs. Older players
are more likely to change clubs in contrast to younger. Even though the scores are relatively low it still remains a
concern that 7% of U13 and U14, 11% of U15, 14% of U16, 17% of U17 and 12% of U19 strongly are in strong
agreement towards this question. For especially three oldest age groups it become even more concerning when it can
be seen that a total of 30% for U16, 34% for U17 and 35% for U19 have to some extent considered switching clubs.

For U16 it can be stated that a total of 15 players responded ‘strongly agree’ to the question. Of these 15 players, 8
are of very high motivation to play football whilst only 2 have no motivation at all. It interesting factor is then that of
these 15 players, 13 are in strong agreement that they have become a better football player during the last year. For
U17 results provide a very similar picture. 21 players responded with ‘strongly agree’ and are therefore considered the
most likely to actually make an effort to change clubs. Of these 21 players, all except 2 are highly motivated to play
football as well as feel they have improved during the last year. Lastly U19 demonstrates similar tendencies. 11
players were in strong agreement but all players were motivated and only three players through they had not
improved within the last year. These tendencies support the hypothesis that high motivation does not necessarily
equal player retention. Furthermore, Question 11a revealed that most players are inclined to change club due to the
aforementioned desire to develop and play on a higher level.

The same tendency can be seen regarding quitting football all together where the scores of U16, U17 and U19 are
significantly worse than the rest. The primary reasons for these considerations were in Question 12a found to be lack
of interest, unserious training, other activities were given a higher priority and lack of time due to school.

98
JOB SECURITY IN RELATION TO LEVEL OF COMPETITION

3,00

2,50
Q11 I have considered changing club within the last
month
2,00

Q12 I have considered quitting football within the

1,50 last month

1,00
Low level Mid level Top level

When results are drawn up in relation to level of competition it becomes interesting to see that top level players are
least likely to quit football, but most likely to change clubs. It is important to notice that score are still not on a high
scale but still provide an important insight in players’ thoughts and tendencies. Mid and low level players are of
moderate disagreement regarding changing clubs and quitting football all together.

Top level players experience greater concerns regarding changing clubs. From the respondents, 34 players from top
levels where considering changing club. Of these 34, 28 were in strong agreement towards the question regarding
feeling motivated to play football as 25 players still felt they had improved within the last year. For mid level players
results become slightly different. A total of 32 players were expressing their intention to change clubs but only three
were consider quitting football. Those three players were actually highly motivated to play football and they all
became become better footballers in the last year. From the 32 players, 26 argued that where highly motivated to
play football and 25 felt they had improved within the last year. As the diagram demonstrates it might come as a
surprise that low level players have the least intention to switch clubs. 22 players were in strong agreement.
Moreover it becomes very interesting to realize that all 22 players felt they had improved within the last year as well
as only 2 players felt unmotivated to play. Once again the tendencies reveal that motivation does not equal retention.
Development of skills, the desire to play on a higher level and the desire to play with friends are some of the reasons
why players consider changing clubs despite them being motivated.

6.1.8 PERSONAL LIFE

Football is a leisure activity that to a large degree is influenced by the respectively player’s personal life. A player is
likely to experience both internal and external factors that influence his personal life; e.g. when one or more friends
decide to change clubs or quit football, when issue on the home-front makes it stressful for a player to focus his
energy on football, or when a player find it difficult to attend training and matches due to the geographical distance
between the club contra his home. The ability to forget everything about every day challenges becomes particularly
important when a player experiences radical changes in his personal life. The extent to what the personal life can be

99
affected by the clubs and DBU Copenhagen is limited, but the time spent on transportation is one of the few relevant
parameters that can be modified. It is therefore interesting to determine whether the players have any complaints in
this regard.

PERSONAL LIFE IN RELATION TO AGE

5,50
5,00
Q16 I forget everything about everyday challenges
4,50 when I play football

4,00
3,50
Q26 I spend too much time on transportation when
3,00 travelling to away games
2,50
U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19

Most players between U13 and U19 forget everything about everyday challenges when they play football. Football
therefore has the potential to serve as a much needed break from the everyday challenges that a player might
experience. There is significant difference when determining the appropriate amount of distance that players are
willing to cover in order to attend away games. Players decide for them self which club they favour and decide to play
for, but the distance that particular club decides to send its players out on is however not an element they can
influence. Therefore some disagreement and dissatisfaction might occur if this factor changes. Most players would not
mind larger distances, hereby enabling different opponents, with the average score of 2.96 for all age groups. This
number implicates a minor disagreement towards spending too much time on transportation to away games. The
disagreement is largest within the younger age groups, but this should perhaps be seen as a somewhat misleading
number. Younger players, especially within the U13 and U14 age groups are more likely to have their parents
transport them to and from games hereby not minding having a larger distance to cover. Older age groups, who also
score slightly higher on the scale, are more likely to get themselves to and from games with public transport and
therefore might not fancy longer commutes to matches. The results however clearly demonstrate that on an overall
level all players regardless of age would not mind a longer commute too away games which would eventually open up
for new oppositions.

100
PERSONAL LIFE IN RELATION TO LEVEL OF COMPETITION

5,50
5,00
4,50 Q16 I forget everything about everyday challenges
4,00 when I play football

3,50 Q26 I spend too much time on transportation when

travelling to away games
3,00
2,50
Low level Mid level Top level

When the level of competition is analysed the outcomes follow very similar paths similar with no significant
differences. Results reflect the intention that football brings along, were players are able to commit and enjoy their
game without having to regard external matters. All levels are demonstrating high scores when describing whether
they forget everything about everyday challenges which illustrates a moderate sense of freedom and liberation from
external factors, when playing football. It is moreover acknowledged that all levels do not see the issue regarding
transportation to away games as a major concern.

6.2 MOTIVATING FACTORS

6.2.1 RECOGNITION

Recognition is an important element in achieving high player motivation as recognition from both coach and
teammates contribute to the self-esteem and worth of the individual (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 44).
Moreover, recognition is according to Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory, a twofold concept where the player can
either receive positive recognition in form of praise or negative recognition or form of criticism. It should be kept in
mind that Question 19 and Question 23 only addresses positive recognition while open questions had the potential to
reveal something about the negative side. Negative recognition can be more harmful for a person if he rarely receives
any positive recognition (Jensen, 2009), though this has not been registered in this analysis.

101
RECOGNITION IN RELATION TO AGE

6,0
5,5
5,0 Q19 I have received recognition or praise from my
coach within the last week
4,5
4,0 Q23 I have received recognition or praise from my
teammates within the last week
3,5
3,0
U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19

The analysis revealed that the players experience a drop in the received recognition or praise from the coach as they
grow older as seen in Question 19. The average scores decreases on an almost consistent basis from U13 to U19
meaning that recognition or praise becomes less present in the older age groups. The development in Question 19
and Question 23 are broadly similar suggesting that the youngest age groups are more accustomed to receiving
recognition or praise from their teammates compared to the oldest age groups. It is critical for a player’s development
and well-being to do sports in a supporting environment regardless of the player’s current ability level (Henriksen,
2011, p. 166). The analysis therefore highlights a potential problem in the local environment with declining
recognition from two of the single most important stakeholders even though the overall levels of received recognition
from both coach and teammates remain fairly high for the all age groups.

RECOGNITION IN RELATION TO LEVEL OF COMPETITION

6,0
5,5
5,0 Q19 I have received recognition or praise from my
coach within the last week
4,5
4,0 Q23 I have received recognition or praise from my
teammates within the last week
3,5
3,0
Low level Mid level Top level

The chart above tells shows that most players receive recognition or praise from both their coach and teammates on a
consistent basis. There were no proofs of significant differences in the responses in Question 19 indicating that low
level, mid level and top level players are equally accustomed to receiving recognition or praise from their coach. Even
though the two graphs look almost alike Question 23 revealed significant differences in the responses from the three
different groups. Top level players were slightly more accustomed to receiving positive recognition from their
teammates on a consistent basis than low and mid level players. It is worth mentioning that recognition in relation to

102
age demonstrates a potential problem with declining scores whereas recognition in relation to level demonstrates
consistent and satisfactory average scores around 5 for all samples.

6.2.2 THE JOB ITSELF

Playing football in a club is related to both positive and negative experiences that influences job satisfaction. The
training sessions can be as different as chalk and cheese depending on the selection and difficulty of exercises, the
coach, the teammates with whom you play etc. The job itself could end up being too easy or too difficult, or too
diverse or too uniform (Hein, 2009, p. 132). The job itself, on a more general level, can also be described by the
players’ motivational drivers for playing football.

THE JOB IFSELF IN RELATION TO AGE

6,0
Q1 I feel motivated to play football
5,5
Q2 I play football to become a better football player
5,0
Q3 I play football to be with friends
4,5
Q4 I play football to win matches
4,0
Q5 I play football to stay fit
3,5
Q6 I play football to become professional
3,0
Q7 I feel good at my club
U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19

The analysis revealed that the vast majority of the players, regardless of age, were highly motivated to play football.
However, younger players were slightly more motivated to play football than the older players which aligns well with
the tendency that the drop out starts to kick in around U16 (Laub, 2013, p. 28 & 70). The positive trend should be
critically assessed as the analysis only takes current players into consideration whereas players who recently quit
football due to e.g. low motivation are excluded from the analysis. Younger players were in general highly motivated
to become better footballers while the motivation to win matches, stay fit, become professional and be with friends
were relatively moderate. Older players were primarily motivated by winning matches, becoming a better football
player and staying fit while the motivation for being with friends was moderate and the motivation to become
professional was even less important.

The changes in motivation over time are fascinating. The motivation to become a better football player drops a little
over time but remains high. The motivation to win matches becomes increasingly more important over time and ends
up being one of the primary drivers for playing football for the older players. The increased emphasis on winning
matches could prove to become an obstacle for the personal development as the optimal development of skills take
place when the long term development is given a higher priority than the immediate results (Henriksen, 2011, p. 179).

103
The increased focus on winning matches is most likely a cultural phenomenon where players over time have become
accustomed to the phrase ‘the winner takes it all’. The players are constantly exposed to competitive environments in
e.g. sports where you need to perform in order to make it to the line-up, in school where the objective is to obtain
high grades or in the media where the focus to a great extent is on the winners. Thus coaches must try to foster an
environment where the focus on winning and the ability to develop the skills of each individual player do not become
counterproductive. The motivation to stay fit becomes increasingly important over time and for U17 and U19 players
it is almost as important as becoming a better football player. The competition from other sports such as fitness
where the focus is on staying fit should therefore be considered serious threats to player retention. A survey by
8
Idrættens Analyseinstitut shows that fitness/weightlifting becomes more and more popular during the teenage years
whereas football is losing popularity as described in the introduction. As a result football is superseded by fitness once
the teenagers are 16-19 years old which underline the motivation to stay fit (Laub, 2013, p. 28 & 70). On basis of the
popularity of fitness in general and the players’ desire to stay fit it could be considered if these elements could be
combined in some way. This could potentially minimize the risk of players quitting football in order to join a fitness
centre. The motivation to play football with friends increases over time from U13-U19 but simultaneously the
dissatisfaction towards social activities at the clubs increases as seen in Question 21. Development of the social
cohesion can be incorporated directly into the training sessions by selecting exercises that set the stage for building
friendships and nurturing the team spirit. It can also be achieved by organising social arrangements outside of the
regular training sessions such as dining together as a team, watching champions league or watching professional
football at the stadium. The motivation to become a professional football player declines substantially over time. It
makes perfect sense that players over time realise that the dream of becoming professional is unattainable as only
0.04% of all footballers on a global scale play in a professional league (Haugaasen & Jordet, 2012, p. 177). This might
be one of the reasons why the older players are less concerned with the constant development of football skills as the
dream of becoming professional slowly fades away. However, there is an imminent risk of players who to some extent
agree with the statement ‘I play football to become professional’, i.e. 73% of U13, 72% of U14, 66% of U15, 64% of
U16, 52% of U17 and 56% of U19, might quit football once they players realise that their potential is insufficient.

8
The term weightlifting and not fitness is used in the report by Idrættens Analyseinstitut. The percentages might
therefore be inaccurate as fitness centres offers more than just traditional weightlifting.

104
THE JOB IFSELF IN RELATION TO LEVEL OF COMPETITION

6,0
Q1 I feel motivated to play football
5,5
Q2 I play football to become a better football player
5,0
Q3 I play football to be with friends
4,5
Q4 I play football to win matches
4,0
Q5 I play football to stay fit
3,5
Q6 I play football to become professional
3,0
Q7 I feel good at my club
Low level Mid level Top level

All players regardless of level of competition are highly motivated to play football. Top level players are in general
highly motivated to become better football players and win matches whereas the motivation for staying fit, becoming
professional and being with friends is relatively moderate. Low level players are in general most motivated by
becoming a better football player while the motivation for being with friends, staying fit and winning matches is
relatively moderate. The low level players are not really motivated by the dream of becoming professional.

Top level players are in general more motivated to develop their football skills which aligns well with the high
ambitions they have in relation to football. The motivation for becoming professional drops significantly from top level
to low level. The dream of becoming professional is simply unattainable when playing on a low level. The same trend
emerges when assessing the competitive element of winning matches. Top level players are far more concerned with
winning matches than low level players. On the other hand low level players are far more concerned with the social
aspect relatively speaking when playing football. It is important that coaches are aware of these differences. Top level
players are motivated by the competitive elements as the dream of becoming professional is intact for most players
whereas low level players’ primary motivation lies elsewhere. Player retention is threatened by the large proportion of
players dreaming about becoming professional as these players will probably never achieve their goals. The scope of
the problem is becomes evident when looking at the number of respondents who to some extent agrees with the
statement ‘I Play football to become professional – i.e. 53% of low level, 63% of mid level and 83% of top level.

6.2.3 LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY

Traditional job motivation suggests that employees that take on a great responsibility experience higher degrees of
satisfaction once the task in question has been completed (Hein, 2009, p. 131). However, responsibility is not desired
to the same extent in football as in traditional business life. Football differs from the traditional business life in the
sense that the players historically are less accustomed to take on responsibility than employees as football is a leisure
activity where the element of having fun often outweighs the desire to take on responsibility.

105
Players need to take on some responsibility during both match and training if a strong winning culture and a well-
functioning talent environment are established. The players need to perform their best as explained previously in
order to develop their own and to enable their teammates to develop their skills as well. A great coach simply needs
support from players who are willing to walk the extra mile and perform at their best to create a well-functioning
talent environment.

The tasks given to the individual players are unknown due to the nature of this report. A stronger focus on the
context, i.e. information about the individual player, his coach and their joint agreements, is needed to make an in-
depth analysis of the level of responsibility. For that purpose a qualitative in-depth study would have been more
suitable than the applied approach for this report as little priority has been given to contextual elements such as
responsibilities for the individual player.

6.2.4 CAREER ADVANCEMENTS

Roughly two-third of all players play football to become professional. Such ambitious players are constantly looking to
play on a higher level to get one step closer to their dream. Playing on a higher level can only be achieved by
traditional promotion, internal promotion or club changes to clubs playing on a higher level. Tradition promotion is
rd nd
when a team promotes from e.g. 3 division to 2 division whereas internal promotion is when a player moves up the
ranks at a club from e.g. U13B to U13A. This report does not examine the issue of tradition promotion but responses
from Question 30 ‘Additional comments’ indicate that it is difficult moving up the ranks though internal promotion.
Here, 5 out of 46 players highlighted problems related to internal promotion. Complaints were made about the lack of
cooperation between the A, B and C teams and downgrading the role of lower ranked teams in terms of the amount
of training times and equipment. These comments were discussed more in-depth previously in the chapter about
Status. In terms of club changes data suggest that roughly one eighth of all players consider changing club to play on a
higher level. It becomes evident when looking at the responses from Question 11 ‘I have considered changing club
within the last month’ and Question 11a ‘Why have you considered changing club?’. Approximately 25% of all players
regardless of age and level of competition have considered changing within the last month while 68 of 137 players
mentioned ‘personal development and the desire to play on a higher level’ as their primary reason for considering
joining a new club. Although these calculations involve a certain amount of statically uncertainty it still provides
indicative insights in the players’ thoughts on career development.

6.2.5 GROWTH POSSIBILITIES

Growth possibilities encompass both elements of career advancements, as described in the previous chapter, and the
opportunity to improve or develop new skills (Hein, 2009, p. 129). Thus attention in this chapter will only be given to
the issue of personal development to avoid repetition. The analysis aims to explore growth possibilities but it is
important to acknowledge that areas such as recent injuries or low attendance have not been included.

106
GROWTH POSSIBILITIES IN RELATION TO AGE

6,0 Q2 I play football to become a better football

5,5 player
Q14 I have become a better football player during
5,0
the last year
4,5 Q18 My coach encourages me to become a better
4,0 football player
Q22My teammates encourage me to become a
3,5 better football player
3,0 Q24 My teammates are always giving their best
U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U19

Statically significant differences were found when examining all five questions meaning that growth possibilities are
highly influenced by age. Question 2 reveals a declining motivation to become a better football player from U13 to
U19 with average scores of 5.68 for U13 and 5.04 for U19. The high average scores indicate that the vast majority
wants to become a better player in all age groups despite the negative tendency. Question 14 reveals a similar
tendency when measuring if the players have actually become better football players within the last year. However, a
potential problem arises as the average scores of Question 2 surpass the average scores of Question 14 meaning that
the desire to become a better football player is greater than the actual development. 98% of U13, 98% of U14, 94% of
U15, 92% of U16, 86% of U17 and 89% of U19 of those respondents, who to some extent play football to become
better players, have become better football players in the last year. These numbers indicate that the gap between the
motivation to become a better player and the development that these players actually experience gradually increases
from U13 to U19.

Question 18 and Question 22 measure whether the coach and the teammates respectively encourage the respondent
to become a better football player. The statistics for these two particular questions are fairly alike even though the
coach in general is better at supporting development of the individual player than his teammates. The average scores
for the youngest age groups are fairly high but the scores drop rapidly in the following age groups leaving room for
improvement in both cases.

Younger players are in general better at giving their best in match and training than older players as seen in Question
24. The average score drops drastically from a relatively positive level at U13 to an inadequate level at U16 and U17.
The lack of dedication and seriousness makes it difficult for all players to develop their skills. The lack of dedication is
most present at U17 where 44% of the players experience that their teammates are not always giving their best.
Additional research is needed to clarify the underlying reasons for this problem.

107
GROWTH POSSIBILITIES IN RELATION TO LEVEL OF COMPETITION

6,0 Q2 I play football to become a better football player

5,5
Q14 I have become a better football player during the
5,0 last year
4,5 Q18 My coach encourages me to become a better
football player
4,0
Q22My teammates encourage me to become a better
3,5 football player
3,0 Q24 My teammates are always giving their best
Low level Mid level Top level

Statically significant differences were found in Question 2, 18 and 24 meaning that growth possibilities are partly
influenced by level of competition. The same problem arises, as seen in the case of age, when comparing the findings
from Question 2 and 14. The average scores of Question 2 surpass the average scores of Question 14 for mid and top
level players meaning that the development of some ambitious player stagnates against their will. Not all of those
respondents who to some extent play football to become better players have become better football players in the
last year – i.e. 95% of low, 93%, of mid and 95% of top level players. The scope of the problem actually remains almost
unchanged across the different levels even though the average scores indicated that the problem was greater at mid
and top level.

The average scores for Question 18 and 22 are, as it was seen when comparing the different age groups, fairly alike.
Once again the average scores are higher for the coach meaning that the coach is better at supporting the
development of the individual player than the teammates. However, the average scores do not change as radically as
when comparing different age groups. Thus the level of competition has relatively little effect on the perceived
support from the coach and teammates.

The average scores found in Question 24 which assess the dedication and seriousness of the teammates varies quite a
bit. The most dedicated players were the top level players as they are probably more accustomed to a competitive
environment were the need to perform is greater.

6.3 SUM OF UP HERZBERG

In general Herzberg’s Motivational-Hygiene Theory was applicable even though a few topics, such as status,
achievement and level of responsibility, were difficult to examine with the chosen methodological approach. This
requires a stronger focus on qualitative data that assesses the context more in detail.

The two parallel discussions of the findings from the survey based on Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory revealed
a series of interesting discoveries. These discoveries will be summarized and discussed briefly in this chapter to

108
determine the overall level of motivation for age and level of competition respectively. In addition focus areas and
potential solutions to solve the problems at hand will be discussed simultaneously.

SUM UP IN RELATION TO AGE

The analysis of hygiene factors revealed that the youngest players, i.e. U13-U15, performed better on most scores
than the older players, i.e. U16-U19. Younger players achieved better scores on central issues such as supervision,
interpersonal relations, working conditions and job security. The scores of the youngest players were in general quite
positive even though almost all questions revealed room for improvement. The scores of the older players were
relatively low compared to the scores of the younger players. However, most scores were still to the positive side
even though critical problems emerged within the categories of supervision, interpersonal relations and job security.
In supervision and interpersonal relations it was found that the support from the coaches and teammates decreased
over time. The percentage of players considering chaining clubs and quitting football increased from 19% to 35% and
6% to 17% for U13 to U19 respectively.

Similar tendencies appeared in the analysis of motivation factors where the youngest players achieved better scores
on central issues such as recognition and achievement/growth possibilities. Older players received less recognition
from both their coach and teammates and experienced worse and more difficult conditions for personal development
than the younger players. The average scores of the older players were still to the positive side in most cases despite
declining scores. Three potential threats to motivation were discovered in the analysis of motivation drivers for
playing football. Firstly, it was seen that all age groups had an unrealistic view on becoming professional with 73% of
U13 and 56% of U19 playing football with the aim of achieving this. Secondly, the desire to stay fit increased
significantly over time making fitness centres a prime competitor. Thirdly, the long term goal of personal development
has been superseded by the short term goal of winning matches at the age of U16.

Thus it can be concluded that the youngest players experienced fewer elements causing job dissatisfaction and
experienced better condition for job satisfaction than older players. The vast majority of the younger players were
therefore fairly close to the ideal scenario were the players are be highly motivated and with few complaints. Older
players were in general less motivated and with more complaints despite achieving predominantly positive scores in
most cases. The most significant differences were found between U15 and U16 implying that the transition from U15
to U16 is problematic. It should be kept in mind that the U16 age group is a newly developed tier to improve retention
as the transition from U15-U17 in a historical perspective caused a high degree of drop outs. The effect of
implementing U16 is yet to be seen as the results are presumably still influenced by the obstacles related to such
structural changes. It is therefore recommended to compare these findings with future research before making a full
assessment of the new U16 tier.

109
SUM UP IN RELATION TO LEVEL OF COMPETITION

The analysis of the hygiene factors revealed somewhat similar tendencies for the different levels meaning that level of
competition had limited influence in most cases. Some of the most important differences were that top level players
found it important to play in a tournament with promotion and relegation; they felt more pressured by the
expectations from their coach and teammates; and they were least likely to quit football but most likely to change
clubs in a bid to play on a higher level. On a general level low, mid and top level all achieved relatively positive scores,
in most cases implying a rather low dissatisfaction for the majority of the players.

The differences between the different levels were only slightly more substantial in the analysis of the motivation
factors. The motivation drivers for playing football described in the category ‘The job itself’ revealed that top level
players had a much stronger desire to become professional resulting in a stronger focus on the development of skills
whereas the social element of playing with friends was of greater significance to low level players. It was therefore
unexpected to see that no significant differences were found In Question 14 ‘I have become a better football player
during the last year’ despite the different motivational drivers. It should be noted, however, that low and mid level
players also gave growth possibilities a high priority. The ambition of becoming professional proved to be a potential
threat for all levels with 53% of low, 63% of mid and 83% of top level hoping to achieve this.

In general the differences between the three levels were less significant than the differences between the age groups.
Despite the moderate differences all three levels achieved positive scores in most cases. Surprisingly it was found that
low, mid and top levels were just about equally motivated. All three levels were some way off the ideal scenario with
highly motivated players and with only a few complaints even though the results were mainly positive.

FOCUS AREAS

The analysis revealed that players from all age groups and all levels have different preferences and therefore require
more individual and customized attention. For instance players were found to have different motivational drivers for
playing football depending on their age and level of competition. Thus coaches must take precautions when designing
training programs and when communicating with the players to create a suitable environment for the particular team.
Generally speaking all areas investigated with use of Herzberg’s Motivational-Hygiene Theory were due to
improvements for all age groups and levels within grassroots youth football. On basis of the analysis the following
initiatives are recommended.

Potential initiatives to eliminate job dissatisfaction/improve hygiene factors:

- Provide supportive supervision and adjust expectations to the individual player/team

- Promote team cohesion and balance expectations with regards to seriousness and dedication

110
Potential initiatives to create better conditions for job satisfaction/improve motivation factors:

- Acknowledge different motivational drivers for the player/team

- Recognize player contributions
- Create rewarding training that matches skills and abilities of the player/team
- Provide better opportunities for internal promotion
- Improve growth possibilities by creating a more supportive and serious training environment

All of these initiatives are believed to improve motivation for all football players regardless of age and level of
competition. It should be noted that the effects of these initiatives will vary depending on the scores achieved by the
different segments that is U13 to U19 and low to top level, for instance U13 has generally scored the highest
throughout the analysis and are accordingly less prone to experiences radical improvements. Furthermore, it is
important to acknowledge that motivation does not necessarily equal retention even though it is believed to have a
positive effect. A player who is already playing at the best level for his age group in the particular club might display
full satisfaction and motivation to his football, but if an offer comes from a club of higher rank or playing in a division
above the current one, his decision might lead towards changing clubs, even though no signs of dissatisfaction or lack
of motivation was present. This is one of the pitfalls of investigating the motivation amongst youth players; no
dissatisfaction as well as high motivation is not necessarily equivalent to retention.

7 CONCLUSION

The purpose of the dissertation was to examine how age and level of competition influenced the current motivation of
U13-U19 grassroots football players in Copenhagen. The analytical basis consisted of a primarily quantitative
questionnaire survey with 1130 respondents representing 114 teams and the following eight clubs: Amager Boldklub
Tårnby, Boldklubben 1903, Boldklubben af 1893, Frederiksberg Alliancen 2000, Frederiksberg Boldklub, Gentofte-
Vangede Idrætsforening, Hellerup Idræts Klub and Kjøbenhavns Boldklub. The respondents were divided into
subgroups based on age and level of competition. The respondents were split into six subgroups, i.e. U13, U14, U15,
U16, U17 and U19, when divided on the basis of age and three subgroups, i.e. low, mid and top level, when divided on
the basis of level of competition.

Theory indicates that motivation is seen as the willingness workers hold to achieve results for the organisation and
search for personal development (Beardwell & Claydon, 2007, p. 491). The applied Motivation-Hygiene Theory by
Frederic Herzberg suggests that motivation is a twofold concept where job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are
obtained through motivation and hygiene factors respectively. The analysis revealed that both motivation and hygiene
factors were to varying extents influenced by age and level of competition. The impact of age proved to be of greater
significance than level of competition.

111
The analysis for age revealed that younger players, i.e. U13-U15, performed better on most scores compared to older
players, i.e. U16-U19. In general younger players experienced fewer elements causing job dissatisfaction and
experienced better conditions for job satisfaction than older players. It should be noted that the most radical
variances were found between U15 and U16 implying a problematic transaction from U15 to U16.

The analysis of level of competition revealed relative moderate differences compared to those of age. Surprisingly it
was found that low, mid and top levels were just about equally motivated. All three levels were some way off the ideal
scenario with highly motivated players and with only a few complaints even though the results were mainly positive.

Potential threats to player motivation and retention of all age groups and levels were discovered as well. The degree
to which players consider changing club or even quitting football; the large proportion of the players feel pressured by
the expectations from the coach and teammates; and the unrealistically high ambitions about becoming professional
were some of the most problematic issues.

A series of recommendations were established on basis of the analysis. Most importantly it was found that coaches
must acknowledge that ‘one size fits all’ does not apply in youth grassroots football. Thus coaches ought to provide
more supportive supervision and adjust expectations to the individual player/team; promote team cohesion and
balance expectations with regards to seriousness and dedication; acknowledge different motivational drivers for the
player/team; recognise player contributions; create rewarding training that matches skills and abilities of the
player/team; provide better opportunities for internal promotion; and lastly improve growth possibilities by creating a
more supportive and serious training environment in order to improve player motivation and potentially player
retention even though it must be kept in mind that motivation does not necessarily equal retention.

8 RECOMMENDATIONS

This dissertation clearly highlighted as series of improvements to be considered by DBU Copenhagen in the near
future. From their point of view, some issue might be better off addressed by the respective clubs, but the overall
guideline has to come from their side. The recommendations from the researchers therefore sum up as the following:

First of all it is emphasised that an increased focus is to be put on the respective curses offered by DBU to the coaches,
namely National A, B and C Licences. As coaches participate in order to enhance their skills and understanding of the
game, it would bold well to incorporate specific courses concerning the degree the coaches should put towards
striving for better team cohesion and being able to deal with the players they have at hand, what age they are at and
which level they are operating on. There has to be a degree of differentiation between how a coach attacks a top
ranked team in contrast to a mid or low ranked team, as well as U13, U14, U15, U16, U17 or U19. This issue has
proven to be a great concern as many players described a difference of opinion in the way they were spoken to and to

112
what extent they were pressured. Pressure can be productive, but it depends on the individual player that is put under
it.

Secondly, it would be wise to acknowledge the responses that were given regarding preferred matchdays. Even
though the question could have been altered hereby providing even clearer tendencies the finding can still be
included when DBU Copenhagen are planning the tournament structures. Players have accepted the current structure
and appreciate it, but the different age groups have expressed their preferred matchdays and as they differ it would
be wise to incorporate these desires in order to decrease the potential for no-shows and match postponements.

Thirdly, DBU Copenhagen would be able to take advantage of the extensive research done by the authors in order to
either highlight a certain area of interest or provide the clubs with an insight in their respective progressions. The
survey conducted was part of a benchmark project which proved to be very extensive and therefore a more concrete
insight would be of great relevance as some of the pictures drawn are not entirely representative to the issue that
arose. A more concrete survey design, comprised by DBU Copenhagen, would therefore help in determining the
seriousness of the concerns and more importantly help follow up on the matter on a continuous basis.

Lastly, it is recommended that DBU Copenhagen put emphasis on dealing with the large issue regarding player
retention. It was proven that approximately 25% of all players regardless of age and level of competition had to some
extent considered changing clubs. The most important factor for DBU Copenhagen is not that players decide to
change clubs, but as club changes are due to motivational dissatisfaction this element could eventually turn out very
negatively and with a large amount of drop-outs. For DBU Copenhagen to decrease this amount it would be wise to
acknowledge the concerns expressed by the players and accordingly partake in providing the respective clubs with the
proper tools for managing this concern, including those revealed in the analysis.

9 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

For this dissertation there were several issues that were supposed to be taken into account in order to satisfy all
implemented parties. Most importantly the lack of prior research within the field of motivation in grassroots youth
football that examines the impact of age and level of competition proved obstacle as there was no basis for
comparison.

Research centred on a survey consisting of 30 questions both open and closed and was successfully distributed to
1130 players from 114 teams from 8 different clubs in Copenhagen. During the research period some obstacles were
found and influenced the data collecting process. As the collection was conducted in the final stages of the
tournaments, some teams and players were already on holiday and were not able to be included in the survey. These
players could have tilted some of the scales in another direction.

113
Additionally, the research ended up with a very comprehensive data collection which turned out to limit the
researchers in the sense of much data with many areas to take into consideration. As this survey was the first of its
kind within this field it could have been wiser to leave out some age groups and put further focus on only a couple of
groups. In retrospect, the dissertation could also have been centred solely on age or level of competition hereby
enabling more space for in-depth cross-references and the opportunity to closer discuss tendencies within either age
or level. The major limitation in this case then is the fact that there may have been too much data that the authors
had to exclude some potential interesting investigations.

Furthermore, by implementing a survey that is highly reliant on quantitative answers, the results illustrated habits and
tendencies, but with limited qualitative data exploring the underlying reasons. This would however be a main area of
interest for future research.

After every survey it becomes clear which parts could have been done differently and perhaps could have provided a
differentiated and even improved picture of the problem at hand.

In regards to what was mentioned under the limitations section, it would bold well for future research to investigate
the reasoning behind certain motivation factors instead of solely concluding what they are. In order to firmly take
action against some of the factors it is important to analyse why the patterns have turned out the way they have;
hence investigate areas such as cultural differences as this dissertation is not context specific. Due to this it would be
interesting to create a qualitative and more in-depth analysis that centres on only a few of the topics discussed in this
report. For this purpose a different and more context specific framework, e.g. the Goal-Setting Theory by Hackmann &
Oldham, might be of better usability than the Motivation-Hygiene Theory by Herzberg.

Additionally initiatives should be taken to make use of the large sample size acquired by the authors and gain an even
brighter insight in the various clubs. The research that has been conducted should be used by DBU Copenhagen to
evaluate tendencies in the long run – for instance the evaluation of U16 as a new tournament tier. Nevertheless, some
alterations are to be done regarding the current survey design. From the results gained it would be wise to re-evaluate
the questionnaire. In some cases questions should be rephrased or even removed where no significant differences
were found or those where no direct issue was demonstrated. For instance question 29 regarding match days where
players in general had trouble understanding the meaning behind it. Regarding the design it would also be very
interesting to include questions regarding loyalty with the club. There could have been a question present relating to
the time spent at the current club. At this stage questions were designed to illustrate whether players had considered
changing clubs hereby dismissing those who had recently done so. Additionally, a question regarding recent club
changes and the motivation for these would also be of great relevance. These results would be used to improve
validity and enhance reliability as recent club changes added to uncertainty in the results.

114
10 LIST OF REFERENCES

(a)Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1979). Goal Setting - A Motivational Technique That Works. Organizational Dynamics,
8(2), pp. 68-80.

(b)Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991, December). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp. 212-247.

(c)Latham, G. R., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Enhancing the Benefits and Overcoming the Pitfalls of Goal Setting.
Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), pp. 332-340.

(d)Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2009, February). Has Goal Setting Gone Wild, or Have Its Attackers. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 23(1), pp. 17-23.

Beardwell, J., & Claydon, T. (2007). Human Resource Management - A Contemporary Approach (5 ed.). Harlow:
Prentice Hall.

Bell, J. (2005). Doing Your Research Project - A guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science (4
ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bruun, M. (2014). Målrettet mangel på målrettethed. Københavnsk Fodbold, 2, 12-14.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods (3 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, Break All the Rules. Simon & Schuster.

Danmarks Idrætsforbund. (2014). Medlemstal. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from Danmarks Idrætsforbund:
http://www.dif.dk/da/om_dif/medlemstal

Danmarks Statistik. (2014, October 1). Folketal . Retrieved February 7, 2015, from Danmarks Statistik:
http://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/befolkning-og-befolkningsfremskrivning/folketal.aspx

Dansk Boldspil Union. (2015). Medlemstal 1910-2014. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from Dansk Boldspil Union:
http://www.dbu.dk/oevrigt_indhold/Om_DBU/DBUs%20historie/medlemstal

DBU Copenhagen. (2014, April 3). Aldersopdelt medlemsregistringsliste 2013. Copenhagen, Denmark.

DBU Copenhagen. (2014). Medlemstal DBUK 1998 - 2013. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. USA: Addison-Wesley.

Haugaasen, M., & Jordet, G. (2012, September). Developing football expertise: a football-specific research review.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(2), pp. 177-201.

115
Hein, H. H. (2009). Motivation - Motivationsteori og praktisk anvendelse. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Henriksen, K. (2011). Talentudviklingsmiljøer i verdensklasse. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.

Herzberg(a), F. (1968). Work and The Nature of Man. London: Staples Press.

Herzberg(b), F. (1974, September). Motivation-Hygiene Profiles - Pinpointing what ails the organization.
Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), pp. 18-29.

Jensen, C. P. (2009, March 4). Begynd med at rose, når du vil kritisere. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from Børsen:
http://www.business.dk/karriere/begynd-med-rose-naar-du-vil-kritisere

Larsen, C. H., Alfermann, D., Henriksen, K., & Christensen, M. K. (2014, March). Preparing Footballers for the Next
Step: An Intervention Program From an Ecological Perspective. Sport Psychologist, 28(1), pp. 91-102.

Laub, T. B. (2013). Danskernes motions- og sportsvaner 2011. Copenhagen: Idrættens Analyseinstitut.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2 ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Moisander, J., & Valtonen, A. (2006). Qualitative Marketing Research - A Cultural Approach. London, England: Sage
Publications.

Pedersen, D. (2015, June 25). Pres på storbyer er en global tendens. Retrieved July 1, 2015, from DBU Copenhagen:
http://www.dbukoebenhavn.dk/Nyheder/2015/Juni/Prespaastorbyer

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Pearson.

Roberts, G. C., & Treasure, D. C. (2012). Advances in Motivation in Sport and Exercise (3 ed.). USA: Human Kinetics.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2 ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Rutherford, A. (2001). Introducing Anova and Ancova: A GLM Approach. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Røndbjerg-Christensen, H. (2014, January 1). Mange fitnesskunder kommer aldrig op af sofaen. Retrieved March 3,
2015, from Berlingske: http://www.b.dk/nationalt/mange-fitnesskunder-kommer-aldrig-op-af-sofaen

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5 ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Skriver, H. J., Staunstrup, E., & Kærgård, A. (2007). Ledelse i Praksis. Nykøbing F: Trojka.

Sobh, R., & Perry, C. (2006). Research design and data analysis in realism research. European Journal of Marketing,
40(11/12), 1194-1209.

116
The National Research Centre for the Working Environment. (2014). Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire.
Retrieved February 11, 2015, from The National Research Centre for the Working Environment:
http://www.arbejdsmiljoforskning.dk/en/publikationer/spoergeskemaer/psykisk-arbejdsmiljoe

Veal, A. J. (2006). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide (3 ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited.

Vesterberg, H. (2014, January 5). Teenagere og børn er vilde med fitness. Retrieved March 3, 2015, from Politiken:
http://politiken.dk/motion/fitness/ECE2172279/teenagere-og-boern-er-vilde-med-fitness/

Welsh, D. T., & Ordóñez, L. D. (2014, March). The dark side of consecutive high performance goals: Linking goal
setting, depletion, and unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2),
pp. 79-89.

Østergaard, S. (2007). Farvel til Fodbold? Hvorfor fravælger 13-18-årige klubfodbold i KBU-regi? - En rapport om
frafald. København: Center for Ungdomsstudier og Religionspædagogik.

117
11 APPENDIX

ORIGINAL QUESTIONNAIRE IN DANISH

Klub: Årgang: Række:

DBU København er ved at foretage en trivselsundersøgelse blandt ungdomsspillerne. Vi har derfor brug for din hjælp. På forhånd tak.

Meget Meget Ved

Motivation
uenig enig ikke
1. Jeg føler mig motiveret til at spille fodbold □ □ □ □ □ □ □
2. Jeg spiller fodbold for at blive bedre □ □ □ □ □ □ □
3. Jeg spiller fodbold for at være sammen med mine venner □ □ □ □ □ □ □
4. Jeg spiller fodbold for at vinde □ □ □ □ □ □ □
5. Jeg spiller fodbold for at holde mig i form □ □ □ □ □ □ □
6. Jeg spiller fodbold for at blive professionel □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Meget Meget Ved

Klub
uenig enig ikke
7. Jeg har det godt i min klub □ □ □ □ □ □ □
8. Jeg er tilfreds med faciliteterne (omklædning, baner mv.) i klubben □ □ □ □ □ □ □
9. Jeg går i bad i klubben efter kamp og træning □ □ □ □ □ □ □
10. Jeg vil anbefale en kammerat at starte i min klub □ □ □ □ □ □ □
11. Jeg har overvejet at skifte klub indenfor den sidste måned □ □ □ □ □ □ □
a. Hvis du har overvejet at skifte klub,
hvorfor:
12. Jeg har overvejet at stoppe til fodbold indenfor den sidste måned □ □ □ □ □ □ □
a. Hvis du har overvejet at stoppe til fodbold, hvorfor:

118
 Meget Meget Ved
Personligt
uenig enig ikke
13. Jeg føler mig som en del af holdet □ □ □ □ □ □ □
14. Jeg er blevet en bedre fodboldspiller indenfor det sidste år □ □ □ □ □ □ □
15. Jeg føler mig presset af forventningerne fra træner og holdkammerater □ □ □ □ □ □ □
16. Jeg glemmer alt om hverdagens udfordringer, når jeg spiller fodbold □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Meget Meget Ved

Træner
uenig enig ikke
17. Jeg har det godt med min træner □ □ □ □ □ □ □
18. Min træner motiverer mig til at blive en bedre fodboldspiller □ □ □ □ □ □ □
19. Min træner har rost mig indenfor den sidste uge □ □ □ □ □ □ □
20. Min træner interesserer sig for mig □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Meget Meget Ved

Holdkammerater
uenig enig ikke
21. Jeg er tilfreds med antallet af sociale aktiviteter som min klub tilbyder □ □ □ □ □ □ □
22. Mine holdkammerater motiverer mig til at blive en bedre fodboldspiller □ □ □ □ □ □ □
23. Mine holdkammerater har rost mig indenfor den sidste uge □ □ □ □ □ □ □
24. Mine holdkammerater yder altid deres bedste □ □ □ □ □ □ □
25. Jeg har en bedste ven på holdet □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Meget Meget Ved

Turnering
uenig enig ikke
26. Jeg bruger for meget tid på transport til udekampene □ □ □ □ □ □ □
27. Det er vigtigt for mig at spille i en turnering på et niveau, hvor jeg både kan
vinde og tabe □ □ □ □ □ □ □
119
 28. Det er vigtig for mig at spille i en turnering med op- og nedrykning □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Ved
Kamptidspunkter Mandag Tirsdag Onsdag Torsdag Fredag Lørdag Søndag
ikke
29. Hvilke kamptidspunkter passer dig godt? (sæt gerne flere
krydser) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Kommentarer
30. Andre kommentarer kan skrives
her:

120