Expert coaches are renowned for their extensive knowledge in their sport. Expert knowledge can be defined by its structure and domain content (Coté and Gilbert, 2009). The structure of knowledge includes various schemes under which knowledge can be organised. Anderson (1982) suggests that knowledge can be split into two broad domains: declarative and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge is routine knowledge that may include readily available information about concepts and elements relating to particular subjects. Procedural knowledge details steps or activities required to perform a task. Abraham et al (2006) suggested a schematic of coaches’ knowledge that included declarative and procedural knowledge. This approach was put forward on the basis that previous models of the coaching process are too simplistic and that a transferable schematic across a ‘multiple of situations and contexts through reference to relevant knowledge and information processing procedures is more appropriate.’ The authors argue that a schematic would reflect the entire coaching process and this schematic outlines the knowledge/decision-making concepts and the resulting behaviors requirements of all coaches. In order to validate the schematic Abraham & Collins (2006) interviewed 16 expert coaches to determine the coaching process as a whole. The schematic was built on three sources of knowledge; sport specific knowledge, pedagogy, and the coaching ‘ologies’ (physiology, psychology etc). Similarly Cassidy et al (2009) proposed a structure of coaches’ declarative and procedural knowledge that included subject matter content, pedagogical content, and curriculum content. Nash and Collins (2006) classified knowledge in terms of tacit and explicit knowledge as it reflects the ill defined problems and decision making inherent in coaching. These studies show a correlation in the relationship between coaching and the use of knowledge and pedagogy which is reflected in course content.