RE: SCAQ Blog: A professional swimmer “schools us” on tech suits, the economics therein, and the exploitation they all endure.

On the SCAQ blog, I read a very interesting article from an anonymous swimmer, discussing their perspective on the “suit controversy”  Link (I know you’re thinking, “It just wont go away, will it?!” Unfortunately, problems that arose or came to light during the debate about suits and the sport continue to have repercussions)

Anyway, its a great article. Please, read it before you continue.

Before I say anything else, I’d like to say that I am glad the suits are gone. The change in the economy of swimming was really bad for those already at the top, the article provides pretty solid anecdotal evidence of that.

Now, it is time to play devil’s advocate. When the tech race for suit was beginning to peak (I’m talking 2008 here, not the WR-fest of 2009, after everyone knew that the new generation of suits was doomed) the suit companies saw the incredible opportunities available and were investing money in both R&D and sponsored athletes. There were more deals being signed, and those of us that were previously on the outside looking in, were suddenly being considered for sponsorship; even if it was just of one of the deals with bonuses that Anonymous discussed, it was something.

These deals were bad for established athletes. It was no longer possible to make an Olympic team or have a breakout meet, then sign a deal that would last you for a few years with a base salary. Under the new contracts being signed, there was no base salary and athletes needed to continue to perform in order to receive their living. The reason this came about was the slight leveling of the playing field that the suits effected. Suddenly, as Anonymous said, their was a greater field of athletes vying for records and titles, and suit companies wanted their names attached to as many of them as possible. This new structure of sponsorship, with more bonuses and less base, allowed them to spread their influence and hedge their bets a bit.

When viewed at it this way,  it begins to become clear why  it was the established swimming elite that so vehemently opposed the suits. Even though the pool of money for sponsorship widened, it also became much more shallow.

Once word got out that FINA, led by USA Swimming, was looking at a ban on rubber suits, all sponsorship opportunities for someone like myself went suddenly cold; no company could afford to go out on a limb until everything shook out. This for me happened while I was in the midst of trying to negotiate a deal. Swimmers much more highly ranked than myself were now looking for full time jobs outside the pool to pay for their training.

Everyone reading this knows what happened: Suit tech was pushed back 5 years. People were predicting that more and more apparel companies would leave the sport altogether when they could no longer charge upwards of $600 for a suit. This did not happen. The big companies now charge almost as much for a knee-length, textile jammer than they did for a full-body, rubberized and paneled suit. Nobody is arguing that the jammers cost just as much to produce, the companies need to recoup some losses and they now know that people will pay what they must to be competitive.

For an idea on how it might have turned out differently, look at golf. Golf has had plenty of people cry to keep it pure, yet any pro shop is full of equipment that is marketed in such a way as to make a middling-poor golfer (such as myself) believe they can be better if they buy a certain set of irons, or grippier cleats. Where do you think all the money that pro golfers make comes from? Sponsors! Golf and swimming do not differ too greatly in viewership, at least among my completely unscientific sample of friends and aquaintences. The main difference is that in a sport like golf, or tennis there is plenty of money to be made by convincing consumers that they can become better by buying a product.

FINA’s decision served to keep the sport pure, which is great (especially for the top tier of athletes that have deals and ties with the few companies left profitable), but at what economic cost?

I am looking forward to the second part of the article. I am sure I will have plenty to say about that half too.