The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics
Kazuo Ogoura

Introduction: Identification of the Issue
In recent years, public interest in the Paralympics and disability sports has been
rising, and there are noticeably more opportunities for people to watch or participate
in disability sports. These trends have a social significance, two of which are often
cited. The first is that they can give courage to people with disabilities and act as anagent for motivating them to build their ability and for promoting their social
participation. The second is that they can act as a catalyst for change in how people
with disabilities are viewed in society and for creating a better physical andpsychological environment for people with disabilities. To effectively bring about suchoutcomes and ripple effects, however, it is necessary that the Paralympics anddisability sports are felt to be something more “familiar” not only among disability
sports athletes and other parties involved in sports, but also among people withdisabilities in general and among able-bodied people. This will require spreading
disability sports competitions, increasing name recognition of athletes, anddisseminating knowledge, but this process entails a number of latent and alreadyemerging problems. The crux of the problem is that specific objectives and effects
result not only in positive outcomes, but also in outcomes that contradict with theintended objectives and end results. This has been described by several researchers
as the “Paralympic paradox”.１
For example, a disabled athlete may attain success and increase their namerecognition. This may result in increasing the interest of society at large in the
Paralympics, disability sports events, and related activities and competitions. This
process, however, implies the shift of a disabled athlete from the category of “adisabled person” to one of “an athlete” for whom “having a disability or not is
19

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

irrelevant”. As a result, the athlete may be respected but oftentimes considered bymany disabled people as unreachable for the very reason of his or her success.
Therefore, it is not always clear whether the success of an athlete actually results inencouraging other people with disabilities to participate in sports and in expanding
the base of participants in disability sports. To put it another way, the moment adisabled athlete “overcomes disability”, the association the athlete has with “disability”
becomes weaker. Furthermore, considered in relation to society at large, it also raises
the question of whether it was from the perspective of able-bodied people that gave
rise to the idea that disability sports help to give courage to people with disabilities
and motivate them to become more independent and to develop their ability. In thisregard, it poses the more essential questions of “Who is the Paralympics truly for?”and “What is the significance of disability sports?”
With the above approach, this article will analyze and discuss the current status of,and problems related to the paradox as well as gaps and disparities found in the
Paralympics and disability sports from the perspective of: disparity between medalists
and non-medalists; divergence between “athletes” and people with disabilities ingeneral; disparity among different types of disabilities; the relationship between
disability organizations and disability sports organizations; disparity between national
and local governments; disparity between men and women; and disparity among
countries. Furthermore, in some respects, disparity between disability sports andsports for able-bodied people, or between the Paralympic Games and Olympic Games,
has an effect on the paradox in disability sports. This aspect, however, will not be
included in this article.

1.

Disparity between Medalists and Non-Medalists

As the Paralympic Games become better known and more people take interest in
the Paralympic Games as sports or competition, it is natural for media coverage of
Paralympians and particularly medalists to expand, and with it, medalists will have agreater number of fans. This tendency further heightens the public’s interest in the
Paralympic Games. However, if the disparity grows disproportionately between the
medalists and non-medalists in the amount of public attention and in public
estimation, then there is the risk that winning medals will become the purpose of20

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

athletes participating in the Paralympic Games, that emphasis will be placed on
developing athletes’ competitive performance, and that the social significance of the
Paralympics will be given little attention.
From this perspective, newspaper articles （the Asahi Shimbun （Figure 1）, theNikkei（Figure 2）, and the Yomiuri Shimbun（Figure 3））were used as a measure of
public attention, and a comparison was made of the number of articles on medalists
and non-medalists at each of the Paralympic Games. For this study, the keyword“Paralympic” was used to extract articles between 2009 and 2018 on each newspaper’s
database, a determination was made on whether the articles mentioned names ofathletes, and if they did, the contents of each article were checked to selectcorresponding articles. As a result, it was confirmed that there was a wide gap
between the number of articles on medalists and on non-medalists and that the media
were making medalists into “stars”, so to speak, creating a disparity between
medalists and non-medalists.

100%
75%
50%
25%
0%

2009

2010

2011

2012

0HGDOLVW

2013

2014

1RQ0HGDOLVW

2015

2016

2017

2018

2WKHUV

Figure 1. The Ratio of Articles about Medalists andNon-Medalists on the Asahi Shimbun Database
Compiled by Researcher Akira Nagamatsu based on the Asahi Shimbun Company database“Kikuzo II Visual”（morning and evening editions of the Asahi Shimbun）

21

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

100%
75%
50%
25%
0%

2009

2010

2011

2012

0HGDOLVW

2013

2014

1RQ0HGDOLVW

2015

2016

2017

2018

2WKHUV

Figure 2. The Ratio of Articles about Medalists andNon-Medalists on the Nikkei Database

Compiled by Researcher Akira Nagamatsu based on the Nikkei, Inc. database “Nikkei
Telecom 21”（morning and evening editions of the Nikkei）

100%
75%
50%
25%
0%

2009

2010

2011
0HGDOLVW

2012

2013

2014

1RQ0HGDOLVW

2015

2016

2017

2018

2WKHUV

Figure 3. The Ratio of Articles about Medalists andNon-Medalists on the Yomiuri Shimbun Database
Compiled by Researcher Akira Nagamatsu based on the Yomiuri Shimbun database“Yomidasu Rekishikan”

22

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

Table 1. Medals Won by All Japanese Athletes Participating in the PyeongChang
Paralympic Games and Total Number of Newspaper Articles＊
AthleteMedal

Total Number of Medals（including Paralympic
Games other thanPyeongChang）

Total Number ofNewspaper Articles

NITTA Yoshihiro

○

5

373

YAMAMOTO Atsushi

○

3

268

MORII Taiki

○

5

262

KANO Akira

○

4

248

MURAOKA Momoka

○

5

237

SUZUKI Takeshi

○

3

193

NARITA Gurimu

○

2

148

MISAWA Hiraku

0136

DEKIJIMA Momoko

0124

SATO Keiichi

0104

ABE Yurika

096

KOIKE Gakuta

077

SUDO Satoru

1

73

NATSUME Kenji

0

69

UEHARA Daisuke

1

64

NITTA Nonno

057

OGURI Daichi

050

HONDO Ammi

045

TAKAMURA Kazuto

0

44

HOSHIZAWA Masaru

043

KAWAYOKE Taiki

041

FUKUSHIMA Shinobu

1

38

IWAMOTO Keigo

036

TAKAHASHI Kazuhiro

1

35

MISAWA Eiji

1

32

YOSHIKAWA Mamoru

130

KUMAGAI Masaharu

029

TAKAHASHI Kohei

025

ANNAKA Mikio

1

18

SHIBA Taimei

015

KODAMA Nao

0

14

NAKAMURA Toshiyuki

1

11

HORIE Wataru

0

11

MOCHIZUKI Kazuya

011

NAGUMO Keisuke

0

10

SHIOYA Yoshihiro

0

9

HIROSE Susumu

0

9

ISHII Hideaki

0

6

＊

The databases “Yomidasu Rekishikan”, “Kikuzo II Visual”, and “Nikkei Telecom 21” were used toobtain the total number of articles. The search covered the longest period available on eachdatabase, except for the Yomiuri Shimbun database, which restricted the search to the Heisei
Period（1989-2019）. The name of each athlete and the word “Para” were used as search keywords
to exclude articles on same-name persons who are not the athletes.
Compiled by Researcher Akira Nagamatsu based on “Yomidasu Rekishikan,” “Kikuzo II Visual,” and“Nikkei Telecom 21”

23

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

Table 2. The Amount of Reward Money Awarded
by the Japanese Paralympic Committee
Year

Paralympic Games

Reward Money in Yen

2008

Beijing（Summer）

Gold:1 Million

Silver:0.7 Million

Bronze:0.5 Million

2010

Vancouver（Winter）

Gold:1 Million

Silver:0.7 Million

Bronze:0.5 Million

2012

London（Summer）

Gold:1 Million

Silver:0.7 Million

Bronze:0.5 Million

2014

Sochi（Winter）

Gold:1.5 Million Silver:1 Million

Bronze:0.7 Million

2016

Rio de Janeiro（Summer）

Gold:1.5 Million Silver:1 Million

Bronze:0.7 Million

2018

PyeongChang（Winter）

Gold:3 Million

Bronze:1 Million

Silver:2 Million

Compiled by Researcher Akira Nagamatsu based on the Yomiuri Shimbun（evening edition,
September 4, 2008）, the Asahi Shimbun（morning edition, May 21, 2014）, and the Nikkei（morning edition, March 27, 2018）

The Figure 1.-3. are a comparison of the number of articles on all athletes. A
comparative analysis was also made of the number of articles on medalists and nonmedalists among Japanese athletes who participated in the PyeongChang 2018
Paralympic Winter Games （hereafter shortened to “PyeongChang Paralympic
Games”）.The results, shown in Table 1, confirm the wide disparity between medalists
and non-medalists.
There is the risk that these trends may widen the disparity between medalists andnon-medalists not only in terms of the athletes’ name recognition, but also in terms of
securing sponsors, practice environments and income. In particular, the reward
money for winning a medal, the amount of which has been rising in recent years asshown in Table 2, symbolizes the growing disparity in how the athletes are treated.
One of the causes of the wider disparity between medalists and non-medalists isthe significant expectations and interest that people have about athletes winning
medals. It is also possible that setting a goal on the number of gold medals may beplaying a part in widening the disparity. For example, the Japanese Paralympic
Committee（JPC）had originally set a goal of winning 22 gold medals２ and ranking
7th in the gold medal ranking（although more recently, the JPC has released only the３at the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games（hereafter the “Tokyo
goal related to ranking）

Paralympic Games”）. For the PyeongChang Paralympic Games, Canada set the goalof more than 16 gold medals to improve the number they won at the previous winterParalympic Games in Sochi.４ The UK set the goal of winning at least 121 medals at
24

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games（hereafter the “Rio Paralympic Games”）.５ On theother hand, although it is said unofficially that the U.S. has a goal, it has not been
disclosed. Australia deliberately withheld from setting a goal at the Sydney 2000
Paralympic Games to “minimize pressure on athletes”.６ Given the situation in eachcountry, we will need to consider a number of factors, including whether the goal isofficially disclosed or not, and whether the goal is for gold medals or a total numberof medals, when examining to what degree setting such goals on the number of
medals widens disparity between medalists and non-medalists in terms of publicattention and in other aspects.
There is on the other hand a view that is worth noting: even though media
coverage on medalists at the Paralympic Games may have temporarily intensified, therecognition that Paralympic athletes have in society, unlike Olympic athletes, is still
limited and that at this stage, it would be more important to increase and deepen
media coverage of Paralympic athletes regardless of whether they have won a medal
or not, than to make an issue of disparity between medalists and non-medalists. In
fact, Momoka Muraoka was featured in many articles after winning five medals at
the PyeongChang Paralympic Games, but when she won the Women’s SuperCombined Sitting event at the World Para Alpine Skiing World Cup on January 31,
2019, after the PyeongChang Paralympic Games, newspaper coverage among thethree newspapers（the Asahi Shimbun, the Nikkei, and the Yomiuri Shimbun）was
limited to a few lines each in the morning edition of the Asahi Shimbun and the
Yomiuri Shimbun.７ This suggests that Paralympic medalists have not necessarily
achieved a “star” status.

2. Divergence between “Athletes” and People with Disabilitiesin General
If we define “athletes” as those who take part in the Paralympic Games and those
who enter domestic or international events in the hope of competing in the
Paralympic Games, the more a disabled person becomes an “elite athlete” who wins
medals and performs at the highest levels of competition, the more we hear them saythat they want to be seen not as “a person with a disability” but as “an athlete” forwhom “having a disability or not is irrelevant”. This tedency is the very symbol ofthe divide, or potential divide, between such athletes and people with disabilities in25

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

general. In other words, the more a Paralympic athlete and others involved try toincrease the athlete’s competitive ability, win medals and seek to be recognized not
as “a person with a disability” but as “an athlete”, the more the athlete becomes aperson who exists in a different dimension for people with disabilities in general. This
creates a paradox with the original aim of the Paralympics, which is to give courage
to people with disabilities in general through sports and to promote their participation
in society. This tendency is also substantiated by the findings of the Study of the
Paralympics and Broadcasting conducted jointly by the Nippon Foundation
Paralympic Support Center and NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute.
As shown in Table 3, the percentage of people with disabilities（18 and over）who
showed interest in the Paralympic Games （those responding either “very muchinterested” or “interested” to the question “Are you interested in the Paralympic
Games?”）was only 36.2% on average. The level of interest in the Paralympic Gamesis higher than that of able-bodied people （28.3% on average）, but is substantiallylower than the level of interest the same respondents with disabilities had in the
Olympic Games（57.9% on average）. It can be said here again that we can glimpse
the divide between the “athletes” and people with disabilities in general.
This divide between the “athletes” and people with disabilities in general, at thelevel of each person’s consciousness, can be understood as an essential divide between
identification of the self as “athletes” and identification of the self as a “disabled
person”. In other words, for people with disabilities in general, “being disabled” makes
up a large part of their identity, whereas for many disability sports athletes, “being
an athlete” makes up a large part of their identity. The more the Paralympics arereported in the sports section of newspapers, rather than in articles that highlight
success stories of people with disabilities in the general news page, the more thedivide between the “athletes” and people with disabilities in general will widen.
It can also be said that the more exceptional the performance of disability sports
athletes, the more it will induce in people with disabilities the feeling that they could
never do the same as those athletes if they were expected to do so. This also widens
the divide between the two. On this point, Overboe（2009）has written as follows:８
Paradoxically, the image of the disabled hero validates the lived experience ofa few disabled people and invalidates the lived experience of the majority of26

18 orAboveIntellectual
Impairment

500

100

83

55

Physical
Impairment

Intellectual
Impairment

400

SUBTOTAL

262

8.4

100

Developmental
DisorderMental Disorder

23.0

100

Mental Disorder

21.6

11.0

10.8

8.4

3.6

25.0

75

30.7

36.8

25.8

32.3

29.7

29.9

26.3

Intellectual
Impairment

100

Internal
Impairment

150

Hearing
Impairment

500

250

Visual Impairment

Physical
Impairment

1000

Non-Disabled People

Answeredby Proxy

Under 18

18 or
Above

1275

SUBTOTALSUBTOTAL of
the Following 4
Impairments

Very Much
Interested

35.3

23.0

24.1

24.0

32.7

25.4

29.0

29.0

21.3

39.4

36.0

42.8

38.1

37.8

31.5

Interested

12.3

17.0

18.1

16.8

14.5

16.9

12.0

18.0

21.3

14.3

15.3

12.9

9.6

14.3

15.1

Not Sure

11.1

10.0

8.4

18.7

18.2

15.4

9.0

10.0

4.0

2.9

11.8

5.0

11.2

8.5

8.9

Not MuchInterested

19.7

39.0

38.6

32.1

30.9

33.9

27.0

18.0

22.7

6.6

11.2

7.0

11.4

9.5

18.1

Not at All
Interested

56.9

34.0

34.9

32.4

36.4

33.8

52.0

54.0

52.0

76.3

61.7

75.1

67.8

67.7

57.9

43.1

66.0

65.1

67.6

63.6

66.2

48.0

46.0

48.0

23.7

38.3

24.9

32.2

32.3

42.1

Subtotal of
Subtotal of “Not Sure” +“Interested”“Not
Interested”

％

6.2

6.0

6.0

3.1

3.6

4.1

13.0

7.0

18.7

9.4

11.0

19.6

15.3

11.6

11.0

Very Much
Interested

22.1

15.0

10.8

14.1

20.0

14.0

21.0

21.0

25.3

32.7

31.5

44.2

31.3

32.9

25.2

Interested

26.2

22.0

25.3

19.8

12.7

20.5

25.0

28.0

25.3

22.9

23.3

17.7

19.3

22.4

25.0

Not Sure

19.0

18.0

16.9

23.3

25.5

21.6

11.0

21.0

6.7

25.7

18.5

9.4

18.4

19.9

16.8

Not MuchInterested

Interest in the Paralympics
Base=All the People in the Survey

26.4

39.0

41.0

39.7

38.2

39.9

30.0

23.0

24.0

9.3

15.7

9.1

15.7

13.3

21.9

Not at All
Interested

Source: The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Support Center and NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute, 2018, “Study of the Paralympics and Broadcasting.”

Peoplewith
Impairments

Answeredin Person

Age

Number of
SamplesInterest in the Olympics
Base=All the People in the Survey

Table 3. Interest in the PyeongChang Olympic Games and the PyeongChang Paralympic Games

28.3

21.0

16.9

17.2

23.6

18.0

34.0

28.0

44.0

42.1

42.5

63.8

46.6

44.5

36.2

71.7

79.0

83.1

82.8

76.4

82.0

66.0

72.0

56.0

57.9

57.5

36.2

53.4

55.5

63.8

Subtotal of
Subtotal of “Not Sure” +“Interested”“Not
Interested”％

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

27

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

disabled people because they cannot meet such expectation.
It is also possible to find a social meaning behind this feeling of discomfort ordisparity at the personal level on the part of people with disabilities in general. Thisis because praising athletes for their high performance levels may inadvertently
embed in society the idea that “overcoming disabilities” is dependent on individual
efforts and will, and it may be that the unconscious rejection of this very idea on thepart of people with disabilities is settling into the form of “discomfort”.

3.

Disparity among Types of Disability

The public’s knowledge of, and interest in, disability sports varies depending on thetype of competition or event. In addition, there is a disparity in involvement in the
Paralympic Games depending on the type of disability.
As a matter of convenience, we categorize disabilities into physical disability, visual
impairment, hearing impairment, and intellectual disability. Those with a hearing
impairment do not participate in the Paralympics but have their own international
event, the Deaflympics. A comparison between the Deaflympics and Paralympics interms of the number of participating countries and athletes and the number of eventsis shown in Table 4. There is a considerable difference in size.
Table 4. Number of Participating Countries, Athletes, and Events at the Paralympics
and Deaflympics
Summer GamesGames

The Rio 2016
Paralympic
Games

Winter Games2017 Samsun
XXIII. Summer
Deaflympics

The Sochi 2014
Paralympic
Games

18th 2015 WinterDeaflympics
KhantyMansiysk

Countries

159＋IPA

86

45

27

Athletes

4,328

2,873

541

336

Sports

22

19

5

5

Compiled by the author based on the International Committee of Sports for the Deaf’s official
website of the Deaflympics（“Games,” https://www.deaflympics.com/,（May 27, 2019））; 23rdSummer Deaflympics official website（“Sports,” www.deaflympics2017.org,（May 27, 2019））
and IPC database（“Paralympic Games,” https://www.paralympic.org/paralympic-games,（May 27, 2019））.
28

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

In terms of newspaper coverage, a comparison for instance of the number ofarticles on the Rio Paralympic Games and those on the Deaflympics in Samsun,
Turkey, in 2017, points to a significant disparity as shown in Table 5. In particular,
few photographs were used in newspaper articles covering the Deaflympics, andthere was no television broadcasting of the Deaflympics.
Table 5. Comparison of the Number of Articles on the Paralympics
and Deaflympics in Three Newspapers
The
Asahi
ShimbunThe
Yomiuri
ShimbunThe
Mainichi

The Rio 2016 Paralympic Games

301

373

335

1,009

2017 Samsun XXIII. Summer Deaflympics

21

23

9

53

Games

Total

The search words used were “Paralympics” for the Rio Games and “Deaflympics” for theSamsun Games. The search period was from the opening ceremony until the closing
ceremony（Rio Games - September 7 to 18, 2016; Samsun Games - July 18 to 30, 2017）. Eachof the newspapers includes the morning, evening, and local editions.
Compiled by Researcher Masahiro Nakamura based on “Kikuzo II Visual,” “Yomidasu
Rekishikan,” and the Mainichi Newspapers’ database “Maisaku”

These differences in media coverage are also reflected in the public’s knowledge of
the Paralympics, Deaflympics, and Special Olympics. A comparison of the public’s
knowledge of each event, shown in Table 6, indicates that there is considerable
disparity among the three.
Table 6. Degree of the Public’s Knowledge of the Paralympics, Deaflympics, andSpecial Olympics
The Paralympics
97.6％

The Deaflympics

The Special Olympics
10.1%

17.9%

Compiled by Researcher Kenjiro Nakayama based on the Nippon Foundation Paralympic
Support Center 2017 survey on “The General Public’s Awareness and Interest in the
Paralympics in Japan and in Some Selected Countries after the Rio 2016 Games”

At present, the events that people with intellectual disabilities can officiallyparticipate in at the Paralympic Games are limited to three（athletics, swimming, andtable tennis）out of the 22 planned to be held at the Tokyo Paralympic Games. For
the winter Paralympic Games, there continues to be no events in which intellectually29

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

disabled people can participate. However, people with intellectual disabilities also
have their own international games called the “Special Olympics”. A comparison of
the number of participating countries and athletes, and the number of events, inTable 7, shows that the Special Olympics are in par with the Paralympics. Therefore,
the disparity between intellectual disability and other types of disability is not in thenumber of participating athletes and events at international games, but a differencein the significance of participating in each of the sporting events, or in other words,
the difference in the underlying principles of the Paralympics and the Special
Olympics.
Table 7. N u m b e r o f P a r t i c i p a t i n g C o u n t r i e s , A t h l e t e s , a n d E v e n t s
at the Paralympics and Special Olympics World Games
Summer GamesGames

The Rio 2016
Paralympic
Games

Winter GamesThe 2015
SpecialOlympics World
Summer Games,
Los Angeles

The Sochi 2014
Paralympic
Games

The 2013
SpecialOlympics World
Winter Games,
PyeongChang

Countries

159＋IPA

165

45

100

Athletes

4,328

approx. 6,200547

approx. 2,300

Sports

22

25

5

8

Compiled by the author based on Special Olympics International, “Sports and Games,”
https://www.specialolympics.org/about/history, （May 27, 2019）; Special Olympics WorldGames History,
https://media.specialolympics.org/soi/files/resources/World_Games/2013-World-WinterGames/Docs_PressReleaseFactSheet/SOWorldGamesHistory_UpdatedMarch2012.pdf, （May27, 2019）and IPC database（May 27, 2019）4. Gap between Disability Organizations and Disability Sports
Organizations
There is also a gap in the relationship between welfare-related disability
organizations and disability sports organizations. Even though there are a few casesof representatives from disability organizations sitting as board members of disability
sports organizations（the president of the Japan Federation of the Blind, for example,
serves as president of the Japan Blind Judo Federation, and the general manager of30

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

the union of national parents’ associations for persons with intellectual disabilities（Inclusion Japan）serves as a director of the All Nippon ID Sport Association（as of
May 2019））, it can hardly be said that there is a sufficient level of collaboration
between disability organizations and disability sports organizations. To begin with,there are hardly any disability organizations that have identified promotion of
disability sports as one of the main pillars of their activities（by officially setting up a
department in charge of sports within their organizations）, with the exception of theJapanese Federation of the Deaf, as of March 2018. This state of affairs shows that
there is a gap or divergence between welfare-related disability organizations anddisability sports organizations.
In many instances, only a few disability sports organizations have people withdisabilities on the board and among their empolyees. Of the 23 Paralympic sports
organizations surveyed by the Nippon Foundation Paralympic Support Center in
October 2018, the organizations that had people with disabilities on the board（inpositions of chairperson, president, or board member）were limited to the Japan Para
Shooting Sport Federation, Japan Para Table Tennis Association, Japanese ParaSwimming Federation, and Japan Boccia Association. The organizations that havepeople with disabilities among their empolyees were limited to the Japan Wheelchair
Tennis Association, Japan Wheelchair Basketball Federation, Japan Para-Volleyball
Association, Japan Para Table Tennis Association, Japan Para Ice Hockey Association,
Japan Swimming Federation for Persons with an Intellectual Disability, and Japan
Para Archery Federation.

5.

Disparity between the National and Local Governments

At the level of the national government, administration of disability sports wastransferred from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare to the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in 2014, integrating the planningand implementation of sports promotion policies for both able-bodied sports anddisability sports. At the level of prefectural governments, administration of disability
sports has been integrated into departments that have responsibility over sports forthe able-bodied in the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and 10 prefectures（Iwate,
Fukushima, Kanagawa, Shiga, Tottori, Hiroshima, Ehime, Kochi, Fukuoka, and Saga
31

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

Prefectures）, as of October 2018. Among the prefectures, Iwate and Ehime, which
hosted the National Sports Festival of Japan（hereafter the “NSF”）and the NationalSports Festival for People with Disabilities（hereafter the “NSFPD”）in 2016 and 2017,
respectively, each set up a department overseeing both the NSF and the NSFPD in
the preparatory phase of the events. After the events, both prefectures carried out
restructuring to integrate the offices responsible for sports for the able-bodied andthe disabled, establishing the Department of Culture and Sports in Iwate Prefectural
Government and the Sports and Culture Promotion Department in Ehime Prefectural
Government. This is a case where the departments responsible for sports for thedisabled and the able-bodied were integrated because the NSF and NSFPD were heldin the same prefecture.
At the level of the national government, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology, which has the Japan Sports Agency as its subordinate
organization, administers education in schools on the Olympics and the Paralympics,
which makes coordination easy. At the level of prefectures, however, the Board of
Education in each prefecture generally has responsibility over Paralympics education.
As there is no department responsible for Paralympics education within theprefectural government itself, there tends to be little coordination between promotionof disability sports in society at large and Paralympics education in schools.
Among the 28 disability sports organizations that have their offices in the Nippon
Foundation Paralympic Support Center, moreover, only seven have local branches（either at the prefectural or other regional levels）, according to data published on
their websites（as of February 2018）, suggesting that the foundation for promoting
and conducting PR activities for disability sports competitions has not been
sufficiently established at the local level.

6.

Disparity between Men and Women

It is evident, also from comparison with the Olympic Games, that women athletescompeting in the Paralympic Games are less frequently discussed than their malecounterparts, and this has also drawn international attention. One of the main reasonsfor this is the difference in the number of men and women athletes participating in
the Paralympic Games. As shown in Table 8, women athletes’ participation rate in the32

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

Paralympic Games, and particularly in the winter Paralympic Games, is lower
compared with that in the Olympic Games. Disparity between men and women is not
only limited to athletes. From the perspective of the ratio of women board members,
only four out of 13 members（29%）on the IPC Governing Board are women,９ andonly three out of 15 members（20%）of the Executive Board of the Asian Paralympic
Committee are women.10
Table 8. Women Athletes Participating in the Olympic and Paralympic Games（%）% of Female
Athletes（Summer Games）
Year

The
Paralympics（%）% of Female
Athletes（Winter Games）

The Olympics
（%）

Year

The
Paralympics（%）

The Olympics
（%）

1960

21.5

11.4

1976

23.0

20.6

1964

26.7

13.2

1980

30.6

21.7

1968

25.4

14.2

1984

28.9

21.5

1972

29.1

14.6

1988

25.7

21.2

1976

21.3

20.7

1992

26.7

27.1

1980

25.6

21.5

1994

23.7

30.0

1984

25.5

23.0

1998

27.7

36.2

1988

22.1

26.1

2002

26.5

36.9

1992

23.3

28.8

2006

26.4

38.2

1996

24.3

34.0

2010

31.8

40.7

2000

25.5

38.2

2014

31.3

40.3

2004

30.6

40.7

2018

30.9

41.3

2008

34.5

42.4

2012

35.4

44.2

2016

38.6

45.0

Compiled by Researcher Kei Hiraga based on IOC, 2016, Factsheet Women in the Olympic
Movement; 2018, Factsheet the Olympic Winter Games and IPC database（May 27, 2019）7.

Disparity among Countries

It is easily conceivable that each country’s economic and social conditions are more
readily reflected in the performance of athletes at the Paralympic Games than at the
Olympic Games, because of differences in the degree to which social welfare policies
33

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

and assistive technology are implemented and used in each country.
This disparity among countries is evident, first of all, in that many countries are
restricted in the events they have the capacity to take part in. The Rio Paralymic
Games had a total of 22 events, but the number of countries that could partake inmore than ten of those events was limited to 27 out of the 159 countries participatingin the Games. The breakdown of these 27 countries by region shows that of the 27
countries, 16 were composed of European countries and North American countries,
five were from the Asia and Pacific region, four from the Middle East and Africa, andtwo from South America, with European countries and North American countries
making up the majority. Among the six team sports events（football 5-a-side, football
7-a-side, goalball, sitting volleyball, wheelchair basketball, and wheelchair rugby）,only
5 countries could participate in four or more events.11
Secondly, in terms of the number of medals won at the Rio Paralympic Games, thetop ten countries were, with the exception of China and Australia, all European
countries plus the U.S. The percentage of medals won by the top three countries was
31.5%（the top three countries of medal share（gold, silver, and bronze）were China,
the UK, and Ukraine）. At the PyeongChang Paralympic Games, the percentage of
medals won by the top three countries（the U.S., Canada, and Ukraine）was 39.6%.
For the share of medals and share of medal points in Tables 9 to 14 below, any
number less than one unit for each case, has been rounded to the nearest unit.
Table 9. Share of Medals Won at Summer Paralympic GamesGames

Top 3 Countries

Top 5 Countries

Top 10 Countries

The London 2012 Paralympic Games

29.8%

41.8%

60.2%

The Rio 2016 Paralympic Games

31.5%

43.8%

60.6%

Compiled by Researcher Hanae Endo based on IPC database（May 27, 2019）34

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

Table 10. Share of Medals Won at Winter Paralympic GamesTop 3 Countries

Top 5 Countries

Top 10 Countries

Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter
Games

42.2%

58.9%

84.4%

Sochi 2014 Paralympic Winter Games＊＊

56.9%

71.3%

90.7%

PyeongChang 2018 Paralympic Winter
Games

39.6%

57.6%

79.7%

＊＊

Considering that the host country Russia won an exceptional number of medals at theSochi Paralympic Games, the data on the Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games arealso listed for comparison.
Compiled by Researcher Hanae Endo based on IPC database（May 27, 2019）

Table 11. Share of Top Ten Countries Winning Medals at the London 2012
Paralympic Games
NPC

Gold

SilverBronze

Total

Medal
Point

RegionShare of
Medals＊＊＊Share of
Points＊＊＊＊

1

China

95

71

65

231

492

Asia

15.2%

16.2%

2

Great Britain

34

43

43

120

231

Europe

7.9%

7.6%

3

Russia

36

38

28

102

212

Europe

6.7%

7.0%

4

United States

31

29

38

98

189

America

6.4%

6.2%

5

Australia

32

23

30

85

172

Oceania

5.6%

5.7%

6

Ukraine

32

24

28

84

172

Europe

5.5%

5.7%

7

Germany

18

26

22

66

128

Europe

4.3%

4.2%

8

France

8

19

18

45

80

Europe

3.0%

2.6%

9

Brazil

21

14

8

43

99

America

2.8%

3.3%

10

Spain

8

18

16

42

76

Europe

2.8%

2.5%

＊＊＊

The share of medals is the total number of medals won by a country shown as apercentage of all medals.
＊＊＊＊The share of medal points is the total medal points of each country, calculated, formatter of convenience, by adding three points for each gold medal, two points for eachsilver medal, and one point for each bronze medal, shown as a percentage of all medal
points.
Compiled by Researcher Hanae Endo based on IPC database（May 27, 2019）35

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12

Table 12. Share of Top Ten Countries Winning Medals at the Rio Paralympic Games
NPC

Gold

SilverBronze

Total

Medal
Point

RegionShare of
Medals＊＊＊Share of
Points＊＊＊＊

1

China

107

81

51

239

534

Asia

15.0%

16.8%

2

Great Britain

64

39

44

147

314

Europe

9.2%

9.9%

3

Ukraine

41

37

39

117

236

Europe

7.3%

7.4%

4

United States

40

44

31

115

239

America

7.2%

7.5%

5

Australia

22

30

29

81

155

Oceania

5.1%

4.9%

6

Brazil

14

29

29

72

129

America

4.5%

4.1%

7

Netherlands

17

19

26

62

115

Europe

3.9%

3.6%

8

Germany

18

25

14

57

118

Europe

3.6%

3.7%

9

Poland

9

18

12

39

75

Europe

2.4%

2.4%

10

Italy

10

14

15

39

73

Europe2.4%

2.3%

Compiled by Researcher Hanae Endo based on IPC database（May 27, 2019）

Table 13. Share of Top Ten Countries Winning Medals at the Sochi 2014 Paralympic
Winter Games
NPC

Gold

SilverBronze

Total

Medal
Point

RegionShare of
Medals＊＊＊Share of
Points＊＊＊＊1

Russia

30

28

22

80

168

Europe

37.0%

38.9%

2

Ukraine

5

9

11

25

44

Europe

11.6%

10.2%

3

United States

2

7

9

18

29

America

8.3%

6.7%

4

Canada

7

2

7

16

32

America

7.4%

7.4%

5

Germany

9

5

1

15

38

Europe

6.9%

8.8%

6

France

5

3

4

12

25

Europe

5.6%

5.8%

7

Austria

2

5

4

11

20

Europe

5.1%

4.6%

8

Slovakia

3

2

2

7

15

Europe

3.2%

3.5%

9

Japan

3

1

2

6

13

Asia

2.8%

3.0%

10

Great Britain

1

3

2

6

11

Europe2.8%

2.5%

Compiled by Researcher Hanae Endo based on IPC database（May 27, 2019）36

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

Table 14. Share of Top Ten Countries Winning Medals at the PyeongChang
Paralympic Games
NPC

Gold

SilverBronze

Total

Medal
Point

RegionShare of
Medals＊＊＊Share of
Points＊＊＊＊1

United States

13

15

8

36

77

America

16.6%

17.9%

2

Canada

8

4

16

28

48

America

12.9%

11.1%

3

Ukraine

7

7

8

22

43

Europe

10.1%

10.0%

4

France

7

8

5

20

42

Europe

9.2%

9.7%

5

Germany

7

8

4

19

41

Europe

8.8%

9.5%

6

Belarus

4

4

4

12

24

Europe

5.5%

5.6%

7

Slovakia

6

4

1

11

27

Europe

5.1%

6.3%

8

Japan

3

4

3

10

20

Asia

4.6%

4.6%

9

Norway

1

3

4

8

13

Europe

3.7%

3.0%

10

Netherlands

3

3

1

7

16

Europe3.2%

3.7%

Compiled by Researcher Hanae Endo based on IPC database（May 27, 2019）In terms of host cities of the 15 summer Paralympic Games held between 1960 and2016, only six were hosted outside of Europe and the U.S., namely, Tokyo in 1964, Tel
Aviv in 1968, Seoul in 1988, Sydney in 2000, Beijing in 2008, and Rio de Janeiro in2016. For the 12 winter Paralympic Games held since 1976, only two were hosted
outside of Europe and North American countries, namely, Nagano in 1998 andPyoengChang in 2018.
When the ratio of countries winning medals to countries not winning any medals isobserved chronologically from the beginning of the history of the Paralympic Games,
we can see that as shown in Figure 4, since the Seoul Paralympic Games in 1988, theincrease in the number of participating countries and the increase in the number ofcountries not winning any medals are practically in parallel, suggesting that progresshas not necessarily been made in closing the disparity. A similar trend can also be
observed for the winter Paralympic Games, starting from the time of the Nagano
Games.

37

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12
180

NUM OF COUNTRIES160

Num of Countries with
Medalists140

Num of Countries
without Medalists

120
100

Num of Participant
Countries

80
60
40
20
0

Figure 4. The Number of Countries Winning Medals andCountries Not Winning Any Medals（Summer Games）

Compiled by Researcher Hanae Endo based on IPC database（May 27, 2019）

NUM OF COUNTRIES

60
50
40

Num of Countries with
Medalists30

Num of Countries
without Medalists

20

Num of Participant
Countries

100

Figure 5. The Number of Countries Winning Medals andCountries Not Winning Any Medals（Winter Games）
Compiled by Researcher Hanae Endo based on IPC database（May 27, 2019）38

The Paradox Concerning Disability Sports:
Exploring Challenges Facing the Paralympics

Towards the Future
As the public’s knowledge of the Paralympics grows and their interest in
Paralympic events is deepened, the issues and challenges facing the Paralympics are
increasingly coming to the fore and becoming more apparent. In particular, because
there are expectations that the Paralympics may have a positive ripple effect onchanging the awareness and behavior of disabled and able-bodied people in relation
to promoting social participation of people with disabilities, one of the central themesof future Paralympic research should be to study how the significance of the
Paralympics may change or evolve with its development. In that respect, it would be
fortunate if this article were to contribute in any small way to discussions on the
future success of the Paralympics.
References
１

D.E.J. Purdue, P.D. Howe, 2012, “See the Sport, Not the Disability: Exploring the Paralympic
Paradox,” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 1-17.

２Nakamori, K., 2014, “Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Kyogitaikai Nihon Daihyo Senshu no Senshu
Ikusei・Kyokano Jisseki to Kongo no Hoshin（Training Athletes for the Japanese Team in
the 2020 Tokyo Paralympic Games ・ Results of Strengthened Training and Future Plans ）,”Normalization August 2014, http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/japanese/prdl/jsrd/norma/n397/
n397004.html,（16 May, 2019）.

３

Japanese Para-Sports Association, 2017, “A Vision of the Future of Para-Sports in Japan,”
http://www.jsad.or.jp/about/referenceroom_data/whole_01_170301.pdf,（16 May, 2019）.

４

Canadian Paralympic Committee, “PYEONGCHANG 2018: A RECORD-BREAKING WINTERGAMES FOR CANADIAN PARALYMPIC TEAM” March 18, 2018, ” https://paralympic.ca/
news/pyeongchang-2018-record-breaking-winter-games-canadian-paralympic-team, （May 16,2019）.

５

BBC, “Rio 2016: Great Britain medal target set for Olympics & Paralympics,” July 14, 2016,
https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/36792200,（May 16, 2019）.

６Tony Naar, Former General Manager Knowledge Services at the Australian Paralympic
Committee, personal correspondence.

７

The Asahi Shimbun, “Muraoka ga V（Victory for Muraoka）,” February 2, 2019; The Yomiuri
Shimbun, “Muraoka ga Yusho（Muraoka Wins）,” February 2, 2019.

８

Overboe, J., 2009, “ ‘Difference in Itself’: Validating Disabled People’s Lived Experience, ”
Michalko, R., Titchkosky, T.（eds.）, Rethinking Normalcy: A Disability Studies Reader,
Brown Bear Press, 76.

９10

IPC, “Who we are,” https://www.paralympic.org/the-ipc/governing-board,（May 21, 2019）.
Asian Paralympic Committee, “About APC,” https://asianparalympic.org/executive-board/,（May 21, 2019）.
39

Journal of Paralympic Research Group vol.12
11IPC, “IPC Historical Results Archive,” https://www.paralympic.org/sdms4/hira/web,（May22, 2019）.

40