Some of the most elite athletes in the world accomplish tremendous athletic feats while overcoming the perceived limitations of physical disabilities

Like any major international sport entity, the Paralympic Movement faces a wide variety of issues for which it must formulate policies. The new strategic plan developed by the IPC Governing Board and management team focuses on five strategic priorities. These are to

Strengthen the effectiveness of the Paralympic Movement at all levels, Enhance the Paralympic Games experience and further its reach as a celebration of human diversity, Drive a cultural shift through Para sport for a truly inclusive society, Continuous pursuit of excellence in what we do and how we do it, and Develop and deliver a new brand statement that globally positions our vision and mission.

(Around the Rings, 2021, para. 12)

This strategic plan illustrates how a sport governing body identifies and addresses important issues. The plan provides a backdrop for this section on current policy areas the IPC will be addressing while moving forward.

Classification

Classification is an ever-present policy issue that the IPC reassesses periodically. Classification determines eligibility for para sport and ensures athletes compete against others who are similarly challenged, but this is not as simple as it sounds (Palmer, 2021). Over 4000 athletes needed to be classified to compete at the Tokyo Summer Games. Athletes with a number of physical disabilities are allowed to compete at the Paralympic Games, but there can be quite a bit of variability within those disability categories. While classification is a bit more straightforward when it comes to athletes who are, for example, amputees, it is more difficult when it comes to classifying athletes with coordination issues such as those with cerebral palsy (Wade, 2021). Classifying athletes contains a human element on the part of the classifiers and at times their decisions may be seen as arbitrary or unscientific. Athletes may be forced into new classification categories if the classification codes change and occasionally allegations surface of athletes taking measures to perform differently during classification to compete in a category that would provide them a competitive advantage (France24, 2021). For a brief time before the Tokyo Games, it appeared the International Wheelchair Basketball Federation (IWBF) was deemed out of compliance with the IPC Athlete Classification Code and had to create an action plan to ensure its continuation on the Paralympic Games program (Lloyd, 2021). The IPC is currently undertaking its periodic review of the classification system, and it remains to be seen what changes may be on the horizon for the 2024 Summer Games in Paris. Given the nature of disability sport, this is a policy issue the IPC will continue to wrestle with.

Athlete Expression and Section 2.2

The Olympic Movement has seen its share of athletes speaking out on issues of social justice. In so doing, these athletes have run aground of the IOC’s Rule 50 which sets guidelines for acceptable political statements. There is a parallel universe in Paralympic sport with the IPC’s Section 2.2. This policy reads (IPC, 2020, p. 10):

2.2 Discrimination and demonstrations

2.2.1 No unlawful discrimination is allowed on the grounds of disability, race, skin colour, national, ethnic or social origin, age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, language, political or other opinion, religion or other beliefs, circumstances of birth, or other improper ground against any person, group of persons, or country or territory.

2.2.2 No kind of demonstration, protest, or political statement is permitted in any Paralympic venues or other areas related to the Paralympic Games, except to the extent permitted in any supplementary regulations issued by the IPC in relation to this Article 2.2.2.

2.2.3 National Paralympic Committees, International Federations, and other relevant bodies and authorities involved in the organization of the Paralympic Games should adopt and implement policies and regulations (including disciplinary procedures) that prevent unlawful discrimination and protect the principle of neutrality in sport.

The Summer Games in Tokyo saw US rower Charley Nordin make a statement by wearing a t-shirt demanding justice for Oscar Grant, a young man killed by a BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) police officer in California. While the USOPC took no action against Nordin, the IPC sanctioned him to issue a public apology (IPC Legal and Ethics Committee, 2022) – which is surely a less strict punishment compared to, for example, the IOC’s sanctions on Tommie Smith and John Carlos in 1968. Similar to Rule 50, there are those who advocate for the abolition of Section 2.2 as it violates the basic human rights for athletes’ freedom of expression. “As the Paralympic platform becomes bigger, we need to more rigorously scrutinize the practices, procedures, and policies that hinder athletes from turning their visibility into action for systemic change – starting with the IPC’s outdated Section 2.2” (Siegfried et al., 2021a, para. 9). Given the comparably light punishment of Nordin by the IPC, it will be interesting to see how the IPC responds to not only similar acts of athlete expression in the future, but also to the greater issue of the rights of Paralympians to freely express their opinions while at the Paralympic Games going forward.

Integration of Athletes with Disabilities into Able-Bodied Sport

This complex policy area is one in which the solutions are evolving differently in different parts of the world. While not exactly an issue directly related to the Paralympic Movement, it is an important ongoing discussion in sport for people with disabilities and so is brought up in this chapter. The extent to which athletes with disabilities have been integrated into able-bodied sport can be measured by the following organizational components: (1) governance, (2) media and information distribution, (3) management, (4) funding and sponsorship, (5) awareness and education, (6) events and programs, (7) awards and recognition, (8) philosophy, and (9) advocacy (Hums et al., 2003; Hums et al., 2009; Wolff, 2000). Each of these components can be examined as presented in Exhibit 11.4.

How can these components relate to policy development within a sport organization? For media and information distribution, sport organizations can make sure athletes with disabilities are presented on a consistent basis in social media and in press releases. Under management, sport organizations could establish hiring procedures creating opportunities for people with disabilities to be represented in the pool of candidates for open management positions. Under events and programs, sport organizations could establish participation categories for athletes with disabilities, just as there are categories of participation for men and women. For funding, sport organizations could establish funding opportunities specifically for athletes with disabilities so when organizational representatives meet with potential donors, disability sport is part of the conversation. These examples show how the criteria for inclusion can influence organizational policy-making, and they also provide a solid framework for assessing the status of athletes and people with disabilities within sport organizations.

exhibit 11.4 Nine Organizational Component Model for Analyzing the Integration of Athletes with Disabilities

Governance – examine how organizational policies and procedures deal with athletes with disabilities

Media and information distribution – look at the representation of athletes with disabilities in organizational publications or media guides

Management – examine the number of persons with disabilities working in management positions or sitting on governance boards

Funding and sponsorship – determine from the budget how much money raised by the organization is going to support athletes with disabilities

Awareness and education – consider how informed and knowledgeable people within the organization are about disability sport

Events and programs – determine the number of competitive opportunities the organization provides for athletes with disabilities

Awards and recognition – evaluate how the organization publicly recognizes the accomplishments of its athletes with disabilities

Philosophy – review the organization’s mission statement and determine how athletes with disabilities are reflected in it

Advocacy – determine whether a sport organization is actively promoting sport for people with disabilities via special programming

Sources: Hums et al. (2003; 2009); Wolff (2000).