Sports Illustrated 'The Swimsuit Issue' 2022

[vogue28]

Cover #1 Yumi Nu by James Macari:



Cover #2 with Maye Musk by Yu Tsai:



Cover #3 with Ciara by Ben Watts:



Cover #4 with Kim Kardashian by Greg Swales:

 

[Bertrando3]

I didn't want to comment coz none of the covers are good by any means whatsoever... Kim's cover is the least bad and that says a lot; but I will say this: there really wasn't any other better pictures for a cover from Maye Musk' shoot??

 

[aracic]

Is Sports Illustrated nearly as relevant as it was 20 years ago? It doesn't seem like an achievement anymore. In fact, it feels like a massive step-down for Kimberly considering all the elevated fashion covers she's been on in recent years.

All that being said, I guess it's all very SI apporpriate. Not my cup of tea, but she does look great. Ciara's would've been great if it wasn't for the lens flare or whatever is obscuring her face.

 

[Marc10]

I don't get why Kim wanted to do this. It does feel like a step down for her and the image she's been trying to craft in the past few years. Was it only to promote Skims? I'm sure she could've done a more upscale version of this at V Magazine.

 

[ivano]

Kim's cover it's so Maxim from 15 years ago. Straight guys will go bananas when they find this in newsstands.

 

[SLFC]

Pay with change, talk is cheap say the people that hire a woman who employs child labor and commits wage theft, and another woman who exploits and maybe worse in emerald mines. As for whether straight guys will go bananas, for the people that believe that I think they would be surprised.

This brand has been shuffled between what, 3 companies now in the past 4 years? Their direction is astray, to have unadulterated display of sexuality would be not fitting with the current social situation and rather a PR department at a company would display horror at. And then you have the former market or the supposed straight guys we speak of. I think that ship has sailed. These people once showed a display of "Do my nipples offend you?" to now they display "Nipples are maybe too offensive now".

This magazine is a husk.

 

[Bugsy]

They don’t make this issue for men anymore. The people who buy is are political correct women. They ruined this star-making vehicle. Who cares who is on the cover now. It’s a joke. I feel sorry for models. It was one of the few vehicles that could launch a model into the stratosphere. Not anymore. No more Kathy Irelands or Elle Macphersons or Christie Brinkleys, who became superstars because of their covers. What’s next - a person who has their limbs amputated and has vitiligo on the cover? This is sad. Julie Campbell built this issue into an event issue. Now it’s more like a comic book. Poor Julie.

 

[ivano]

But is this a men's magazine? I remember the rest of the year is about sports.

 

[axiomatic]

Missed this earlier this year, from WWD

Sports Illustrated Announces New Advertising Mandate for Swimsuit Issue

Sports Illustrated is continuing its support of driving gender equality with a new advertising mandate for its annual Swimsuit issue.

The magazine revealed on Thursday — which is the 58th anniversary of its Swimsuit issue — its Pay With Change initiative for the annual issue. The initiative mandates that only brands that support gender equity causes can advertise in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, which comes out in May.

“Sports Illustrated Swimsuit has been leading the charge in creating change in women’s lives for years, despite what some critics and naysayers would like you to believe,” said MJ Day, editor in chief of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, in a statement. “However, in a world where women’s bodies are under attack and their value is continuously underestimated, we knew we needed to act in a bold, more responsible way. Pay With Change is not just a platform to us, it is our commitment to creating greater progress for women.”

The Pay With Change platform changes the cost of doing business for the issue from a monetary value to a “currency of doing good.” The magazine will look at the progress a brand has made, is currently making and will make by May to determine if they should be able to advertise in the Swimsuit issue. The issue will also only feature advertisements that showcase the progress each brand is making with their gender equality efforts. The brands will be featured in the print issue, digital properties and on social media.

“Pay With Change will be our new standard of business moving forward,” said Hillary Drezner, general manager of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, in a statement. “It’s our proof of progress, proof of passion and proof of our belief that we must be the change we want to see. Starting now, we’ll turn our advertising and activation space into a place to create change for women. We are committing to this initiative throughout all aspects of our business and are inviting all brands who are demonstrating progress to join us.”

Sports Illustrated has been making strides in its diversity and inclusion efforts over the last few years of its Swimsuit issue, featuring an array of models from different ethnic backgrounds and with a range of body types. Last year the magazine had a landmark moment for its Swimsuit issue when it tapped model Leyna Bloom as its first transgender cover face.

In addition to the new advertising mandate, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit will donate a percentage of every ad dollar generated from the issue to create the Sports Illustrated Gender Equity Fund, which will support nonprofit organizations driving gender equality.

 

[axiomatic]

Is Sports Illustrated nearly as relevant as it was 20 years ago?

Never mind the swimsuit issue, it's stunning how irrelevant the magazine is in general. It went from a weekly mag that was an authority in sports to, generously, an afterthought. I don't know how it's survived, even only as a monthly magazine.

Their existence post Time Inc, has rivaled the sales of W and Interview for ineptitude.

 

[blueorchid]

I'm trying to say this delicately, but I think there are certain things, such as the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, that... for better or for worse, you just can't "fix" and upgrade to suit what people think it "should" be about versus what people might "want" from it. I think some publishers need to admit that the party is over and just... do something different. This just doesn't work in today's climate! By trying to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

 

[upNorth]

Interesting points about the irrelevancy of this magazine and why Kim would do this. I feel like for her this was a bit of a vanity project, i.e., "Look, I still got it", and now has a bunch of crazy-hot pictures for her Instagram. I mean, why not? At the end of the day, she's a Kardashian. They have definitely done something to her face here as well, slimmed it down, or maybe it's just the angle - she looks so much younger here.

 

[KoV]

I think for people who grew up in the 90s and early 2000s, getting the SI swimsuit edition cover was a huge deal, a major career moment. The magazine was genuinely iconic. Kim doesn’t need it now, but I can imagine it still feels good to be in your 40s and book that cover.


Jordan Peterson spoke out against one of the covers lolol

 

[upNorth]

^ What did he say now? I'm actually curious.

 

[SLFC]

^ What did he say now? I'm actually curious.

He probably went on a crying tangent about how the woke is ruining men or something like he usually does.

 

[KoV]

He replied to a photo of Yumi's cover and said "Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that." Pretty similar to what plenty of people here say on the regular, I'm sad to say. I don't follow him closely at all but my understanding is that alot of his supporters found this particular comment rude and unnecessary. But to the pushback, he said "It's a conscious progressive attempt to manipulate & retool the notion of beauty, reliant on the idiot philosophy that such preferences are learned & properly changed by those who know better" and provided some links that allegedly back up his claim.

 

[SLFC]

He replied to a photo of Yumi's cover and said "Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that." Pretty similar to what plenty of people here say on the regular, I'm sad to say. I don't follow him closely at all but my understanding is that alot of his supporters found this particular comment rude and unnecessary. But to the pushback, he said "It's a conscious progressive attempt to manipulate & retool the notion of beauty, reliant on the idiot philosophy that such preferences are learned & properly changed by those who know better" and provided some links that allegedly back up his claim.

That is very surprising that his supporters found that offensive. Anyway that is funny regardless. Jordan Peterson is only famous because refused to use one of his students preferred pronouns. Thats enough of a reason to avoid him like the plague.

 

[KoV]

That is very surprising that his supporters found that offensive. Anyway that is funny regardless. Jordan Peterson is only famous because refused to use one of his students preferred pronouns. Thats enough of a reason to avoid him like the plague.

I'm sure plenty of them didn't or at least wouldn't push back on it publicly, but yeah I saw negative responses from self-professed fans of his.

 

[tigerrouge]

At this point, SI probably needed Kim on that cover more than she needs them to promote her new swimwear line.

But nice of Peterson to help them get a bit more publicity, they won't be turning that down.

 

[dfl-001]

At this point SI swimsuit is just an ego stroking vanity project for celebrities.
Beyonce' was on the cover a few years back, so, it's all nonsense.
Celebrity PR agents are just checking boxes.
'Vogue China, ✔; Bazaar UK, ✔. Oh, hey, why not SI Swimsuit?'
I'm glad they're not doing the topless, painted on bikini soft core p*rn anymore.
But this is nowhere near the girl next door aesthetic they had in the beginning.
And to be quite blunt, those bathing suits are gruesome. Not flattering in any way.