Opinion: Shorter showers and the soap ban in swimming pools—cost-cutting in disguise?

The decision by the swimming pool in Renkum, operated by @Optisport Nederland, to ban shampoo and shower gel has been presented by the site manager as a sustainable initiative. But let's be honest: this measure has little to do with sustainability and everything to do with cutting costs. It's a plain and simple budget cut, dressed up as a step towards a better environment and an improved swimming experience.

The ‘positive’ spin: less slippery floors and quicker to head home

According to Optisport, banning shower gel leads to less slippery floors and shorter showers, which means people head home sooner. But what does this really tell us? It sounds as though the manager sees it as a benefit that customers leave more quickly. That's not a service improvement—it's a subtle way of pushing customers out the door. What's more, a swimming pool has a duty of care towards its visitors. Safety in the shower facilities, such as preventing slippery floors, is simply part of good maintenance and proper management. That's not something any customer should have to compromise on.

Comparisons with the smoking ban make no sense

Comparing this to the smoking ban in hospitality is frankly weak. Smoking in a public space directly harms the health of others. Using shower gel and shampoo in a swimming pool, on the other hand, harms no one—unless we're now going to treat soap as some kind of collective enemy. And there's no health benefit to be gained here either, just lower heating bills and less water treatment.

Misleading arguments: say what you really mean

Optisport claims this contributes to more sustainable water use and helps prepare swimmers for future water reuse. But let's not pretend that's the main reason. The real goal is simple: saving on heating and cleaning costs. If that's the actual reason, then be honest about it. Customers deserve transparency, not a thinly veiled sustainability story.

What do these rules mean for customers?

For many people, a trip to the pool is about more than just an hour of swimming. It's a moment of relaxation, often including a thorough shower and a proper hair wash afterwards. Especially for families or people on a tighter budget, who at home may have less access to hot water or spacious shower areas, the pool can be an important part of their routine. Discouraging a proper shower makes the pool less appealing for this group. And yes, perhaps people will shower at home instead—but that means extra energy use for them, even though they've already paid for access to the pool.

A swimming pool should be welcoming, not put up barriers

Swimming pools aren't just there for athletes and recreational swimmers, but also for families, older people, and those on a limited budget. Discouraging a proper shower with soap and shampoo is a step backwards in customer focus. Pools should be places where people feel welcome—not venues that drive customers away with budget cuts dressed up as sustainability.

Conclusion: be honest about your choices

Instead of using misleading arguments, Optisport could simply be upfront about the financial reasons behind these measures. Then customers can decide for themselves whether they accept these choices. Because in the end, this isn't about less slippery floors or getting people ‘home sooner’—it's about lower costs. And that kind of honesty is the very least you should be able to expect from a swimming pool.