Terminology Influences Behaviour: Is Football Using the Wrong Language?
Terminology Influences Behaviour: Is Football Using the Wrong Language?
How inaccurate job titles and positional labels may be shaping football behaviour without us realising it
“Terminology influences behaviour.”
A football club appoints a highly paid Performance Coach. There is only one small problem: this person does not coach the team. The Head Coach works with the players every day, prepares the playing style, selects the team, designs the football training, manages the match and makes the substitutions. Yet someone else carries the title Performance Coach. Then the team performs badly. Who gets dismissed? The Head Coach. The Performance Coach keeps his job. It sounds like a joke, but it exposes a serious contradiction within football. The words we use are not harmless descriptions. Terminology creates expectations, expectations influence responsibilities, responsibilities influence decisions, and decisions influence behaviour. When a football club gives someone a title, that title affects how decision-makers see that person, how much authority the individual receives, how much the club may pay them and how much influence they are permitted to have over the football process.
The same principle applies to the words used to describe players. When a young player is repeatedly told, “You are a defender,” that language may influence how the player interprets their responsibility when the team gains possession. When another player is repeatedly called an attacker, the same language may influence how that player understands their responsibility when the opposition has the ball. Before deciding whether these terms are right or wrong, we must begin from football itself. We must first define what we see happening in football and then explain why we see it happening. Only after establishing a universal football reference can we objectively examine the terminology used within the game.
What Is Football?
Football is played between two teams. During normal play, one team has possession of the ball while the other does not. The team with the ball is attacking and the team without the ball is defending. When possession changes, both teams briefly transition. One team changes from attacking to defending while the other changes from defending to attacking. Within Raymond Verheijen’s football reference, transition is the brief changeover between the two main phases and will often last less than three seconds before both teams reorganise into their new attacking and defending roles.
This process continues throughout the match. Teams repeatedly attack, transition, defend and transition again for approximately 90 minutes. This defines what we see taking place in football. However, defining football is only the beginning. We must also explain why these actions and changes are taking place. The team with the ball attacks because it is trying to create opportunities and score more goals than the opposition. The team without the ball defends because it is trying to prevent the opposition from creating opportunities and scoring. The players cannot achieve these objectives as eleven isolated individuals. They must continuously interact with teammates, opponents, the ball, the available space, the score, the time remaining and the constantly changing football situation.
Within these situations, players communicate, make football decisions, execute those decisions and repeatedly perform those football actions with the required football fitness. This is the CDEF reference. Communication includes all the verbal and non-verbal information exchanged between players and their football environment. Based on the information available, players make decisions. They then execute those decisions through football actions such as passing, pressing, covering, supporting, running, controlling the ball or shooting. As the match continues, players must maintain the ability to communicate, decide and execute at the required tempo. This repeated ability is football fitness.
Football performance is therefore not simply the result of running, strength, technique or motivation in isolation. Football performance emerges from how effectively eleven players communicate, make decisions and execute those decisions together while attacking, defending and transitioning. This universal reference now allows us to examine some of football’s traditional terminology.
The Performance Coach Problem
Raymond Verheijen challenges the use of the title Performance Coach when it is given to someone who does not directly coach the football team. This does not mean that specialists in nutrition, sleep, medical care, recovery, player welfare, analysis or physical conditioning are unimportant. They can all make valuable contributions. The question is not whether their expertise matters. The question is: what exactly are they improving? The Head Coach is responsible for managing and improving the performance of the team. Supported by the assistant coaches, the Head Coach is responsible for developing how the team attacks, how it defends, how it transitions, how the players communicate, how they make football decisions, how they execute those decisions and how all eleven players function together within the playing style. The Head Coach selects the team, prepares the team, organises the training process and manages the players during matches. When the team performs poorly, the Head Coach is normally held responsible because the Head Coach is responsible for team performance.
Other specialists normally improve specific conditions that may allow individual players to contribute more effectively to that team performance. A nutrition specialist may improve a player’s fuelling strategy. A sleep specialist may help a player improve sleep duration and quality. A physiotherapist may help a player recover from injury. A doctor may protect the player’s health. A player-welfare specialist may help create better personal conditions around the player. A strength and conditioning specialist may help develop or maintain certain physical capacities. These specialists can influence the conditions surrounding the player, but they do not independently determine how eleven players communicate, make decisions and execute football actions together during a match.
This distinction is important. Improving a player’s sleep does not automatically improve the team’s positioning when defending. Improving nutrition does not automatically improve the timing of the press. Increasing strength does not automatically improve communication between the back players and middle players. Providing better recovery does not automatically improve the team’s decision-making when building from the back. The specialist may improve a condition that allows the player to become more available for football performance, but the football coaches must still translate that availability into better team interaction.
Calling an isolated specialist the Performance Coach may therefore give football decision-makers a misleading picture. It may suggest that this person owns performance, even though they do not directly coach the performance of the team. That terminology can influence organisational behaviour. The specialist may receive inappropriate authority over football decisions, the club may create a department that operates separately from the football process, decision-makers may listen to the specialist ahead of the Head Coach, and training recommendations may be made without beginning from football.
This is not an argument against specialists. It is an argument for correctly defining their contribution. A nutrition specialist should be recognised for nutrition expertise. A sleep specialist should be recognised for sleep expertise. A medical specialist should be recognised for medical expertise. A football conditioning coach should condition players for football. However, the person responsible for managing and improving team performance is the Head Coach, supported by the assistant coaches. When the terminology becomes unclear, the responsibilities can also become unclear.
From Goalkeeper to Goalplayer
Another traditional term challenged by Raymond Verheijen, together with Frans Hoek, is goalkeeper. The word appears completely normal because football has used it for generations, but what picture does it create? It creates the picture of a person whose job is to stand near the goal and keep the ball out. Preventing the opposition from scoring is certainly one responsibility, but it is not the only thing this player does. The player positioned in goal communicates with teammates, observes opponents, scans the available space, makes football decisions, receives passes, passes with both feet, supports the build-up, changes the direction of the attack, controls the tempo of possession, creates numerical superiority, starts counterattacks, defends the space behind the back line, intercepts through-balls, claims crosses, protects the goal, saves shots and sometimes joins the attack.
The player does not only keep the goal. The player performs football actions while attacking, defending and transitioning, just like every other member of the team. That is why goalplayer is a more accurate term. The word identifies the individual as a player first and then identifies the player’s normal position: in goal. Football Coach Evolution describes the work of Frans Hoek and Raymond Verheijen as the evolution from goalkeeper to goalplayer. Their reference begins from the principle that the goalplayer is an integral member of the team and that responsibility for developing the goalplayer ultimately rests with the Head Coach. Changing the terminology does not mean pretending that the goalplayer has exactly the same responsibilities as every other player. The goalplayer has specific privileges and responsibilities. Within the penalty area, the goalplayer can use their hands. The goalplayer is often the final person protecting the goal. Actions such as catching, diving, blocking, dealing with crosses and defending one-against-one situations require specialist attention.
However, being specialised does not mean being separated from football. A centre-forward performs specialised actions. A back player performs specialised actions. A middle player performs specialised actions. We do not normally remove all the centre-forwards from the team for most of the week and train them in a completely separate football environment. Yet the traditional terminology surrounding goalkeepers has helped normalise exactly that type of separation.
How Terminology Created the Goalkeeper Island
Because the person is called a goalkeeper, football has gradually built an entire structure around the assumption that this player is fundamentally different from the team. In many environments, goalkeepers wear different training clothing, come onto the pitch before the rest of the players, work separately with a goalkeeper coach, perform isolated drills, join the team only for selected exercises and leave the pitch before the rest of the group. The goalkeeper coach may even be seen as running a separate department rather than working as an assistant coach within the team’s football process. The problem is not occasional isolated training. There are moments when a specialist action may need to be developed outside the full team context. The problem is when isolation becomes the starting point.
The goalplayer should not have to be integrated into the team because the goalplayer is already part of the team. The more accurate principle is not to ask how the goalplayer can be integrated more, but how the goalplayer can be isolated less. The goalplayer may be removed temporarily when a specialist action cannot be developed sufficiently within team training. After this, the action must be returned to the football context where the player has to communicate, decide and execute under realistic pressure. Otherwise, the coach may improve an isolated movement without improving the player’s ability to use that movement in football.
FIFA’s Training Centre has also highlighted the contradiction within modern goalplayer development. Coaches recognise that decision-making is essential, yet large amounts of training may still be spent on isolated technical practices. A player may become better at diving towards a ball served by a coach without necessarily becoming better at recognising when to move, where to position, which action to select and how to communicate with teammates during the actual football situation.
The Missing Player in the Formation
The effect of terminology is also visible when coaches describe their formations. Ask a coach which formation their team plays and the answer may be 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 5-4-1 or 3-5-2. There is only one problem: each of these formations contains ten players. Football is normally played with eleven. The Laws of the Game state that a team consists of a maximum of eleven players and that one of those players must be the goalkeeper. So where has the eleventh player gone? The goalplayer has been excluded from the verbal description of the team.
This is not necessarily a conscious decision. Coaches have repeated the traditional terminology for so long that describing only ten players now sounds normal. However, normal does not automatically mean correct. The complete formations should be expressed as 1-4-4-2, 1-4-3-3, 1-5-4-1 and 1-3-5-2. The first “1” represents the goalplayer. It reminds the coach and the players that the goalplayer is not standing outside or behind the team structure. The goalplayer is the first player within it.
FIFA’s tactical analysis increasingly uses structures such as 1-4-4-2 and 1-4-3-3 when describing all eleven players. Adding the first “1” may look like a small change, but terminology influences behaviour. When the goalplayer is included in the formation, coaches are more likely to analyse how that player contributes to the team’s build-up, defensive positioning, pressing resistance and transition play.
When the Goalplayer Becomes a Goalscorer
On 28 January 2026, Benfica were leading Real Madrid 3-2 in the UEFA Champions League. That victory was still not enough to secure Benfica’s progression because they required another goal. Deep into stoppage time, Benfica received a free kick. Their goalplayer, Anatoliy Trubin, left his own penalty area and travelled the full length of the pitch. He entered Real Madrid’s penalty area and, in the 98th minute, headed the ball into the net. Benfica won 4-2 and secured the final qualification position. What was Trubin doing in that moment? Was he keeping the goal? No. He was participating in Benfica’s attacking phase. He observed the match situation, understood that Benfica required another goal, communicated and coordinated with the football environment, made the decision to advance and executed an attacking action. He scored.
This was an extreme example, but it exposed the limitation of the word goalkeeper. Trubin did not stop being the player positioned in goal, but the football situation temporarily required him to act close to the opposition’s goal. His normal position did not determine his entire football role. The situation determined his action.
Are There Really Defenders and Attackers?
This brings us to another deeply established part of football language. We divide players into defenders, midfielders and attackers. These terms are convenient, but are they football-correct? We must return to the universal reference. When a team has the ball, the team is attacking. When the opposition has the ball, the team is defending. Therefore, when the team attacks, all eleven players participate in the attacking phase. When the team defends, all eleven players participate in the defending phase.
This does not mean that all players perform identical actions. During the attacking phase, a back player may remain deeper to provide balance or protection against a possible counterattack. However, that positioning still supports the team’s attacking objective. During the defending phase, a front player may remain higher to provide an outlet for a possible counterattack, but that positioning is still part of the team’s defending organisation. Different players perform different actions, but the team shares the same overall football intention. The problem arises when temporary football functions become permanent player identities.
When a player is repeatedly called a defender, the player may gradually begin to think, “My job is to defend. Attacking belongs to the attackers.” The attacker may think, “My job is to attack. Defending belongs to the defenders.” But football does not work like this. When the team loses the ball, the so-called attackers do not receive permission to stop participating. They must immediately transition to defending. They may press the ball, block a passing line, delay the opponent, track a runner or recover into the team structure. When the team regains possession, the so-called defenders do not remain outside the attacking phase. They may move forward, support the player in possession, circulate the ball, break a line, overlap, underlap or enter the opposition penalty area.
The terms back players, middle players and front players may therefore provide a more accurate positional reference. These terms tell us where a player normally begins within the team structure without suggesting that only certain players attack or only certain players defend. A back player is not a player whose only function is defending. A front player is not a player whose only function is attacking. They are football players operating from different starting positions. Their exact position and action may change depending on the football situation.
Football Positions Are Not Prison Cells
We regularly see full-backs move into advanced positions. We see centre-backs carry the ball through midfield. We see middle players drop between the back players during build-up. We see number nines recover into their own half when the team loses possession. We see wide front players defend close to their own penalty area. We see goalplayers move outside their penalty area to support possession. Sometimes, as Trubin demonstrated, we even see a goalplayer inside the opposition’s penalty area attempting to score.
Football positions provide structure, but they should not become prison cells. The player must begin from the team structure and then respond to the information available within the football situation. That response requires CDEF. The player communicates with teammates and opponents, makes a decision based on the situation, executes the chosen football action and repeats this process throughout the match. The better a player understands football, the less that player should require constant instructions from the side of the pitch. The player should be able to observe the football situation, recognise what the team requires and act accordingly.
How Terminology May Affect Youth Football
The consequences of this terminology may be most serious in youth development. Imagine an eight-year-old player. From the first day, the child is told, “You are a defender.” Every week the same message is repeated. “You are our best defender.” “Defenders must stay back.” “Give the ball to the midfielders.” “Do not take risks.” “Your job is to clear it.” The word begins as a description of the player’s starting position, but over time it may become a description of how the player understands their entire role. Then, during a match, the team regains possession. There is space in front of the player and the football situation invites the player to move forward and support the attack. However, the player stays back.
The coach becomes frustrated and begins shouting, “Move up! Support the ball! Join the attack! Do not stand there!” The coach may end up doing more coaching during the match than during training. But why did the player stay back? It may not be because the player is lazy. It may not be because the player is unable to understand football. It may be because the terminology and instructions repeatedly received by the player have conditioned them to associate their role with remaining behind the ball. The coach is now attempting to correct, during the match, behaviour that the coaching environment may have helped create.
Research in cognitive science has shown that linguistic labels can influence how people form categories, what features they notice and how they interpret information. This does not prove that calling a child a defender will automatically force the child to stay back during a football match. That specific football claim has not been scientifically established. However, research does support the broader principle that labels can influence perception, attention and interpretation. The football argument should therefore not be exaggerated. Terminology does not completely control behaviour, but terminology can influence the reference through which a player understands the game. A player who sees themselves primarily as a defender may notice defensive risks before recognising attacking opportunities. A player who sees themselves as a football player positioned at the back may be more open to both attacking and defending information. The difference begins with language.
Teach the Football Situation, Not the Positional Stereotype
Instead of telling a young player, “You are a defender, so stay back,” the coach can explain, “You are currently a back player. When we have the ball, look at the situation and decide how you can help the team attack. When we lose the ball, immediately help the team defend.” Instead of telling a front player, “You are an attacker; wait for us to give you the ball,” the coach can explain, “You are currently a front player. When the opposition has the ball, you are one of our first players responsible for helping the team defend.” Instead of telling the player in goal, “Your job is to keep the ball out,” the coach can explain, “You are our goalplayer. You help us attack, defend and transition. Your position gives you a different view of the game, so your communication is important.” This language does not remove positional responsibility. It places positional responsibility within football. The player still has a starting position and specific responsibilities, but the player also understands that every football action is determined by the situation and by what the team requires at that moment.
Better Terminology Will Not Solve Everything Overnight
Changing the terminology from goalkeeper to goalplayer will not automatically transform every training session. Calling players back, middle and front players will not instantly produce intelligent footballers. Removing the title Performance Coach will not automatically create a well-functioning football organisation. Terminology must be supported by behaviour. The Head Coach must genuinely take responsibility for developing the entire team. Specialists must connect their expertise to the football process. The goalplayer must experience meaningful team situations. Back players must be taught how to contribute when attacking. Front players must be taught how to contribute when defending. Youth players must be allowed to observe situations, make decisions, make mistakes and learn. However, correct terminology creates a more accurate starting point. It gives coaches and players a clearer reference. Wrong terminology can create wrong expectations, while more accurate terminology can make football-correct behaviour more likely.
The Words We Use Reveal How We Understand Football
This discussion is ultimately bigger than job titles and player positions. Terminology reveals the reference from which football people think. When someone calls a specialist who does not coach the team the Performance Coach, it may reveal confusion between team performance and the conditions that support individual players. When someone describes the player in goal only as a goalkeeper, it may reveal that they mainly see the player as a shot-stopper rather than an integral member of the team. When someone describes certain players permanently as defenders and others as attackers, it may reveal that they do not begin from the team attacking and defending as one collective unit. When someone describes a formation as 4-3-3, it may reveal how easily the goalplayer has disappeared from their understanding of the team.
The solution is not to change words for the sake of sounding modern. The solution is to begin from football. Define what we see. Explain why we see it. Then develop terminology that accurately represents that reality. Football consists of two teams repeatedly attacking, defending and transitioning. All eleven players communicate. All eleven players make decisions. All eleven players execute football actions. All eleven players require football fitness. The positions and actions may differ, but every player is part of the same football process.
Conclusion: Change the Reference and the Behaviour Can Change
Terminology influences behaviour because terminology influences how people understand and interpret reality. Calling someone a Performance Coach may influence how a football organisation distributes responsibility and authority. Calling a player a goalkeeper may contribute to that player being separated from the team. Calling young players defenders and attackers may influence how they understand their responsibilities during the different phases of football. These terms have been repeated for generations, but repetition does not make them football-correct. Football development requires the courage to challenge tradition against an objective and universal football reference.
The question should never be, “What terminology has football always used?” The question should be, “Which terminology most accurately defines and explains what happens in football?” When we begin from CDEF, the picture becomes clearer. The Head Coach and assistant coaches manage and improve team performance. Specialists improve specific conditions that support players. The goalkeeper becomes a goalplayer. Defenders, midfielders and attackers become back, middle and front players. The formation becomes 1-4-3-3 rather than 4-3-3.
Most importantly, every player learns that when the team attacks, they attack together; when the team defends, they defend together; and when possession changes, they transition together. Better football development may begin with better football education, and better football education may begin with using the right words.
Coming Next
This discussion leads to an even more uncomfortable question: how can someone who cannot define and explain football decide who is qualified to lead it? Across clubs, academies, federations and government organisations, major football decisions are sometimes made by people without a clear football reference. If a decision-maker does not know what they are looking for, what do they use to decide whom to employ? Reputation? Certificates? Job titles? Personal relationships? Fashionable terminology? In the next blog, we will examine whether one of football’s greatest barriers to development is the appointment of non-football people to make decisions about a game they cannot objectively define or explain.
Supporting Sources
The football reference and CDEF principles used within this article are based on the educational work of Raymond Verheijen and Football Coach Evolution. The evolution from goalkeeper to goalplayer is connected to the work of Raymond Verheijen and Frans Hoek. Supporting football examples and analysis are available through Football Coach Evolution, the FIFA Training Centre, the International Football Association Board and UEFA. The broader argument concerning the influence of labels on perception and categorisation is supported by published cognitive-science research.
