New BWF dress code criticised
The new guidelines issued by the governing body for the sport of badminton, the Badminton World Federation (BWF), have been met with some criticism from women badminton players. As previously reported on sportstextiles.com, the BWF released guidelines which state that from 1 June, 2011, women playing at the highest levels of the racquet sport are required to wear only dresses or shirts and skirts to compete.
The guidelines are intended to create a more “attractive presentation” of badminton, however some people have suggested they will hinder the progression of the sport rather than help it.
“This is a blatant attempt to sexualize women,” Janice Forsyth, director of the International Centre for Olympic Studies at the University of Western Ontario, told the New York Times. “It is amazing. You’d think at some point, somebody would have said: ‘Wait a minute. What are we doing?’ ”
Female players will still be allowed to wear shorts or long pants for cultural and religious reasons, but the BWF has said that these garments must be worn beneath a dress or skirt.
“You sweat a lot doing badminton at a really high level,” Ms Forsyth said. “Sometimes clothing sticks to you. Adding another layer does not enhance performance. It detracts. It counters the basic argument that they’re trying to generate more interest in women.”
The BWF has defended itself against such criticisms. “We’re not trying to use sex to promote the sport,” said Paisan Rangsikitpho to the New York Times. Hailing from the US, Mr Rangsikitpho is deputy president of the BWF, which is based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. “We just want them to look feminine and have a nice presentation so women will be more popular.”
Interest is declining, Rangsikitpho said, adding that some women compete in oversize shorts and long pants and appear “baggy, almost like men.”
“Hardly anybody is watching,” he said. “TV ratings are down. We want to build them up to where they should be. They play quite well. We want them to look nicer on the court and have more marketing value for themselves. I’m surprised we got a lot of criticism.”
