The Relationship Between Perceived Coaches’ Leadership Behaviors and Athletes’ Burnout in Isfahan City

Introduction

In the pursuit of athletic excellence, athletes face intense physical and psychological demands that require resilience, dedication, and effective support systems. Athlete burnout, a psychological syndrome marked by emotional and physical exhaustion, diminished enthusiasm for sport, and a reduced sense of accomplishment, has emerged as a critical concern in sports psychology (Graña et al., 2021; Popovych et al., 2022). This phenomenon not only hampers performance but also threatens athletes’ long-term well-being and career longevity. Central to an athlete’s experience is the coach-athlete relationship (CAR), a dynamic interpersonal connection that shapes motivation, engagement, and psychological health (Choi et al., 2020; Longakit et al., 2024). Equally important is the role of coach leadership, which influences how athletes perceive and respond to training stressors (Peng et al., 2020). Leadership styles, particularly transformational leadership, have been recognized for their potential to foster resilience and mitigate burnout by promoting autonomy, trust, and a shared vision (Macquet & Stanton, 2021). Understanding the interplay between CAR and coach leadership is essential for developing strategies to prevent burnout and enhance athlete well-being, making it a vital area of inquiry in sports science.

Athlete burnout poses a significant challenge in sports psychology, characterized by emotional and physical exhaustion, reduced enthusiasm for sport, and diminished sense of accomplishment (González-García et al., 2019; Graña et al., 2021). This syndrome emerges when athletes struggle to manage the chronic stressors of intense training and competitive pressures, often leading to decreased motivation, self-confidence, and, in severe cases, sport dropout (Fransen et al., 2020; Jiahao & Jing, 2024). Burnout not only undermines athletic performance but also jeopardizes athletes’ psychological and physical well-being, impacting team dynamics and contributing to higher dropout rates (Akhrem & Gazdowska, 2016). The coach-athlete relationship (CAR) and coach leadership behaviors are critical factors influencing athletes’ stress responses and susceptibility to burnout, yet their precise interplay remains underexplored (Choi et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2020). Understanding how these dynamics contribute to burnout is essential for developing interventions that promote athlete resilience and career longevity.

Athlete burnout is a multifaceted syndrome rooted in chronic stress and maladaptation to the demands of rigorous training and competition (Akhrem & Gazdowska, 2016). Empirical studies consistently link burnout to adverse outcomes, including reduced self-efficacy, diminished motivation, and impaired performance (Fransen et al., 2020; González-García et al., 2019). Beyond individual consequences, burnout can disrupt team cohesion and contribute to higher dropout rates, underscoring its broader implications for sports programs (Jiahao & Jing, 2024). The coach-athlete relationship (CAR) is a critical determinant of athletes’ psychological resilience and engagement. Research by McGee and DeFreese (2019) highlights that high-quality CAR, defined by closeness (emotional connection), commitment (mutual dedication), and complementarity (cooperative interactions), significantly reduces burnout risk. For example, their study of collegiate female rowers found that closeness in CAR negatively correlated with burnout indicators, such as emotional exhaustion and reduced accomplishment, throughout the competitive season. Management methods, especially the supportive behaviors of managers, are helpful in creating a suitable environment for training employees and increasing their motivation (Nazari & Rafeei, 2023). Similarly, Longakit et al. (2024) emphasize that supportive CAR fosters psychological well-being, serving as a buffer during stressors like injuries or performance slumps (Jowett, 2017). Conversely, poor CAR quality, characterized by emotionally abusive or unsupportive coaching behaviors, such as shouting or demeaning tactics, heightens burnout susceptibility (Gerber et al., 2024; Jowett & Chaundy, 2004).

Coach leadership styles play an equally pivotal role in shaping burnout outcomes. Transformational leadership, grounded in the "Four I’s" (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration), promotes athlete autonomy, competence, and relatedness, aligning with Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Transformational leaders inspire athletes to transcend personal goals for collective objectives, fostering motivation and reducing burnout risk (Stenling & Tafvelin, 2014; Oh, 2023). For instance, Sayadi et al. (2024) highlighted that managerial factors such as charisma, personality traits, professional ethics, cognitive literacy, and coaching competence contribute to the quality development of coaches’ training. These elements align closely with transformational leadership components and underscore the importance of knowledge-based empowerment systems in coaching.  For instance, coaches who model idealized influence demonstrate behaviors that athletes admire and emulate, building trust and respect (Macquet & Stanton, 2021). Inspirational motivation involves articulating a compelling vision that energizes athletes, while intellectual stimulation encourages creative problem-solving and adaptability in training and competition (Bosselut et al., 2020). Individualized consideration ensures personalized mentorship, addressing athletes’ unique needs and aspirations (Mach et al., 2021). In contrast, autocratic leadership, which restricts athlete autonomy, and laissez-faire leadership, which lacks structure and support, are associated with increased stress, lower commitment, and higher burnout levels (Chu & Zhang, 2019).

Additional leadership paradigms, such as servant and ethical leadership, also show promise in reducing burnout by prioritizing athlete well-being and trust (Mo & Shi, 2017; Mahon., 2024). Conversely, controlling leadership behaviors, such as excessive directive approaches, can undermine team motivation and cohesion, exacerbating burnout (Khan et al., 2020). López de Subijana et al. (2021) found that leadership behaviors like role modeling and individualized consideration enhance CAR quality, with male athletes perceiving stronger leadership in these areas compared to female athletes, suggesting potential gender-specific dynamics. Furthermore, coaching practices that emphasize constructive, evidence-based feedback and psychological safety foster resilience and reduce burnout risk (Patrick et al., 2021; Butler, 2024). For example, Pradarelli et al. (2020) highlight that specific, honest feedback grounded in observable evidence helps athletes identify strengths and develop actionable improvement strategies.

Theoretical frameworks like SDT and the Multidimensional Model of Leadership (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) provide robust lenses for understanding these dynamics. SDT posits that fulfilling athletes’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness reduces burnout by enhancing intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The Multidimensional Model emphasizes the congruence between required, actual, and perceived leadership behaviors, suggesting that alignment in these areas strengthens CAR and mitigates burnout (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). Despite these insights, the interplay between CAR and leadership styles remains underexplored, particularly in how specific leadership behaviors mediate the relationship between CAR and burnout outcomes.

While existing research underscores the importance of CAR and coach leadership in mitigating athlete burnout, a significant gap persists in understanding how specific leadership behaviors, particularly transformational leadership, mediate the relationship between CAR and burnout. Most studies examine the direct effects of CAR or leadership styles on burnout without exploring their interactive dynamics (Choi et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2020). For instance, while McGee and DeFreese (2019) established a link between CAR closeness and reduced burnout, they did not investigate how leadership behaviors amplify or diminish this effect. Similarly, studies on transformational leadership highlight its benefits but rarely examine its role as a mediator in the CAR-burnout relationship (Stenling & Tafvelin, 2014). This study addresses this gap by proposing a novel conceptual framework that positions transformational leadership as a mediator between CAR and athlete burnout. Methodologically, it employs a quantitative mediation analysis to test this relationship, offering empirical evidence to bridge the gap. This approach represents a conceptual innovation by integrating relational and leadership dynamics and a methodological innovation by applying mediation analysis to a previously underexplored relationship in sports psychology.

This study aims to examine the mediating role of transformational leadership in the relationship between coach-athlete dynamics and athlete burnout. By investigating how transformational leadership influences the impact of CAR on burnout, the study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms underlying athlete well-being and performance. Specifically, it hypothesizes that: (H1) high-quality coach-athlete relationships significantly reduce athlete burnout, and (H2) transformational leadership mediates the relationship between coach-athlete relationships and athlete burnout. The findings aim to inform evidence-based coaching practices that strengthen CAR, leverage effective leadership, and reduce burnout, ultimately promoting athlete resilience and sustained success in sports.

Research Methods

Research Design

The investigation utilized a quantitative methodology within a correlational research framework, augmented by a descriptive-correlational strategy to explore the interrelations among significant variables. This methodological approach facilitated an understanding of the influence of the coach-athlete relationship on athlete burnout, with perceived coach leadership identified as a potential mediating variable. The researchers implemented purposive sampling through a snowball technique known as chain-referral sampling. To assess the impact of perceived coach leadership on athlete burnout and its ramifications for the quality of the coach-athlete relationship, the researchers executed the study utilizing standardized online questionnaires distributed to qualifying participants.

Participant

This study included 248 individuals participating in individual and team sports. The statistical population included all male and female athletes in Isfahan city, selected by convenience sampling (because some were in national camps). The sample included 142 (57.26%) male athletes and 106 (42.74%) female athletes. The age range of the participants was 18–35 years with a mean age of 20.24 (standard deviation = 2.02). All participants were based in Isfahan city. In addition, the sample of athletes participated in their respective sports disciplines at different levels, with 25% participating in county competitions, 44.05% in provincial competitions, 26.19% in national competitions, and 4.67% in international events.

Instrument

A sociodemographic questionnaire, commonly referred to as a demographic survey, served as an essential tool in this study to collect important information about the participants. It included various demographic factors such as name, age, gender, parental monthly income, school affiliation, and athletic activity. By collecting these sociodemographic data, this study attempted to examine the potential influence of specific demographic variables on the relationship between coach leadership, coach-athlete dynamics, and athlete burnout. The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) was used to assess the quality and depth of the relationship established between a coach and an athlete (Jowett & Netomanis, 2004). A 5-point Likert scale was used. Reliability coefficients for the three subscales were α=.957 (Commitment), α=.978 (Closeness), and α=.980 (Complementarity) and within Iran, 0.83 for intimacy, 0.78 for commitment, and 0.84 for complementarity were obtained, respectively (Mansoori and Zardoshtiyan, 2016). The CART-Q scale has demonstrated a high level of reliability, as indicated by a Cronbach's alpha of 0.989. The Distinct Transformational Leadership Inventory (DTLI) was used to assess the leadership style of coaches and will examine the multifaceted dimensions of transformational leadership in a sports context. It consists of 26 items derived from two well-established measures: the MLQ-5X (Bass & Avolio, 1995) and the TLI (Podsakoff et al., 1990). The DTLI includes three items from the MLQ-5X, while the remaining items are drawn from the TLI. The DTLI assesses several aspects, including individual attention (adapted from the MLQ-5X), inspirational motivation (also adapted from the MLQ-5X), intellectual stimulation (adapted from the TLI), fostering group goal acceptance (from the TLI), and high-performance expectations (from the TLI). Several studies have validated the factor structure of the DTLI and show satisfactory levels of internal consistency (Peng et al., 2020; Shermoli & Meyer, 2020). Each subscale also showed significant reliability, with α=.718 for individual consideration, α=.853 for inspirational motivation, α=.856 for intellectual stimulation, α=.877 for goal reinforcement and team collaboration, α=.831 for high performance expectations, α=.907 for role modeling, and α=.865 for contingent rewards. The DTLI scale demonstrates high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .969. In Iran, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this questionnaire was calculated to be 0.83 (Samadi et al., 2016).The Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ) was specifically designed for use with athletes involved in a variety of sports (Raedeke & Smith, 2001). This revised version contains 15 items that are neatly categorized into three distinct dimensions associated with burnout (physical and emotional exhaustion, decreased athletic value, and decreased sense of personal accomplishment), with five items assigned to each dimension. Using this adapted ABQ, researchers can assess the multidimensional nature of burnout experienced by athletes and provide important insights into physical and emotional health, perceptions of exercise, and feelings of personal accomplishment. Each subscale also demonstrated high reliability, with α=.679 for decreased sense of accomplishment, α=.886 for emotional/physical exhaustion, and α=.856 for decreased worth. The ABQ scale demonstrated high reliability, as indicated by a Cronbach's alpha of .934. In Iran, the reliability of the questionnaire was also found to be 0.89 in a study (Shams et al. 2026).

Procedures

The researchers used the standard CART-Q (athlete version), the Distinctive Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (DTLI), and the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ). Successful Research In addition, the data collection method for this study involved administering a structured questionnaire to at least 250 eligible athletes in Isfahan city. An essential preliminary step in this research endeavor, before definitive data collection, involves conducting a pilot study. This method provides researchers with critical insights into the feasibility, efficacy, and potential challenges associated with the research design and study methodology. The primary goal of the pilot study is to enhance the validity, reliability, and overall quality of the study, thereby establishing a strong foundation for subsequent data collection and analysis. In this study, 30 eligible athletes were asked to voluntarily participate in a pilot phase, with clear communication about the objectives and their importance in shaping the development of the study. The study's questionnaires were designed electronically and distributed via online platforms, facilitating ease and convenience for participants. The selected athletes represent a diverse group, selected through random snowball selection based on various criteria such as sport type, competitive level, and age group. The data collected included demographic details, responses to questionnaire items, and additional variables that may influence athlete burnout.

Data Analysis

Mediation analysis used JASP V.18.2 to determine whether coach-athlete relationships had an effect on athletes' sports burnout, mediated by perceived coach leadership. Before conducting mediation analysis, data were validated and missing values ​​were randomly imputed using the Expectations Maximization (EM) method. To assess internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha was used to calculate each of the scale items. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify the interrelationships among the variables of interest in this study. This study assessed the indirect, direct, and total effects of coach leadership, coach-athlete relationships, and sports burnout.

Findings

Table 1 examines the correlation between coaches and athletes in relation to burnout. The data illustrated in Table 1 reveals that the coach-athlete relationship significantly influences burnout, as demonstrated by the p-values of 0.006, 0.003, and 0.015 for closeness, complementarity, and commitment, respectively. All of these p-values fall below the conventional significance level of 0.05. Additionally, associations are evident between Coach-Athlete Relationship (CAR) and burnout (B= -0.139, SE= 0.049), commitment (B= -0.436, SE= 0.178), closeness (B= -0.368, SE= 0.132), and complementarity (B= -0.396, SE= 0.132). The unstandardized coefficients provide a quantitative measure of the strength and direction of the relationship between each component of the coach-athlete dynamic and burnout. A negative coefficient signifies that burnout diminishes as levels of intimacy, complementarity, and commitment increase. Consequently, hypothesis H1 is affirmed.

Table 1- Linear Regression of Coach-Athlete Relationship as Predictors of Athletes’ Burnout

Dependent: Burnout

Note: Clo= Closeness; Comp= Complementarity; Comm= Commitment; CAR= Coach-Athlete Relationship

Table 2 presents the results of the mediation analysis examining the role of coach leadership as a mediator between the coach-athlete relationship (CAR) and athlete burnout (AB). The analysis was conducted using a 95% confidence interval.

Table 2- Analysis of the Mediating Effect of Coach Leadership in Sports on the Relationship between Coach-Athlete Relationship and Athlete’s Burnout

Note: All coefficients are standardized. CL = coach leadership; CAR = coach-athlete relationship; and AB = athlete burnout.

Direct Effects

The direct effect of coach leadership (CL) on athlete burnout was not statistically significant, B = 0.028, SE = 0.059, z = 0.467, p = .641, 95% CI [-0.088, 0.143]. This indicates that athletes’ perception of transformational coach leadership does not significantly predict their level of burnout.

In contrast, the coach-athlete relationship had a statistically significant negative direct effect on athlete burnout, B = -0.148, SE = 0.053, z = -2.815, p = .005, 95% CI [-0.251, -0.045], suggesting that stronger, more positive coach-athlete relationships are associated with lower levels of burnout.

Path a: CAR → CL

The relationship between coach-athlete relationship and coach leadership was positive and statistically significant, B = 0.330, SE = 0.056, z = 5.886, p < .001, 95% CI [0.220, 0.440], indicating that athletes who reported higher quality relationships with their coaches were also more likely to perceive their coaches as exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors.

Indirect Effect (Mediated Path: CAR → CL → AB)

However, the indirect effect of the coach-athlete relationship on athlete burnout through coach leadership was not significant, B = 0.009, SE = 0.020, z = 0.465, p = .642, 95% CI [-0.029, 0.047]. The confidence interval for the indirect effect includes zero, which confirms the lack of a statistically significant mediation effect.

The findings indicate that although coach-athlete relationships are significantly associated with both lower burnout and higher perceptions of transformational coach leadership, coach leadership does not serve as a significant mediator in this relationship. In other words, the positive influence of the coach-athlete relationship on reducing burnout appears to be direct rather than transmitted through leadership style.

One potential explanation for the absence of a significant mediating effect could lie in the conceptual overlap and functional proximity between CAR and perceived leadership behaviors. The coach-athlete relationship, characterized by emotional closeness, mutual commitment, and complementarity, may already encapsulate much of what transformational leadership seeks to achieve (e.g., trust, individual consideration, inspiration). As such, the CAR may exert its influence on burnout independently of, or even more strongly than, the coach’s leadership style.

Additionally, athlete burnout is a multifactorial construct influenced by variables beyond leadership style—such as training load, personal coping strategies, and support systems—which may dilute the mediating role of leadership even when CAR is high.

In summary, the results support Hypothesis 1 (H1), indicating that the coach-athlete relationship significantly and negatively predicts athlete burnout. However, Hypothesis 2 (H2) is not supported, as transformational coach leadership does not significantly mediate the relationship between coach-athlete relationship and burnout

Discussion

This study examined the mediating role of transformational coach leadership in the relationship between the coach-athlete relationship (CAR) and athlete burnout (AB), focusing on the CAR components of closeness, commitment, and complementarity. The findings highlight the significant protective role of high-quality CAR in reducing burnout, while transformational leadership did not emerge as a significant mediator. By integrating Transformational Leadership Theory, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Attachment Theory, this discussion provides a robust theoretical framework to interpret these results, offering insights into their implications for sports psychology and coaching practice.

The mediation analysis (Table 2) confirmed a significant negative direct effect of CAR on athlete burnout (B = -0.148, p = .005), supporting Hypothesis 1 (H1). This indicates that stronger coach-athlete relationships, characterized by emotional closeness, mutual commitment, and cooperative interactions, are associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion, reduced enthusiasm, and diminished accomplishment (González-García et al., 2019; McGee & DeFreese, 2019). Results from Table 1 further revealed that all three CAR components—closeness, commitment, and complementarity—negatively correlate with burnout, with commitment showing the most pronounced effect. This suggests that reciprocal dedication and shared goals are particularly effective in mitigating the emotional fatigue and detachment associated with burnout (Choi et al., 2020; Longakit et al., 2024). These findings align with prior research emphasizing the protective role of high-quality CAR in fostering psychological resilience (Gerber et al., 2024; Jowett, 2017). Conversely, the absence of strong interpersonal bonds, marked by conflict or lack of support, is linked to increased burnout symptoms (Wachsmuth et al., 2018; Jowett & Chaundy, 2004).

However, Hypothesis 2 (H2) was not supported, as transformational leadership did not significantly mediate the CAR-burnout relationship (indirect effect: B = 0.009, p = .642). While CAR was positively associated with perceptions of transformational leadership (B = 0.330, p < .001), the direct effect of leadership on burnout was non-significant (B = 0.028, p = .641). This suggests that transformational leadership behaviors (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) do not independently reduce burnout when considered apart from the relational context (Macquet & Stanton, 2021). This finding challenges assumptions that transformational leadership alone is sufficient to mitigate burnout (Vella et al., 2013) and supports studies emphasizing the primacy of relational factors (Zhao & Jowett, 2022).

The non-significant mediation effect may stem from the conceptual overlap between CAR and transformational leadership. CAR, particularly through closeness and commitment, inherently incorporates elements like trust and individualized support, which are central to transformational leadership (Mach et al., 2021). Additionally, burnout’s multifactorial nature, influenced by factors such as training load and personal coping strategies, may dilute the mediating role of leadership (Isoard-Gautheur et al., 2016; Jiahao & Jing, 2024).

The findings are best understood through the integration of Transformational Leadership Theory, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Attachment Theory, which collectively provide a robust analytical framework for the CAR-burnout relationship. Transformational Leadership Theory posits that leaders who inspire through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration foster positive outcomes (Stenling & Tafvelin, 2014). However, the non-significant mediation effect suggests that these behaviors are most effective when embedded within a strong CAR. Without emotional closeness and mutual commitment, transformational leadership may fail to resonate with athletes, limiting its impact on burnout (Zhao & Jowett, 2022). This finding refines the theory by highlighting that relational dynamics are a prerequisite for transformational leadership to influence psychological outcomes in sports.

SDT provides further insight, emphasizing that fulfilling athletes’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness enhances well-being and reduces burnout (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The significant negative effect of CAR on burnout underscores the role of relatedness, fostered through closeness and commitment, in meeting these needs. For example, emotional closeness aligns with SDT’s relatedness component, creating a sense of belonging that buffers against burnout (Longakit et al., 2024). Commitment, with its emphasis on shared goals, supports autonomy and competence by aligning athletes’ efforts with meaningful objectives (Choi et al., 2020). The non-significant mediation of transformational leadership suggests that CAR directly satisfies these psychological needs, potentially bypassing leadership as an intermediary. This extends SDT by demonstrating that relational factors may be more proximal to burnout prevention than leadership behaviors in sports contexts.

Attachment Theory complements this framework by conceptualizing the coach-athlete relationship as an attachment bond, where coaches serve as secure bases providing emotional support and stability (Jowett, 2017). Closeness in CAR mirrors a secure attachment, fostering trust and resilience that mitigate burnout (Wachsmuth et al., 2018). Commitment reflects a long-term attachment bond, reinforcing athletes’ sense of security and reducing emotional exhaustion. The absence of mediation by transformational leadership suggests that the attachment-like qualities of CAR (e.g., emotional closeness) may directly address athletes’ psychological needs, overshadowing leadership’s role. This integration of Attachment Theory enriches the understanding of CAR’s protective effects, suggesting that coaches who foster secure relational bonds can significantly reduce burnout risk, independent of specific leadership behaviors.

By synthesizing these theories, the study highlights that CAR’s effectiveness in reducing burnout stems from its ability to fulfill psychological needs (SDT) and provide a secure attachment base (Attachment Theory), with transformational leadership serving as a secondary, context-dependent factor. This nuanced framework advances the theoretical understanding of burnout by emphasizing the interplay of relational and leadership dynamics.

The findings underscore the importance of prioritizing high-quality CAR to mitigate athlete burnout. Coaches should focus on fostering emotional closeness, commitment, and complementarity through training in emotional intelligence, active listening, and conflict resolution (Patrick et al., 2021; Butler, 2024). For example, workshops on empathy and goal alignment can strengthen relational bonds, reducing burnout risk (Longakit et al., 2024). Sports organizations should integrate these relational skill-building methodologies into coach development programs, ensuring that coaches are equipped to create supportive environments that enhance athletes’ mental health and performance (Jin et al., 2022).

While transformational leadership remains valuable for fostering motivation and team cohesion (Bosselut et al., 2020), its limited direct impact on burnout suggests that leadership training should be paired with relational skill development. Mentoring or peer-coaching programs can facilitate sustained, supportive interactions that reinforce both CAR and leadership dynamics (Gerber et al., 2024). Additionally, sports policymakers should promote systemic approaches, such as team-building initiatives or mental health resources, to support psychological safety and open communication, further reducing burnout risk (Choi et al., 2020).

Conclusion

The results confirm that high-quality CAR significantly reduces athlete burnout, supporting Hypothesis 1 (H1). Specifically, closeness, commitment, and complementarity exhibit strong negative correlations with burnout, with commitment showing the most pronounced effect (Choi et al., 2020; Longakit et al., 2024). These findings indicate that strong interpersonal bonds, characterized by trust, mutual dedication, and cooperative interactions, act as a protective mechanism against emotional exhaustion, reduced enthusiasm, and diminished accomplishment (Gerber et al., 2024; Duhaylungsod et al., 2024). However, Hypothesis 2 (H2) was not supported, as transformational leadership did not significantly mediate the CAR-burnout relationship (indirect effect: B = 0.009, p = .642). While CAR positively influences perceptions of transformational leadership, leadership behaviors alone do not directly reduce burnout, highlighting the primacy of relational dynamics (Zhao & Jowett, 2022).

The study enriches sports psychology by integrating Transformational Leadership Theory, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Attachment Theory to explain the CAR-burnout relationship. SDT highlights how CAR fulfills athletes’ needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence, directly reducing burnout through closeness and commitment (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Longakit et al., 2024). Attachment Theory frames CAR as a secure attachment bond, where coaches provide emotional support and stability, mitigating burnout risk (Jowett, 2017; Wachsmuth et al., 2018). The non-significant mediation of transformational leadership refines Transformational Leadership Theory, suggesting that its effectiveness depends on a strong relational foundation (Stenling & Tafvelin, 2014; Zhao & Jowett, 2022). This study’s contribution lies in its nuanced examination of CAR components and its demonstration that relational factors outweigh leadership in burnout prevention, offering a refined perspective on the interplay of interpersonal and leadership dynamics in sports.

Coaches should prioritize fostering high-quality CAR by cultivating closeness, commitment, and complementarity through open communication, trust, and empathy (Gerber et al., 2024; Longakit et al., 2024). In team sports, coaches can enhance commitment by fostering shared goals and psychological safety through team-building activities and inclusive decision-making (Şenel et al., 2025). In individual sports, personalized coaching strategies, such as positive feedback and emotional regulation training, can strengthen closeness and reduce feelings of isolation (Jiahao & Jing, 2024). Sports organizations should implement coach training programs emphasizing interpersonal skills, such as active listening and conflict resolution, alongside leadership development (Patrick et al., 2021; Butler, 2024). These initiatives can create supportive environments that enhance athletes’ emotional resilience and mental health, reducing burnout risk.

Limitations of the study

The study’s cross-sectional design limits causal inferences, and its findings may be context-specific due to variations in sport type or athlete demographics. Self-reported measures may also introduce bias.

recommendations for future research

Future research should employ longitudinal designs to explore the temporal stability of CAR components and their effects on burnout. Investigating other potential mediators, such as emotional intelligence or psychological safety, could provide a more holistic understanding of burnout prevention (Şenel et al., 2025). Additionally, examining the differential impact of CAR components across team and individual sports or developmental stages may clarify context-specific effects (Isoard-Gautheur et al., 2016). These directions will further elucidate the mechanisms underlying athlete well-being and inform targeted interventions.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this study feel it is important to express their gratitude to all those who collaborated in this research. They also extend their thanks to the esteemed reviewers for their valuable feedback.

Conflicts of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Funding

The authors did not use any financial resources for this research.