Differences between American and British Strength Coaches

Difference One: Science, Analytics, and Data

Let's say you're about 20 years old and have just secured your first S&C internship. In America, this means some coaching, although a whole lot of "intern work" is likely to follow: cleaning the weight room, setting up and breaking down lifts, restocking fridges, and doing a whole lot of "cheering" and not much actual coaching. In the UK, however, get ready to have assignment after assignment thrown your way involving tons of data analytics. We're talking load monitoring, GPS data, pages and pages of numbers detailing every little difference in bar velocity throughout a movement, and so on. A young British coach will create dashboard after dashboard, lit up like a Christmas tree in green for "good" and red for "you're killing this athlete with volume" complete with game stats and profile pictures for added flair. And does all of this mean they're getting a concretely superior early career development experience than their American cousin? I'd argue that the answer is "no."

I've seen people from full time S&C's all the way down to the unpaid interns in the UK spend hours on data sheets that they knew were going to be disregarded or only glanced at briefly by sport coaches, physios, etc. What's more, even if this data is looked at with any level of serious attention, it may not even impact decision making. Sport coaches everywhere do not generally receive the training or education necessary to understand the complex physiological science underpinning performance; they also are generally hired or kept around because of their "gut," or their experience based intuition around sport and performance. Hardly any sport coach is going to make a substitution in a game or last second change in their athlete's technique based off of live data reported from a Catapult, much less make a change proactively based upon the recomendation of a strength coach who has been ill-placed in the data scientist's chair. While this may be commonplace at the most elite levels of sport, it can only be mimicked and not truly recreated the further away from that strata one strays. Because of this and the fact that the vast majority of strength and conditioning coaches will not work in a setting where data science truly matters day in and day out I do not think that every strength coach needs to be bombarded with assignments of this nature in their early career. Is it useful to understand? Of course. Is the American intern cleaning the weight room for four hours after coaching for two getting a drastically better experience? No, although at least they're on the floor and not behind a screen. English culture (and British culture, to a greater extent) is much more systematic and procedural than in America (again, not better or worse, just different), where coaches are more trusted to make intuitive decisions and need to present evidence for their practice less often. This segues well into the second difference...

Difference Two: Certification

Ah yes, everyone's favorite topic: professional licensure. The difference here is essentially this: the UK version of the CSCS (called the UKSCA) is far more challenging than the CSCS exam. For context, in the US, to become certified by the National Strength and Conditioning Assocation, one must achieve a bachelor's degree in any field and pass the CSCS exam; by 2030, the bachelor's degree distinction will be narrowed down to accredited institutions, meaning future strength coaches will be funnelled through programs that have met NSCA standards, for better or for worse (that's a topic for a different day). The CSCS costs about $340 (additional fees if not passed on the first try) and has roughly a 60% pass rate (scoring over 80% on the exam) over both sections (scientific and applied). This essentially means that, at present, by completing a degree in anything and reading one fairly noncomplex textbook (the NSCA's Essentials) one is fully ready to become a strength coach from a licensure standpoint. 

Now, the UKSCA is harder, although increased difficulty doesn't automatically fix the issue of a low bar for licensure. UKSCA accreditation is broken into four components: theory exam, weightlifting demonstration, plyometrics and speed/agility coaching practical, and a case study. All four components can be done with significant amounts of time in between them allowing one to attack each component individually. The reason why I think this works is because not anybody can sign up, take a test, and suddenly have the national standard for certification in their field; rather, they must take months to prepare, work on their skills, learn theory, and prepare. This attracts people who are going to be deliberate and weeds out the weekend warriors. On the other hand, it creates a barrier in terms of taking longer for certification (remember, Americans = frontier mentality, British = follow every step) and essentially creates a field where pre-certification is completely fine for practice; for young S&C's at Loughborough, UKSCA accreditation was the exception rather than the norm. Hopefully now you're beginning to see: not better, not worse, just different. 

Final Difference: Coaching Remit/Role

Ultimately there are dozens of differnces in the S&C field in the USA and UK, but how do these differences actually translate practically into the day to day operations of a strength coach in either country. From my experience both are tasked with getting their athletes bigger, stronger, faster, etc., although how they are permitted/expected to do so differs as a knock on effect of their larger ecosystem. American strength coaches are often expected to be more expressive, vocal, encouraging, and "culture building" than their British counterparts. If I had a nickel for every time I could hear a British strength coach from across the weight room while at Loughborough I would have exactly as much college debt as I have now. British strength coaches almost never give a post-lift "turf talk" or "pep talk", the American strength coach's version of a homily on values, culture, etc. 

Furthermore, the athlete's experience looks much different in a UK based weight room than in the US, further informing differences in S&C culture. In most collegiate, professional, or even private sector weight rooms, large groups of athletes will start and end lifts together, hit reps and sets in sync, wear the same clothes or colors, and even move about the weight room as if they were running between drills at practice. In most UK weight rooms, this would be seen as weird, cringey, and objectively out of place (or, as the British call it, "American"). Again, not better, not worse, just different. This doesn't work in the UK not because their strength coaches aren't as good, it's because their national identity is objectively apart from that of America and this permeates down into every day life. UK S&C, even at the professional level, is seen much more as "gyming"; going to the facility for an hour to an hour and half, working hard although not doing it with a whole lot of "oorah", allowed to have phones out, chatting, etc. This differnece in environment leads to difference in how a strength coach is going to act in said environment.