I’m an Advocate for Disability Rights. Here’s Why I Think the Olympics and Paralympics Should Be Kept Apart

As a Paralympian and advocate for disability rights, I’ve often been asked about the idea of combining the Paralympic and Olympic Games. On the surface, combining the Games might seem to promote unity and equality, both ideas I champion. When I tell people I think the Games should be kept apart, they are often surprised. Here’s why I think they should remain separate.

The idea of inclusion manifests differently for everyone, influenced by their place of birth and cultural context. In some societies, inclusion may be seen through the lens of universal access and rights, where accommodations are made to integrate everyone equally into mainstream settings. But inclusion doesn’t always equal equality, as it often involves recognizing and celebrating differences rather than trying to make everyone “the same.” 

The Paralympic Games and para-sports have become powerful catalysts in reshaping perceptions of disability by highlighting the extraordinary capabilities of athletes with disability. Traditionally, disability has often been viewed through a lens of limitation and dependency. Instead, the Paralympics offer a transformative perspective by showcasing the resilience, determination, and elite athleticism of its participants. Through high-level competition and impressive accomplishments of strength and skill, these athletes challenge stereotypes and redefine what is possible. Each Paralympic athlete has overcome immense challenges to compete at the highest level in their respective sports.

Still, it can’t be ignored though that fundamental differences exist between athletes with disability and athletes without disability. For example, if you’re a basketball player with disability and you want to play for your country, you only have the option of playing wheelchair basketball. The rules differ slightly to accommodate for the technical requirements of wheelchairs on court, but of course the remarkable skills needed by para-athletes are second to none. Maneuvering a wheelchair at high speed while passing or shooting the ball is something these athletes have honed for years.

At the Tokyo Paralympic Games, the fastest time for a male swimmer for the 100m freestyle was 50.64, an incredibly fast time, however ranking the swimmer at 49th in the top fastest times for men’s 100m freestyle at the Olympic Games. If the Games were to combine under the auspice of true inclusion, where everyone competes together side by side, Paralympic swimmers would struggle to make it through the heat rounds, and basketball would be impossible. You can’t have wheelchair players on the court with players not using a wheelchair. It’s too dangerous.

So, what about merging the Olympic and Paralympic Games into one single, very large event?

It may seem like a step toward greater inclusion, but it could undermine the distinct needs and achievements of athletes with disabilities. 

Consider the infrastructure required for an accommodation village with 26,000 beds and a transport service with capacity for almost as many people, including 2,000 people in wheelchairs. Unless the number of facilities were doubled, including two Olympic stadiums and swimming pools, the length of the Games would have to increase to a month-long event without any breaks. Surely a decision would need to be made about reducing the schedule of events, but who makes the decision as to what sports or sporting events stay or go?

Furthermore, the Olympic Games are already a massive, high-profile sporting spectacle that demands extensive media coverage, sponsorship, and logistical support, while the Paralympic Games, though growing in reputation, often still struggle for equivalent visibility and resources. There is a real risk that media coverage of the Paralympic athletes would be drowned out by the already significant streams of information created by Olympics news coverage.

Financially, the Paralympic Games already struggle for funding and recognition compared to their Olympic counterpart. Merging could exacerbate these disparities, as sponsors and media attention may prioritize the larger, more established Olympic sports. In my opinion, this would hinder the growth and development of Paralympic sports and athletes who deserve their own spotlight. It would further dilute the focused attention and specialized support that athletes with disabilities require, reducing their platform to showcase their unique talents and experiences.

It’s important to also remember the word “Paralympic” derives from the Greek preposition “para” (beside or alongside) and the word “Olympic.” Its meaning is that Paralympics are the parallel Games to the Olympics and illustrates how the two movements exist side-by-side.

In 2001 a formal agreement was put in place between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), ensuring that Olympic host cities would also stage the Paralympics. The “One Bid, One City” agreement protects the organization of the Paralympic Games, meaning the Paralympic Games use the same venues, facilities and infrastructure, with full integration of both organizing committees and financial guarantees.

The Paralympic Games are not just a celebration of athletic excellence but a profound statement on the capabilities and contributions of people with disabilities. The Paralympic Games stand as a testament to the power of diversity, and human achievement in the face of challenges, and they play a crucial role in breaking down barriers, shifting public perceptions, and this is exactly what we need to foster a more inclusive world.

They’re two very different events with two different histories and they represent two different movements. Let’s continue to celebrate Paralympic athletes in their own light, honoring their contributions to sport and society, and ensuring that their voices are heard loud and clear on the world stage.