Creativity is Confetti: Overused and Misunderstood

I hold great respect for the work of James Vaughn PhD. My thoughts here are less a critique and more an expansion on different ways to view creativity. Vaughn’s emphasis on granting players more agency and the freedom to find their own path is fantastic. However, the discourse on creativity today often lacks depth. It’s not quite as pretentious as the modern art world, where something as trivial as driftwood leaning against a white wall is labeled as creative art. It may be regarded as art by some, but to me, it's simply ‘poop.’ Yet, I acknowledge that every culture has its own standards, and there are those who see driftwood in that context as both artistic and creative.

Can Research Help?

Research plays a crucial role, providing intellectuals with a foundation to build upon and allowing theories to be scrutinized. However, in our modern world, we often become lost without research telling us “This or that,” as if our life experiences and worldviews are inherently biased and corrupt. While there may be some truth to this, it's also true that certain aspects of creativity remain unquantifiable, and research in this area may never fully capture its essence. Creativity is inherently subjective, making it difficult to measure or define universally.

Performing Arts Tidbit

The arts have grappled with creativity long before the term gained traction in sports. Historically, the performing arts were highly representational, focusing on technical precision. But after the mid-1900s, performance styles began to evolve, embracing a more naturalistic approach in theater, movies, and television. From the Group Theater to the methodologies of Strasberg, Stanislavsky, Chekov, Uta Hagen, Stella Adler, Meisner and Peter Brook, the systems of artistic expression have continuously transformed. Consider the example of a woman who resigned from the National Theater in the UK because she was dissatisfied with the modern-day emphasis on voice production—or rather, the lack thereof. This highlights that even in creative fields, there are practitioners who adhere strictly to technicality. Not all creative individuals are genuinely creative; it often boils down to taste and those spontaneous moments that capture our attention.

Example in Youth Sport

Imagine a young player, someone who has always been hesitant to take on opponents one-on-one, having a breakthrough moment on the pitch. On this special day, Little Willie pulls off a move resembling Maradona’s iconic spin—tapping the ball with his right foot, spinning around his left, and rolling the ball under his left foot to keep going. To the coach witnessing this, it seems like a creative move. Yet, this same coach and Willie’s teammates might not know that Willie has performed this spin several times before while playing in the backyard against his older brother, Billie. So, did Billie teach him the move, making it a repetition of an explicitly learned skill? Or did Willie come up with it on his own, independent of Maradona’s influence? He doesn’t even know who Maradona is. Even if he has done something similar before, does that make it any less creative?

Does Popularity Make it So?

Many individuals, unknown to the professional world, have executed moves that have been done before—just not broadcast on television. These are often solutions devised in the moment to address a specific challenge. Isn’t that how we came to know the Cruyff turn?

Mark Twain once said, “There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope.” 

Perhaps, instead of labeling something as “creative,” we should acknowledge it as a shift in perspective—a moment that gives us pause. Whether it’s a fleeting pause or one that lingers, it depends on how deeply we are drawn into the experience. Creativity, then, might be better understood as those rare moments in life when we are pulled out of our routine and captivated by something extraordinary—when all other thoughts vanish as we try to make sense of what we’ve just witnessed.

Creative moments, like confetti, are everywhere. But how often are we truly present to recognize them? Are we too preoccupied with the next task, the next drill, or whether our players are meeting the parameters we’ve set for them? Do we see the little or big miracles that happen every day from creative individuals?

An article from the Whitehouse Address referenced football’s greats: “Across the history of the game, football has seen many geniuses—Maradona, Cruyff, Best, Gascoigne, Zidane, Riquelme, Hagi, Baggio, Veron, Pirlo, Laudrup, Iniesta, Ronaldinho, Messi, and De Bruyne, to name a few.” We often point to these top-tier players as the embodiment of creativity and genius.

However, if we spend all our time teaching youth players to mimic the moves or solutions these players have developed, when will young players have the opportunity to create their own in-game situations? 

As Messi once said, “You must remember, soccer is a game to have fun, and you play for that.”

Yet, even when one of the world’s best players emphasizes fun and play, we often respond with, “Yeah, that sounds good. Okay, guys, time to get behind the cones. We’re going to do a blocked activity and finish with an isolated technique you can work on before the next practice.” Does this approach foster creativity?

We’ve spent decades following predetermined coaching philosophies, watering down the concept of creativity like confetti scattered in the wind. Instead, we should allow space for those moments that give us pause—moments that shake us out of our routine. That’s where true creativity lies—not in regurgitating someone else’s solutions, but in witnessing and supporting young people as they discover their own unique moves. That’s skill.

That’s creative genius born from the joy of play.