The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between perceived coaching behavior (autonomy-supportive and controlling), communication, coach–athlete relationship, and athlete burnout. The study participants comprised 347 Korean active collegiate athletes from 10 sports. The results of the final model indicated that autonomy-supportive coaching was positively related to communication, whereas controlling coaching was negatively related to communication. Communication was positively related to coach–athlete relationship and was negatively related to athlete burnout. Autonomy-supportive coaching was significantly related to both the coach–athlete relationship (positively) and athlete burnout (negatively), whereas controlling coaching was only related to athlete burnout (positively). Coach–athlete relationship was negatively related to athlete burnout. Significant indirect effects were observed. The bootstrapping results indicated that the relationship between autonomy-supportive and athlete burnout was mediated by team communication and the coach–athlete relationship. The study findings enhance our current understanding of the relationships between perceived coaching behavior and athlete burnout and shed light on the important roles of team communication and the coach–athlete relationship in the relationship.

Purpose: This study investigated the relationships between perceived autonomy support, coach–athlete relationship, team efficacy, aggressive behavior, and athlete burnout among team sports athletes. It verified the mediating effects of the coach–athlete relationship and team efficacy on the relationship between autonomy support and athlete burnout.Design, methodology, and approach: A questionnaire survey on autonomy support, coach–athlete relationships, aggressive behavior, and athlete burnout was administered to 336 team sports athletes (292 male athletes and 44 female athletes). A cross-sectional research design was used to collect the data. To analyze the collected data, frequency, reliability, descriptive statistical, and correlation analyses were performed using SPSS version 26.0. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity tests, and structural model analysis were conducted using AMOS version 24.0. Bootstrapping was used to examine the mediating effects.Results: The fit of the measurement model was assessed by calculating the fit indices as follows: x² = 329.689, df = 124, p < 0.001, TLI = 0.945, CFI = 0.956, RMSEA = 0.070 (90% CI = 0.061–0.080), and SRMR = 0.060. Autonomy support positively affected the coach–athlete relationship (β = 0.841) and team efficacy (β = 0.338). The coach–athlete relationship positively affected team efficacy (β = 0.479). Furthermore, autonomy support did not significantly influence aggressive behavior (β = −0.053), and negatively affected athlete burnout (β = −0.305). The coach–athlete relationship also did not significantly affect aggressive behavior (β = 0.054), and negatively affected athlete burnout (β = −0.303). Team efficacy negatively affected aggressive behavior (β = −0.516) and athlete burnout (β = −0.201). Finally, autonomy support was found to affect athlete burnout through the coach–athlete relationship and team efficacy.Conclusion: Considering that autonomy support affects athlete burnout through coach–athlete relationship and team efficacy, coaches need to enhance the quality of the coach–athlete relationship and improve team efficacy to reduce athlete burnout. Above all, the study findings suggest that coaches need to provide autonomy-supportive behaviors.

Purpose: This study examined the relationships among the coachathlete relationship, challenge appraisal, and athlete burnout in adolescent athletes, with a focus on the mediating role of challenge appraisal. Design/methodology/approach: A total of 323 adolescent athletes (231 males, 92 females) participated in the study. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 26.0, and the mediating effects were examined using the bootstrapping method. Results: First, the coachathlete relationship had a significant positive effect on challenge appraisal (β = 0.374, p < 0.001). Second, challenge appraisal negatively influenced athlete burnout (β = −0.173, p < 0.01). Third, the coachathlete relationship had a significant negative effect on athlete burnout (β = −0.210, p < 0.01). Fourth, challenge appraisal partially mediated the relationship between the coachathlete relationship and athlete burnout (indirect effect = −0.079, p < 0.01). Conclusion: These findings provide theoretical insights and practical implications for designing psychological intervention programs aimed at preventing burnout in adolescent athletes. The study also emphasizes the importance of coaching strategies and coach education programs that foster emotionally supportive and motivational environments in sports.