The KNZB puts its own interests above those of the swimming sector

When Aschwin Lankwarden was appointed director of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Zwembond (KNZB), he set himself a number of goals. Now, several years on, it's clear that these goals have not been met — and his approach has, among other things, driven an extreme split within Dutch swimming education.

This destructive stance towards stakeholders in the swimming sector meant that, particularly during the coronavirus period, the vast gulf between the various camps came sharply into focus. The KNZB can count on national support. The other interest groups are left to work out for themselves how to keep their heads above water — both literally and figuratively.

The connecting role of the KNZB

The KNZB is overreaching. Where the organisation ought to serve a connecting role, standing like an umbrella over all the interest groups, its own interests weigh more heavily than those of the swimming sector as a whole. The aim of bringing parties together seems to have been pushed to the sidelines, while making money appears to have taken the upper hand.

The KNZB during the coronavirus period

During the coronavirus crisis, a project group was set up to discuss the protocols that were to be applied at national level. The KNZB was at the helm here, addressing the issues together with the NRZ (Nationale Raad Zwemveiligheid), WiZZ (Vereniging werkgevers in Zwembaden en Zwemscholen) and the VSG (Vereniging Sport en Gemeente). Although the project group wanted to project the image that all stakeholders shared the same interest and therefore had an equal say, the reality proved otherwise.

Swim-certificate providers pat each other on the back

The various providers of swim certificates have each developed their own certification line. This is because the line set out by the KNZB and the NRZ doesn't match the more practical — and often higher — quality standards that these providers offer. By presenting themselves, as the KNZB and the NRZ, as holding the only "nationally recognised" certificate, they imply that the other certificates fail to meet the safety requirements. There's also the problem that KNZB board members wear two hats. They're not only KNZB board members, but also serve on the board of the NRZ. The KNZB is only willing to grant recognition on the condition that the NRZ is allowed to inspect the other sector organisations. You see these same entanglements in other interest groups too, such as WiZZ, where large commercial operators take seats on the board.

Things would work differently for a commercial provider — they simply wouldn't survive if the customer felt the quality wasn't there. On top of that, the way the KNZB, NRZ, WiZZ and their associates operate leans towards monopolistic behaviour within the swimming sector. Such conduct is even prohibited under European law.

Furthermore, the accompanying article states that the business model is more lucrative for all parties if everyone keeps swimming (see: note to the editor). What this most likely means is that the subsidised organisations don't have their own business model in order. For the commercial half, it's a case of innovate or drown. Given the still-growing number of private swimming schools, it's questionable to what extent the taxpayer is willing to spend money on something that private enterprise has most likely arranged rather better.

Of course, there are parts of this swimming-pool sector that have no chance of survival without extra funding. But let's be honest: does every municipality really need a money-guzzling 25- or even 50-metre pool? Perhaps the KNZB should focus more on that, rather than meddling in a sector where it has little expertise. My advice to the sitting director is to tackle this before the damage to swimming education grows even greater.