Photo credit: Bryan Berlin
Anyone who watched the 2025 Ryder Cup will have been struck by the contrasting fortunes of Team USA and Team Europe across the three days. After Europe’s dominance in Friday and Saturday’s pairings, holding an 11½–4½ lead, Captain Luke Donald’s side held off a strong USA singles fightback to scrape a 15–13 win. The outcome reflected an extraordinary contrast: Europe excelled in collective formats, while the USA, led by Captain Keegan Bradley, shone in individual contests.
In the week prior, both captains gave a joint press conference, speaking for just under 3,500 words across 25 minutes. Using the transcript, a simple word-usage analysis reveals telling differences. Donald favoured collective pronouns – we (39), us (6), team (14) – with restrained use of I (46). Bradley, conversely, leaned heavily on I (98) and me (10), with fewer collective markers (we 28, us 2, team 6). In hindsight, this linguistic framing foreshadowed how the competition unfolded: Europe thrived in the interdependent team format, while USA dominated the individual singles.
Table 1. Count of standalone words (e.g., “we,” “us,” “team”) and “I” and including contractions like “I’m/I’ve.”
| Speaker | “me” | “I” | “us” | “we” | “team” |
| Luke Donald (Europe) | 2 | 46 | 6 | 39 | 14 |
| Keegan Bradley (USA) | 10 | 98 | 2 | 28 | 6 |
In pair formats, performance units are inherently collective. Leaders who cultivate a strong shared identity – clarifying “who we are and what we’re about” – confer a performance edge. Research shows that such identity leadership strengthens coordination, communication, and psychological safety, enabling players to adapt without fear of blame (Edmondson, 1999; Fransen et al., 2020). Donald’s rhetoric and actions (emphasising symbols of unity, shared history, and role clarity) are classic examples of identity leadership: aligning behaviours and embedding meaning so that pairs function seamlessly. Cohesion, both task and social, has robust links to performance, with leaders shaping it through practical steps like clarity of roles, team selection, and reinforcement of common goals (Carron et al., 2002; Eys et al., 2003).
Great teams are more than collections of talent; they share “mental models” that allow communication and decisions to snap into place under pressure (Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004). Europe’s command of foursomes and fourballs, therefore, looks less like momentum and more like careful design: compatible pairings, shared thinking, and distributed leadership within partnerships (Fransen et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2013).
Singles require a different leadership focus. With interdependence reduced, success hinges on individual self-regulation, playing form, and personal efficacy. Here, a captain’s influence is more distal, shaped in advance through preparation, environment, and motivational climate. Transformational leadership behaviours – such as setting vision, high expectations, and individualised support – remain important, but largely earlier in the week (Callow et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2013). On Sunday, the athlete must stand alone on the tee. While empowering climates support resilience (Appleton & Duda, 2016), strong “we” narratives cannot fully buffer against individual mismatches.
For leaders, several lessons emerge. First, engineer the us. Identity leadership enhances formats where interdependence matters, requiring investment in pair compatibility, communication routines, and role clarity. Second, prepare the I. Athletes must be equipped with psychological skills for singles – pressure training, recovery strategies, and decision-making cues. Third, distribute leadership. The strongest teams foster multiple leaders across task, motivational, and social roles, enabling pairs to self-correct in real time (Fransen et al., 2015, 2016). Finally, frame mistakes as data. Psychological safety accelerates adaptation; it is not softness but a performance tactic (Edmondson, 1999).
Seen in this light, the captains’ rhetoric is revealing. Donald’s collectivist framing reflects intentional identity work – building a durable “we.” Bradley’s more personal language signals accountability and care while still aiming to construct meaning. The results underline the point: in formats that reward interdependence, leadership is decisive; in singles, it becomes the foundation athletes stand upon.
The take-home for any sporting leader is simple: craft the us to win collectively, prepare the I for when individuals must stand alone. Great leaders build both. They distribute leadership widely, communicating and embedding a vision that provides clarity when pressure peaks and the noise is loudest. They are force multipliers, shaping an environment where both team and individual success can flourish.
Leadership in sport is a central theme of our postgraduate offering here at the University of Birmingham. Check out our MSc in Sport Business, Management, and Leadership and MSc in High Performance Sport.
J.Pringle@bham.ac.uk