Organising and Delivering the Modern Paralympic Games: Contemporary Debates Relating to Integration and Distinction

  • Laura Misener
  • Kristina Molloy


In this chapter, we address the philosophical debate about an inclusive society in relation to organising an event that aims to build accessible sport facilities, develop sport pathways and influence societal understandings of disability. The push and pull between integration for the purpose of efficiency of resources, and separation (of roles, of logos etc.) for distinction and recognition, is a challenge that every Organising Committee (OC) faces when developing the overall structure and defining the Paralympic brand. Through a case example of the Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Games, we demonstrate the tension in organising the Paralympic Games, emphasising the balance required, and the inherent need for, and importance of a successful Games. In particular, we frame our discussion around the idea of distinction from the perspective of the OC from the very outset of involvement (i.e. the Bid Process) to the conclusion of the Games and ceasing of existence of this very committee.


  1. Department of Culture, Media, and Sport. 2013. Report 5: Post-Games Evaluation Meta-Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games.…data/…/1188-B_Meta_Evaluation.pdf
  2. Emery, P. 2015. The Bidders and Promoters’ Perspective. In Routledge Handbook of Sports Event Management, ed. M. Parent and J.L. Cappelet, 20–42. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Enos, M., S. Busse, R. Davis, and N. Megginson. 2012. The Influence of Paralympic Game Proposals on Successfully Hosting the Olympics. Palaestra 26 (3): 53–55.Google Scholar
  4. Gilbert, K., and O. Shantz. 2008. The Paralympic Games: Empowerment or Sideshow? New York and Maidenhead: Meyer & Meyer.Google Scholar
  5. Gold, J., and M. Gold. 2007. Access for All: The Rise of the Paralympic Games. Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 127 (3): 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. International Olympic Committee. 2006. IOC and IPC Sign Agreement Extension for 2014 and 2016.
  7. ———. 2008. Games of the XXXI Olympiad 2016 Working Group Report.
  8. ———. 2012. IOC and IPC Sign Agreement Extension Until 2020.
  9. ———. 2014. Olympic Games Impact (OGI) Assessment Framework. International Olympic Committee.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2016. IOC and IPC Sign Long-Term Agreement Supporting the Paralympic Movement.
  11. International Paralympic Committee. 2013. IPC Handbook, November 2013, Paralympic Games, Organisation Principles, Section 1, Chapter 3.
  12. ———. 2014. Sochi 2014 Paralympics Watched by Over Two Billion Viewers.
  13. ———. 2015. Brand Book of the International Paralympic Committee. www.paralympic.org_ipc_13_brandbook_13020Google Scholar
  14. Jacobs, N., and L. Misener. 2013. IOC and IPC Strategic Alliances Through Time. Paper presented at the North American Society for Sport Management Conference. May 27–June 1, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  15. Misener, L. 2014. Leveraging Parasport Events for Community Participation: Development of a Theoretical Framework. European Sport Management Quarterly 15 (1): 132–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parent, M. 2015. The Organizing Committee’s Perspective. In Routledge Handbook of Sports Event Management, ed. M. Parent and J. Chappelet, 43–61. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Parent, M., and J. Chappelet. 2015. Routledge Handbook of Sports Event Management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Parent, M., and S. Smith-Swan. 2013. Managing Major Sports Events: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Purdue, D. 2013. An (In)convenient Truce? Paralympic Stakeholders’ Reflections on the Olympic-Paralympic Relationship. Journal of Sport & Social Issues 37 (4): 384–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. VANOC. 2003. Host City Contract for the XXI Olympic Winter Games.
  21. ———. 2010a. PPL Games Knowledge Report. Vancouver, BC: VANOC.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2010b. Staging the Olympic Winter Games Knowledge Report. Vancouver: VANOC.Google Scholar
  23. World Health Organization. 2001. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Misener
    • 1
  • Kristina Molloy
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Kristina Molloy ConsultingVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations