Exploring the interplay of coach behaviours, team resilience, support perception, and collective efficacy in young team athletes

Abstract

Team sports create a social-psychological environment that shapes athletes’ responses to pressure and challenges. Belief in the team’s ability to cope with demanding conditions is crucial for individual motivation and collective success, strengthening performance, social bonds, and psychological resilience. This study examines the relationships between perceived supportive coach behaviours, team resilience, and collective efficacy in young athletes. A total of 285 athletes from football, basketball, volleyball, and handball participated, with validated instruments used to measure coach behaviours, team resilience, perceived support, and collective efficacy. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) assessed the interrelationships among these variables. Findings showed that perceived support significantly influences athletes’ recognition of supportive coach behaviours, enhances resilience, and reduces vulnerability under pressure. Collective efficacy was a key predictor of resilience and negatively correlated with vulnerabilities. Supportive coaching behaviours alleviated stress and promoted resilience, highlighting the importance of a positive team environment. Indirect effects indicated that perceived support enhances resilience through collective efficacy and supportive behaviours, underlining their mediating role in strengthening team dynamics and psychological responses. The study underscores the importance of perceived support and supportive coaching in fostering resilience and collective efficacy. Athletes who feel supported are more likely to demonstrate resilience and cope with challenges effectively. Coaches should prioritise supportive environments that encourage positive relationships and resilience, helping athletes manage stress and improve performance. Future research could explore the long-term impact of these factors across different team sports.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13102-025-01277-1.

The psychological dynamics within team sports are crucial to the development and performance of young athletes [1, 2]. Team sports demand a delicate balance between individual growth and collective success. Central to this balance are the interactions between the coach and athlete relationship [3], which directly influence key psychological constructs such as resilience [4, 5], perceived support [6], and collective efficacy [7]. These elements determine how athletes cope with challenges [8] and how effectively teams function as cohesive units under pressure. Understanding these psychological dynamics is essential for developing effective coaching strategies and fostering environments that support both individual and team success in youth sports.

Athletes’ perceptions of their coaches are an underlying factor for athletes to function well in a competitive environment [9]. Athletes often rate their coaches’ efficacy higher than the coaches themselves, suggesting that a favourable perception of coaching can foster a sense of trust and confidence in athletes. This belief can lead to a the coach knows what he’s doing mentality, which is crucial for athletes when facing pressure [10]. When athletes perceive their coaches as competent and supportive, they are more likely to engage positively with the challenges they face, thereby enhancing their performance [11]. Furthermore, the perception of coaching behaviours, such as providing constructive feedback and emotional support, has been shown to correlate with athletes’ ability to cope with stress and pressure [12].

During times of heightened pressure, athletes often turn to their coaches as a pivotal source of guidance and reassurance. When athletes feel that their coaches are supportive and understanding, they are more likely to experience positive emotions, leading to improved performance and resilience in facing challenges [13, 14]. Effective coaching during crises reinforces athletes’ sense of stability and belonging, which can mitigate the effects of anxiety and performance pressure [15]. This is especially crucial in team sports, where the collective response to stress impacts overall performance [16]. By fostering a trusting environment, coaches help athletes feel secure, enabling them to focus on their roles and contribute to team success [17]. Supportive coach behaviours, such as encouragement, emotional support, and constructive feedback, are pivotal in creating an environment where athletes feel valued and empowered [13, 18, 19]. Studies showed that athletes who rely on their coaches perform well [3], act as a unit [20], and develop resilience [21].

Resilience is a key factor in the team environment for athletic performance and bouncing back when facing setbacks [22]. Team resilience is defined as a “dynamic, psychosocial process which protects a group of individuals from the potential negative effect of the stressors they collectively encounter. It comprises processes whereby team members use their individual and collective resources to adapt positively when experiencing adversity” [23]. To begin with, team resilience is a complex, evolving process, characterised by its dynamic and multidimensional nature, which can shift over time [24]. Furthermore, adversity typically triggers resilience, requiring individuals or teams to adapt positively or reintegrate following such challenges, leading to beneficial outcomes. A key aspect of resilience lies in a team’s capacity to navigate adversity and mitigate its potentially detrimental effects, such as diminished morale, reduced prosocial behaviour, and prolonged performance declines [22]. Research has consistently emphasised the importance of social and environmental factors in fostering team resilience [24–26].

One of the key environmental constructs in enhancing resilience in team sports is social support [24]. Social support in sports teams is categorised into emotional, esteem, informational, and tangible support [27, 28], provided primarily by coaches, parents, and peers [29]. Perceived support, particularly from teammates and coaches, also plays a vital role in fostering a sense of collective efficacy—a shared belief in the team’s ability to succeed. Perceived social support, rather than actual received support, significantly contributes to athletes’ health, personal adjustment, and performance [30].

Effective social support within teams enhances physical and emotional well-being, communication, and commitment to team goals, contributing to overall team success [31]. In youth athletes, who are still developing both psychologically and socially, the perception of support can be a key determinant of whether they view their team as a source of strength or stress. This perception is closely tied to coach behaviours, as supportive coaches reinforce athletes’ belief in the team’s collective capabilities [32, 33].

Coaches can foster a motivational climate through supportive behaviours, helping athletes feel secure within their performance environment [6]. Research has highlighted how empowering coaching practices can shape athletes’ motivation and well-being [34] [Duda, 2013]. The motivational climate created by coaches significantly influences athletes’ perceptions of support and their engagement in sport [35] [Appleton et al., 2016]. Additionally, coaches’ interpersonal style and the motivational climate they create are linked to the well-being and psychological needs satisfaction of young athletes [36] [Balaguer et al., 2012]. When athletes perceive their environment as supportive and believe they can access assistance when needed, this enhances their sense of collective efficacy. Such perceptions strengthen athletes’ shared belief in their team’s ability to succeed and reinforce a sense of individual responsibility within the group. Moreover, the view that the coach’s supportive behaviours stem from an encouraging environment strengthens athletes’ positive perceptions of their coach. This positive perception and trust contribute significantly to enhancing team resilience. This study aims to fill a gap in the literature by investigating how perceived support and the mediating roles of perceived coaches’ supportive behaviours and collective efficacy influence team resilience in young team athletes.

Coaches are often seen as the primary leaders in team sports, responsible for not only guiding athletes tactically but also shaping their mental and emotional development [37–39]. Supportive behaviours from coaches, such as positive reinforcement, active listening, and providing constructive feedback, create a psychologically safe environment where athletes feel secure and confident to push their limits [6, 40]. This sense of safety allows athletes to handle adversity better, an essential aspect of resilience.

Research has shown that when athletes perceive their coach as supportive, they are more likely to develop the mental toughness required to overcome challenges [12, 41]. Coaches who foster open communication, provide emotional support, and encourage persistence in facing difficulties contribute to developing resilience [42, 43]. Moreover, supportive behaviours mitigate the impact of stressors, such as poor performance or interpersonal conflicts, by enabling athletes to view these challenges as opportunities for growth rather than threats to their self-esteem or team cohesion [44]. A coach who demonstrates supportive behaviours can help young athletes develop the necessary coping mechanisms to deal with the pressures of competition. By consistently providing encouragement and reframing setbacks as part of the learning process, coaches can enhance the collective resilience of the team, ensuring that athletes are better equipped to handle adversity both on and off the field.

Team resilience, defined as a team’s capacity to adapt positively to adversity, is essential for success in sport [23]. The research underscores the importance of social support, cohesion, and collective efficacy in building this resilience. Social support, especially from coaches, acts as a buffer against stress, helping athletes maintain confidence and motivation in challenging times [45, 46].

Need-supportive coaching behaviours, in particular, strengthen resilience, which enhances team performance [8]. Group cohesion and collective efficacy have also been shown to support resilience and improve perceived performance directly [47]. Teams characterised by high cohesion and collective efficacy tend to exhibit greater resilience, which in turn correlates with improved performance [48]. In line with the multilevel model of team resilience, resilience develops through the interaction of individual resources and shared experiences in response to stressors [49]. These findings suggest that fostering support structures within teams—whether through supportive coaching or enhancing group cohesion—can improve resilience and ultimately aid team performance [50].

This study investigates the relationships between perceived supportive coach behaviours, team resilience, and collective efficacy among young team athletes. Specifically, it seeks to understand how team athletes’ perceptions impact their perception of the coaches’ behaviours and collective efficacy beliefs and, in turn, how perceived coaches’ behaviours and collective efficacy affect team resilience in sports.

For this purpose, we developed a model (see Fig. 1) to test the perceived available support as the predictor of team resilience mediated by athletes’ perceived supportive behaviours and collective efficacy in sport. First, we proposed that perceived available support would positively predict perceived supportive behaviours of coaches (H₁) and collective efficacy (H₂). Second, perceived supportive behaviours of coaches and collective efficacy would positively and directly impact vulnerabilities displayed under pressure (H₃: PAS to VDUP, H₅: CE to VDUP) and displaying resilience characteristics (H₄: PAS to DRC, H₆: CE to DRC). Third, we hypothesised that perceived available support would indirectly predict vulnerabilities displayed under pressure (H_3a) and resilience characteristics (H_4a) through perceived supportive behaviours. Finally, we hypothesised that perceived available support would indirectly predict vulnerabilities displayed under pressure (H_5a) and resilience characteristics (H_6a) through collective efficacy. Our model is aimed to test whether a supportive environment allows athletes to understand coaches’ behaviours as supportive and enhances collective efficacy, leading to developing team resilience. By exploring these relationships, the present study seeks to contribute to the growing body of literature on the psychological dynamics within team sports, focusing on support perception and collective efficacy in fostering team resilience.

Fig. 1.

Hypothesised pathways of the model displaying the direct and indirect effects of perceived support on team resilience via perceived supportive behaviours and collective efficacy

Method

Participants

The athletes were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) active participation in organised team sports (football, basketball, volleyball, or handball), and (2) a minimum of 1 year of working in the same team with the same coach. We recruited 285 team athletes (99 females and 186 males) for this study, with a mean age of 18.75 years (SD = 1.74). The sample included athletes from football (n = 66), basketball (n = 61), volleyball (n = 69), and handball (n = 104). 7% of the athletes reported competing at the national team level. The athletes had an average of 6.22 years (SD = 3.77) of experience in their respective sports. On average, they trained 3.64 days per week (SD = 1.37) and 2.29 h per day (SD = 1.07). They reported having worked with their current coach for an average of 3.21 years (SD = 2.50) and been with their current team for 3.00 years (SD = 2.40).

Instruments

All instruments used in this study were previously validated in similar populations and demonstrated good psychometric properties.

Interpersonal behaviours in sport

We used the Interpersonal Behaviours Questionnaire in Sport (IBQ), developed by Rocchi et al. [51]. We adapted to Turkish culture by Yıldız and Şenel [52] to measure athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ interpersonal behaviours. The instrument consists of 24 items that assess six types of interpersonal behaviours, as proposed by Self-Determination Theory: Autonomy-Supportive (four items, e.g., My coach gives me the freedom to make my own choices), Autonomy-Thwarting (four items, e.g., My coach pressures me to do things their way), Competence-Supportive (four items, e.g., My coach tells me that I can accomplish things), Competence-Thwarting (four items, e.g., My coach points out that I will likely fail), Relatedness-Supportive (four items, e.g., My coach takes the time to get to know me), and Relatedness-Thwarting (four items, e.g., My coach does not connect with me). Each item is rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from one (completely disagree) to seven (completely agree).

Team resilience in sport

The Characteristics of Resilience in Sports Teams Inventory (CREST), developed by Decroos et al. [53] and adapted to Turkish culture by Gorgulu et al. [54], was used to evaluate the group-level resilience characteristics of the teams. The inventory includes 20 items: 12 items for displaying resilient characteristics (e.g., the team was able to focus on what was important) and eight items for vulnerabilities displayed under pressure (e.g., teammates started to communicate negatively with each other). Responses are recorded on a Likert scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree).

Perceived available support in sport

To assess athletes’ perceptions of support within their team environment, we utilised the Team Referent Available Support in Sport Questionnaire (TASS-Q), developed by Coffee et al. [55] and adapted to Turkish culture by Şenel et al. [56]. This questionnaire comprises 16 items that measure the perceived availability of emotional (e.g., ‘…provide you with comfort and security’), (e.g., ‘…reinforce the positives’), information support (e.g., ‘…give you constructive criticism’), and tangible support (e.g., ‘…help with travel to training and matches’). Each item is rated on a scale from zero (not at all) to four (extremely), with higher scores indicating a greater perceived availability of support.

Collective efficacy

The Observational Collective Efficacy Scale for Sport (OCESS) was employed to assess team athletes’ collective efficacy. Fransen et al. [57] developed OCESS, and Şenel et al. [58] translated and validated the Turkish form. This unidimensional scale consists of five items evaluating observable team efficacy behaviours (e.g., React enthusiastically when making a point). The items are rated on a scale from one (not at all confident) to seven (extremely confident).

Analysis

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was chosen for data analysis due to its ability to simultaneously examine complex relationships among multiple variables, including both direct and indirect effects. SEM is particularly suitable for this study as it allows for the assessment of latent constructs such as perceived support, collective efficacy, and team resilience, which are measured by multiple observed indicators. This approach provides a comprehensive understanding of the interrelationships among the study variables and the mediating effects hypothesised in the research model.

In the present study, collective efficacy and supportive coaching were conceptualised as mediators in the relationship between perceived support and team resilience. This approach is grounded in social-cognitive theory, which posits that social and environmental factors influence psychological outcomes through their impact on key interpersonal and intrapersonal processes. Specifically, perceived support from coaches is theorised to enhance athletes’ perceptions of supportive coaching behaviours and foster a shared sense of collective efficacy within the team. These mediating constructs, in turn, are proposed to facilitate the development of team resilience by strengthening athletes’ confidence in their collective abilities and reinforcing adaptive responses to adversity. Modelling collective efficacy and supportive coaching as mediators allows for a more nuanced examination of the mechanisms through which perceived support exerts its influence on resilience, and aligns with previous empirical findings that highlight the indirect pathways linking social support, team processes, and psychological outcomes in sport contexts.

To explore the relationships between coach behaviours, team resilience, support perception, and collective efficacy in young team athletes, we employed Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using AMOS 24 software. SEM is a powerful statistical technique that simultaneously examines multiple interrelated dependencies among observed and latent variables [59, 60]. This method is particularly beneficial for testing complex theoretical models involving direct and indirect effects, providing a comprehensive understanding of the underlying processes [61].

We hypothesised that perceived support would have a direct positive effect on supportive behaviours and collective efficacy. Furthermore, it was proposed that perceived supportive behaviours would influence the vulnerabilities exhibited under pressure and resilient characteristics. Collective efficacy was also expected to impact the vulnerabilities shown under pressure and the athletes’ resilience. Before conducting SEM, we assessed the dataset for missing values; there were no missing data, thus ensuring the integrity of the analyses.

Measurement and structural model fit

We tested the measurement model to confirm that the indicators reliably measured the intended latent constructs. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the measurement model, employing multiple fit indices: Chi-square (χ²), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The results from the CFA demonstrated a good fit for the measurement model, with all factor loadings being significant and exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.50 [59, 61].

Following the measurement model’s validation, we assessed the structural model. The path coefficients were estimated using the maximum likelihood estimation method, which is robust to deviations from normality under moderate sample sizes [59]. The significance of both direct and indirect effects was evaluated through bootstrap procedures with 5,000 resamples, providing bias-corrected confidence intervals for the estimates [62].

The overall fit of the structural model was evaluated using the same fit indices as for the measurement model. The Chi-square test was non-significant, indicating that the model adequately represented the data. Additionally, the CFI and TLI values were above the accepted threshold of 0.90, and the RMSEA was below 0.08, suggesting an acceptable model fit [60, 63].

Results

Preliminary results

Initially, we tested the 5-factor measurement model in confirmatory factor analysis (SEM step 1) by assessing the relationships between the latent factors and the analysed items/variables. Acceptable fit indices were found for the measurement model [χ² (1308) = 2745.236, χ²/df = 2.09, CFI = 0.86, TLI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.06 (95% C.I.: 0.05–0.06), SRMR = 0.05]. Since each regression coefficient was statistically significant, internal consistency and structural properties were also adequate. AVE was used to measure convergent validity. AVE values are as follows: PASS-Q: 0.54, VSP: 0.58, DRC: 0.51, OCESS: 0,57, IBQ-Supportive: 0.52. The composite reliability coefficients are as follows: PASS-Q: 0.95, VSP: 0.92, DRC: 0.93, OCESS: 0.87, IBQ-Supportive: 0.93. IBQ-Supportive: 0.54. In this sense, the latent model was accepted and validated, thus enabling the second step (SEM step 2). Therefore, we proceeded to the measurement of the structural model.

Descriptive and correlational results

Table 1 represents the bivariate correlations among the study variables. Displaying resilient characteristics was found to be positively correlated with observational collective efficacy (r = 0.702, p < 0.01) and supportive behaviours (r = 0.525, p < 0.01), indicating that athletes who exhibit resilient characteristics are more likely to perceive themselves as collectively capable and receive support from their teammates. However, a negative correlation was observed between displaying resilient characteristics and controlling behaviours (r = -0.343, p < 0.01), suggesting that athletes with resilient characteristics may be less receptive to controlling coaching behaviours. Conversely, vulnerabilities displayed under pressure showed negative correlations with observational collective efficacy (r = -0.602, p < 0.01) and supportive behaviours (r = -0.449, p < 0.01), indicating that athletes who perceive themselves as vulnerable under pressure may have lower collective efficacy and receive less support from their teammates. A positive correlation was found between vulnerabilities under pressure and controlling behaviours (r = 0.435, p < 0.01), suggesting that athletes displaying vulnerabilities may be more susceptible to controlling coaching behaviours. Observational collective efficacy was positively correlated with supportive behaviours (r = 0.447, p < 0.01) and negatively correlated with controlling behaviours (r = -0.338, p < 0.01), indicating that athletes who perceive high collective efficacy are more likely to engage in supportive behaviours and less likely to perceive controlling behaviours from their coaches. Supportive behaviours were positively correlated with perceived available support in the team (r = 0.589, p < 0.01) and negatively correlated with controlling behaviours (r = -0.660, p < 0.01), suggesting that athletes who engage in supportive behaviours perceive more support from their teammates and experience less controlling coaching behaviours.

Table 1.

Bivariate correlations, means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis score

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Displaying resilient characteristics	1	− 0.76**	0.70**	0.52**	− 0.34**	0.50**
2. Vulnerabilities displayed under pressure		1	− 0.60**	− 0.44**	0.43**	− 0.46**
3. Observational collective efficacy			1	0.44**	− 0.33**	0.50**
4. Supportive behaviours				1	− 0.66**	0.58**
5. Controlling behaviours					1	− 0.43**
6. Perceived available support in team						1
Mean	5.41	2.67	5.85	5.86	2.29	3.59
S. Deviation	1.27	1.57	1.24	1.05	1.04	0.57
Skewness	-0,96	0,76	-1,36	-1.21	0.81	-2.03
Kurtosis	0.63	-0.44	1.76	1.24	0.24	4.36
Cronbach’s Alpha	0.92	0.91	0.86	0.92	0.86	0.93

Main results

The model was evaluated using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to assess the relationships among perceived support, perceived supportive behaviours, collective efficacy, resilient characteristics, and vulnerabilities displayed under pressure in team athletes. The fit indices indicated an acceptable fit to the data: χ² = 5.19, df = 2, p > 0.001; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.07 (90% CI = 0.00, 0.157); and SRMR = 0.02. These indices collectively suggest that the model represents the data well, with high values for CFI and TLI indicating good fit and low RMSEA and SRMR indicating minimal residual discrepancies. The coefficients of the model are displayed in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

** p < 0.01. Standardised estimates of structural equation model showing relationships among perceived support, perceived supportive behaviours, collective efficacy, vulnerabilities displayed under pressure, and displaying resilient characteristic

Direct effects

The perceived level of support significantly influenced athletes’ recognition and appreciation of supportive behaviours (β = 0.59, p < 0.001, 95%C.I. = 0.46-0.69). This suggests that athletes who feel more supported are more likely to notice and value supportive actions from others. Perceived support also significantly impacted collective efficacy (β = 0.51, p < 0.001, 95%C.I. = 0.38-0.60). Athletes who felt greater support reported a stronger belief in their team’s collective abilities. Furthermore, perceived supportive behaviours significantly predicted the display of resilient characteristics (β = 0.26, p < 0.001, 95%C.I. = 0.15-0.37). Athletes who observed more supportive behaviours exhibited greater resilience. Conversely, supportive behaviours significantly and negatively impact vulnerabilities displayed under pressure (β = − 0.22, p < 0.001, 95%C.I. = − 0.34- − 0.10), suggesting that such behaviours help athletes manage stress and reduce vulnerabilities effectively. Additionally, collective efficacy significantly influenced the display of resilient characteristics (β = 0.58, p < 0.00195%C.I. = 0.46-0.68). Teams with higher collective efficacy were more likely to exhibit resilience. Finally, the direct effect of collective efficacy on vulnerabilities displayed under pressure was significant and negative (β = − 0.50, p < 0.001, 95%C.I. = − 0.61- − 0.38), indicating that higher collective efficacy reduced the vulnerabilities athletes showed under stress.

Indirect effects

The indirect effect through perceived supportive behaviours suggests that support fosters resilience by encouraging supportive behaviours (β_indirect = 0.15, p < 0.001, 95%C.I. = 0.06 − 0.25). Perceived supportive behaviours partially mediated the relationship between perceived support and vulnerabilities displayed under pressure, indicating that supportive behaviours reduce vulnerabilities (β_indirect = − 0.13, p < 0.001, 95%C.I. = − 0.15– − 0.06). The indirect effect through collective efficacy suggests that perceived support enhances resilience by strengthening collective efficacy (β_indirect = 0.29, p < 0.001, 95%C.I. = 0.12 − 0.40). Collective efficacy partially mediated the relationship between perceived support and vulnerabilities, indicating that collective efficacy reduces vulnerabilities (β_indirect = − 0.25, p < 0.001, 95%C.I. = − 0.23– − 0.22).

Discussion

The study aimed to explore the relationships among coach behaviours, team resilience, support perception, and collective efficacy in young team athletes using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The findings reveal significant direct and indirect effects, highlighting the critical role of supportive environments in shaping athletes’ psychological responses and team dynamics.

Perceived support from coaches and teammates significantly influenced athletes’ recognition and appreciation of supportive behaviours, as well as their collective efficacy. Athletes who felt supported were more attuned to supportive actions from others and reported stronger beliefs in their team’s collective capabilities, supporting hypotheses H₁ and H₂. This underscores the importance of perceived support in fostering a positive team environment and enhancing collective efficacy. González et al. [64] found that a supportive coaching style positively influenced athletes’ perceptions of coaching competency and satisfaction, particularly when their basic psychological needs were met. Positive communication, characterised by encouragement and support rather than punitive measures, enhances athletes’ self-esteem and overall perception of the coaching environment [65].

Supportive coach behaviours perceived by athletes were found to reduce vulnerabilities under pressure (H₃) and directly predict resilient characteristics (H₄). Athletes who observed more supportive behaviours were more likely to exhibit resilience and less likely to display vulnerabilities in challenging situations. Effective coaching strategies, such as providing encouragement and viewing mistakes as learning opportunities, help build resilience and reduce the likelihood of athletes showing weakness under pressure [22, 66]. This is consistent with findings by Sarkar and Fletcher [25] and Van Puyenbroeck et al. [8], who demonstrated that supportive coaching enhances team resilience over time. High-quality coach-athlete relationships and positive interactions are crucial in fostering resilience [21, 40, 67].

Collective efficacy also emerged as a significant predictor of both vulnerabilities under pressure (H₅) and resilient characteristics (H₆). Teams with higher collective efficacy were more likely to exhibit resilience and showed reduced vulnerabilities under challenging conditions, supporting hypotheses H₃, H₄, H₅, and H₆. This shared belief in the team’s ability to succeed fosters effective communication, collaboration, and persistence [68]. López-Gajardo et al. [48] found that collective efficacy mediates the relationship between cohesion and resilience, which aligns with our findings.

The results further indicate that perceived support influences vulnerabilities and resilience through athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ supportive behaviours, confirming the mediating role of supportive coaching. This highlights the necessity of cultivating an environment where athletes actively perceive and value supportive behaviours [69, 70]. Coaches’ supportive behaviours, encompassing autonomy, competence, and relatedness, are essential for promoting resilience among athletes [71]. Coaches play an instrumental role in fostering robust resilience, observable through actions like maintaining focus, adjusting strategies, and reinforcing team cohesion.

Finally, collective efficacy was found to mediate the relationship between perceived support and both resilience and vulnerabilities. Perceived support enhances resilience and reduces vulnerabilities by reinforcing collective efficacy, underscoring its role as a protective factor. This is consistent with the notion that collective efficacy serves as a critical psychological resource for enhancing resilience [48]. Task and social cohesion further strengthen resilience and minimise vulnerability during competitions, emphasising the coach’s role in fostering team unity [20, 32].

The findings illustrate the multifaceted influence of perceived support on athletes’ psychological and behavioural responses under pressure. Supportive behaviours and collective efficacy are crucial mediators, demonstrating how perceived support enhances resilience and reduces vulnerabilities at both individual and team levels. These results underscore the importance of cultivating supportive behaviours and reinforcing collective efficacy within teams to bolster athletes’ resilience and overall performance. Consistent with Sarkar and Page [24], the findings affirm the dynamic interplay between personal and environmental factors in promoting team resilience. Transparent and supportive communication from coaches is vital for maintaining players’ motivation and psychological well-being, highlighting the need for both technical and emotional support [72].

Conclusion

The present study highlights the critical role of perceived support and supportive behaviours in fostering a positive team climate. By cultivating an environment where athletes feel valued and supported, coaches can significantly enhance collective efficacy and resilience while reducing vulnerabilities in high-pressure situations. These insights are particularly valuable for coaches, sports psychologists, and team managers seeking to optimise both team performance and athlete well-being. The evidence underscores that a supportive climate is not merely advantageous but fundamental to team athletes’ psychological resilience and competitive success.

To achieve this, coaches must prioritise understanding the individual needs of their athletes and tailoring their support to address these needs effectively. Regular check-ins, open communication, and personalised feedback are practical strategies to enhance athletes’ perceptions of support. Additionally, implementing team-building activities that promote trust and cohesion is essential. Strategies such as collaborative goal-setting, group problem-solving exercises, and structured opportunities for mutual support among team members can strengthen team dynamics.

Incorporating resilience training into regular practice sessions can further prepare athletes to navigate high-pressure scenarios. This may include scenario-based training, mindfulness exercises, and structured programs aimed at developing coping strategies. By integrating these approaches, coaches can create a robust foundation for resilience, improving team performance and fostering long-term athlete development.

Limitations

While this study offers valuable insights into the interplay between perceived support, coach behaviours, collective efficacy, and team resilience, several limitations should be considered. Firstly, although the sample size was adequate for SEM analysis, the diversity of sports included (football, basketball, volleyball, and handball) may have masked sport-specific dynamics or cultural nuances unique to each discipline. Future research could benefit from sport-specific analyses or cross-cultural comparisons to uncover subtle differences in how support and resilience manifest across various team environments.

Secondly, the study focused exclusively on young athletes, whose psychological development and team experiences may differ significantly from those of adult or elite athletes. The findings may not fully translate to older or more experienced populations, where factors such as leadership structures, professional pressures, or long-term team cohesion could play a more prominent role.

Thirdly, the research relied on validated self-report measures, which, while robust, may not capture the full complexity of in-the-moment team interactions or the dynamic nature of resilience during actual competition. Incorporating real-time data collection methods, such as ecological momentary assessment or video analysis of team behaviours during matches, could provide richer and more nuanced insights.

Additionally, the study did not account for contextual factors such as recent team successes or failures, coaching changes, or external stressors (e.g., academic pressures, injuries), all of which could influence athletes’ perceptions and team dynamics. Future studies might integrate these contextual variables to better understand their moderating or mediating effects.

Finally, while the SEM approach allowed for the examination of complex relationships, it is inherently limited by the quality and scope of the measured variables. Unmeasured factors—such as individual personality traits, family support, or organisational culture—may also play a significant role in shaping resilience and collective efficacy within teams.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Author contributions

The study design (İA and EŞ), literature review (RKC and IA), Data Collection (RA and EŞ), Statistical Analysis and Results (EŞ), Writing the main manuscript (RKC, EŞ, and IA), Critical review (RA).

Funding

This work has not received any funding support.

Data availability

We confirm that the data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing the corresponding author (or 10.6084/m9.figshare.28093661).

Declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Social and Human Science Research Ethics Board reviewed and approved all procedures on 18.07.2024 (Protocol No: 240092/95) prior to recruitment and data collection. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were fully informed about the process and purpose of the study, and written consent/assent was obtained.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.