Swimming SA to pay Tatjana Smith curiosity, faces scrutiny over Arena contract

Swimming South Africa (SSA) has agreed to pay Olympic champion Tatjana Smith the complete quantity of curiosity claimed on prize cash that was withheld for greater than a 12 months. 

This is in line with Wian Spies, legal professional and director of Hurter Spies Attorneys, who acted on behalf of Smith and her husband Joel Smith. 

The settlement follows a letter of demand despatched to SSA by Spies on behalf of Smith and her husband on 25 August, which alleged that curiosity accrued on the funds had not been paid when the prize cash was ultimately transferred in 2024.

The letter additional alleged that SSA operations supervisor Mafata Modutoane stored the curiosity as a “management fee” after the prize cash was “unlawfully held by SSA for more than a year”.

“There was some form of agreement in which all the interest will be paid,” Spies advised Daily Maverick.  

However, Spies declined to remark additional on the settlement discussions, together with the curiosity quantity, saying they have been performed on a without-prejudice foundation, which means they can not seek advice from settlement discussions later in courtroom. 

Separately, the authorized agency has, on behalf of the couple, lodged a grievance with the Information Regulator when it comes to the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia), in search of entry to agreements between SSA and its swimwear sponsor Arena. 

The grievance stems from “arbitrary” fines that have been imposed on Smith for not carrying the prescribed Arena package through the 2023 World Aquatics Championships.

The request was additionally motivated by considerations that athletes is perhaps dropping business alternatives, mentioned Spies.

Daily Maverick tried to contact Modutoane for touch upon the Paia grievance, however Modutoane had not responded by the point of publication. 

Prize cash dispute

On 28 July 2023, Smith claimed gold within the 200m breaststroke on the World Aquatics Championships in Fukuoka, Japan. This was her second medal of the match after she claimed silver within the 100m breaststroke on 25 July. 

As a outcome, Smith was awarded $20,000 (about R370,000 on the time) for her gold medal in addition to $15,000 (about R276,000 on the time) for her silver.  

However, SSA withheld the cash for greater than a 12 months, in line with the ultimate letter of demand despatched on 25 August – an preliminary letter was despatched on 31 May 2024. 

On the day Smith gained her Olympic silver medal on the 2024 Paris Olympics, Modutoane approached Smith’s husband and confirmed him the proof of fee; nevertheless, the curiosity that will have accrued was not included.

According to the letter, when requested why the curiosity had not additionally been paid, Modutoane replied: “I kept the interest as a management fee.” 

When the preliminary Daily Maverick report was printed, Modutoane had declined to touch upon the allegations. He has since, nevertheless, advised Rapport that he denies the allegation that he stored the cash. 

Fined for not carrying prescribed package

In just one occasion of communication, SSA allegedly knowledgeable Smith in August 2023 that the prize cash was being withheld as a result of she was dealing with a wonderful for not competing within the prescribed Arena package.

Instead, Smith wore specialised tools, together with a Speedo swimsuit and goggles, however did put on the Arena swimming cap, mentioned Spies.

She was to be fined €46,000, mentioned Spies. 

After the authorized agency requested additional rationalization for the penalties in its preliminary letter of demand, SSA withdrew the fines, mentioned Spies.

Complaint despatched to Information Regulator

Subsequently, on 7 September 2026, Spies, on behalf of Smith and her husband, lodged a grievance with the Information Regulator, in search of entry to the agreements or contract between SSA and Arena, insurance policies governing designated swimwear and information regarding fines imposed on athletes who don’t put on prescribed package. 

“We don’t know what those agreements say, but that’s why we’re requesting it,” mentioned Spies. “We want to see what’s being said and what’s been agreed to between Swimming South Africa and Arena.”

Initially, Hurter Spies Attorneys submitted a request to SSA when it comes to Paia on 16 July 2026.

On 30 July, Modutoane acknowledged receipt of the request, in line with the letter despatched to the Information Regulator. Then, on 25 August – the day the ultimate letter of demand for the excellent curiosity was despatched – Hurter Spies Attorneys despatched a follow-up to SSA informing it {that a} month had handed because the preliminary letter, and gave them until 28 August to reply. 

However, in line with Spies, SSA didn’t reply to the request throughout the interval prescribed by Paia, which is 30 days. In Section 58 of the Act, a failure to reply throughout the required timeframe is handled as a refusal of the request. 

Additionally, SSA doesn’t have an inner appeals process, mentioned Spies; thus, all avenues had been exhausted earlier than his authorized agency approached the Information Regulator.

Strict insurance policies

According to SSA’s insurance policies, SSA has the only discretion to find out what swimming apparel the athletes should put on at competitions and features. 

The preliminary request despatched to SSA from Smith’s legal professional acknowledged that the association or contract between SSA and Arena due to this fact had a direct impact on athletes competing on the worldwide stage. 

This is as a result of athletes are anticipated to forgo provides from different sports activities apparel manufacturers and should swim in Arena apparel with out receiving any type of compensation for competing in Arena apparel, the letter mentioned. 

“All the athletes are obliged to be a member of Swimming South Africa if they wish to compete on an international level,” mentioned Spies. 

“So because they have to be a member of Swimming South Africa, they are also obliged to follow the rules and if they say that all athletes must compete in Arena swimming attire, we want to know why.”

According to Spies, Smith acquired no compensation for carrying the prescribed Arena package and due to this fact was disadvantaged of further revenue as a result of she was not allowed to swim in an alternate sponsored outfit the place she might have earned revenue. 

“We believe that Swimming South Africa has an agreement with Arena that effectively deprives athletes of the right to have their own sponsors and compete in their own attire and earn an income from that,” mentioned Spies. “Everybody knows that athletes are super reliant on the sponsorships they get from sportswear.” 

In its makes an attempt to contact Modutoane, Daily Maverick requested if athletes have been meant to be compensated for carrying the prescribed Arena package and whether or not SSA acquired any monetary profit from its settlement with Arena.

The Information Regulator, in line with the Act, ought to now think about the grievance and decide whether or not SSA must be required to reveal some or the entire requested information. 

Depending on its findings, the regulator might direct SSA to launch the paperwork, probably with commercially delicate data redacted, whether it is discovered that there’s, in actual fact, data that is probably not disclosed, mentioned Spies. 

“We want to see what has been agreed between Swimming South Africa and Arena,” mentioned Spies. 

“If athletes are expected to compete in a particular brand’s attire, then it is in the interests of the athletes and the public to understand why that agreement was concluded and whether it benefits the sport.” DM