In the fourth part of our series on the future of FINA as the international governing body considers constitutional change at an extraordinary Congress in Shanghai this July, we consider the organisational framework of the federation and where the balance of inclusive and exclusive comes to rest, why and what that means for the sport of swimming. 

The first part of the series considered some of the key proposals for change to the FINA Constitution, including a widespread overhaul and rewording of the structure of governance and the chain of command at the international federation. The latter is critical to understanding where knowledge comes from before it reaches those at the helm of the governance of aquatic sports.

On the table for debate and vote in Shanghai is a long list of tweaks and changes planned for C 18 of the constitution, the clauses that govern the technical and other committees that are the engine room of FINA. 

Among the biggest questions facing the international federation as it attempts to find the best model for good governance in 2011 relate to who gets to work in the engine room, how the information generated by and work done in that engine room (one connected by a much wider network of the 200 plus member federations of FINA around the world) make it to the Captain's Table, who is allowed to take it there and what happens next, not only to the flow of expertise and opinion but to those who provide it.

In simple terms, here is how it works: many of the issues critical to the sport of swimming, such as the details of protocol for big meets, the proposals for rules changes and how rules ought to be interpreted on turns, video evidence and a whole range of matters that have a direct impact on athletes and coaches, are dealt with by the Technical Swimming Committee. At the helm of that committee are Carol Zaleski (USA), Don Blew (AUS) and Soeren Korbo (DEN). Half of the rest of the 12-person committee represent nations that finished among the top 15 nations in the race pool at the past three Olympic Games, while three extra members make up an events sub-committee. 

Of the 12 plus 3 members, five hail from nations that play no significant part in the water at elite, world-class level but are part of the inclusive model of FINA universality, with all members, regardless of standard of home programme, eligible to play a political and administrative role. Each of FINA's committees has a Bureau liaison officer, who feeds decisions taken by members back to the ruling body. In the case of swimming, that is Dale Neuberger, the US representative. Each of the five disciplines of FINA has its own technical committee. While TSCs do good work, they are subject to political influence, including appointments made and the speed at which the cogs and wheels turn if the executive or bureau wish the TSC to think again.

The make-up of the TSCs reminds us of one of the common criticisms of FINA: that the organisation is weakened by a weddedness to inclusivity of all members, regardless of standards, status and savvy in the core subject: not politics but - swimming (or diving, synchro, water polo). There are times when such criticism is most valid, examples of politics racing ahead of swimming, athletes and the best interests of the sport down the years too many to mention. The last words you want to hear when you sit at a table as an expert or experienced hand is "Ted knows nothing about swimming or X, Y and Z but is willing to learn the ropes as a new member of our committee as his country, Notafishinsight, attempts to develop its swim programme, so could you all welcome Ted to our swimming X, Y and Z commission". 

Worse still, Ted then collects his free kit, blazer, Speedo shirts and shorts on the eve of a world championship and then … goes home to Notafishinsight, the meet and the experience that were there to be had somewhat second-place to the simple desire to be appointed for the purposes of others. Precisely how that will help FINA govern properly will doubtless be lost on many. Lost on no-one is the real meaning of such things: grace, favour and back scratching. FINA could do without it: such things mask a whole heap of good work. 

The question comes down to whether those at the helm of the organisation truly want independent and diverse advice and the professional help that it has at times been reluctant to engage and pay for. Beyond that there is the question of whether those running the organisation are able to hear things they may not like but are able to place the good of athletes, aquatic sports and those who work within them ahead of personal feelings and self-interest. 

Poor practice down the years has at times mired FINA is old ways. For example, it is 15 years since Nick Thierry, owner of SwimNews, recommended electronic entry to FINA events, linked to a database that would generate start lists and extended start lists to be handed to teams, media and sold to the spectators, as well as stocking FINA with up-to-date biographical information. FINA could so easily have had that system up and running for the past decade. It opted not to do anything about it. The solutions to get there now will cost much more and when they come you can almost guarantee that there will be an element of reinventing wheels in terms of both finance and the pace of progress.   

That pace is to some extent dictated by the presence of the grace and favour side of the coin that leads to one conclusion: until professional skills and expertise are prized above politics, FINA will struggle to escape a reputation for caring more about its functions than its fast fish and fairness, regardless of how fair that perception may be. 

When dealing with facts not perceptions we know that FINA's version of inclusivity extends to a vast list of nations among more than 200 member federations, but falls shy (until this summer, perhaps) of including athletes and coaches at the top table. Coaches have created the World Swimming Association with a shadow constitution that calls for a much greater say not only for athletes and coaches but a weightier voice for the most successful swimming nations. 

It is through politics (domestic and international), for example, that Australia, a powerhouse of the sport in the water, has no representation at Bureau or executive level in FINA. The FINA Bureau currently boasts 11 voting members who hail from countries who finished among the top 15 nations in the race pool at the past three Olympic Games, and 11 members representing developing nations that are non-players when it comes to getting swimmers past the slow heats of a long morning. 

The gulf between those two ends of the pool is vast, one end deep in knowledge, experience, results and history, the other shallow in almost all aspects relating to what elite athletes and coaches need in order to reach the destination that drives excellence: gold.

Taking part is great, the thing available to most of us, but what brings in the crowds, the media, marketeers and money is the race for a place on the podium, with gold the currency that pays for swimming's ability to spill beyond the pool through the exploits of truly exceptional athletes and pioneers who raise the bar generation come, generation go - Phelps, Thorpe, Popov, Klochkova, Egerszegi, Darnyi, Evans, Meagher, Gross, Baumann, Gould, Spitz, Meyer, Wenden, Schollander, Rose and on down the decades to Weissmuller, Ederle (two million people and a ticker-tape parade in New York no less), Duke and Durack, the duel of Daniels and Halmay and Kellerman and her gift to women of "unrestricted movement when swimming".

Down those decades, the podium placers and the biggest of stars have hailed from a surface of nations in the FINA count. That weighting is neither truly reflected nor ignored when it comes to the composition of committees and commissions. The statistics on the TSC are similar to those at Bureau level: of the 12 current members, six hail from those top 15 nations. Extend the calculation to committees on masters, medicine, doping, discipline, athletes, coaches and media and we find 20% of members from nations with no elite swimming programme to speak of and almost half of all positions occupied by people from (but not necessarily representing) those top 15 swimming nations. 

There is an impossible nature to any system that seeks to include members from more than 200 countries at some level of the organisation, and such a structure is certainly open to political interference. Even so, the concept of inclusivity is a good one, depending on how you apply it.

There is a Native American saying: "You are the medicine the world needs. It's your individuality that the world needs and that is very powerful medicine." Ailing organisations are those that follow the universality model in which decison-making is essentially deferred to a small clique of insiders and though there may be excellent folk in the midst of it all, overall the group with a voice and vote becomes a caricature of poor governance. Think beyond the pool to something like the UN's Human Rights Commission, which counts delegates representing tyrannical regimes among its members … that way lies madness.

There is great merit in FINA remaining open to views and influence from all its members, depth and breadth, butlending weight to wisdom is wise too. Some coaches, among others, want less inclusivity and more exclusivity in the governance of swimming. Both directions have positive and negative connotations. Context is important. In sport, exclusivity these days comes down largely to standard not discrimination. It is a reflection of both the natural state of things (as in the spirit of Gandhi's view that "Perfection is the exclusive attribute of God, and it is indescribable, untranslatable…") and the interface between opportunity, environment, knowledge, toil, sweat and tears. 

Take Michael Phelps, born with certain attributes (some not always seen as positive by those who found it hard to see the point in harnessing what they perceived as weakness and turn it to strength) that have undoubtedly contributed to his success; blessed with Debbie Phelps; then Bob Bowman; enter a USA swimming legacy, one in which long-term success has set a high standard that unlocks the door to further success and more winning ways, a head start on the conveyor belt, so to speak; add a USA Swimming support mechanism; enter sponsors; enter the talent, ability, drive, dedication and determination of a human being who in one very specific pursuit in life, competitive swimming, comes as close to Gandhi's grasp on things as you might imagine possible. 

That is exclusive and cuts to the very meaning of sport: excellence, standard-setting, providing role models in the realm of human achievement. A touch of it in the boardroom would be no bad thing and it is folly to suggest that all are equal to the task of running world swimming regardless of where they come from on a list of more than 200 countries, a half of which have no serious swimming programme to speak of and have no swimmers capable of meeting FINA A times, and some three-quarters (and more) of which rarely if ever come remotely close to making a big podium when it most counts.

There are financial, social and cultural reasons in the mix - none of which are the fault of the swimming programmes up front, programmes that have proved themselves to be hearteningly inclusive when it comes to development, examples plentiful of Americans and Australians (as well as others) sharing knowledge and welcoming swimmers and coaches from many nations.

The question asked by many is simple enough: does it add up that Australia has no voice at the top table of swimming when Kuwait, Nigeria, Egypt, Morocco, Thailand, Uruguay and Fiji do have a voice? The retort is not "why do you hate all those countries" and the false premise on which that notion is based. Ask instead 'why love Australia'. The WSA constitution simply calls for weight to be given to those at the cutting, leading edge of the sport. It is a reasonable request, one that does not call for others to play no part.

Of course, simply allowing the top 15 nations to have a say by right will not resolve all problems. Leading nations are already well represented but that representation is almost entirely political, delegates nominated by federations used to and many wedded to sticking with the IOC/International federation structure of ladder-climbing, with an element of luck, as well as a dose of politics, involved when it comes to FINA's chances of getting the right people in the right places dealing with subjects they know about. 

As noted above, half of those in the engine room are sports politicians from the leading nations, half from nations where programmes are either developing or in a poor state in terms of their ability to attract, produce and hone world-class swimmers. 

Among those people are professionals in a variety of fields, including law, medicine, marketing, media and strategic planning right through to electronics, tourism and plumbing, some still involved in those lines of work, some having left such things behind long ago in favour of a life on the road in sports politics (yes, for some 'volunteers' who offer of their 'service', sport is a way of life - and very well remunerated, often in tax-free fashion). 

There are also heads of federations employed and remunerated as directors who sit on FINA Commissions and Committees. They cannot in any sense be classed as volunteers. Also at the table come decision-making time in key areas of policy and strategy that involves many millions of dollars in one form or another are professionals paid to work at FINA HQ in Lausanne and liaise with those with the money and the airwaves.

Missing from that mix at the top table so far in that model of inclusivity: those others who earn their wages in swimming, the most important among them the athletes (the very reason why we are all here) and coaches. Nervous Bureau members voted 17 to 4 against having a coach in the midst. The 17 might do well to set aside a little time to read Fernando Pessoa's The Book of Disquiet (Livro do Desassossego), in which he writes: "The more a man differs from me, the more real he seems, for he depends that much less on my subjectivity". 

One of their concerns when rejecting coaches came down to this: why should swimming coaches have a say in matters affecting synchro, diving, TV rights, the size of balls in the polo pool and so on? The answer rests in the validity in that question when framed against a backdrop of current FINA arrangements for coaches: the coaches commission is made up of folk from all five FINA disciplines. Does swimming want to hear from a synchro coach on whether to scrap the women's 800m freestyle - and does synchro want to hear from a swim coach whether the world of sequins requires another five events adding to world-championship schedule? 

The changes required to take account of such anomalies go beyond what is being proposed for constitutional change in Shanghai next month. Here is one suggestion that may well one day have meat placed on bones:

For the sake of argument, take the TSC: it would make much sense to include at the very least two coaches on that committee. At truly elite level, their connection to athletes, the thread of history and what it takes to pursue excellence is second to none.  The coaches who join the TSC ought to be members of the coaches committee so that thinking is joined. When the TSC's decisions are taken to Bureau, the liaison officer, already a Bureau member, is currently the lone representative to speak. It would make sense if the liaison officer was accompanied by the chairman or other representative of the TSC to the Bureau meeting. The TSC chair or representative would also hold one vote on the relevant issue at Bureau level.

The thought would need extending even further if the Extraordinary Congress next month sides with the 17 and rejects the notion of a coach on the Bureau. The only argument for not having a coach there is that there are many issues on which a coach may not be able or wish to vote on, in terms of their area of expertise (although that never stopped others). There is no argument for swimming coaches having no say on the vast majority of issues dealt with by the TSC. A coach member of that committee ought also then to be invited to the Bureau, with say and vote, when TSC recommendations are voted on.  

In summary, when the Bureau votes on technical swimming matters (and those need better definition, the likes of the World Cup not, apparently, on the list of things ever discussed by the TSC), two TSC members, the chair and a coach, accompany the liaison, with voice and a vote each - ONLY on the relevant issue. That kind of mechanism, one that could be applied across the board of committees, would not only lend decision-making weight to the expert view (often missing at the moment of a vote) but would allow the athlete, the swim coach, the medical expert to have a say and a vote at Bureau level on specific issues affecting them, while leaving the Bureau to have a say and vote on all matters pertaining to FINA across all disciplines and issues including sponsorship and financial deals for which the ruling elite are ultimately responsible for.

The power of technical committees would grow, the accusation that such entities are filled with 'yes' men and women who have no power come the crunch would decline, and responsibility would be more clearly defined. Instead of "FINA" being blamed when things go wrong, a specific set of people ought to have their names attached to decisions and votes.   

This summer, FINA delegates will vote on proposals aimed at increasing the size of committees and converting some commissions to committees with a view to lending decision-making power to areas of swimming governance and expertise that have so far been purely advisory. The trick, though, is not to number crunch. It is not size of committees that counts but the quality of the individuals and the responsibilities and powers vested in them that could make the difference for FINA as it meets the challenges of a changing world.

Previous articles in our June series:

• Part 3 - Integrity and Intent
• Part 2 - Coaches
• Part 1 - Who Decides