How inclusive should the Paralympic games be? The question is a tricky one for the organisers of the event, whose very ethos is to offer opportunities to athletes unable to compete in the Olympics. In many ways this year’s games were a testament to the success of that mission. More countries than ever before competed in Paris. Yet a wide range of para-athletes, and particular disabilities, remained absent. There was no room, for example, for blind golfers or amputee footballers, deaf sprinters or swimmers with organ transplants, since the games treat each sport and each disability in distinct fashion. Might these athletes be seen in future competitions?
The Paralympics’ definition of disability is narrow—certainly narrower than that used by the United Nations, or in British or American law. In order to compete, athletes must experience one of ten specific “impairments” as defined by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). The list identifies eight biomechanical handicaps, such as limb deficiency, short stature or nervous-system damage, as well as visual and intellectual impairments.
There are two main ways in which the framework excludes certain athletes with disabilities. First, athletics and swimming are the only sports to offer medals across all ten classifications. Conversely, Paralympic football, for example, is open only to men with vision impairment, even though world championships exist for women with vision impairment, as well as for players with amputations, cerebral palsy and powered wheelchairs.
Second, even if every Paralympic event included every IPC classification, the games would continue to exclude large numbers of athletes with disabilities. Notably absent groups include deaf athletes, recipients of organ transplants and (most) athletes with intellectual disabilities.
Some of that is down to the wishes of the groups themselves. The global body that represents deaf athletes, for example, does not consider deafness a disability. Instead, it is deemed to be an inherent demographic characteristic, like skin colour or sexuality, that does not affect physical performance. Consequently many deaf athletes opt to compete in an event that is separate from the Paralympics: the Deaflympics. Specific, multi-sport events also exist for transplantees (the World Transplant Games) and those with intellectual disabilities (both the Special Olympic World Games and Virtus Global Games). Both groups are excluded, wholly or in part, by the Paralympics’ classification system.
The system for intellectual impairment can be particularly frustrating for some athletes. Those with Down’s syndrome, for example, technically qualify for the Paralympics, but rarely feature. The additional physical impairments that often accompany Down’s syndrome, such as a shorter stature, hypotonia (decreased muscle tone) and delayed motor-skill development, make it difficult for these athletes to compete in finals against intellectually disabled athletes with fewer physical impairments.
Games for all?
Here then lies the Paralympics’ big conundrum. Can the games simply be expanded to include new categories for more disabled athletes? Paris, after all, hosted twice as many Olympians as Paralympians this summer. In fact, the 10,500 Olympians who competed in France outnumber the combined total of all the athletes who competed at the current Paralympics and the most recent Deaflympics, World Transplant Games and Virtus Global Games.
But the organising of an expanded Paralympics does not just mean the managing of more athletes. The number of events would increase too—and all in a limited array of venues. The necessary funds may not be available, given that the Olympics attract more fans, as well as more money from governments, media companies and sponsors. Perhaps competitions such as the Deaflympics and Special Olympics could take place—as do the Paralympics—as part of an extended Olympic summer. But it is unclear whether host cities and the viewing public would have the appetite for more multi-sport events in one season.
In the end, the best way for the Paralympics to become more inclusive, in the short term at least, is by a system of small improvements tailored to particular sports and to the needs and interests of people with particular disabilities. That might mean including women with vision impairments in the football events, or adding races for people with Down’s syndrome to the swimming competition. Funding concerns may prevent the games from expanding quickly, but the Paralympics have a record of increasing fan interest with each edition. Television coverage in Paris was the widest ever. A slight expansion in the range of athletes now should bring even more fans in future.
© 2024, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under licence. The original content can be found on www.economist.com