Research suggests that physical education (PE) needs to adapt to meet societies' changing needs and increased diversity amongst pupils. However, despite growing pressure from often competing sectoral interests, educational reforms, and new curricula directed at PE to bring about such changes, research has not seen a more profound impact. Many policy initiatives often impact PE teachers, which means they are responsible for implementing desired changes. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising how research has paid limited attention to PE teachers' decision-making processes regarding the envisaged change. To address this shortfall of understanding, this study's aim is to explore PE teachers' decision-making processes and how they relate to external pressures, interests, and reforms. To meet this aim, this article draws on an institutional logics perspective and uses data collected from semi-structured interviews with 16 PE teachers. Findings show how four institutional logics guide PE teachers' decision-making processes: (a) a democracy logic, (b) an investment logic, (c) a professional logic, and (d) a bureaucracy logic. The results also show that, beyond the fact that logics legitimise certain decisions, they delegitimise other decisions, which requires PE teachers to navigate between logics in their decision-making processes. This navigating process requires PE teachers to handle multiple and incompatible ideas about what good PE is and how to conduct it. This knowledge, if utilised, can increase alignment between policy content and implementers' interpretations, which may mitigate resistance to policy reforms and stimulate intended implementation.