The London 2012 Paralympic Games

  • Shane Kerr


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.


  1. AIB. 2012. 2012 AIBs Winners and Highly Commended. Accessed 4 June 2015.
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2010. The Paralympic Games Explained. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Brittain, I., G. Ramshaw, and S. Gammon. 2012. The Marginalisation of Paralympic Heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies.
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CAS. 2008. Arbitration CAS 2008/A/1480 Pistorius v/IAAF, Award of 16 May 2008. Accessed 4 June 2015.
  13. 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
  14. Chappelet, J.L. 2012. Mega Sporting Event Legacies: A Multifaceted Concept. Papeles de Europa 25: 76–86.Google Scholar
  15. Creese, B., and D. Lader. 2014. Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Hate Crimes, England and Wales, 2013/14. London: Crown/Home Office Statistics.Google Scholar
  16. Darcy, S. 2003. The Politics of Disability and Access: The Sydney 2000 Games Experience. Disability & Society 18 (6): 737–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DCMS. 2012. London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Quarterly Report – October 2012. London: DCMS.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Girginov, V. 2012. Governance of London 2012 Olympic Games legacy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47 (5): 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2008. Olympic Cities: Regeneration, City Rebranding and Changing Urban Agendas. Geography Compass 2 (1): 300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. Accessed 5 June 2015.
  23. Howe, P.D. 2008. The Cultural Politics of the Paralympic Movement: Through an Anthropological Lens. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2011. Cyborg and Supercrip: The Paralympics Technology and the (Dis)empowerment of Disabled Athletes. Sociology 45 (5): 868–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IPC. 2008. Beijing 2008 Paralympics on NBC Sports. Accessed 4 June 2015.
  26. ———. 2012a. IOC and IPC Extend Co-operation Agreement Until 2020, May 8. Accessed 10 May 2012.
  27. ———. 2012b. London 2012 Overview. Accessed 4 June 2015.
  28. ———. 2012c. USA Announces NBC Broadcast Plans for London 2012. Accessed 4 June 2015.
  29. ———. 2013. NBC Highlights Handful of New Paralympic Broadcast Deals. Accessed 4 June 2015.
  30. ———. 2014. 7: First IPC-IOC Agreement. Accessed 4 May 2015.
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Newman, P. 2007. Back the Bid: The 2012 Summer Olympics and the Governance of London. Journal of Urban Affairs II 29 (3): 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ODI and DCMS. 2010. London 2012: A Legacy for Disabled People. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.Google Scholar
  38. ODI and DCMS. 2011. London 2012: A Legacy for Disabled People. London: Office for Disability Issues.Google Scholar
  39. Oliver, M. 1990. The Politics of Disablement: Critical Texts in Social Work and the Welfare State. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peers, D. 2009. (Dis)empowering Paralympic Histories: Absent Athletes and Disabling Discourses. Disability & Society 24 (5): 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. The Guardian. 2012. Olympics 2012: Every Record Broken at London 2012 Listed, August 10. Accessed 4 June 2015.
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas, N., and A. Smith. 2009. Disability, Sport and Society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. UN. 2015. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Accessed 8 March 2017.
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. WHO and the World Bank. 2011. World Report on Disability. Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shane Kerr
    • 1
  1. 1.Nielsen SportLondonUK

Personalised recommendations