Swim England launched a comprehensive review of its governance structures last October, and over the last few weeks, there has been concerned raised within parts of the organization about the direction moving forward.
Swim England announced the review, which is geared towards aligning with the One Swim England strategy while taking in feedback from the 2024 Listening Report, publicly in the fall, and a document was circulated with employees in March, a source close to the organization told SwimSwam.
The document, compiled by a Swim England Governance Review Steering Group, comprises a comprehensive review of how Swim England is run and examines areas where change is required.
According to the source, the document has been circulated among Swim England employees and some regional and county groups, and it has “not gone down very well” among some stakeholders, with several concerns raised.
Swim England CEO Andy Salmon met with some regional groups to discuss the governance review and proposed changes over the last few months, according to the source.
Separately, Swim England confirmed that Salmon has recently taken a leave of absence for health reasons.
CENTRALIZATION CONCERNS
The main areas of concern were centralization and a loss of control for the regions and counties.
The proposal recommends that the governance framework for regions and counties be changed, as the current structure creates “more than 40 largely independent entities with limited coordination, resulting in confusion for members and participants about where to go for support or decisions.”
“Roles, responsibilities, decision-making authority, consultation requirements, and funding lines are unclear across national, regional, and county levels, contributing to inefficiencies and uncoordinated communications. The absence of standardised approaches leads to uneven service delivery, administrative inconsistency, and gaps in accountability,” the document says.
There are two models for consultation in this section, the “Connected Model” and the “Integrated Model,” and in the latter, the regions and counties would be dissolved as legal entities, with governance brought under a single national structure.
Under the Integrated Model, regional bodies would instead operate as advisory or steering groups, with reduced responsibility for decision-making, finances, and oversight. Key functions—including employment, membership fee distribution, club affiliation, and aspects of safeguarding and communication—would shift to Swim England.
Regions and counties would lose control of independent budgets, would no longer employ staff directly, and would have less authority over how programs are delivered locally.
The source said this loss of control was a big issue among employees and the regions and counties that saw the document, with a worry that the power shift could reduce accountability at the national level.
There is also a proposal to replace the regionally-nominated Swim England Members Forum, which is described as being administratively complex, with an Aquatics Assembly with a simplified election process that would act as the legal membership body and would have authority to approve major governance changes.
There is fear that local knowledge could be diminished and clubs will no longer feel supported at the local level if their voice is lost, with the Members Forum being a key area for that to happen right now.
Another recommendation in the Integrated Model is for membership fees to no longer be distributed to each county, but rather kept by Swim England, with a budget being allocated for counties beforehand. Swim England told SwimSwam there was no financial pressure impacting the decision-making process.
SWIM ENGLAND RESPONSE
When questioned on these proposed changes and the concerns raised, a Swim England spokesperson responded with a statement to SwimSwam, making it clear that no decisions have been made yet and they’re not rushing into anything.
The organization did acknowledge that there have been concerns voiced about some of the proposed changes, saying it is “aware that some perceptions of this work do not reflect the reality of the consultation to date,” while asserting that the process is still in the early stages.
Full Statement:
Swim England launched a comprehensive Governance Review in October 2025 in response to feedback in the 2024 Listening Report.
Since the start of 2026, we have begun early consultation with Regions and Counties to explore high‑level principles for governance, representation and decision‑making. These discussions have been robust, constructive and deliberately open, but they represent the starting point, not conclusions.
We are still very early in the process and no decisions have been taken. Over the coming period, the feedback gathered so far will be carefully consolidated, ahead of further consultation with stakeholders. We will establish a roadmap for future phases, which we will communicate to key stakeholders in due course.
We are aware that some perceptions of this work do not reflect the reality of the consultation to date, and we want to reassure everyone that this remains an early, collaborative phase, with more opportunities to engage and influence still to come.
We will move at a speed that is appropriate to ensure we get this right. While nothing has been finalised, the clear intent is to modernise governance, reduce unnecessary complexity and create structures that enable our sports to thrive now and for the long term.
In the document, the Steering Group outlines three clear phases, and according to that timeline, Swim England is currently in the “consultation phase,” which runs from January to May 2026. This phase allows “for deeper engagement with key stakeholders, and dissemination of the work to date to inform and engage the wider aquatics governance community.”
There was an initial “sprint phase” from August to December 2025, and the third “implementation phase” is slated for June 2026 onwards, with a plan to implement the recommendations.
USA Swimming is starting this process, albeit sneakily. Those Block Party meets are a first step, by which they start taking revenue and sanctioning from LSCs.
In fairness, they’re not really being sneaky about it. They’re pretty open about not liking the LSC structure. Multiple senior USA Swimming execs have told me the system is harming the sport compared to other federations, and they wish they had never made that deal with the devil in order to get people to leave AAU all those years ago.
They’re not wrong. Some LSCs are great but you have others, like New England Swimming, that are basically destroying the sport in their given regions due to incompetence, corruption, and rampant misconduct.