The hidden cost of performance: what’s really in our activewear?

A new piece published by The Conversation has put a sharper lens on something many in sport and sustainability have suspected for a while now; that not all “high-performance” activewear is as clean, or as green, as it’s marketed to be.

At the centre of the discussion are PFAS, better known as “forever chemicals”.

These are synthetic compounds designed to make clothing water-resistant, stain-proof, and durable. The problem is, they don’t break down. Not in the environment, not in water systems, and not easily in our bodies.

And increasingly, they’re showing up in the very gear we associate with health, movement and wellbeing.

Performance at what cost?

The investigation highlighted in The Conversation points to a growing tension in the sportswear industry. On one hand, performance fabrics have transformed how we train, compete, and recover, with breathability, stretch and moisture-wicking all being essential.

But on the other, many of these features are achieved through chemical treatments that come with environmental and potential health consequences.

PFAS have been linked to a range of health concerns, developmental impacts and certain cancers, while also persisting in ecosystems long after products are discarded.

And here’s where it becomes uncomfortable for the sector. Because much of this sits behind sustainability claims that consumers are increasingly trusting.

The greenwashing problem

The article calls out a broader issue that stretches beyond one product category - greenwashing.

From “recycled polyester” narratives to “eco-friendly” performance ranges, the industry has become highly effective at telling a sustainability story.

But as recent reporting shows, that story doesn’t always hold up under scrutiny.

In some cases, materials marketed as sustainable still rely on chemical treatments that undermine their environmental credentials. In others, circularity claims don’t yet match the reality of textile recycling systems.

What this creates is confusion - for consumers, for organisations, and for the sport sector more broadly.

Because if sustainability is being communicated through products that still carry hidden environmental costs, then the credibility of the entire system starts to erode.

A simpler shift: back to natural fibres

One of the clearest takeaways from the piece is also one of the simplest.

Natural fibres matter.

Materials like organic cotton, wool and other untreated fabrics offer a pathway away from heavy chemical reliance, particularly when they are not coated for performance effects like water or stain resistance.

They may not deliver the same “technical” performance profile in every scenario, but they significantly reduce the risk of introducing persistent chemicals into both the environment and the supply chain.

And increasingly, that trade-off is becoming part of the conversation.

Because the question is no longer just how something perform… but it’s what it leaves behind.

Where this leaves sport

For sport, this isn’t a fringe issue.

Activewear is embedded in everything from grassroots participation through to elite performance, community programs, and fan merchandise. Which means the choices made here ripple far beyond individual consumers. It also reinforces something we’re seeing across the sector more broadly, and that is sustainability is moving from messaging to scrutiny.

Not just what’s being said, but what’s actually being delivered.

And in this case, it’s a reminder that sometimes the most progressive step forward isn’t a new innovation, but a return to something simpler, more transparent, and more accountable.