Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Palgrave Handbook of Paralympic Studies pp 481–505Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

The London 2012 Paralympic Games

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

London 2012 has reached paradigmatic status for the way that it organised the Paralympic Games and sought to leverage its legacy potential. Beginning with an analysis of London 2012’s bid, the chapter then examines the position and role of key stakeholders including the organising committee, the UK government, corporate sponsors and Channel 4 , the television broadcaster. The degree of Paralympic integration and engagement justifies London 2012’s ‘Paralympic’ paradigmatic status. This being said, a number of Paralympic issues, challenges and risks that London 2012 faced are noted. A discussion of London 2012’s attempt to create a ‘lasting legacy’ concludes the chapter.

Tonight is a celebration of the development of the human spirit, a celebration of the Paralympic movement coming home and a celebration of dreams becoming a reality.

(Phillip Craven ’s, the IPC’s President, opening statement at the opening ceremony at the London 2012 Paralympic Games)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Specifically, the Mayor of Paris is documented as accusing London of not sticking to the rules of the bid process.

  2. 2.

    A sociological understanding of rationalisation is intended here, which means the calculated advancement and development of an object of society. In this context it could refer to the rationalisation of the institutional arrangement of the Paralympic Movement or to the rationalisation of the performance training of Paralympic athletes . In either case, calculated rationalisation is the intended meaning.

  3. 3.

    ‘Top-down’ here relates to the identification of themes from the IPC’s objectives.

  4. 4.

    One example is Channel 4 and Sunset+Vine’s award of the Best coverage of London 2012 award from the Association of International Broadcasters (AIB 2012).

  5. 5.

    Work capability assessments are used to determine the qualification of applicants for social security, although it is more often referred to as ‘disability benefits’.

  6. 6.

    It is worth noting that not all disability groups believe in such forms of direct action. Other groups, such as ‘We are Spartacus’, produced their own research to illegitmise the government’s research that underpinned their policies.

  7. 7.

    For example, Sport England (2016) recently stated: “We recognise that funding alone is not enough to close the participation gap between disabled and able-bodied sport and that is why we are also working on developing a better understanding of the disability market. To build on this insight, we are going to be investing in a pilot project with several NGBs over the next year. This will help us gather further knowledge of what attracts disabled peop le to take part in sport.”

  8. 8.

    Notably Darcy (2003) found that the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games “increased the speed of social change for accessible infrastructure ” (p. 753).

References

  • AIB. 2012. 2012 AIBs Winners and Highly Commended. http://theaibs.tv/2012-aibs-winners-and-highly-commended/. Accessed 4 June 2015.

  • Bamford, D., and B. Dehe. 2016. Service Quality at the London 2012 Games – A Paralympics Athletes Survey. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 33 (2): 142–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertling, C., and T. Schierl. 2008. Disabled Sport and Its Relation to Contemporary Cultures of Presence and Aesthetics. Sport in History 28 (1): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloyce, D., and E. Lovett. 2012. Planning for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Legacy: A Figurational Analysis. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 4 (3): 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodet, G. 2006. Investigating Customer Satisfaction in a Health Club Context by an Application of the Tetraclasse Model. European Sport Management Quarterly 6 (2): 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braye, S., K. Dixon, and T. Gibbons. 2012. “A Mockery of Equality”: An Exploratory Investigation into Disabled Activists’ Views of the Paralympic Games. Disability & Society 28 (7): 984–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brittain, I. 2004. Perceptions of Disability and Their Impact Upon Involvement in Sport for People with Disabilities at all Levels. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 28: 429–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. The Paralympic Games Explained. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brittain, I., G. Ramshaw, and S. Gammon. 2012. The Marginalisation of Paralympic Heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.681679.

  • Burkett, B., M. McNamee, and W. Potthast. 2011. Shifting Boundaries in Sports Technology and Disability: Equal Rights or Unfair Advantage in the Case of Oscar Pistorius? Disability and Society 26 (5): 643–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, A., M. Silk, J. Porter, and P.D. Howe. 2013. Disability [Sport] and Discourse: Stories Within the Paralympic Legacy. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 14 (5): 632–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CAS. 2008. Arbitration CAS 2008/A/1480 Pistorius v/IAAF, Award of 16 May 2008. http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%20Documents/1480.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2015.

  • Cashman, R. 2008. The Benchmark Games. In Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games, ed. R. Cashman and S. Darcy, 56–73. New South Wales: Walla Walla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chappelet, J.L. 2012. Mega Sporting Event Legacies: A Multifaceted Concept. Papeles de Europa 25: 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creese, B., and D. Lader. 2014. Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2013/14. London: Crown/Home Office Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darcy, S. 2003. The Politics of Disability and Access: The Sydney 2000 Games Experience. Disability & Society 18 (6): 737–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DCMS. 2012. London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Quarterly Report – October 2012. London: DCMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrara, K., J. Burns, and H. Mills. 2015. Public Attitudes Toward People with Intellectual Disabilities after Viewing Olympic or Paralympic Performance. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 32: 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girginov, V. 2012. Governance of London 2012 Olympic Games legacy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47 (5): 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, J.R., and M.M. Gold. 2007. Access for All: The Rise of the Paralympic Games. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 127 (3): 133–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. Olympic Cities: Regeneration, City Rebranding and Changing Urban Agendas. Geography Compass 2 (1): 300–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant Thornton, Ecorys, Loughborough University and Oxford Economics. 2012. Report 4: Interim Evaluation Meta-Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. http://doc.rero.ch/record/31881/files/Report_4.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2015.

  • Howe, P.D. 2008. The Cultural Politics of the Paralympic Movement: Through an Anthropological Lens. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Cyborg and Supercrip: The Paralympics Technology and the (Dis)empowerment of Disabled Athletes. Sociology 45 (5): 868–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPC. 2008. Beijing 2008 Paralympics on NBC Sports. http://www.paralympic.org/news/beijing-2008-paralympics-nbc-sports. Accessed 4 June 2015.

  • ———. 2012a. IOC and IPC Extend Co-operation Agreement Until 2020, May 8. http://www.paralympic.org/news/ioc-and-ipc-extend-co-operation-agreement-until-2020. Accessed 10 May 2012.

  • ———. 2012b. London 2012 Overview. http://www.paralympic.org/london-2012-overview. Accessed 4 June 2015.

  • ———. 2012c. USA Announces NBC Broadcast Plans for London 2012. http://www.paralympic.org/news/usa-announces-nbc-broadcast-plans-london-2012. Accessed 4 June 2015.

  • ———. 2013. NBC Highlights Handful of New Paralympic Broadcast Deals. http://www.paralympic.org/feature/no-1-nbc-highlights-handful-new-paralympic-broadcast-deals. Accessed 4 June 2015.

  • ———. 2014. 7: First IPC-IOC Agreement. http://www.paralympic.org/feature/7-first-ipc-ioc-agreement. Accessed 4 May 2015.

  • Lauff, J. 2011. Participation Rates of Developing Countries in International Disability Sport: A Summary and the Importance of Statistics for Understanding and Planning. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics 14 (9): 1280–1284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeClair, J. 2011. Global Organizational Change in Sport and the Shifting Meaning of Disability. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics 14 (9): 1072–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacRury, I., and G. Poynter. 2010. “Team GB” and London 2012: The Paradox of National and Global Identities. The International Journal of the History of Sport 27 (16–18): 2958–2975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, F. 2002. Creating Image and Gaining Control: The Development of the Cooperation Agreements Between the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee. In The Global Nexus Engaged: Past, Present, Future Interdisciplinary Olympic Studies: Sixth International Symposium for Olympic Research, ed. K.B. Wamsley, R.K. Barney, and S.G. Martyn, 113–121. London: Ontario Centre for Olympic Studies, University of Western Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P. 2007. Back the Bid: The 2012 Summer Olympics and the Governance of London. Journal of Urban Affairs II 29 (3): 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, M.E., and F. Moola. 2011. Bladerunner or Boundary Runner? Oscar Pistorius, Cyborg Transgressions and Strategies of Containment. Sport in Society 14 (9): 1265–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ODI and DCMS. 2010. London 2012: A Legacy for Disabled People. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

    Google Scholar 

  • ODI and DCMS. 2011. London 2012: A Legacy for Disabled People. London: Office for Disability Issues.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. 1990. The Politics of Disablement: Critical Texts in Social Work and the Welfare State. London: Macmillan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peers, D. 2009. (Dis)empowering Paralympic Histories: Absent Athletes and Disabling Discourses. Disability & Society 24 (5): 653–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdue, D.E.J. 2013. An (In)convenient Truce? Paralympic Stakeholders’ Reflections on the Olympic–Paralympic Relationship. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 37 (4): 384–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherrill, C. 1998. Philosophical and Ethical Aspects of Paralympic Sports. In Physical Activity and Active Lifestyles of Children and Youth, ed. R. Naul, K. Hardman, M. Pieron, and B. Skirstad, 19–28. Schorndorf: Hofmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., and N. Thomas. 2012. The Politics and Policy of Inclusion and Technology in Paralympic Sport: Beyond Pistorius. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 4 (3): 397–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sport England. 2016. https://www.sportengland.org/our-work/disability-sport/why-disability-sport-matters/helping-more-disabled-people-play-more-sport/

  • Swartz, L., and B. Watermeyer. 2008. Cyborg Anxiety: Oscar Pistorius and the Boundaries of What It Means to Be Human. Disability & Society 23 (2): 187–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Guardian. 2012. Olympics 2012: Every Record Broken at London 2012 Listed, August 10. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/datablog/interactive/2012/aug/10/olympics-2012-list-of-records-broken. Accessed 4 June 2015.

  • Thomas, N., and M. Guett. 2014. Fragmented, Complex and Cumbersome: A Study of Disability Sport Policy and Provision in Europe. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 6 (3): 389–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, N., and A. Smith. 2009. Disability, Sport and Society. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, A. 2012. Lording It: London and the Getting of the Games. In Watching the Olympics: Politics, Power and Representation, ed. J. Sugden and A. Tomlinson, 1–17. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. 2015. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html. Accessed 8 March 2017.

  • Weed, M., and S. Dowse. 2009. A Missed Opportunity Waiting to Happen? The Social Legacy Potential of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 1 (2): 17–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO and the World Bank. 2011. World Report on Disability. Geneva: World Health Organisation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nielsen Sport, London, UK

    Shane Kerr

Authors
  1. Shane Kerr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Business in Society, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom

    Ian Brittain

  2. University of St Mark and St John, Plymouth, United Kingdom

    Aaron Beacom

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kerr, S. (2018). The London 2012 Paralympic Games. In: Brittain, I., Beacom, A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Paralympic Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47901-3_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47901-3_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-47900-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-47901-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation