You can also listen to this podcast on iono.fm here.

JEREMY MAGGS: The decision by South Africa’s most decorated Olympian, Tatjana Smith, to swim for the Netherlands has reignited, I think, a much wider debate about how this country is treating its sporting talent, from withheld prize money and restrictive sponsorship agreements to the enormous financial pressures facing athletes and concerns about their freedom to speak out. And serious questions are being asked about the organisations meant to support them.

In that respect, I want to welcome back to the programme, he has spoken to us before, Wian Spies, director at Hurter Spies Attorneys, and he represented Tatjana Smith in that well-publicised prize money dispute. Wian, welcome back to the programme. You’ve been directly involved in that issue. Maybe explain to us what that experience revealed about the relationship between athletes and sporting federations.

WIAN SPIES: Hi, Jeremy, it’s good to be back. The involvement in this case has revealed that there is a very unhealthy relationship between athletes and the sport federations.

There’s been no support morally or financially to the athletes. In certain cases, there’s been very little financial support.

The federation, for instance, will pay for travel for the athletes, maybe in certain cases for accommodation. But in most cases, there’s no real financial benefit. There have also been requests made for information, which has been totally ignored. So it’s definitely an unhealthy relationship.

JEREMY MAGGS: As far as I understand it, Swimming SA admitted it was wrong to withhold the prize money. Restitution has been made. But what actually went wrong in that particular case, Wian? And what does the admission actually mean?

WIAN SPIES: Yes, Jeremy, I think it sheds light on the whole issue that athletes have and the problems that they face with federations like Swimming South Africa. That admission has highlighted the wrongful conduct of Swimming South Africa. Luckily, they have repaid the final payment of the interest. They made payment in three monthly instalments Tatjana has now finally, since 2023, received her full amount of money that was due to her, only two days ago. So it’s good that she’s received her money, but it definitely shows the bigger issue that athletes face in sports federations.

 JEREMY MAGGS: You alluded to this earlier, that conflict between personal sponsorship and federation sponsorship agreements, it is a serious problem, obviously. The question is, should a sporting federation be entitled then to restrict an athlete’s individual sponsorship opportunities when those sponsorships in Tatjana Smith’s case may be essential to funding a career?

WIAN SPIES: Well, Jeremy, we feel that federations should not have that power over athletes. Athletes do not earn a salary like the officials at Swimming South Africa do. They have to really work hard and perform at very high-level competitions to earn any form of money from that competition itself.

So you’ll recall that the money that Tatjana received, which some Swimming South Africa wrongfully withheld from her, that was not money coming from Swimming South Africa. That was money that she earned by winning two medals at that specific competition.

So that was the money that the competition paid to Swimming South Africa as the federation, and that Swimming South Africa as the middleman then has to pay out to its athletes. So apart from that, there’s not any specific funding that goes to athletes themselves. Based on that fact, athletes should be allowed to have their own sponsors as a means to earn a formal income.

JEREMY MAGGS: As I understand it, and in that respect, you’ve been seeking access then to Swimming South Africa’s agreement with the sports brand Arena. Wian, what exactly are you trying to establish, and why has obtaining that information proved to be so difficult?

WIAN SPIES: Jeremy, we can’t believe that athletes swimming in official sports gear, such as Arena, and winning medals in that sports gear, do not get any form of financial benefit from that sponsor. That was the whole reason why we wanted to request that contract, so that we can see exactly what is due and payable to the athletes if they perform well wearing Arena sports attire.

Now, we obviously sent a PAIA (Promotion of Access to Information Act) request to Swimming South Africa to request that agreement, that was already sent on 16 July this year. They merely ignored our request. We did not receive any response from them. On 5 September, we then lodged a complaint at the Information Regulator to say that we’ve acted lawfully, we’ve filed a lawful PAIA request for information, and that the Information Regulator must now intervene to compel Swimming South Africa to give us that agreement.

Swimming South Africa has actually now responded to say that that agreement contains commercially sensitive information and that they are not willing to share that with us. So nobody knows what’s due and payable to the athletes at this point.

JEREMY MAGGS: To that point, and as an adjunct, Swimming South Africa, as I understand it says, changes have been made to athlete contracts now. But they continue to point to broader funding pressures. Does that response adequately then address the concerns that you’re raising?

WIAN SPIES: Well, Jeremy, it does not really address the concerns actually at all because, you’ll recall that Daily Maverick recently also wrote an article about a specific agreement that athletes had to sign, athletes who are going to the Beijing, Championships. I think it’s in two weeks’ time or in a week’s time. In terms of that agreement, we’ve actually had that agreement, I saw that agreement, and in terms of that agreement in clause 12.4, it says that athletes may not comment at all in the media about Swimming South Africa.

So if a similar case arises, such as the case of Tatjana with all the prize money, athletes are not allowed at all to then go to the media and shed light on this unlawful act. I believe for that agreement there are good prospects to challenge that agreement successfully in court and declare it unlawful.

JEREMY MAGGS: But at this point then, an athlete would have little protection in challenging a federation, it could jeopardise either selection, funding, or even their entire career.

WIAN SPIES: Exactly. There’s little to no protection for athletes. The constitution of Swimming South Africa has a dispute resolution route that athletes have to take. We’ve had a lot of stories, and athletes come to us to tell us that they have attempted to resolve things amicably, but there’s just no response coming forward or disputes are not being looked at at all.

Athletes really have their hands tied. They can’t go to court. If they go to court, then their membership is immediately terminated in terms of the agreement and then they are actually precluded from performing internationally. That’s why athletes are being silenced and that’s why we believe something has to seriously change.