Beyond Recognition: How Future Sport Professionals Respond to Online Abuse

Future coaches, teachers and sport professionals are likely to encounter online abuse not only as users of digital platforms, but also as people others may turn to in times of need. Research at Charles University in Prague offers an early picture of how prepared these future leaders are to recognise, reject and respond to harmful behaviour.

Inside the Research is UAOA’s Erasmus+ research series, spotlighting the researchers contributing to the European Union co-funded programme Developing a Pan-European Framework to Combat Online Abuse in Sport. Each edition looks inside one national study to explore the core questions being asked, the  emerging evidence and what the findings could mean for the future of sport.

Understanding online abuse requires looking beyond those directly targeted. The people who witness it can also influence whether harmful behaviour is challenged, reinforced or left unchecked.

For Veronika Kramperová, PhD, understanding this wider dynamic is essential to building safer sporting environments.

Kramperová is Head of the Department of Swimming, Water and Technical Sports  as well as a lecturer and researcher at the Faculty of Physical Education and Sport at Charles University in Prague. Her pilot study, Cyberbullying Attitudes Among Students at a Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, examines 65 students who may go on to hold positions of responsibility across sport and education. It explores how well they recognise cyberbullying, their  tolerance of harmful online behaviour, how they believe they would respond as bystanders, and how these attitudes relate to broader dimensions of digital citizenship.

The results are encouraging, but they also highlight why recognising abuse is only one part of the solution.

Recognising abuse and rejecting it

The first finding is clear. Students generally recognised cyberbullying well, with an average recognition score of 4.52 out of 5. Their tolerance of harmful cyberbullying behaviour was comparatively low, averaging 2.27 out of 5.

This distinction matters. Recognising harmful behaviour does not necessarily mean considering it unacceptable, and neither automatically leads to intervention. By measuring recognition and tolerance separately, the study shows that participants were not only able to identify cyberbullying. They also tended to reject the behaviour itself.

One pattern stood out in the preliminary analysis. Female students showed higher recognition of cyberbullying and lower tolerance of harmful behaviour than male students.

Recognition averaged 4.60 out of 5 among female participants and 4.33 out of 5 among male participants. For tolerance, the respective averages were 2.14 and 2.49 (out of 5). The reported effect sizes suggest that these differences may be meaningful, particularly for tolerance. By contrast, type of sport and sporting level were not associated with consistent statistically significant differences.

It should be noted that the study does not explain what drives the gender difference and does not mean to attribute gender as the only factor differentiation, given the limited sample size and pilot nature of the study. Factors such as previous experiences of online aggression, empathy, perceptions of the seriousness of harmful behaviour, social norms and patterns of social media use are among the questions that could be explored further.

At this stage, the above findings should not be generalised beyond the pilot sample. However, what it does show is that people preparing for similar professional roles may not always perceive or evaluate harmful online behaviour in the same way. Understanding those differences could ultimately help make education and prevention more responsive.

The role of the bystander

Recognition is only one side of the study. Kramperová also examines what students believe they would do if they witnessed cyberbullying.

Here too, the findings are broadly positive. Students reported relatively strong prosocial intentions, meaning they were more likely to say they would support or defend the person targeted than remain passive or reinforce the harmful behaviour.

These intentions were relatively consistent across sporting levels. Average prosocial scores were 3.97 out of 5 among recreational athletes, 3.89 out of 5 among competitive athletes and 3.80 out of 5 among elite or national level athletes, with no statistically significant difference between the groups.

This puts the bystander in an important position.

Online abuse can take place in both public and private digital spaces. When teammates, peers, supporters or colleagues become aware of harmful behaviour, their response can influence whether the person targeted receives support, whether the behaviour is challenged and, where content is visible, whether it is further amplified or normalised.

The study measures intended rather than observed behaviour, so it cannot determine exactly how participants would react in a real incident. Still, the results suggest that many already see themselves as likely to respond constructively.

The practical challenge is ensuring they know how to do so effectively.

That may include knowing how to support someone who is targeted, how and when to report harmful content, when to involve a teacher, coach or other responsible person, and how to intervene without increasing the visibility or impact of the abuse.

Digital confidence is not the whole picture

The research also points to an important distinction in the way students engage online.

Participants reported very high Technical Skills, with an average score of 4.43 out of 5. By contrast, their average score for Internet Political Activism was considerably lower, at 1.83 out of 5. Both are dimensions of the Revised Digital Citizenship Scale (DCS-R), which looks at how individuals navigate, engage and participate in digital environments.

The two measures capture different aspects of digital citizenship and are not direct opposites. Their contrast does, however, illustrate an important point: technical confidence alone does not define how someone participates in the social and civic dimensions of online life.

For sport settings, that distinction has practical relevance. Knowing how to use a platform is different from knowing how to respond when someone is targeted on it. Digital competence may therefore need to extend beyond technical ability to include judgement, responsibility and confidence in responding to harmful behaviour.

What the findings mean for sport

Taken together, this pilot study offers a useful first picture.

The students surveyed generally recognised cyberbullying accurately, showed relatively low tolerance towards harmful behaviour and reported predominantly prosocial intentions as bystanders. The findings also highlight differences within the student population and reinforce the distinction between technical digital confidence and broader forms of digital engagement.

Professional preparation can therefore go beyond basic awareness. It can equip future practitioners with practical strategies to support those affected by abuse, report harmful behaviour, avoid unnecessary amplification and recognise when further intervention is required.

While this research paper remains a pilot study based on 65 students from one institution, and  larger samples are required to generalise the findings, it points to an important lesson for sport:

Safer sporting environments depend not only on whether online abuse is recognised, but also on whether the people who witness it are equipped to respond.

Key takeaway

Kramperová’s pilot study suggests that future physical education and sport professionals already have a strong foundation. Students showed high recognition of cyberbullying, low tolerance of harmful behaviour and predominantly prosocial bystander intentions.

The next step is to translate that foundation into practical readiness, ensuring future coaches, teachers and sport professionals understand what an effective response to online abuse looks like in practice.

About the research