PRIZE MONEY FALLOUT: Swimming SA to pay Tatjana Smith interest, faces scrutiny over Arena contract

Swimming South Africa (SSA) has agreed to pay Olympic champion Tatjana Smith the full amount of interest claimed on prize money that was withheld for more than a year. 

This is according to Wian Spies, attorney and director of Hurter Spies Attorneys, who acted on behalf of Smith and her husband Joel Smith. 

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

The letter further alleged that SSA operations manager Mafata Modutoane kept the interest as a “management fee” after the prize money 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 told Daily Maverick.  

However, Spies declined to comment further on the settlement discussions, including the interest amount, saying they were conducted on a without-prejudice basis, meaning they cannot refer to settlement discussions later in court. 

Separately, the legal firm has, on behalf of the couple, lodged a complaint with the Information Regulator in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia), seeking access to agreements between SSA and its swimwear sponsor Arena. 

The complaint stems from “arbitrary” fines that were imposed on Smith for not wearing the prescribed Arena kit during the 2023 World Aquatics Championships.

The request was also motivated by concerns that athletes might be losing commercial opportunities, said Spies.

Daily Maverick attempted to contact Modutoane for comment on the Paia complaint, but Modutoane had not responded by the time of publication. 

Prize money dispute

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

As a result, Smith was awarded $20,000 (about R370,000 at the time) for her gold medal as well as $15,000 (about R276,000 at the time) for her silver.  

However, SSA withheld the money for more than a year, according to the final letter of demand sent on 25 August – an initial letter was sent on 31 May 2024. 

On the day Smith won her Olympic silver medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics, Modutoane approached Smith’s husband and showed him the proof of payment; however, the interest that may have accrued was not included.

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

When the initial Daily Maverick report was published, Modutoane had declined to comment on the allegations. He has since, however, told Rapport that he denies the allegation that he kept the money. 

Fined for not wearing prescribed kit

In only one instance of communication, SSA allegedly informed Smith in August 2023 that the prize money was being withheld because she was facing a fine for not competing in the prescribed Arena kit.

Instead, Smith wore specialised equipment, including a Speedo suit and goggles, but did wear the Arena swimming cap, said Spies.

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

After the legal firm requested further explanation for the penalties in its initial letter of demand, SSA withdrew the fines, said Spies.

Complaint sent to Information Regulator

Subsequently, on 7 September 2026, Spies, on behalf of Smith and her husband, lodged a complaint with the Information Regulator, seeking access to the agreements or contract between SSA and Arena, policies governing designated swimwear and records relating to fines imposed on athletes who do not wear prescribed kit. 

“We don’t know what those agreements say, but that’s why we’re requesting it,” said 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 in terms of Paia on 16 July 2026.

On 30 July, Modutoane acknowledged receipt of the request, according to the letter sent to the Information Regulator. Then, on 25 August – the day the final letter of demand for the outstanding interest was sent – Hurter Spies Attorneys sent a follow-up to SSA informing it that a month had passed since the initial letter, and gave them till 28 August to respond. 

However, according to Spies, SSA did not respond to the request within the period prescribed by Paia, which is 30 days. In Section 58 of the Act, a failure to respond within the required timeframe is treated as a refusal of the request. 

Additionally, SSA does not have an internal appeals procedure, said Spies; thus, all avenues had been exhausted before his legal firm approached the Information Regulator.

Strict policies

According to SSA’s policies, SSA has the sole discretion to determine what swimming attire the athletes must wear at competitions and functions. 

The initial request sent to SSA from Smith’s attorney stated that the arrangement or contract between SSA and Arena therefore had a direct effect on athletes competing on the international stage. 

This is because athletes are expected to forgo offers from other sports attire brands and must swim in Arena attire without receiving any form of compensation for competing in Arena attire, the letter said. 

“All the athletes are obliged to be a member of Swimming South Africa if they wish to compete on an international level,” said 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 received no compensation for wearing the prescribed Arena kit and therefore was deprived of additional income because she was not allowed to swim in an alternative sponsored outfit where she could have earned income. 

“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,” said Spies. “Everybody knows that athletes are super reliant on the sponsorships they get from sportswear.” 

In its attempts to contact Modutoane, Daily Maverick asked if athletes were meant to be compensated for wearing the prescribed Arena kit and whether SSA received any financial benefit from its agreement with Arena.

The Information Regulator, according to the Act, should now consider the complaint and determine whether SSA should be required to disclose some or all of the requested records. 

Depending on its findings, the regulator may direct SSA to release the documents, potentially with commercially sensitive information redacted, if it is found that there is, in fact, information that may not be disclosed, said Spies. 

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