Even In Paralympics, Odds Are Stacked Against Athletes From Poorer Countries

Athletes from low and middle income countries—particularly women—are at a distinct disadvantage

The U.S.’s Regas Woods of competing in the long jump at the Rio paralympics. (Reuters/Jason Cairnduff)

International disability sporting events have become much more visible in recent years and have been promoted as a way of achieving inclusion and promoting participation.

But our study shows that it’s not an even playing field for athletes who participate and perform successfully in paralympic sports. We explored factors which determine both participation and success in the paralympic sport of athletics (track and field).

We found that economic factors play a major role. Affordability influences the extent to which countries can participate in different events. Athletes from low-and middle-income countries—particularly women—are at a distinct disadvantage. These differences were particularly marked in events that had a high cost of participation. Both determined how well athletes performed.

These findings are not that different from similar studies on Olympic sports. These show success is closely related to gross domestic product, team size, and country wealth.

But unlike the International Paralympic Committee, the Olympic movement does not claim to be promoting inclusion, equity, and fairness.

Our research raises important questions about how well the International Paralympic Committee achieves its goals of global fairness and inclusivity. Our findings are important because the evidence goes against the grain of the Paralympic Movement’s vision to promote inclusion and fairness in paralympic sport.

An inclusive environment

The International Paralympic Committee is the global governing body of the Paralympic Movement. It promotes “a more inclusive society for people with an impairment through para-sport.” It challenges stereotypes and transforms attitudes by breaking down social barriers and discrimination against people with an impairment.

The committee has been successful in promoting disability sports. Both the London Paralympics in 2012 and the Rio Paralympics in 2016 attracted considerable media attention. They both successfully tackled conventional stereotypes. In addition, many athletes were transformed into icons as a result of attracting large numbers of followers.

Like all sporting codes, the central principles of fair competition—which include avoiding technologies that provide an unfair advantage—apply to paralympic sport. But the participants’ disabilities mean that rules have to be adapted.

Two examples illustrate this. Firstly, many athletes have to use technologies and adaptive devices to participate equally. This includes the use of running blades and racing wheelchairs. In the case of shot put, wheelchair users can use special throwing frames.

Another example is the accommodation of, for example, visually impaired runners. They are allowed to have a guide to enable them to participate and compete fairly.

There is an elaborate classification system that categorizes different types of bodies into classes. This helps athletes with atypical bodies to compete against those with similar, or functionally equivalent, atypicalities.

Measuring inequality

But our study found that these adaptations can militate against the participation, and performance, of athletes from low- and-middle income countries.

We looked at how country-level economic variables, such as per capita income and Gross Domestic Product, influenced participation and achievement. We used the 2015 IPC Athletics Championships held in Doha as a case study.

The data we put together showed that economic factors significantly influenced both the level at which athletes participated and how well they did. We factored in the population size of a country to ensure it didn’t skew the results.

We found that high income countries, such as the United States, Sweden and Norway, were 3.4 times more likely to participate in the championships compared with low- or middle-income countries like South Africa and India.

This meant that there were fewer participants from low- and middle-income countries. This, in turn, affected country performance measured by the number of medals each country earned.

The need for expensive equipment also affected participation. Here inequalities were particularly marked for women.

Creating a more inclusive environment

More must be done to level the playing fields for athletes with disabilities. To achieve fairness and include all people with disabilities, the International Paralympic Committee must be mindful of the structural and economic factors in low- and-middle income countries that get in the way of athletes’ participation.

Applying technologies to athletes in conditions where there is relative economic prosperity may well serve to equalize opportunities within higher-income contexts. But these technologies cannot solve the global problem of access to sporting opportunities in low- and middle-income countries.

It is not the role of the International Paralympic Committee to tackle global inequality. But the inspirational and aspirational tone of the language used by the committee may lead to the unrealistic expectation that paralympic sport is fair and equal.

More importantly, this research shows the complex issues about how technologies developed in high-income countries to promote inclusion among people with disabilities may not be as effective in the context of economic scarcity and resource constraints.

There is a real danger that the language used by the committee is leading to the unrealistic expectation that paralympic sport is fair and equal. This is not fair for disabled athletes, or people living with disabilities.

via Honor Africans / Twitter

The problem with American Sign Language (ASL) is that over 500,000 people in the U.S. use it, but the country has over 330 million people.

So for those with hearing loss, the chances of coming into contact with someone who uses the language are rare. Especially outside of the deaf community.

Keep Reading Show less

Looking back, the year 1995 seems like such an innocent time. America was in the midst of its longest streak of peace and prosperity. September 11, 2001 was six years away, and the internet didn't seem like much more than a passing fad.

Twenty-four years ago, 18 million U.S. homes had modem-equipped computers, 7 million more than the year before. Most logged in through America Online where they got their email or communicated with random strangers in chat rooms.

According to a Pew Research study that year, only 32% of those who go online say they would miss it "a lot" if no longer available.

Imagine what those poll numbers would look like if the question was asked today.

RELATED: Bill and Melinda Gates had a surprising answer when asked about a 70 percent tax on the wealthiest Americans

"Few see online activities as essential to them, and no single online feature, with the exception of E-Mail, is used with any regularity," the Pew article said. "Consumers have yet to begin purchasing goods and services online, and there is little indication that online news features are changing traditional news consumption patterns."

"Late Night" host David Letterman had Microsoft founder and, at that time the richest man in the world, on his show for an interview in '95 to discuss the "the big new thing."

During the interview Letterman chided Gates about the usefulness of the new technology, comparing it to radio and tape recorders.

Gates seems excited by the internet because it will soon allow people to listen to a baseball game on their computer. To which Letterman smugly replies, "Does radio ring a bell?" to laughter from the crowd.

But Gates presses Letterman saying that the new technology allows you to listen to the game "whenever you want," to which Letterman responds, "Do tape recorders ring a bell?"

Gates then tells Letterman he can keep up with the latest in his favorite hobbies such as cigar smoking or race cars through the internet. Letterman shuts him down saying that he reads about his interests in magazines.

RELATED: Bill Gates has five books he thinks you should read this summer.

The discussion ends with the two laughing over meeting like-minded people in "troubled loner chat room on the internet."

The clip brings to mind a 1994 segment on "The Today Show" where host Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric have a similar discussion.

"What is internet anyway?" an exasperated Gumball asks. "What do you write to it like mail?"

"It's a computer billboard but it's nationwide and it's several universities all joined together and it's getting bigger and bigger all the time," a producer explains from off-stage.

Photo by Li-An Lim on Unsplash

The future generations will have to live on this Earth for years to come, and, not surprisingly, they're very concerned about the fate of our planet. We've seen a rise in youth activists, such as Greta Thunberg, who are raising awareness for climate change. A recent survey indicates that those efforts are working, as more and more Americans (especially young Americans) feel concerned about climate change.

A new CBS News poll found that 70% of Americans between 18 and 29 feel climate change is a crisis or a serious problem, while 58% of Americans over the age of 65 share those beliefs. Additionally, younger generations are more likely to feel like it's their personal responsibility to address climate change, as well as think that transitioning to 100% renewable energy is viable. Overall, 25% of Americans feel that climate change is a "crisis," and 35% feel it is a "serious problem." 10% of Americans said they think climate change is a minor problem, and 16% of Americans feel it is not a problem that worries them.

The poll found that concern for the environment isn't a partisan issue – or at least when it comes to younger generations. Two-thirds of Republicans under the age of 45 feel that addressing climate change is their duty, sentiments shared by only 38% of Republicans over the age of 45.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet