Science1 publisher2 min readPublished
Athletes in an EHU survey rarely flagged the coach behaviors survivors link to the start of abuse
EHU researchers found more than 80% of 292 athletes called overtly sexual coach behavior sexual violence, but few said so of hugs or one-on-one attention. Six survivors tied that quieter attention to the start of their abuse, so the researchers call for less isolation and more visible one-on-one meetings.
The Scientist · Science desk
What happened
- A GIKAFIT report from EHU in the Basque Country found 20% of participants had experienced sexual behavior from coaches, including kissing on the lips and direct proposals for sex.
- Hugging, asking about leisure time, individual attention and arranging one-on-one contact were rarely classed as sexual violence.
- Survivors, looking back, identified some of those normalized behaviors as part of the abuse they experienced.
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- constraint The 20% prevalence figure cannot be cited as evidence that athletes fail to recognize abuse, because its named examples are behaviors most surveyed athletes already call sexual violence.
- constraint With only six retrospective interviews, the work cannot give the odds that a hug or private attention precedes abuse, so a list of single behaviors cannot be used to screen coaches.
- decision Clubs writing safeguarding rules are pushed to regulate conditions such as isolation and unseen one-on-one meetings, since the researchers accept that coaching needs trust and physical contact.
The 20% figure and the gray zone the study describes involve different behaviors. The report's named examples of coach conduct were kissing on the lips, expressions of sexual interest and direct proposals for sexual relations [1]. Kissing on the lips also appears among the explicit behaviors that more than 80% of surveyed athletes classed as sexual violence, alongside proposing sex in exchange for privileges [3][13]. The published account does not give the size or age range of the sample behind the 20%, or say whether it overlaps with the 292 athletes in the new paper. The recognition gap was with the quieter items on the list [4].
The design is what exposed that gap. The survey asked respondents to judge 24 coach behaviors one at a time [3]. The interviews asked six people who had experienced sexual violence in sport as school-age children to go back over what happened [2]. The two methods judged the same acts differently. Sáenz said the team found that "there are many everyday behaviors that the athletes do not perceive as abusive. However, when a survivor of sexual violence reconstructs their experience, they identify these same behaviors as part of the process of abuse" [6].
"Their narratives confirm that sexual violence does not necessarily start with obvious abuse, but with giving special attention or gifts or having personal conversations that, depending on the child's age, could even be perceived as something positive," she said [7].
Six retrospective accounts can show that such a sequence happened in those cases. They cannot say how often a coach's special attention comes before abuse and how often it is ordinary coaching [15]. Sáenz draws the same line. She said gray-zone behaviors are not all abusive or criminal, and that they can become part of grooming when they are repeated, personalized, linked to secrecy or embedded in unequal power relations [8]. I think the survey respondents were right that a hug, judged alone, is not sexual violence. Sáenz said a hug after a win "might be appropriate if an athlete has played an excellent game but has low self-esteem" [9]. "What needs to be analyzed is whether this hug is part of exclusive attention or whether there is emotional dependency," she said [16].
The team's proposals target those conditions. They include training sports professionals on boundaries, reducing avoidable isolation, making one-on-one meetings more visible and strengthening reporting and support [10]. The study does not set out to treat coaches as suspects, and it accepts that sports instruction needs trust and physical contact [14]. "Education is key to prevention," Sáenz said [11].
What to watch
- Publication of the sample size, age range and method behind the GIKAFIT 20% figure, and whether it covers minors only.
- A comparison-group or prospective study measuring how often repeated, secret, personalized coach attention actually precedes abuse.
- Whether clubs or federations adopt the proposed measures on visible one-on-one meetings and stronger reporting channels.