Connect with Us:
Future of FINA: Part 5 - Stars Of The Show
Jun 24, 2011 - Craig Lord
In the fifth 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 stars of the show - athletes.
For the first time in 103 years of FINA history, athletes are on the cusp of being granted a place at the top table of the sport:
The relevant proposals to be voted on next month are these:
and
or a variation on the theme as follows:
The latter is the suggestion of USA Swimming and its rationale is as follows: United States Aquatic Sports initially believed the athlete on the Bureau should be elected by his/her peers because this was the best and most democratic method. However, after further analysis, the best possible athlete on the FINA Bureau would come from a pool of qualified athlete candidates proposed by the Athletes’ Committee versus through actual election of the athletes. For this reason, we are amending our proposal to have the President of FINA select this athlete for the Bureau from a pool of five candidates proposed by the Athletes’ Committee.
That one athlete on the Bureau, a breakthrough to be welcomed, would have to represent swimmers, divers, open water swimmers, synchro swimmers and water polo players. The spectrum of issues is broad and deep, while even on matters that bind the athletes, such as prize money, there is a pecking order of sports under the FINA umbrella, pool swimming by far they most popular of the five disciplines, at Olympic, world and continental levels and able to command bigger broadcast revenues for the international federation.
Challenges for athletes in the boardroom are many and they include navigating through and understanding the world of politics, conflicts of interests and attempting to represent a community that stretches from young teenagers through to mums and dads in the 30s and 40s but still racing in the realm of world-class swimmers. Podium pretenders on the biggest of occasions include athletes of 14 and 44.
There are challenges for FINA too. Only time will tell whether an athlete at the top table represents tokenism or whether the Bureau will become an important interface between blazers and the billboard boys and girls who put backsides on seats and attract many millions of dollars of income in revenue for FINA each year. Which way it goes does not only rely on FINA and its established way of doing things; it depends on whether athletes prove themselves up to the task of providing professional representation for their peers and of standing up for what they believe in and what they believe to be their rights.
Assuming a vote in favour of having an athlete party to discussions and privy to information at the very helm of the sport - and thus able to return to peers with knowledge and points of debate, the questions that arise centre on what athletes can contribute, what topics they may wish to raise with those who run the sport on their behalf and what they may demand of their role as potentially powerful players in a partnership with those who govern them.
Issues affecting athletes beyond their coaching, preparation and personal performance include four key areas:
Below, we tackle some of the main aspects in turn:
ANTI-DOPING is on the list first because it starts with A and, at its foundations, is also least open to debate and discussion. Either you agree that doping is wrong or you don't, and if you don't you fall into line with international WADA and FINA rules, which hold no water for those inclined to tolerate or encourage cheating or the celebration of cheats. There is no room in the sport or in its rules for anyone who thinks it exciting to watch two athletes race into uncharted waters regardless of whether they are doped or not. The thrill is to be had in watching such things unfold in a genuine culture of clean and fair sport and knowing that as much as possible has been done to allow athletes, coaches, federations, dedicated fans, the wider viewing public, parents pondering whether to take their offspring to the pool and media to believe that what they are witnessing is human endeavour free of artificial intervention that skews the result and robs people of their rightful place.
Some may ask: are athletes best placed to comment on or influence debate on the issue of doping? Surveys have suggested that upwards of 60% of athletes, when asked if they would take doping if that guaranteed them success without being caught said that they would. Most surveys of that nature tell us little about the nature of the sports and athletes being surveyed and in swimming there can be no question that the majority of those asked about the subject are firm in their opinion: no drugs, no tolerance, with many actually favouring life bans for serious offenders (those who rely on steroids, HGH and other substances and acts of manipulation, including gene therapy, that carry the biggest penalties under anti-doping rules).
Personally, I feel that athletes should be part of the discussion on doping, that they should have an official voice, that a no-tolerance culture should be encouraged as the official stance of athletes alongside nurture for genuine respect for fellow competitors and an understanding for what it means to play fair and what it means for others when you cheat.
Anti-doping discussions do not only come down to which substances, levels and what penalties, there are issues with chain of command, protocol at the moment of testing, blood testing, passports, longtitudinal profiling and more. In my experience, the most common complaints of athletes when asked about doping issues in the mixed zone and post medal-ceremony press conferences at major events are these:
Those areas present serious challenges for those who run sport and for legal systems and the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the confines of jurisdiction. For example, there are valid explanations as to why blood testing may not be appropriate in certain circumstances, why it is has proven easier to ban a Chinese coach than it has to ban a coach from a leading western swim nation (while understanding that saying you have banned a coach is one thing, actually enforcing it is another). Reasons for delays, the presence of imbalance and unfairness in the system are less easy to explain. It is for athletes to decide how passionate they feel about the issues and whether they wish to take them on as challenges in the arena of world sports politics and organisations, such as the IOC and WADA, whose codes influence and in some cases govern the behaviour of FINA.
COMPETITION CALENDAR: At the centre of a multi-layered debate, one that includes the ability of federations to raise revenue (as a "no-profit" organisation in FINA's case) and how they go about doing so and what they then decide to do with that revenue, there are two fundamental schools of thought. FINA and LEN are examples of the first school, one that might be described as "more, more, more". In the past 12 years, the world of swimmers has gone from one in which Olympic and world championship ambitions ran to an overlapping four-year-cycle, with continental games and championships held every two to four years in "off-years", providing most with one major championship aim a year, to the following scenario that uses double Olympic champion Rebecca Adlington (GBR) as the example (a - attended; dan - did not attend):
The "attend", "did not attend" balance is common in the sport, with the Olympic Games and the World long-course Championships the only two events at which the highest standard of participation of athletes tapered and ready to fire is guaranteed, illness or injury the most likely cause for the absence of a medal contender. World s/c championships, European long- and short-course championships, and much more so world cup events, while full of fine moments and world-class performances, no longer reflect the best possible entry. Supporters of "more" say "so what … if people don't come to the party that is their problem". Maybe - but it is also a problem for meets, organisers, broadcasters and sponsors, all of whom want the best, not second-best, showcase in return for their investment.
At the extreme of the argument, what value a world-title 100m butterfly race void of swimmers ranked Nos 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 in the world? Generally speaking, what is the value of a world cup series in which the winner may be a swimmer who has no Olympic or world long-course medals in the bag and whose best effort at that level was a place in the final. The point is not to demean that level of achievement but to note that much is lost when an event is held without the support and attendance of many of those who will be medal contenders when the world is watching.
And that leads us to the second school of thought, less is more. Take Michael Phelps (USA), the greatest Olympian and most successful swimmer of all-time: practically a non-participant when it comes to world s/c championships and world cups. The argument that runs "well, he doesn't need to because he has millions in sponsorship from his success on the biggest of occasions and can afford to be choosy" may be fair but sits at the edge of relevance in the debate. The traditional swimming model favoured by Phelps and Bob Bowman - in which all focus is on the Olympic cycle, with the world long-course championships truly significant and all other events fitting into the realms of "preparation", some very swift affairs nonetheless, some reflecting the in-training test that they are - is followed by a vast shoal of world-class swimmers.
The Olympic podiums of Beijing 2008 are revealing: less than 5% of all medal winners had ever gone on a world-cup campaign aimed at winning the big prize-money, while just five of 26 solo golds medals were won by swimmers who could be said to have prepared and tapered for world short-course championship success with the intensity of a world l/c or Olympic campaign.
There are, of course, fine examples of swimmers who have enjoyed big success preparing for both schools, Therese Alshammar (SWE) being a case in point as Olympic medallist, world l/c, world s/c, world cup champion, world record holder and continental champion long and short. If she has been held up as a swimmer who has chased the money, that is only a small part of the truth. After a couple of questions about financial awards, I once asked her what advice she would give to younger swimmers. She replied: " … keep focused on your goals and training. Prize money is a bonus when you achieve your goals … and then you should do what you feel like with [the money]". And success, how do you measure it? "That's a good question," said Alshammar. "I think it comes down to looking at what I can do better. I try to keep my approach fresh and try to do new things. I've travelled a lot and tried different places, I've been eager to find the best environment for me." Pragmatic, professional, her core emphasis on where it has long been for world-class athletes - performance and self-progress.
Like swallows, however, one Alshammar does not a world cup summer make. In some rounds of the cup, finals are largely domestic affairs that simply do not reflect the status and standard boasted on the billboard, "world" a reflection of the class expected. Does it matter? If you happen to be Arena, or another sponsor or a broadcaster whose money is helping to keep the show on the road, you bet it matters. It should matter to federations too.
Take the up-coming cup: for a swimmer to take the series on, aim for the big prize, the cost of travel, hotels, food and support is about $10,000 an athlete. A no-brainer for the winners of the top awards for men and women, $100,000, not bad for the runners up, a risk worth taking for the third-placed athlete in the series as a whole perhaps. But take a national team of 20, with coaches and staff in tow, as you would see at a major event. The bill is $250,000 or so, per series. The sums dod not add up. Prizes are not shared with coaches and programmes, while the price of being on the road for a month nine months out from the Olympic Games while rivals stay home and get through smart workloads that are simply not possible when racing and globetrotting in pursuit of prize money is one that those who know what it takes to stand on the Olympic podium have simply not been prepared to pay.
Some in FINA point to tennis and other sports that involve a life on the road competing in tournaments. Chalk and cheese. For one, a match can mean five hours of strenuous exercise, the competition itself contributing to the long-term skills and fitness of the player. For a 400m freestyle race taking 3mins 40sec and a little more, you need to have put in huge dedication over many years, much of the toil undertaken in private. That is the nature of the sport.
That is not to say that there should be nothing to fill the sandwich of Olympic and world l/c honours but it may be time for swimmers and their coaches to come forward with some thoughts of their own on what models would work best for them. Does a world cup really need to follow the same championship programme, one that has grown by 10 events in just over 10 years? Is there scope for formats that focus on one event per stroke per season to find the world cup backstroke champion, the world cup distance champion and so forth - but not every title every single passing year. If FINA started a Pro-Circuit, would swimmers attend? How could they (meaning the very best) be persuaded to attend? Is it a matter of timing on the calendar, of money, of format? If Europe ever gets beyond discussion and stages a European Games, where will that fit into the current calendar, what priority would swimmers give when faced with three continental events to aim at as well as three world events and an Olympic Games (two, if you happen to be a junior capable of challenging for medals at the Games proper)? Is there scope for a world-level event that truly reflects the best in the world, participants, from wherever they may hail, eligible to compete by virtue of being ranked world top 15, for instance?
Those are just a few of the questions that swimmers who wish to take part in the political process of their sport will need to consider if and when they arrive at the top table of the sport. Once there, they will find themselves in the company of people who have valued quantity over quality (whether intentional or not) and have not yet found the solutions required to promote swimming and its biggest stars in between the two biggest of occasions. Part of that failure stems from a lack of understanding of the work required by swimmers and coaches and a lack of communication with those who meet at the water's edge, people who need to commit to a format that works for their long-term plans and ambitions. Swimmers may soon have a chance to change the mood music.
THE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT: think rules, blood or no blood when it comes to testing, suits, blocks, FINA's recent insistence on all world championships being held indoors (race pool), pre-race protocols, and you sum up most of the big issues that have cropped up in swimming debate in recent years. Swimmers have a view on all of those topics, of course, but come the moment that they are invited to the top table, they may need to extend their list of matters to consider.
Take these two, for example:
Conflict of interest: if a suit maker pays you $1m a year and asks you to wear something that stretches, if not breaks, the rules, would you wear it? Do you consider the effect on the sport as a whole or do you think more about the advantage that may be had by you and your teammates over others heading into a major championship? Should the President of FINA, Dr Julio Maglione, get to a place after voting next month where he must approve of or even select the swimmer who will sit alongside him at FINA Bureau meetings, he may wish to consider who the swimmer represents. The obvious answer is swimmers. The more thought-provoking answer is: a suit maker, a federation paid by a suit maker and so on and so forth. There will be some issues on which swimmers find themselves unable to speak with independent mind and in a manner that represents swimmers as a whole. The culture of declaring an interest and stepping back from voting and influence when decisions are made is in its infancy in FINA and while trust is a commodity to be honoured, there are times when obligation is required.
Inclusive/exclusive and the solidarity of swimmers and standards: at the world championships this summer, most swimmers competing will be the best one or two from their nation in each event to have swum inside a target time set by FINA or a home federation. Beyond the odd domestic dispute over selection policies, the system as a whole is straightforward and designed to make the championships what FINA wants the event to be: a reflection of the best in the world but open to the whole world. Representation is not based on the world rankings, the list of the fastest swimmers in the world: if the US has eight of the top 20 best 100m butterfly swimmers, just two will step up, while the 20th best in Shanghai may well be ranked outside the top 50 in the world courtesy of the two-swimmers-per-nation-per-event format. While FINA has no intentions of nodding to the world rankings when it comes to setting limits on entries to its showcase event, it may wish to do so when it comes to those who qualify for the world championships on a development ticket. Nations that have no swimmers inside the FINA standard required receive funding from the international federation's budget to send two swimmers to the world gathering. Right now, it is up to the federations of those developing countries (and that count represents a majority of FINA members) to send who they like. That has meant and continues to mean in some cases that the offspring of the powerful, their friends and the faithful get to travel regardless of whether they are best of sixth best in their country. In effect, a holiday at FINA's expense. Whoever represents swimmers at the FINA Bureau has a duty to raise a problem that is easily solved. There is a world ranking and a points system: it should be obligatory for nations to send their best. Moreover, the concept of development and learning should be upheld. I have lost count of the times that I have been heading back to championship venues on buses and trains for finals only to be met by groups of swimmers and others heading the other way into town for a spot of shopping. What better moment to witness and learn from than a major championship finals session? Swimmers may wish to lead a call for a dedicated section in the stand for those representing developing programmes, with a ticket to all finals and an obligation to be there. Go shopping and you go home as an example of how FINA ought not to waste its money.
RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND REWARDS:
There is little need for explanation when it comes to the two-way street that represents the relationship between swimmers and federations, domestic and international. One provides the show, the other provides the environment for it, so to speak. The money that flows in to the federation is there because the athlete attracts the crowd and because the right environment has been provided. The athlete should enjoy a share in the revenue taken in. Currently, that extends to something like $4m for swimmers a year in prize money and bonuses that follow fixers formats at specific competitions, plus some of the costs covered for federations to send teams to events, including a sizeable amount for development members of FINA who take part but do not compete for prizes, the standard of their performance often well shy of what it takes to make it past the slow heats of a long morning.
There are some problems in the current model that swimmers have been keen to point out, one of those boiling down to this: what responsibility does FINA have when it comes to making sure that swimmers do not lose valuable sponsorship deals precisely because of the way FINA operates? Take the bibs and caps issue:
Fred Bloggs, gold medal; contender in the 100m backstroke, sets the world's best time for the season at spring nationals. Of the back of that progress and potential, he enters talks with "Biggest Bubble Fun Gum", a company offering a $1m deal over three years. "We're really excited by this," says Mr Biggest Bubble, "Don't worry about the branded kit, we'll supply all of that come the big moment". "Ah, well," says Bloggs. "I'm afraid I can't wear your kit when I'm at the world championships … national team kit only and that within FINA rules on branding and logos too." "Ok, so, you'll just be wearing something that says Team USA, that's fine," says Mr Biggest Bubble." "And a bib and cap that says "Bubbles'R Us… and I have no control on the image rights for any television images or photos that FINA may wish to use live or in subsequent promotion of its events", says Bloggs. "No deal," says Mr Biggest Bubble as he heads to the door marked "Exit" and renders the swimmer's agent somewhat redundant.
Not only does Bloggs now have no deal, no sponsor, but if he finishes anywhere other than first and fails to break a world record, the money he takes home from the championships from a pot of many millions on the revenue line in FINA's books will scarcely keep him afloat for the rest of the month.
FINA's position is understandable: it too needs and wants a variety of revenue sources. In addition, its rewards system reflects the nature of sport: winning counts, the podium is prized, the rest play a worthy part in the pursuit of excellence but receive no direct financial support or benefit from the body that represents them internationally.
A trawl of circumstance in world waters tells us that the USA Swimming Athlete Partnership Agreement is a model that FINA and swimmers around the world may wish to consider closely. There are points of debate in the mix but the partnership agreement boils down to this: swimmers are funded in return for a commitment to a choice of obligatory promotional activities, including participation in a grand prix circuit (granting the sport visibility) and support for the likes of learn-to-swim and ethnic minority inclusivity programmes aimed at getting people swimming. Those who do not wish to take part do not have to and have no right to claim funding, knowing that when they make a US team, they will be under the same obligations as all other team members on matters of team kit, suits, branding and imager rights. In Britain, a commitment to national lottery funding of athletes across many sports in the wake of some fair criticism from Paul Palmer when he climbed out of the Atlanta 1996 race pool clinching an Olympic silver medal for the 400m free, has been of enormous value, not only to individual athletes but in the drive to raise performance across whole programmes, including coaching, sports science, support staff, parental advice and talent spotting.
Will swimmers be the ones to now bring such matters to the top table of swimming and press for a better model of support for swimmers from the large amounts of revenue that flows into the sport? What can they and FINA learn from the likes of the US, Britain, Australia, France and others on funding? And what can learned from singular examples of extraordinary excellence? A fair few years back when Michael Phelps was a minnow with mighty prospects, Bob Bowman struck a fair deal: if we succeed, we share.
Whatever the details of that arrangement, it may not be one that could easily be applied at official, federation level but it is one that provides food for thought for swimmers as they wade into more professional waters, take up a lane in the pool of sports politics and, hopefully, realise that there is a world beyond the transience of an athlete, one that recognises the responsibilities of those who serve as guardians to a sport that was there long before them and will be there long after they have left.
Previous articles in our June series:
