In a gleeful press release issued From Swimming World:
"... OTTAWA, Ontario, September 17. SWIMMING Canada announced that effective September 1, 2009, all swimwear worn in swimming competitions sanctioned under the authority of Swimming Canada must conform to the January 1, 2010 FINA swimwear approval guidelines.
"We want our athletes to start the season on the right foot," [mixed metaphor] says Pierre Lafontaine, CEO and National Coach for Swimming Canada. "By implementing the rule in September, we are giving our athletes more time to adapt to the technology changes as they prepare for the big events this year." ..."
[Link]
Comedian, Louis Black once said that his style of humor comes from a guy who is stranded on the the Titanic and nobody but himself knows what is going to happen. Hence, his salty use of sarcasm, profanity, and the impression of being on the brink while trying to convince the right people to avert disaster.
Today, I feel like Louis Black on the Titanic and this suit ban will be competitive swimming's "iceberg.
My rant is on:"
Suit sponsors will focus intensely on triathletes whereas pro-swimmer paychecks will shrink and so will interest in pro-swimmers.
A professional triathlete will happily wear your tech suit for $30,000 to $40,000 per year but if you want a triathlete "...that will rule them all," it might cost $50,000 or $60,000. (I can't expose my source on this.)
Contrast that to all of the tech-suit wearing athletes at the FINA World Championships last month and ask yourself what sort of dollars they were making directly or indirectly for switching suits. Ask what their endorsement did for that particular suit company?
A pair of briefs or jammers is not a viable business model
What is the difference between a $30 pair of jammers from TYR or Speedo versus a $14.95 pair of jammers from Club Swim or Aquatica? The answer is obviously nothing since all of the above are made from 80% Polyester & 20% Lycra fabric blend.
Gross profits for swimsuit manufacturers will be cut in half or more. A $30 product purchased 3-or-4 times a year; (you mileage may vary), cannot match in gross income a $350 tech-suit purchased once-or-twice a year by colleges, athletes and age groupers.
Consequently, manufacturers will have to provide at least five other lifestyle and equipment products which will not produce the sort of revenue that a tech-suit can generate. (For instance: how often do you buy a swim bag or a parka? I trust not once or twice a year?
Swimming is not chess, but it will become as "popular" as chess if it does not continue to evolve technologically along with other successful sports.
When I was a kid the daily paper would print these chess board situations in a specific portion of the paper like they were a daily "war room map" during WW II. Those who were interested in chess would stare at these "war puzzles" and make notes, perhaps open a book and try to solve them and the next day the answer would be posted. The L.A. Times, nor the does The New York Times do that anymore for chess has become irrelevant.
If you compare swimming to triathlons, cycling, running, baseball, basketball, golf, hockey, on ad infinitum, these sports have evolved faster and more progressively than swimming has and to keep our sport from becoming chess-like, swimming has to evolve just as fast!
Is swimming really growing?
They use to make movies about synchronized swimming, they threw a ticker-tape parade for a swimmer named, Gertrude Caroline Ederle, who swam the English Channel. They made movie stars out of swimmers as well such as Johnny Weismuller, Esther Williams, Annette Kellerman.
The photo above of Speedo's groovy new Flipturns are on sale now! However there is always Splish is you really want something "outloud."
10 comments:
That wasn't the article I was pointing you to! (grin)
P.S. Today there's a great article by Eddie Reese on strength training at the same website. Admittedly I'm more than a little biased as his thoughts on training match mine at every point; so while people can easily disregard my thoughts on proper training dismissing Reese's is considerably more problematical (still more grinning).
There is a constant discussion going on in the sailing world about "growing our sport" which always amazes me because I enjoy sailing whether there are 10 boats on the bay or a 100.
Racing is a bit different since "growing our sport" does increase competition and ultimately my own sailing skills. So, a bit of growth isn't bad.
Back to swimming, the argument seems to be that without "the suits", speedo will make less money, pay Phelps less, elite swimmers will drop out of swimming after college...and the sport won't grow.
I believe every bit of that until the last part, how do we know it won't grow if the top 0.5% aren't getting sponsorship dollars? will Speedo stop sponsoring masters or youth meets? Or do you supposed they'll start spending more on that "real" market? What's the basis for the sport not growing if Phelps isn't getting millions per year?
I see this argument everywhere and once I get past my own bias of "who cares if it grows" I really wonder if it, in fact, won't continue to grow.
I think the less money the sport attracts the more it becomes a recreation than a sport.
All your opinions are valid to me.
But since swimming, like running, isn't a game and consequently provides inferior entertainment it will never attract close to the money sports like football do. I'm solidly in EVK4's camp here. How the elite are getting along economically has only a very indirect impact on me. I'd much rather push an awareness campaign about the benefits of swimming by HMO's than see the world's top 100 get five figures more income.
There are obviously many points of view that are worth considering, but isn't there really only one reality? Money / capital is what sports, and anything else for that matter, need to grow - it has been proven over and over again (NASCAR, NHL, NFL, MLB, AVP, UFC, WWE, XGames, cycling, etc.) that when capital is attracted to a corner of the athletic realm that "growth" (insert your definition here) ensues. The advent of tech suits were undoubtedly a boon for the likely sponsors of swimming broadly and with the ban soon to be in effect, it seems highly likely that the profitability halo that enabled greater exposure of the sport will be tarnished. While Michael P's heroism undoubtedly raised the profile of swimming, without the money to back it up, there is no sustainability. Not to mention, the tech suits and the world record shattering performances they made possible provided a great storyline for the media to pick up on.
I don't condone the wetsuits-masquerading-as-tech-suits charade (despite my love of my B70 Nero), but surely we can come up with some tech suits that push the sport forward and enable "growth" (again, insert your definition here), without making a mockery of the record book.
FINA's half-baked, mandated return to the dark ages of competitive swimming apparel is not in the best interest of our sport. Their initial inaction on the tech suit issue and subsequent, pathetic attempt to "catch up" the rule book confirms that they are out of touch with the overall health of competitive swimming and its future.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...
When I read comments like Chris B's, I wonder why I blog since my readers are twice as smart as I am and twice as articulate and with less typos too.
The attitude that "isn't there really only one reality? Money / capital is what sports, and anything else for that matter, need to grow" is a very 'American' philosophy - one which isn't shared by most of the world. I should think very soon it won't be all that popular in the States either. But then again I may be all alone questioning the bona fides of measuring quality of life on size and wealth alone. After all I've always asked how using techsuits to swim faster can be considered an advance for our sport. Perhaps then it's not surprising that I'm also blind to the advantage of more people selecting swimming as their sport of choice. All I can see are more crowded pools.
Tell that to China, India, and finally the US, and you have a world that does believe what Chris said.
So isn't the tracer light a woven suit? There will be suits that can help right? I am ready to start buying the best of the old. What will be legal? FS Pro FSII? Help?
The tracer is a woven suit but it is not a jammer or a brief which as it stands now is the only allowable design.
Rumor is that a unisex "short john" may be allowable for both sexes but that so-called compromise is extraordinarily LAME!
Post a Comment