The Paralympics draw to a close on Sunday and they have not, thankfully, been the unmitigated disaster that – just a couple of weeks before the Games began – they looked like they may be. With swingeing budget cuts as a result of the Olympic Games pilfering a significant chunk of their finances, the days leading up to the Paralympic Opening Ceremony were dominated by reports of venues being partially closed, transport being curtailed and the Deodoro Olympic Park being shut as a result of lack of cash. That's before the worryingly low ticket sales were even mentioned.
However, Rio has, by and large, pulled it off. The sport has been the news rather than more negative stories, even if the countless empty seats have been disappointing. The Olympic Games, though, showed that this was not exclusively a Paralympic problem and the widely-publicised #filltheseats campaign did a tremendous job of distributing Paralympic tickets to the children of Rio, ensuring that the issue has not been as severe as it might have been.
There is an important point to remember when assessing the aftermath of the Rio Olympic and Paralympic Games, though; the absence of disaster does not, necessarily, mean that they have been a success. Okay, there was no Zika, nor any terrorist attacks or infrastructure collapses that, at one point, looked possible, likely even. But the Rio Olympics and Paralympics look to have made it to the finishing line pretty much in one piece.
Going forward, however, there must be significant concerns for the Paralympics. It cannot be overstated just how much good work that London 2012 did for the Paralympic movement but Rio has undone much of that progress. The actions of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have been a large part of this step backwards; in the weeks preceding the Olympic Games, it became apparent that a significant chunk of money was needed to make sure that they went off without a hitch. That money was taken from the budget of the Paralympics, resulting in these Games being forced to make significant cutbacks. As the Paralympics push for greater status and recognition, these cuts fundamentally undermined this progress.
What is most concerning, though, is how complicit the IOC were in threatening the success of these Paralympics. The IOC's president, Thomas Bach, has said that no public money was used in the organising of these Games – this is just one of a number of demonstrably false claims that the German made. It was reported that the Paralympics needed a public bailout of around $46m just to make sure they happened at all.
This is, evidently, not a sustainable model going forward. Admittedly, Rio was awarded the Olympic and Paralympic Games at a time when Brazil's economy was booming and it was severe bad luck that the country was in such a financial slump by the time the Games arrived. However, it would be naive to think that this situation could never be replicated. With the Games awarded to the host nation seven years in advance, much can happen in the interim and it would be something of a tragedy were the IOC to only award the Olympics and Paralympics to developed, rich countries in the hope of avoiding another Rio-like situation.
But something must be done or else the future of the Paralympics is in grave danger. That the IOC allowed such a substantial amount to be taken from the Paralympic budget to ensure the smooth running of the Olympics indicates where their priorities lie. The Olympic Games are a money-making machine like no other (the IOC made over $13bn from Rio's) but they are at a scale now which is unsustainable. Time and time again, it has been said that they must be down-sized but the fact that the IOC voted, on the eve of these Olympics, to add another five sports to the 2020 programme shows that this is unlikely to happen any time soon.
It would, too, be tricky to downsize the Paralympics if its prestige is to be maintained. 4350 athletes from 160 nations have competed in Rio over the past week-or-so and it would surely serve to irreparably undermine the Paralympic movement were they to be downsized while the Olympics continue to grow. So, perhaps the answer is for the Paralympics to make a breakaway. There are observers who believe that the movement is at a stage in its development where a breakaway would do wonders for its growth and profile and this is the view I tend towards. Others, however, believe that a breakaway is too risky, with the world-wide appeal of the Olympic Games necessary to publicise the Paralympics. A merger seems sensible on many levels but with the current size of both Games, it is logistically impossible.
Whatever the answer, something must be done. That Rio did not catastrophically fail does not mean that the model is not broken. And if, or more likely when, cracks begin to show again, it will be the Paralympics that bear the brunt of the strain.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here