Industry news

Clothes maketh the athlete

August / September 2008

There are many walks of life where what you wear, does not determine how you perform. Sport — and in particular athletics — is not one of them.

As retailers constantly tell their clients: their shoes and apparel do make a real difference to their performance on the field. That is why the major brands spend millions on research and development in order to develop features that will give their wearers a competitive edge. That is also why athletes are prepared to pay so much more for a brand that they know will deliver those performance enhancing features.

The Olympics has become the arena where these athletic brands square off against each other every four years.

For example, in order to produce a shoe that will help an athlete win the marathon, Hitoshi Mimura, who heads the custom footwear design group at the ASICS Institute of Sport Science in Japan, examines every inch of the marathon course before the event, taking into account the hardness of the road surface, the course profile and the anticipated climate conditions. His latest innovation is to embed rice husks in the rubber soles of racing flats to absorb water. This measure is estimated to increase traction by 10%.

Speedo will forever be remembered as the brand credited with the incredible times clocked in the 2008 Olympic swimming pool as most medal winners wore the LZR Racer.

The pair of Puma shoes Usain Bolt wore when he became the fastest man on earth — twice — will end up as an expensive item on auction one day. Puma was so proud of their Olympics Runway Collection that they launched at an international fashion show held in honour of the Jamaican team. Puma will, incidentally, also supply the teamwear for the SA Paralympics team.

The almost-nothing footwear and performance clothing Nike developed specially for the US and Chinese teams might very well have helped these two countries to win their almost 200 medals.

And then there was Team SA

Team SA will remember 2008 as the year that Korean seamstresses had to be hastily summoned in order to adjust teamwear to fit; when some of the vests started unravelling before they had been worn; when teamwear embroideres renamed it the Beljing Olympics, when performance clothing made from fabric resembling tracksuit material was supplied to athletes who had to perform in excruciating heat; and international tennis players voted the SA tennis team’s outfits the ugliest at the Games — and players refused to swop shirts.

It would be unfair to say that the clothing supplied to the SA team was to blame for the fact that our Olympic medal tally dropped from 6 to 1 in four years.

But, it would be fair to say that the teamwear supplied to the SA team did nothing to enhance their performance.

Imagine wearing too tight a vest and shorts too big and lining up next to an athlete wearing Asics’ Pro-Fit garments designed by Japanese scientists with technologies to increase freedom of movement and to reduce clothing drag — made in the latest perspiration absorption and moisture wicking fabric, incorporating Core Balance, a competition-optimised technology that stabilizes the position of the pelvis by correcting the alignment, improving the running posture.

Not exactly the confidence booster needed for a podium place!

During the past few weeks most of what went wrong in Beijing for the SA team have been blamed on lack of money. But, lack of money is a relative term, implying that spending was prioritized. Teamwear for our prize athletes was obviously not a priority, but taking 81 support team members and coaches for the 140+ athletes competing in 21 codes, was.

The lackadasical way in which SASCOC looked for a sponsor to supply the top quality performance gear that would have assisted our athletes to perform at their best in the most important competition of the past four years, shows a complete lack of understanding of the role performance wear plays in modern competitions, and the importance of quality control.

What’s more, it is an unfair and unnecessary blow to our local sportswear manufacturers who are indeed capable of making world class performance clothing, but now look incompetent in the eyes of the world.

After all, the adidas performance clothing supplied to our athletes when they broke world records and qualified for the Olympics, have been made in SA by a full-blown South African company.

There are many SA sportswear manufacturers that make top quality clothing — even for sports teams from other countries. There are several clothing technologies pioneered in SA. Our local manufacturers have proved over and over that they can conform to world standards.

But, as in everything, there are degrees of expertise — and the field of expertise also differs from one company to another. One company may be an excellent supplier of athletic equipment, but cannot manufacture running shirts at the same level as another, who makes excellent teamwear, but knows nothing about sourcing equipment.

So, what steps did SASCOC take over the past four years to ensure that the best supplier of performance teamwear (that their limited funds could buy) was selected to develop kit for our elite athletes?

Before the team left for Korea, we were told that the teamwear would be supplied by Mizuno in Korea. The local distributor of Mizuno in SA knew nothing about this and said the information must be incorrect (they, incidentally, use local manufacturers to manufacture excellent quality clothing for their sponsored athletes and teams).

SASCOC explains

We asked Linda Ferns, PR for SASCOC, to clarify. This is her response via email:

SAST: Who manufactured/supplied the team’s athletic and tennis clothing — Mizuno or a local manufacturer?

LF: Both companies provided competition clothing for the Games. SASCOC started negotiations with Sedgars (for the Olympic Games) in 2007, after the All Africa Games. At the time SASCOC did not have an apparel sponsor.

Sedgars is the manufacturer of only part of the competition clothing. Sedgars produced competition clothing for the following codes: athletics, boxing and beach volleyball.

 

SAST: Was a tender put out for the supply of the team wear? Where was it announced and which companies tendered? LF: The tender process took place in 2005 with the first team delivered by SASCOC (i.e. Commonwealth Games). Proposals were presented to a panel of people nominated by the SASCOC Board. The clothing from Sedgars for all the previous Games in the period 2005 to date, had in the main been accepted by our teams, albeit with a few signing challenges.

 

SAST: Were the official teamwear suppliers to the affected sporting federations asked to tender (e.g. Genuine Connection manufactures for adidas as official supplier to Athletics SA)? Why did Swimming SA originally ask swimmers to wear suits from their sponsor, Arena?
LF: No. Teamwear suppliers to federations were not asked to tender. It was a closed tender, and applicants were invited to tender. There were about 10 companies who tendered, including Sedgars. The matter regarding Swimming SA is that the swimsuit is regarded as technical wear (e.g. a swimsuit is to a swimmer as a pair of running spikes is to an athlete) so the swimmers were informed that they could compete in the swimsuit of their choice.

 

SAST: What was the main criteria that SASCOC required from the manufacturer of the teamwear? Proven supply to international athletes? Price? BEE status?

LF: SASCOC follows the guidelines of its procurement policy, which incorporates all principles of corporate governance. The tender was awarded to Sedgars for the four-year cycle in which SASCOC operates (i.e. the Olympic cycle). The first order (Commonwealth Games 2005) was given to Sedgars, after the Board awarded them the tender on the recommendation of the panel. The tender was awarded to Sedgars with the proviso/condition that if an apparel sponsor came on board, then SASCOC would reserve the right to no longer purchase from Sedgars, but go with the sponsor (in other words, SASCOC and Sedgars agreed that the prime function of Sedgars was not to supply teamwear — ed).

In June 2008 SASCOC secured a sponsorship (in kind) from Mizuno. The sponsorship was for 150 pairs of crosstrainers and 150 tracksuits. The total supply required for Team SA was 250 of each item. The balance that was needed was purchased from Mizuno at less 50%, as per the agreement.

Whatever was not purchased from or sponsored by Mizuno, came from Sedgars (purchased).

Because the sponsorship was secured in June 2008 (and the team left at the end of July), the clothing from Mizuno could only be delivered to Team SA in Korea.

The sizing of the Mizuno clothing is not the same as other clothing manufacturers (Reebok, adidas etc.), so, in order to save time, Mizuno requested measurements from each athlete and they (Mizuno) established their sizes from the measurements. Mizuno indicated that they could not send any samples to SASCOC for approval and confirmation of sizes as the time was too short.

SASCOC endeavoured to establish the comparative sizing with other sports clothing manufactures, and even consulted our Embassy (in Japan) to try and see if they could assist. But Mizuno rejected SASCOC’s comparisons and undertook to resolve the sizing problem through the measurement system as explained.

Sedgars produced the team’s travel clothing (tracksuit, golf shirts, sweat shirts and pants) for purposes of team identity during travel (no complaints reported - ed.)