There is much to support the view that it is clothes that wear us and not we them; we may make them take the mould of arm or breast, but they would mould our hearts, our brains, our tongues to their liking.

Virginia Woolf, novelist, essayist, critic, 1882-1941

Debate over the clothes people wear is as old as recorded history, with endless changes in fashion, sumptuary laws, religious dictates, cultural mores and specialist uniforms all impacting upon the desires of individuals. Many of these factors are integral to arguments that have surrounded female athletes ever since the rise of mass sporting activity in the late nineteenth century. Sometimes these debates are more than mere controversy. Sania Mirza, India’s leading female tennis player, has required enhanced security after radical groups deemed her tournament clothing to be un-Islamic (although unexceptional by the standards of the Women’s Tennis Association).

Logically, sports clothing should allow individuals and teams to compete fairly, safely and without interfering with their opponents, or the officiating of the sport. Simple guidelines such as these, which could encourage participation and the pursuit of excellence, have often been overlaid with rules that ensure compliance to societal expectations. These expectations might be driven by forces as disparate as the marketing policies of companies in western economies and the dominant religious views of a nation in the Middle East.

There has often been tension when male athletes have enjoyed greater freedom than their female counterparts. This freedom has often mirrored the greater freedom enjoyed by men in society, especially in public life. In ancient Greece the women of Sparta were know derogatively as “thigh flashers”, due to their participation in public dancing displays and athletic competition. Perhaps unsurprisingly Spartan women were also allowed an education, to own property and lead a life beyond the running of a household, unlike their counterparts in other parts of Greece.

Cycling may seem an unlikely vehicle for the emancipation of female athletes, but it was the first mass fitness activity that was embraced by European and American women. Susan B Anthony commented on cycling’s impact in giving women freedom, self-reliance and independence. It was also responsible for promoting alternative clothing, such as “bloomers”. These became so synonymous with female liberation, that male hecklers often drowned out women speakers who dared to wear them at public meetings. Bloomers were so effective, that they became common in more demanding physical activities. The first woman to climb Pike’s Peak in Colorado, Julia Archibald Holmes, did so wearing bloomers.

Perhaps the most radical change in clothing associated with women taking up physical activity is to be seen in swimming. The one piece outfit worn by Olympians today has its origin in the costumes worn by Annette Kellerman at the beginning of the twentieth century. Probably more famous as a star of cinema and a major theatrical draw in the United States, the Australian was a holder of state 100 yard and mile championships and attempted to swim the English Channel three times. Her swimming prowess did not prevent her from being arrested in Boston in 1910 for indecency as she exposed her legs to public view. Similar official attitudes were in place in other countries, with beach inspectors in Sydney measuring women’s costumes as late as 1961 and £3 fines being issued for offensive behaviour.

In many sports pioneering women, such as ten times world skating champion Sonja Henie, have led the way in making sports clothing functional by their desire to perform to higher levels of excellence. The impossibility of performing any athletic activity when encumbered with voluminous clothing is so obvious that we marvel today at the outrage that greeted Lili de Alvarez when she wore shorts at Wimbledon in 1931.

Tennis can provide women with a high profile, well supported and sponsored sporting career and even allows its most successful participants the option to design their own outfits. It seemingly allows individual athletes freedom with very few official restrictions. The example of Sania Mirza shows that the freedoms allowed by a sport may not cross national or ethnic boundaries and that sport cannot be isolated from wider cultural considerations. Another tennis player, Anna Kournikova, represents a hurdle that is more pronounced in women’s sport than men’s sport; the female athlete as object rather than achiever. Kournikova was provided with an annual income in the millions by sponsors, but in a long career failed to win a singles tournament (a modest achievement that a relative unknown such as 133rd ranked Nicole Pratt has accomplished). Her personal attractiveness was the major qualification for her sponsors’ support.

In many sports, often dominated by male administrators, the only way used to attract attention and popularise the sport is the objectification of competing women. The most obvious example of this is beach volleyball, the only Olympic sport that actually mandates the wearing of skimpy attire by women while allowing men to adopt a baggier clothing style. Unsurprisingly surveys show that male spectators are not attracted to the sport by athletic standards. The use of bikini clad dancers on the sands at Athens, as entertainment in the breaks during play, represents a nadir for sport in general and the Olympics in particular.

Through their role as consumers women do have the ability to shape events and change attitudes. Major companies ally themselves to sports to promote a positive image and surely this should include something as basic as what women wear and how they are viewed. Even a sports company as ubiquitous as Nike will re-invent their stores, products and marketing in the attempt to cater for women and support high achievers and role models like WNBA superstar Sheryl Swoopes (not just mannequins). Corporate bottom lines will respond to investment changes and perhaps feminist investment will soon have as much impact as other aspects of ethical investment.

In contrast to the corporate push for sports fashion is the politically mandated clothing of some women athletes. The participation of women’s teams from the Islamic Republic of Iran in sports such as badminton means conformance to a rigorously enforced standard of public behaviour and dress. A standard that ultimately sees the way a woman dresses as responsible for male behaviour and provides many observers with an iconic representation of women’s oppression. Sporting excellence, and the clothes that allow it, are not the primary consideration.

There should be fewer objections to clothes worn by some Muslim women, such as the hijab, when it is adopted by individuals as a personal statement of their identity. Recent cases in Australian soccer have highlighted discrimination by individual umpires against women wearing the hijab even when this religious symbol is supported by the sport’s ruling body. Certainly the hijab doesn’t confer an unfair advantage on the wearer, endanger the other players, or make officiating difficult. In sports like hockey and cricket no one has ever banned male Sikhs from wearing a headdress.

Women’s sporting attire, as with much of women’s clothing, mirrors societies’ gender boundaries and the conflict that arises from these false constructions. Like other aspects of women’s fight for equality, it will be interesting to see what women can achieve once these impositions are stripped bare.