Just Williams

Serena should be noticed - for her game.

The arresting sight of Serena Williams "at full stretch" during a match at the US Open was to be found in many of yesterday's papers. Reports, located nearer the front pages than the back, did not dwell on the Wimbledon champion's form, game or even the result of the match (Serena beat fellow American Corina Morariu 6-2 6-3). Instead the papers chose to linger on the American's new outfit - a black, lycra catsuit - and, of course, her physique. Writers were allowed to indulge, to varying degrees, their prejudices. For the Daily Mail, the dress "adhered to her like clingfilm, emphasising every astonishing body contour". For the Daily Telegraph, the "leather-look outfit showed off every rippling muscle". The Sun mixed pun and pithiness to produce "Nice Ace, Serena!".

The question here is just who is exploiting whom. Serena, who thinks the outfit is "sexy and cute", managed to get the logo of her sponsor, Puma, in front of millions of eyeballs. This will please Puma, which pays Serena £20m a year. The relationship between sports stars and what they wear is an increasingly lucrative one. That athletes' looks are instantly recognisable by millions across the globe makes them valuable. So Anna Kournikova makes more money from her endorsements than her tennis. India's cricketing superstars even threatened to boycott next month's Champions Trophy because it meant appearing sans logos and forgoing sponsorship cash.

No surprise, then, that sports clothing is being designed both to capture spectators' attention while ensuring competitors' actions are unimpeded. Sometimes this is benign. Occasionally it is embarrassing. While footballers might have to wear bold new strips every season, beach volleyball's stars don ever-shrinking shorts and tops. The answer is not to ban memorable apparel - at Wimbledon, Serena's catsuit would have stayed in her locker - but to ensure that what gets noticed is the game not the garments.