A Critical Perspective on the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic GamesA Critical Perspective on the Legacy of the
London 2012 Paralympic Games
Ian BRITTAIN, Ph.D.
（Coventry University）

Introduction
Despite the fact that there has been a large body of work produced over the last
decade or so that has examined major sport event legacies and event leverage,
largely with respect to the Olympic Games, Misener et al. claim that ‘few studies
have evaluated the comparative outcomes, legacies and event leverage that theParalympic Games have generated1）’. This is despite the fact that, in many ways, theParalympic Games, and their forerunners the Stoke Mandeville Games, were actuallyfounded upon the basis of a kind of ‘legacy plan’ designed to improve the lives ofpeople with disabilities. Before the Second World War, there is little evidence oforganised efforts to develop or promote sport for individuals with disabling conditions,especially those with spinal injuries who were considered to have no hope ofsurviving their injuries. Following the war, however, medical authorities were
prompted to re-evaluate traditional methods of rehabilitation which were notsatisfactorily responding to the medical and psychological needs of the large numberof soldiers disabled in combat2）. According to McCann, Dr Ludwig Guttmann（theuniversally accepted founder of the Paralympic movement） recognised thephysiological and psychological values of sport in the rehabilitation of paraplegic
hospital inpatients3） and so it was at that point that sport was introduced as part oftheir rehabilitation. The aim was not only to give hope and a sense of self-worth tothe patients, but to change the attitudes of society towards the spinally injured bydemonstrating to them that they could not only continue to be useful members ofsociety, but could take part in activities and complete tasks that most of the nondisabled society would struggle with4）.
23

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.5

1. Legacy and the Paralympic Games historically
Guttmann highlighted three main areas in which participation in sport could benefit
people with disabilities: i, improving the health of people with disabilities in order toimprove their day to day living; ii, to use sport to help develop an active mind, selfconfidence, self-dignity, self-discipline, competitive spirit and camaraderie, all of which
are essential in helping to overcome the all-consuming depression that can occur withsudden traumatic disability; and iii, to create a better understanding between people
with disabilities and their non-disabled peers that then aids in their social reintegration through the medium of sport5）. Indeed the message below the Stoke
Mandeville Games flag in the 1950s included the line ‘No greater contribution can bemade to society by the paralysed than to help, through the medium of sport, tofurther friendship and understanding amongst nations6）’.
（1）Sport as a curative factor
According to Guttmann, sport represents the most natural form of remedial
exercise and can be used to successfully complement other forms of remedial

Stoke Mandeville Games flag and sign（1955）
at International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation（IWAS）
24

A Critical Perspective on the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic Games

exercise. Sport can be invaluable in restoring the overall fitness, including strength,
speed, coordination and endurance, of someone receiving a disabling injury. Tasiemski
et al. point out how sport can be of particular benefit to individuals with certain
disabilities. Following a pilot study on individuals recovering from a spinal cord lesion,
they state:
Systematically practised physical activity and sports allows the disabled person
to keep the high level of physical fitness that was obtained during
rehabilitation. It also helps to maintain compensatory processes and prevent
complications caused by inactivity. Physical activity and sports are amongst
the most important factors that determine the effectiveness and final outcomesof physical rehabilitation7）.
They also found that the annual frequency of hospital readmissions following
discharge was three times less in athletes than it was in non-athletes, adding weightto their claim that those involved in activities away from the home, especially
physical ones such as sport, are physically fitter, more independent and have fewer
avoidable complications. Similar claims have been made by Groff et al. who state:
Several studies have suggested that participation in sport may impact
elements of quality of life such as one’s overall enjoyment with life, sense ofwell-being, and ability to complete daily life activities. Researchers haveconcluded that athletes with disabilities exhibit higher levels of positive mood,increased wheelchair mobility skills, lower levels of tension and depression andhave better perceived health and well-being8）.
（2）The recreational and psychological value of sport
Guttmann claimed that the big advantage of sport for the disabled over otherremedial exercises lies within its recreational value in that it restores ‘that passion for
playful activity and the desire to experience joy and pleasure in life, so deeply
inherent in any human being9）’. Guttmann also pointed out that much of therestorative power of sport is lost if the person with the disability does not enjoy their
participation in it. As long as enjoyment is derived from the activity, then sport can25

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.5

help develop an active mind, self-confidence, self-dignity, self-discipline, competitive
spirit and camaraderie, all of which are essential in helping to overcome the allconsuming depression that can occur with sudden traumatic disability.
（3）Sport as a means of social re-integration
There are certain sports where people with disabilities are capable of competingalongside their non-disabled peers e.g. archery, bowls and table tennis, as Neroli
Fairhall of New Zealand proved when she competed from a wheelchair in archery at
the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles10）. Guttmann claimed this was especially true
at a recreational level, which provided people with a disability the opportunity tointegrate into their local community by competing on an equal footing against nondisabled sportsmen and women. Guttmann believed this creates a better
understanding between people with disabilities and their non-disabled peers and aidsin their social re-integration through the medium of sport.

2. IPC and legacy
The three areas highlighted by Guttmann above still provide the underlining
driving force for much of the International Paralympic Committee’s Vision andMission Statement as well as the Paralympic legacy plans put forward by the London
2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Organising Committee with regard to the
London 2012 Paralympic Games. However, there has been virtually no academic
investigation of whether the Paralympic Games actually helps achieve these aims ornot. According to the IPC Strategic Plan（2015-2018）the ultimate aspiration of the
Paralympic Movement is “to make for a more inclusive society for people with animpairment through para-sport11）”. They follow this up with the claim that:
The Paralympic Games are the world’s number one sporting event fortransforming society’s attitudes towards impairment. By broadening the reachof the Paralympics, growing para-sport events and furthering brand awareness,
the Paralympic Movement’s transformational legacy will be amplified12）.
It is clear then from these claims that the IPC believes in the potential for a26

A Critical Perspective on the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic Gamestransformational legacy from the Paralympic Games, especially in changing nondisabled attitudes towards people with disabilities. However, these claims have beenchallenged by a number of individuals as I will now outline.

3. A lternative perspectives on the Paralympic Games and legacy
Despite the claims made by the IPC, highlighted above, regarding the Paralympic
Games and disability, there are many individuals with disabilities and groups that
represent people with disabilities who consider that the Paralympic Games actuallywork against their interests rather than in their favour. These include threeacademics, who also happen to be former Paralympians and Paralympic medallists Stuart Braye and David Howe （Athletics） and Danielle Peers （Wheelchair
Basketball）. Peers13）,14） is quite scathing of those involved in the running andpromotion of the Paralympic Movement, painting them as self-serving and claimingthat the IPC ‘continually reproduces the figure of the tragic disabled in order toreproduce itself15）’. She claims that historically the IPC and its forebears, beginningwith Ludwig Guttmann and the Stoke Mandeville Games, have utilised the image ofthe ‘tragic disabled’ in order to justify their aims and existence and that IPC
continues this practice today. Purdue and Howe posit that the IPC attempts tomarket the Paralympic Games as an elite sports competition that operates within aself-contained social vacuum whereby negative social attitudes regarding disability
are expected to be overcome by making the athletes’ sporting performances the focus
of attention rather than their individual impairments. However, they claim this isproblematic as the athletes must perform for two distinct audiences - a non-disabled
audience that is expected to only focus on the sporting performance and a disabled
audience that is ‘encouraged to identify with the impairment the athlete has, whilst
also appreciating their performance16）’.
Following interviews with 32 members of the United Kingdom Disabled People’s
Council （UKDPC） regarding their views of the London 2012 Paralympic Games,
Braye et al. came to the conclusion that ‘the portrayal of equality in the Paralympics
is an apparent misnomer when compared with the lives of ordinary disabled people17）’.
They further highlighted this issue by way of a quotation from one of their
participants, Colin, who stated:
27

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.5

I’m afraid that the focus on elite Paralympians promotes an image of disabled
people which is so far from the typical experiences of a disabled person that it
is damaging to the public understanding of disability18）.
This was echoed by research carried out for Channel 4 television, the Paralympic
host broadcasters in 2012, by Bournemouth University in the UK which found thatfor some disabled people the Paralympic Games ‘was a source of deep frustration
because the Paralympics represented something distant from their everyday
reality19）’. Braye et al. concluded that, for the London 2012 Paralympic Games at least,‘the IPC’s positive rhetoric on improving equality can also be regarded as having alimited effect on the negative daily reality faced by disabled people living in the UK
today20）’. However, it should also be noted that this is not a new finding as Cashman
and Thomson with regard to the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games found that people
with disabilities in Australia ‘had reservations about the Paralympians and did notregard them as relevant to their situation21）’.

4. London 2012 and legacy
On 6th July 2005, London was elected as the host city for the 2012 Olympic andParalympic Games at the 117th IOC session held in Singapore, beating Madrid,
Moscow, New York and Paris in the process22）. The London bid was made with amajor legacy element to it that incorporated intended legacies for both the Olympic
and Paralympic Games. The document ‘London 2012: A legacy for disabled people23）’
outlined those intended legacies relating to the Paralympic Games as follows.
（1）London 2012 Paralympic legacy plans
Theme 1: Transform the perception of disabled people in society - with a focus onchanging the perception of disabled people’s economic contribution to society.
This theme contained two priority areas. The first was to promote economic
inclusion for people with disabilities by changing the perceptions of non-disabledsociety regarding the economic contribution made by people with disabilities bytargeting access to goods, services and employment opportunities. The second
priority area was to raise awareness of people with disabilities’ talents by working
28

A Critical Perspective on the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic Games

with the media and ensuring that the principles of the social model of disability
underpinned the process.
Theme 2: Support opportunities to participate in sport and physical activity
This theme was mainly aimed at increasing the capability of national governing
bodies and national disability sports organisations to deliver disability sport byincreasing their capacity through the training of additional volunteers and coaches. In
order to kick start this process, Sport England were to invest £8million over two
years in order to allow more opportunities for people with disabilities to access sports
and physical activity either as participants or volunteers.
Theme 3: Promote community engagement through the Games
Again this theme had two main priority areas. The first was to improve thetransport network and support the regeneration of East London. The second was toincrease the capabilities of communities to identify and remove barriers toparticipation for people with disabilities.

5. Differing perspectives on post-London 2012 Paralympic legacy
Reading through the various accounts and different findings of the claimed impactsof the London 2012 Paralympic Games on British society one thing becomes veryclear - there is a marked difference in opinion between the findings and focus of the
British government and the London Organising Committee on the one hand andthose of Disabled People’s Organisations and the experiences of individuals withdisabilities on the other.
（1）UK Government perspective
In a report published in July 2013, nearly a year after the London Paralympic
Games had ended, the UK Government and Mayor of London cited the following
headline achievements under the chapter entitled ‘The Legacy of the Paralympics24）’:
・81% of people surveyed thought that the Games had a positive effect on how
disabled people are viewed by the British public.
・Disabled people’s participation in sport is increasing.
29

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.5

・Increased funding for Paralympics GB through to Rio 2016.
・Increased funding to support access and participation in sport at community
level.
・Increased accessibility on the transport system, in venues and in otherenvironments.
・Paralympic Legacy Advisory Group established to support the Cabinet
Committee.
In contrast to the Government and Mayor of London findings, however, the findingsof research by some Disabled People’s Organisations and the experiences ofindividuals with disabilities reached markedly different conclusions.
（2） The perspective of people with disabilities and their representative
organisations
A report by the charity Scope25） published at around the same time as the UK
Government/ Mayor of London report highlighted the following findings after
interviewing around one thousand disabled people:
・81% of disabled people said that attitudes towards them hadn’t improved in thelast 12 months.
・22% said that things had actually got worse.
・One in five（17%）disabled people report they have either experienced hostile orthreatening behaviour or even been attacked.
・One in five（16%）disabled people say they cannot keep up with rising costs ofliving.
・Disabled people are three times more likely to take out high interest, high risk
loans to pay the bills.
・ONS data showed that nearly half of disabled people have had issues accessing
leisure activities.
・A 2012 polling for Scope showed that three-quarters of disabled people had
experienced people refusing to make adjustments or do things differently.
In order to better understand these differences it is important to gain an
appreciation of the relationships between the Government and people with disabilities
30

A Critical Perspective on the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic Gamesin the UK and how these might impact upon each group’s perspective regarding theextent to which legacy objectives have been realised.

6. London 2012 and the Paralympic Games - challenging thelegacy benefits
In April 2013 the UK Government, as part of their plans for the UK’s economic
recovery, introduced a series of changes to the welfare system that they had initiallytested in 2011 and which had a direct impact upon those people with disabilities
claiming benefits. They closed the Independent Living Fund, introduced Personal
Independence Payments（PIP）as well as a tax on anyone who is a council or housing
tenant of working age receiving housing benefit and renting a home that has ‘spare
bedrooms’, which became known generally as the ‘Bedroom tax26）’.
Gentleman states that in 2010 the government had promised to reduce working
age expenditure on PIP by 20% on the forecast expenditure for 2015/1627）, leadingsome campaigners to claim that the changes were motivated more by the desire to
cut costs than to improve the way that benefits are distributed. Gentleman goes on tocite Richard Hawkes from the charity Scope as saying “How can you decide that［areform］is going to save 20% in advance? I would think that this is driven by cost
reductions and that they have come up with a way of assessing people that will
result in the cost savings they want to make28）”. As part of the introduction of the
new Personal Independence Payments the Government contracted a privatecompany, Atos, to provide ‘fitness for work assessments’, whose role will be mentioned
shortly.
（1）Media coverage of benefits cuts
The media plays a pivotal role in keeping the public informed about what goes onin the world, especially in those areas that the public has no direct knowledge orexperience of29）. At some point in 2010, Inclusion London commissioned a report
investigating the ways in which the media portrayed disability in its coverage andhow this impacted upon public attitudes towards people with disabilities. This wasachieved through a comparative study of five British newspapers and the way they
covered disability in 2010-11 and a similar period in 2004-05, together with a series of31

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.5

focus groups. The final report30） was published in 2011 and pointed to a number ofkey findings that highlight the wider implications of how disability is represented
within society:・There had been a significant increase in disability related articles（713 in 2004-5,
1015 in 2010-11）.
・There was an increased politicisation of the way disability was reported in 201011 compared with 2004-5.
・There had been a reduction in the proportion of articles that described people
with disabilities in sympathetic and deserving terms.
・Articles focusing on disability benefit and fraud increased from 2.8% in 2004-5 to
6.1% in 2010-11.
・The use of terms such as ‘scrounger’, ‘cheat’ and ‘skiver’ was found in 18% ofarticles in 2010-11 compared to 12% in 2004-5 and these changes reinforced theidea of disabled claimants as undeserving.
・Disabled people are feeling threatened by the changes in the way disability is
being reported and by the proposed benefit changes, and these two are
combining and reinforcing each other.
Taylor-Gooby claims the UK is witnessing increasing inequality, yet decreasing
sympathy for those living in poverty, including benefits’ recipients31）. Quarmby claims
that coverage of welfare reform has led to the categorisation of sick and disabled
people as either victims - unable to speak for themselves and wholly dependent - orvillains - sick and disabled people who do not deserve state help who were falsely
claiming benefits32）. One anonymous responder to a poll carried out on the Scopewebsite commented, ‘people’s righteous anger towards those who falsify their claim
for disability and other benefits has come to over-shadow their goodwill towards
those who are ‘genuinely’ disabled and deserving of support33）’. Garthwaite claims
that government rhetoric around benefits changes with its focus upon ‘fairness for
taxpayers’ has fostered the notion that disabled people are a separate group who
make little or no contribution to society34）. That all of this was taking place against
the backdrop of final preparations for the London 2012 Paralympic Games and thelegacy claim of changing public attitudes towards disability in a positive manner,
demonstrates something of the legacy dilemma that was taking shape at that time.
32

A Critical Perspective on the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic Games（2）Atos sponsorship of the London 2012 Paralympic Games
Atos, a French IT services specialist, became the official IT services provider to
the Olympic Movement in 2001 and is one of the ten official TOP sponsors35）. At the
beginning of 2008, Atos also became the official Worldwide Paralympic IT Partner,
although the company had already been the IT Partner at all summer and winterParalympic Games since 2002. However, in 2012 Atos came under extremely heavy
criticism for its sponsorship of the London 2012 Paralympic Games, as a result of theway it had handled the UK government’s Work Capacity Assessments. Many
Disabled People’s Organisations claimed they were little more than a cost cutting
exercise, as highlighted earlier in the quote from Richard Hawkes of the charity
Scope. In addition, a number of stories were circulating in the media about individuals
that Atos Assessors had declared fit for work who either died from their illness
shortly after the assessment36） or even starved to death as a result of losing theirbenefits37）. This resulted in a number of protests by Disabled People’s Organisations
and people with disabilities at the London Paralympic Games themselves and at
various Atos offices around the UK. There was even a joke circulating on the internet
at the time that the London Paralympic Games had been cancelled because Atos had
ruled that the athletes were not disabled after all38）. In April 2013 Atos signed a deal
with the IPC to continue its sponsorship of the Paralympic Games until Rio 2016.
However, in March 2014 it also announced that it was quitting its contract with the
UK Government to carry out the Work Capacity Assessments early due to thenegative coverage it had received and an inability to make sufficient profit. Atos had
to pay considerable compensation to the government for breaking the contract. Atos
claimed they and their staff had been vilified and that Atos had become a ‘lightning
rod’ for public anger related to the Work Capacity Assessments39）. It would appear,
therefore, that despite their close links to the Paralympic Games and the legacy
agenda set for the London 2012 Paralympic Games, particularly around raising the
profile of disabled people’s talents, both Atos（in terms of wanting to make a profit）
and the British Government through the Department of Work and Pensions（in termsof wanting to cut budgets） were driven by an economic imperative. Such an
approach appears to run completely counter to the legacy aims espoused by the
British Government in the lead up to the London 2012 Paralympic Games.

33

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.5

7. Legacy and the 2012 Paralympic Games - the perception gap
What becomes especially clear when reading the comments by Disabled People’s
Organisations and disabled individuals is the disconnect they feel with both
Paralympians on the one hand, and society in general and government policy inparticular on the other. Walker commented ‘The Paralympics showcases the amazing
achievements and triumphs of a tiny percentage of disabled people - just as the
Olympics demonstrates what a tiny percentage of ‘able-bodied’ people are able toachieve40）.’ The importance of this differentiation is explained by Alice Maynard,
Chair of the disability charity Scope, when she states ‘The Paralympics has inspired asmall number to be more involved in sport or the community. But ultimately it comes
down to a simple point: if you don’t have the support you need to get up, get washedand get out of the house; if you’re struggling to pay the bills - it’s a big task to join atennis club41）.’ Adding to this, Professor of Applied Social Sciences（Disability Policy）
Alan Roulstone wrote on the policy press blogsite ‘The most difficult aspect of the
Paralympics for many disabled people has been the bizarre juxtaposition of seeing
great sporting achievements（rightly）being applauded and poster girl/boy images ofphotogenic disabled people alongside arguably the most aggressing and top-down
reform of welfare since the Poor Law42）.’
It is clear that media coverage from London 2012, combined with their successful
sporting performances, has led to some British Paralympians achieving celebrity
status in the UK. However, the difficulties for some people in differentiating between
Paralympians on the one hand and the ordinary member of the British public with adisability, possibly driven by media coverage of both benefits changes and the Gamesthemselves and government rhetoric around them, appears to have caused more
problems than it solved. This is clearly indicated by the following quote from Bush etal.:
He’d already sensed the disappointment lurking behind people’s eyes when hetold them he was not training for a future Paralympics. People would now
expect this, yet he was more worried about the day-to-day struggles of being
disabled43）.

34

A Critical Perspective on the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic GamesIn addition, research carried out by the Australian Paralympic Committee（APC）
who interviewed spectators at sports events for athletes with a disability in Australia,
appear to confirm this. According to Tony Naar, the former Knowledge Services
Manager at APC, the results appear to indicate that it is only spectators’ attitudes
towards the actual athletes and not the disabled population in general that arechanged by attending such events44）.

8. It’s not all negative !
From the paper so far it may appear that nothing positive came out of the London
Paralympic Games, particularly for people with disabilities. However, it is not all
negative particularly from a sporting perspective. Since London 2012, in the UK atleast, there has been a big increase in athletes with disabilities appearing on TV andin the media including on game shows and other non-sports related programming.
To coincide with the Games the host broadcaster, Channel 4, introduced a newprogramme called the ‘The Last Leg’ presented by three comedians, two of whom
have disabilities. They raise topical issues around disability in a humorous, but
enlightening way in order to overcome many of the negative stereotypes arounddisability. They also introduced a way people could tweet using the hashtag“#isitokay” where the general public could ask any question they wanted about
disability, but had possibly been too afraid to ask. The Last Leg is still running today
nearly four years after the London Games ended.
Social media also played a significant role in spreading interest in Paralympic sport.
A report published by Twitter revealed that the hashtag “#Paralympics” topped thetable for the most trending UK sport event of 2012 beating off stiff competition fromthe Olympic Games and many leading Premiership football clubs. Around 50 leading
athletes also took part in the Samsung Bloggers project which saw them record andpost video blogs from behind the scenes before, during and after the London 2012
Games. Over 600 video blogs were uploaded and were viewed by over 300,000
people45）.
The structure of elite disability sport in the UK was transformed in the lead up to
London 2012 with the inclusion of many disability sports into their non-disabled
National Governing Body. This has led to a professionalisation of disability sport at
35

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.5

the elite level in the UK to bring it into line with the same standards expected from
non-disabled sports, and has had a positive impact on the results of British teams
post-2012 such as the Men’s Wheelchair Basketball team who have just won theEuropean Men’s Wheelchair Basketball Championships for the third time in a row46）.
The higher education sector in the UK has also seen big changes with regard todisability and Para-sport post-2012 with competitive sport for students withdisabilities being added to the university sports structure47）. There is also a hugeinterest in academic enquiry in the field from students, lecturers and researchers
alike, which can only bode well for the future of disability sport having graduates
who understand the needs of people with disabilities working within the UK sporting
structure at all levels.
There were records for the number of competing nations（164）,number of athletes（4,237）, number of tickets sold（2.7 million）with most events and sessions selling out
and, perhaps most importantly the London 2012 Paralympic Games were televised in
more countries than ever before, attracting their biggest ever international audience.
According to the figures released by the International Paralympic Committee, theLondon Paralympic 2012 Games were watched by a cumulative international audienceof 3.4 billion（excluding the host nation）, which is an increase of around 37 per centon the last summer Games in Beijing. The London 2012 Games were broadcast inover 115 countries and the number of hours broadcast outside the host market grewby 82 per cent on 2008 to over 2,500 hours of content48）.
Finally, London was left with a greatly increased stock of physically accessible
housing due to the organising committee and the Government working together toensure that all the accommodation for the Village was built with Paralympians andfuture potential owners with disabilities in mind. For example, all doorways in thevillage were made wider than the standard usually used in order to cater forwheelchair users.

Conclusion - legacy and the Paralympic Games looking forward
What this paper really highlights is that sports mega-events do not take place in a
vacuum. They are just as subject to outside pressures and（mis）uses as any otherhappening within society and, as such, it is extremely difficult to accurately and36

A Critical Perspective on the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic Gameseffectively plan for any legacy to occur. Political, economic and cultural specificities
can all work either for or against the legacy process in many complicated and often
unexpected ways. It is clear that the austere economic situation, combined with UK
Government plans for benefit cuts and the media reporting of these cuts, has had anegative impact upon attitudes towards disability manifesting in a hardening of
attitudes towards anyone who requires state-aided financial assistance to survive. It
is also clear that the ordinary everyday person with a disability feels little connection,
if any, to Paralympians, in terms of the issues they face in their everyday lives, andthe perceived expectation by the non-disabled population that all people withdisabilities can perform like Paralympians only makes this sense of disconnection
greater.
On a positive note, Paralympians and the Paralympic Games may act as a positive
influence on some disabled people to try and do more with their lives than society
may have conditioned them to believe possible. The worldwide media coverage theParalympic Games are now receiving make it an amazing platform from which tostart a debate around disability issues. There is no other current platform thatprovides an opportunity to reach so many non-disabled people who are otherwise
generally oblivious to disability issues other than the little, often politically charged,
information they receive through the media or the often ableist views they aresocialised into whilst growing up. As Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of Scope,
points out we should not write off the Paralympic Games effect because disabled
people tell Scope that the greater visibility and public discussion of their lives does
make a difference49）.
Overall then, whilst there are indications that the Paralympic Games does haveagency in the sense that it provides a platform from which to engage in debate about
disability issues, one important lesson for future hosts is that heightened expectations
can create as many problems as they solve. This paper has highlighted deep societal,
structural and ideological impediments to a more enlightened view of disability. No
Paralympic Games can in itself, hope to counter such forces. In a very real sense,
each Paralympic Games is a child of its time and location.

37

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.5
References
1） Misener, L., Darcy, S., Legg, D. and Gilbert, K. 2013. “Beyond Olympic Legacy: Understanding
Paralympic Legacy Through a Thematic Analysis,” Journal of Sport Management, 27（4）,p.
329.
2） Steadward, R.D. 1992. “Excellence−The Future of Sports for Athletes with Disabilities,”
Williams, T., Almond, L. and Sparkes, A. （Eds.） Sport and Physical Activity: Moving
Towards Excellence, London: E & FN Spon, pp. 293-299.
3） McCann, C. 1996. “Sports for the Disabled: the evolution from rehabilitation to competitive
sport,” Brit. Jnl of Sports Medicine, 30（4）, pp. 279-280. doi:10.1136/bjsm.30.4.279.
4） Anderson, J. 2003. “Turned in Tax Payers’: Paraplegia, Rehabilitation and Sport at Stoke
Mandeville, 1944-56,” Journal of Contemporary History, 38（3）, pp. 461-475. doi: 10.1177/00
22009403038003007.
5） Guttmann, L. 1976. Textbook of Sport for the Disabled, Aylesbury, Bucks, UK: HM & M
Publishers, pp. 12-13.
6） Brittain, I. 2014. From Stoke Mandeville to Sochi: A history of the summer and winterParalympic Games, Champaign, Il: Common Ground Publishing, p. 15.
7） Tasiemski, T., Bergstrom, E., Savic, G. and Gardner, B.P. 1998. Sports, Recreation and
Employment Following Spinal Cord Injury − a Pilot Study,（Unpublished）.
8） Groff, G., D., Lundberg, N., R., and Zabriskie, R. B. 2009. “Influence of adapted sport on qualityof life: Perceptions of athletes with cerebral palsy,” Journal of Disability and Rehabilitation
31（4）,p. 319.
9） Guttmann, L. 1976. Textbook of Sport for the Disabled, Aylesbury, Bucks, UK: HM & M
Publishers, p. 12.
10）Associated Press. 2006. “Neroli Fairhall, Champion Archer, Dies at 61,” The New York Times
online Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/sports/13fairhall.html.
11）International Paralympic Committee,（IPC）2015, Strategic Plan 2015 to 2018, Retrieved
from http://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/publications
12）Ibid.
13）Peers, Danielle. 2009. （Dis）empowering“
Paralympic histories: Absent athletes and disabling
discourses.” Retrieved from http://www.daniellepeers.com/uploads/2/1/0/2/21026078/
disempoweringsubmitted.pdf
14）Peers, Danielle. 2012a. “Patients, Athletes, Freaks: Paralympism and the Reproduction of
Disability,” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 36（3）,pp. 295-316.
15）Peers, Danielle. 2009. （Dis）empowering‘
Paralympic histories: Absent athletes and disabling
discourses’ , p. 9. Retrieved from http://www.daniellepeers.com/uploads/2/1/0/2/21026078/
disempoweringsubmitted.pdf
16）Purdue, D.E.J. and Howe, P.D. 2012. “See the sport, not the disability: exploring theParalympic paradox,” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, Vol. 4（2）,p. 194.
17）Braye, S., Dixon, K. and Gibbons, T. 2013a. “A mockery of equality: An exploratory
investigation into disabled activists’ views of the Paralympic Games,” Disability and Society,Vol. 28 （7）, pp. 984-996. Retrieved from tees.openrepository.com/tees/bitstream/10149/
265212/2/265212.pdf18）Ibid, p. 9.
19）Hodges, C.E.M., Jackson, D., Scullion, R., Thompson, S. and Molesworth, M. 2012. Tracking
38

A Critical Perspective on the Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic Gameschanges in everyday experiences of disability and disability sport within the context of the2012 London Paralympics, CMC Publishing; Bournemouth University, UK, p. 4.
20）Braye, S., Gibbons, T. and Dixon, K. 2013b. “‘Disability ‘Rights’ and ‘Wrongs’? The Claims of
the International Paralympic Committee, the London 2012 Paralympics and Disability Rights
in the UK,” Sociological Research Online, Vol. 18（3）. Retrieved from http://www.
socresonline.org.uk/18/3/16.html
21）Purdue, D.E.J. and Howe, P.D. 2012, “See the sport, not the disability: exploring theParalympic paradox,” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, Vol. 4（2）,p. 195.
22）Brittain, I. 2014. From Stoke Mandeville to Sochi: A history of the summer and winterParalympic Games, Champaign, Il: Common Ground Publishing.
23）ODI/ DCMS. 2011. London 2012: a legacy for disabled people. Retrieved from http://odi.
dwp.gov.uk/docs/wor/leg/legacy-full.pdf.
24）UK Government/ Mayor of London Office. 2013. Inspired by 2012: The legacy from theLondon 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, pp. 67-72. Retrieved from https://www.gov.
uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224148/2901179_
OlympicLegacy_acc.pdf.
25）Scope website. 2013. Paralympics legacy in balance as attitudes fail to improve. Retrieved
from https://www.scope.org.uk/About-Us/Media/Press-releases/August-2013/Paralympicslegacy-in-balance-as-attitudes-fail-to.
26）UK government website. 2014. Policies: Simplifying the welfare system and making surework pays. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/simplifying-thewelfare-system-and-making-sure-work-pays.
27）Gentleman, A. 2011. New disability benefit test ‘driven by cuts’. Retrieved from http://www.
theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/12/disability-benefit-test-driven-by-cuts.
28）Ibid.
29）Happer, C. and Philo, G. 2013. “The Role of the Media in the Construction of Public Belief andSocial Change,” Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1（1）, p. 321. doi:10.5964/jspp.
v1i1.96.
30）Briant, E., Watson, N. and Philo, G. 2011. Bad News for Disabled People: How the Newspapers
are Reporting Disability. Retrieved from http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/57499.
31）Taylor-Gooby, P. 2012. “The real reasons why the Coalition is cutting the welfare state sothhard（Lecture given at Durham University, UK in 15 June, 2015）,” Garthwaite, K.A.（2012）.

Incapacitated? Exploring the health and illness narratives of Incapacity Benefit recipients.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Durham University, UK, p. 55. Retrieved from etheses.dur.ac.
uk/6387/1/THESIS_REVISED_31.01.13.pdf.
32）Quarmby, K. 2012. “Leveson is showing wilful blindness towards disabled people,” The
Guardian, May 8. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/08/leveson-willfulblindness-disabled-People.
Garthwaite, K.A. 2012. Incapacitated? Exploring the health and illness narratives ofIncapacity Benefit recipients. Unpublished PhD thesis, Durham University, UK, p. 70.
Retrieved from etheses.dur.ac.uk/6387/1/THESIS_REVISED_31.01.13.pdf.
33）Scope website. 2012. Discrimination increases on back of ‘benefit scroungers’ rhetoric.
Retrieved from http://www.scope.org.uk/About-Us/Media/Press-releases/July-2012/
Discrimination-increases-on-back-of-%E2%80%98benefit-scrou.
34）Garthwaite, K.A. 2012. Incapacitated? Exploring the health and illness narratives of39

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.5
Incapacity Benefit recipients. Unpublished PhD thesis, Durham University, UK, pp. 55.
Retrieved from etheses.dur.ac.uk/6387/1/THESIS_REVISED_31.01.13.pdf.
35）Insidethegames website. 2013. Atos extends Olympic association until 2024. Retrieved fromhttp://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/1017359-atos-extends-olympic-associationuntil-2024.
36）BBC website. 2012. Benefits appeal woman Cecilia Burns from Strabane has died. Retrieved
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19433535
37）c.f. Oxford Mail website. 2014. Man starved after benefits were cut. Retrieved from http://
www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11043378.Man_starved_after_benefits_were_cut/.
38）Pathwaysgroupstoke website. 2012. The Paralympic Games: Political Manipulation Romps
Home in First Place, Retrieved from http://pathwaygroupstoke.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/
the-paralympic-games-political-manipulation-romps-home-in-first-place/.
39）BBC website. 2014. Atos was ‘lightning rod’ for anger over benefit changes. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27767779.
40）Walker, S.W. 2012. And so begins demonisation’s subtle new post-paralympic form.
Retrieved from http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/09/03/and-so-begins-demonisationssubtle-new-post-paralympic-form-skwalker1964-blog/.
41）Scope website. 2013. Paralympics legacy in balance as attitudes fail to improve. Retrieved
from https://www.scope.org.uk/About-Us/Media/Press-releases/August-2013/Paralympicslegacy-in-balance-as-attitudes-fail-to.
42）Roulstone, A. 2012. The Paralympic Legacy−A New Dawn or a False Dawn for Disabled
People? Retrieved from https://policypress.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/the-paralympiclegacy-a-new-dawn-or-a-false-dawn-for-disabled-people/.
43）Bush, A., Silk, M., Porter, J. and Howe, P.D. 2013. “Disability［sport］and discourse: stories
within the Paralympic legacy,” Reflective Practice, 14（5）, p. 635. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2013.
835721.
44）Naar, T. 2014. Personal communication with author - E-mail dated 21-02-2014.
45）Brittain, I. 2014. From Stoke Mandeville to Sochi: A history of the summer and winterParalympic Games, Champaign, Il: Common Ground Publishing.
46）Euro 2015 website. 2015. “Great Britain Men’s wheelchair basketball team crowned European
Champions for third time in a row.” Retrieved from http://www.euro2015.uk/euros/index.
cfm/news1/great-britain-mene28099s-wheelchair-basketball-team-crowned-europeanchampions-for-third-time-in-a-row/47）British Universities and Colleges Sport website. 2016. Disability Sport. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bucs.org.uk/athlete.asp?section=18387&sectionTitle=Disability+Sport
48）Brittain, I. 2014. From Stoke Mandeville to Sochi: A history of the summer and winterParalympic Games, Champaign, Il: Common Ground Publishing.
49）Scope website. 2013. Paralympics legacy in balance as attitudes fail to improve. Retrieved
from https://www.scope.org.uk/About-Us/Media/Press-releases/August-2013/Paralympicslegacy-in-balance-as-attitudes-fail-to.

40

2012年ロンドン・パラリンピック大会のレガシーに関する批判的観点からの考察

2012年ロンドン・パラリンピック大会のレガシーに関する批判的観点からの考察
イアン・ブリテン（コベントリー大学）

パラリンピック大会は，実際のところレガシーを前提として創設されたものである。
パラリンピック運動の創始者ルートヴィヒ・グッドマンは，スポーツへの参加は障害者に利益をもたらすとして，次の３つの側面を指摘した。すなわち，①治療的要素としてのスポーツ，②スポーツのレクリエーション的・心理的価値，および③社会的再統合の手段としてのスポーツである。とりわけ３つ目は今もなお，国際パラリンピック委員会
が掲げる主な目標のひとつ「パラスポーツを通じて，障害のある人々にとってよりイン
クルーシブな社会を実現していくこと」の基盤となるものである（IPC 戦略計画2015−2018）。しかしながら，こうした目標を批判する研究者は多い。そして批判者は，期せずしてパラリンピックのメダリストである。
本稿の目的は，英国政府と2012年ロンドン大会組織委員会，そして英国の障害者団体の２つの異なる視点から，2012年ロンドン・パラリンピック大会がもたらしたと考えられる影響について検証することにある。同時に，そこから得た知見をよりグローバルな
状況，すなわち当時発生した世界金融危機やそれに続く緊縮政策との関係において位置
付けすることも試みた。結果として，英国政府と2012年ロンドン大会組織委員会が主張する2012年ロンドン・パラリンピック大会がもたらした影響と，一部障害者団体が伝える英国に住む障害者の実際の体験と比べると，大きな相違が認められた。
検証結果から総体的に言えることは，メガスポーツイベントが他の社会事象と無関係に行われることはないということである。メガスポーツイベントは，成果の意図を持って開催に携わる人々のコントロールがまったく及ばない世界的な出来事に左右されることが多い。したがってイベントがもたらすレガシーについて，的確かつ効果的な計画を策定することはきわめて難しい。加えて，レガシーのプロセスは複雑であり，なおかつ多くの場合予期しない数々の形で，政治的，経済的および文化的特異性からプラスとマ
41

パラリンピック研究会

紀要 vol.5

イナス両方の影響を受けやすい。全般的に見て，パラリンピック大会の開催および関連報道から実際に利益を享受するのは障害のある競技者，そしておそらくはスポーツや運動に参加する障害者であって，諸般の理由からスポーツや運動に参加しない多数を占める障害者は利益を享受しないということが，明らかになってきた。とは言え，パラリン
ピック大会が世界的にメディアで取り上げられることで，障害をめぐる広範な課題に関する議論のきっかけとなる貴重な機会がもたらされることも，忘れてはならない。

42