The coach comes to you and asks which of the 2 players you are working with is “better” / should be selected. What do you do?

Andersen, Van Raalte and Brewer (2001) shared an ethical dilemma with sports teams and also intrateam rivalries, with athletes competing for positions and playing time. This was under the subheading ‘no-win situations.’ Sport psychologists (SP) may find themselves supporting two athletes who are in close competition with each other.

An example, a SP works with a university tennis team and sees four of the team members personally. In university tennis, the top six players compete and travel to matches. Three of the four players that the sport psychologist supports are in this top six (positioned 2, 5, and 6), with the fourth player is trying to break into that group.

If successful, this outside player could possibly replace one of the psychologist's other clients. The situation described in this example is not easily avoided but can potentially be defused if the SP emphasizes that she tries for the betterment of each of her clients.

Certainly, the SP could be in an idyllic position to support one of her clients deal with the disappointment of being replaced in the starting line-up. 

Sport psychologists regularly find themselves working with teams and they usually report to a director or coach even though they are working individually with the athletes within the team. This highlights the question: Who is the client?

If the organisation pays your salary, but the client (service user) believes they have the right for their information to be kept confidential, what would happen if the coach were to ask for an update on your work or progress with the player?

What would happen if they were to refuse to pay your wage on the basis that you haven’t provided full reports on each session? In reality, if this situation of revealing their information were to have been reached then the sport psychologist has failed with their ethical responsibilities.

The answer to this situation (and many others) is to do with managing roles and expectations from the beginning, before any delivery of psychological support (Keegan, 2015). 

The APA (2010, pp. 20-21) guidelines are helpful in considering this ‘third party’ situation (psychologists being the first party; providing services to the client, the second party; at the request of their team or parents, the third party): the psychologists must explain from the outset:

(a) the nature of her/his relationship with each of them;
(b) the psychologist’s role and limitations/boundaries;
(c) the probable uses of the information obtained;
(d) the limits to confidentiality; and € the financial arrangements relating to the provision of the service. 

Essentially, no sport psychology services should be delivered until all the parties understand and have freely approved of the arrangements (i.e., signed informed consent).

The responsibility lies with the sport psychologist to be proactive in managing the situation, minimising harm and risks and form a suitable environment for the clients. For example, service users that know their data might be shared and talked about with coaches or back room staff because they have consented to the third-party arrangement may deliberately choose to reveal less information and exclude certain points, or simply may refuse to take support from that sport psychologist.

Nevertheless, there are some high-performance sport institutes that believe that all coaches, managers and essential backroom staff need to know and be aware of everything with their athletes to make sure they are as ready as they can be for elite events.

The only solution to this situation is to clearly explain, clarify and agree to the process before any undertaking of the psychological service (Keegan, 2015). 

Andersen (2001) states that frequently coaches erroneously believe that psychological tests can be a predictor of good athletes. Some sport psychologists, however, conform to the needs of the coaches to get data from their athletes and present it to them. Normally, consent is obtained from the athletes for their results to be shared, however, sometimes it is not. 

Even when consent is given, how aware are the athletes of the repercussions of this “consent” towards their shared data? If decisions made by the coaches from the data affect player selection, playing time or position of the player then the maxim of “do no harm” could be violated. 

What would I do? Can you consider your role / how you set out your boundaries?
Before the sport psychology service begins the boundaries should be set, and it should be made clear what is expected of either party beforehand. The coaches and staff need to be aware that I won’t be allowed to share any of the athlete’s information or data or let them know anything that has been said during the sessions to maintain confidentiality at all times is essential. 

The only exceptions are if they are a danger to themselves e.g. self-harm / suicide and then the safeguarding officer would need to be contacted or they have committed a serious crime. 

This takes into account the role of the sport psychology consultant, the role for the coach to play and making sure that there won’t be any undermining of either person’s message. The use of informed consent as I have used previously and how confidentiality is maintained with the two parties (myself and the player) will continue as before, but the way I get them to sign it will be different.

I shall give them time to process the information further. Additionally, the coaches will need to understand that there will be informed consent collected and that the client can pull out of the support at any moment without providing a reason and also their confidentiality will still remain intact. 

References:

Andersen, M. B., Van Raalte, J. L., & Brewer, B. W. (2001). Sport psychology service delivery: Staying ethical while keeping loose. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(1), 12.

https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

British Psychological Society. (1993). A Code of Conduct for Psychologists. London: BPS (available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/the-society/ ethics-rules-charter-code-of-conduct/code-of- conduct/a-code-of-conduct-for-psychologists. cfm).

Course, O. (2005). ‘Yeah, I work with Beckham’: Issues of confidentiality, privacy and privilege in sport psychology service delivery. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 5.

Keegan, R. (2015). Being a sport psychologist. Macmillan International Higher Education, pp 26-27.