Author(s): NAKAYAMA, S., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA, Country: JAPAN, Abstract-ID: 1909

INTRODUCTION: Competition in youth sport, particularly in the U12 age group, is often discussed in terms of formats, intensity, or the appropriate timing of competitive exposure. Previous study has suggested that problems in youth competition arise not simply from competition itself, but from how competitive structures are organised and scaled down from adult sport models [1]. In Japan, however, debates have largely focused on the legitimacy of national championships (NC), while the question of who is expected to deal with the consequences of competition has received less attention. This study addresses that overlooked question through a qualitative international comparison of U12 competition systems.
METHODS: This study employed a qualitative comparative case study design examining how competition is organised at the U12 level across different national contexts. The cases examined were U12 volleyball in Japan and the Netherlands, and U12 handball in France and Norway. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with committee members within national federations responsible for player development (Japan, Norway, Netherlands: n = 2 each; France: n = 1). Follow-up questionnaires were conducted to clarify interpretations. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis with constant comparison across cases.
RESULTS: The analysis revealed cross-national differences in how responsibility for competition was allocated. In Japan, youth competition is organised around a NC pathway that has long been treated as a given. Match results and rankings are visible, and responsibility for outcomes is commonly understood as resting with individual coaches and children. In contrast, the other three cases demonstrated explicit institutional involvement in shaping the meaning of competition. In France, competition is introduced gradually according to developmental stages, and matches are framed as opportunities for learning rather than final evaluation. In Norway, competition is governed through a children’s rights, including the non-display of rankings and institutional intervention in extreme results. In the Netherlands, season-long NCs were abolished, and short, one-day tournaments were introduced in order to prevent the long-term accumulation of results.
CONCLUSION: Across all four cases, competition itself was not rejected. Instead, the key difference lay in whether responsibility for competitive outcomes was individualised or institutionally managed. From a hidden curriculum perspective[2], everyday competition structures implicitly shape how children and coaches learn the meaning of winning, losing, and responsibility[3]. For contexts such as Japan, where U12 NCs have continued largely unquestioned, this comparison suggests that the central issue is not whether competition should exist, but how responsibility for its effects is institutionally organised.
REFERENCES: 1. Capranica & Millard-Stafford (2011). 2. Jackson (1968). 3. Cushion & Jones (2014).