In adult football, small-sided games are associated with increased action variability and suggested to promote more creative actions compared to regular 11v11 formats. This aligns with predictions from an ecological approach to perception and action that creative actions emerge in environments that grant variability in action, instead of being an expression of the individual player's ability to generate ideas. To further evidence for this prediction, the current study aimed to expand this observation to elite youth football players. To this end, the number of different and creative actions in 4v4 small-sided game and a 11v11 regular-sided game among 10- to 12-year-old elite football players were examined. We analyzed a total of 7922 actions, which were categorized for type and creativity. Based on a subset of these actions, a panel of elite football coaches judged action types occurring below 0.5% as significantly more creative than more frequent action types. Hence, we used an occurrence of 0.5% as threshold to distinguish creative actions from non-creative actions. The results showed that the total number of actions, the number of different action types, the number creative actions and the number of different creative action types was significantly higher for the small-sided game format than the regular-sided game. In conclusion, this study confirms that in elite youth football, small-sided games induce a more variable and creative action repertoire. This shows that practitioners can design learning environments that promote the emergence of creative actions.
Gaming Horizons is a EU-funded project that explored the role of video games in culture, the economy and education. We engaged with more than 280 stakeholders through interviews, workshops and webinars.
LINK
The ambition to host mega sports events is (or can be) perfectly justifiable with various arguments. The most persistently used argument is the supposed financial or direct economic gain for the host economy, of which the compelling body of evidence is discouraging. This implies that the justification for hosting should come from a different, broader economic angle. This paper provides a critical discussion of the myriad of economic and frequently intangible effects that could be put forward in the public debate preceding the submission of a bid. Paradoxically, most of these effects are not, or infrequently employed in public debates.
