Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Bulletin 61 print

Contacts

| Feature | No.61 May 2011 |

A Case for the Official Merger of the Winter Paralympic Games into the 2018 Winter Olympic Games
Ted Fay
The purpose of this article is to make a case, through use of a factor analysis approach, for advocating the official merger of the Winter Paralympic Games into the 2018 Winter Olympic Games and beyond. Making such a case is based on an assessment of a number of critical change factors that are now more strongly present than ever before. Traditional arguments for greater integration and inclusion of Paralympic athletes into the Olympic Games have been most often based on a social rights-based approach (Lord and Stein, 2009). Although a rights-based approach merits serious discussion, the author will instead shift the focus in advocating for this merger by using a factor analysis of the gross economic benefits that can be gained by all key stakeholder groups through major reductions in the redundancy in operational costs by the staging of only one, 16 day Games period. The main hypothesis states that a substantial net balance can be gained in terms of revenue versus costs through more efficient planning and scheduling and utilisation of workforce including both paid and volunteer staffing. The main beneficiaries of this strategy would include the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) and most notably the host Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG).
Information was drawn from secondary sources but also includes the author`s own perspectives drawn from first-hand experience that spans nine consecutive Paralympic Winter Games as a cross-country race guide (1980), head coach of United States national cross-country team (1984 – 1988), IPC Technical Delegate overseeing all Paralympic cross country skiing and biathlon competition at three Paralympic Winter Games (Albertville, 1992, Lillehammer, 1994 and Nagano, 1998), Chair of the ISOD (1988 – 1992) and then IPC Nordic Sport Section (1990 – 1996) and finally as IPC technical classifier for Paralympic cross country skiing and biathlon competition (Salt Lake City, 2002, Turin, 2006 and Vancouver, 2010).
The author, in his work Race, Gender, and Disability: A New Paradigm Towards Full Participation and Equal Opportunity in Sport (Fay, 1999), established a new theoretical framework entitled the Critical Change Factors Model (CCFM) to serve as a coding structure to be able to bring a large field of data under some level of control, coherence and readability, thus minimising the potential bias of a given researcher or analyst. The set of ten core factors is drawn from equity (including distributive and participatory justice), critical social (including agency) and open-systems theories. The prevailing logic behind the creation and selection of these specific principles was one of commonality or universality, rather than uniqueness to a specific identity group (e.g., race, gender or disability), organisation (e.g., the IOC, IPC or OCOG, or sport. These factors were used initially to determine differences in breakthroughs and progression towards inclusion at three primary stratification levels of (a) athletes, (b) coaches and middle-level management, and (c) senior executive or ownership of organisation and/or franchise (Fay, 1999; Fay and Wolff, 2009). The model also provides a weighting scheme for each factor into one of four categories.

- Category I - CCF is sufficient by itself to cause change;
- Category II - CCF is necessary but not sufficient by itself to cause change;
- Category III - CCF is supportive but not necessary or sufficient by itself to cause change;
- Category IV - CCF is counter-productive because it causes a reversal or regression to increased integration and inclusion of an identity group (Fay, 1999; Fay and Wolff, 2009).

Critical Change Factors Model (CCFM)
F1) Change/occurrence of major societal event (s) affecting public opinion toward ID group.
F2) Change in laws, government and court action in changing public policies toward ID group.
F3) Change in level of influence of high profile ID group role models on public opinion.
F4) Change in the level and nature of mainstream mass media`s portrayal of ID group.
F5) Change in the critical mass of ID group athletes attaining high athletic achievement.
F6) Change in attitudes of key leaders in power elites who act as catalysts for breakthroughs.
F7) Change in perceived or real economic value of ID group as assets to the ruling power elites.
F8) Change in beliefs about the medical & intellectual stereotypes of ID group.
F9) Change in hiring practices toward ID group related to managerial and leadership roles.
F10) Change in use of strategic processes by power elites to effect greater integration.
(Fay, 1999, p. 42)
FIigure 1: Critical Change Factors Model (Fay, 1999)
A merger of the 2018 Winter Paralympic and Olympic Games into a single, 16 day event period, would represent a major paradigm shift that would be likely need to be facilitated by many of the above ten critical change factors. The question is, however, which of the ten factors fall into the Categories I or II which mean they would be necessary to cause such a change. CCF Factors F1 – F4 have been identified by the author as falling into Category III as being supportive but not necessary or sufficient to cause change. CCF Factors F5, F6 and F7, however, have been identified as Category II level factors which mean they would be necessary to cause such a change.
The first factor that has been identified as a Category II factor is F5 that states that a change in the critical mass of ID group athletes (e.g., athletes with a disability) attaining high athletic achievement is necessary for such a change to take place. The inclusion of Paralympic exhibition events in track and field introduced for the first time in 1984 with the Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games began a series of summer and winter exhibition events spanning from 1984 to 2008, help illustrate high performance achievement by athletes with a disability through the mass media to a broad global viewership. These exhibition events combined with corresponding breakthrough Olympic participation and performances by a range of athletes with a disability (e.g., Fairhall, Abbott, Runyon, du Toit, Partyk, McKeever and others) helped reinforced the concept of Paralympians as high performance athletes (Legg, Fay, Hums and Wolff, 2009). These track and field exhibition events spanning from Los Angeles in 1984 to Athens in 2004, led a number of Paralympic athletes, coaches, national Paralympic officials and some national Olympic officials to begin to more aggressively advocate that those in track and field events and other sports such as swimming and wheelchair basketball warranted consideration for integration into the Olympic Games with full medal status (Legg et al., 2009; Brittain, 2010).
On the winter side, corresponding skiing exhibition events were held twice in alpine skiing beginning in Sarajevo in 1984 and again in Calgary in 1988, while cross country events were staged only once in Calgary in 1988 (Fay, 1989). It is worth noting that the recognition and treatment for athletes with disability who participated in the Summer and Winter Olympic exhibition events was not always consistent or the same. The reality of the 2004 Athens Games was that the athletes with disability did not receive the recognition accorded past demonstration or exhibition athletes in other sports at other Olympic Games (e.g., taekwondo, curling, freestyle skiing, short track speed skating, softball, etc). It is clear that the inclusion of Paralympic exhibition events within the Winter and Summer Olympic Games has sparked on-going heated debates as to their value and resulting impacts (Legg et al., 2009; Fay & Wolff, 2009; Paralympian, 2009).
The author of this article, who participated as a Nordic coach for the US Olympic Team at the 1988 Olympic Games, experienced firsthand that athletes with disability who participated in alpine and Nordic ski events in Calgary were housed, clothed, fed and credentialed in the same manner as all other Olympic demonstration sport athletes (e.g., short track speed skating, curling, freestyle skiing) at a level equal to Olympic athletes from their respective nations. It should be noted that all three demonstration sports in Calgary became full medal Olympic sports at subsequent Olympic Games (Fay, 1989).
Factor F6 involves a change in attitudes of key leaders in power elites (e.g., IOC, IPC and/or OCOG) who act as catalysts for breakthroughs. During the 2010 Winter Paralympic Games in Vancouver, a public debate emerged between the past and present Presidents of the International Paralympic Committee over the future form and place for the Paralympic Games. Dr. Robert Steadward, the first IPC President, suggested that putting the Olympic and Paralympic Games together would create efficiencies and let the Paralympics take advantage of public support for the Olympics. He further suggested that the natural evolution of the Paralympic movement would call for it to be included more in the Olympics. He pointed to the swelling of national pride that occurred in Vancouver during the 2010 Winter Olympics, while also saying it was a shame for the Paralympics to have to "re-energise" the city 10 days later (Battistoni, 2010).
It should be noted that this was not the first time for Steadward to posit the concept of more integration and inclusion into the Olympic Games. Early in his tenure as IPC President, Steadward formed a Commission for the Inclusion of Athletes with a Disability (CIAD), which successfully lobbied for the integration and full medal status of Paralympic sports and events into the Commonwealth Games (Steadward, 1994; 1996). Such inclusion mirrored efforts at the time in the early 1990s based on efforts and momentum established in the late 1980s for more full integration of athletes with disabilities into national governing bodies of Olympic sports and full medal participation in national and world championships in select Paralympic sports (DePauw & Gavron, 2005).
Presenting a counterpoint in 2010 to Steadward`s stated desire for full inclusion was Phil Craven, current President of the International Paralympic Committee. Craven rejected the idea of ever combining the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games into one mega-event, saying the Paralympic movement is doing just fine as it is. Craven, who succeeded Steadward in 2001, said the Paralympics had become a force of their own over the last decade and would be diminished if they were melded with the Olympics. "Any coming together would, I think, by its very nature, be restrictive from a logistics point of view. We have it as we like it at the moment, and we don`t see any need to change. We believe by having the Paralympics and the Olympics separate, we`re able to have our own identity while coming together in a festival of sport that gives a wonderful face to the world of what sport can do” (Battisoni, 2010).
As stated in the same article by Battisoni, Craven wasn`t the only person who supported this view. Gilbert Felli, IOC Executive Director for the Olympic Games, said the IOC and IPC had worked out an agreement that allows the IOC to assist the IPC in staging its Games. Felli supported Craven`s position by emphasising that putting the Olympic and Paralympic Games together would only hamstring the staging of the events, resulting in fewer Paralympic athletes being able to participate in the Games. Craven also dismissed the idea that the Paralympics should or could be held several weeks in advance of the Olympics in an effort to take advantage of the 10 000 media and broadcasters who descend on an Olympic host city. It is a well documented fact that few journalists are inclined to stick around 10 days to two weeks after the conclusion of the Olympic Games for the Paralympics. Craven further stated his desire to have the Paralympics stand on their own merit by saying "I believe the Paralympic Games have to attract the media in their own right” (Battistoni, 2010).
On July 6, 2011 at the 123rd Session of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) held in Durban, South Africa, history will record the vote of 115 IOC members as they select the host for the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games from the three finalists: Munich, Germany; Annecy, France and PyeongChang, South Korea. Based on its previous efforts to host the Games in 2006, 2010 and 2014, along with its top rating among the three candidate cities by the IOC Evaluation Commission, PyeongChang is the anticipated favourite to finally win its right to host on its third try (Sports Pro, 2010c).
Factor F7 involves a change in perceived or real economic value of identity group (e.g., Paralympic athletes, Paralympic Games) as assets to the ruling power elites. (e.g., IOC, IPC and/or OCOG). This factor has a least three main components. The first has been the development and implementation of the IOC – IPC Agreement of 2001 and put into effect for the first time at the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games. The further evolution and integration of games management (OCOG), sponsorship (TOP Program and OCOG sponsors) and IOC broadcast rights holder including host broadcaster in staging the Games (Mickle, 2010).
The second is the increased subsidisation and financial support to national Paralympic teams and the professionalization, including bonuses, for winning Paralympic medals from Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and China that is on par with corresponding support for Olympic athletes from each of those respective countries. This can be best illustrated by Prime Minister Vladamir Putin`s remarks contrasting the success of the Russian Winter Paralympic team against the failure of the Russian Olympic team at the 2010 Vancouver Games (Bratensky, 2010).
The third aspect of this critical change factor F7 is the creation of a rationale that examines the actual burgeoning costs of staging a separate Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games with the unique logistical possibilities based on scale and scope of integrating the Winter Paralympic Games inside the preceding Olympic Games. Data from the 2010 Vancouver Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (VANOC) reveals that 2 622 athletes from 82 nations participated in 86 events in 15 sports over a 16 day period from February 12 – 28, 2010. Correspondingly, 502 athletes from 44 nations participated in 64 events in 5 sports over a 10 day period from March 12 – 21, 2010. The common Olympic and Paralympic sports were alpine skiing, biathlon, cross-country skiing, curling and ice sledge hockey (VANOC, 2010).
Thus, a quick analysis reveals that a combined Games in 2010 would needed to have accommodated the needs of a new total of 3 124 athletes with corresponding support staff. The costs for housing, food, transportation, staff support and other necessities for this integration would be transferred from the same requirements and expenditures necessary for hosting two separate Games and thus have a significant net balance due to the actual reductions and savings by eliminating redundancies required for hiring staff and volunteers for a 14 day period covering the Winter Paralympic Games (Preuss, 2008; Rosner and Shropshire, 2011; VANOC, 2010).
It is also worth noting that there would be no increase in the number of nations participating, no increase in the number of sports that need to be accommodated with competition venues, slight increases in games management staff, venue volunteers or games officials and no demonstrable increases in media, sponsor and other hospitality-related support required. A huge savings would be incurred by the elimination of two Opening and two Closing ceremonies. This position appears to be not supported by Gilbert Felli, IOC Executive Director for the Olympic Games, when he stated in an interview during the 2010 Olympic Games that “putting the Olympic and Paralympic Games together would only hamstring the staging of the events, resulting in fewer Paralympic athletes being able participate in the Games” (Battisoni, 2010). His comments focused on logistical issues and potential threats to levels of participation of athletes with a disability and made no reference to the potential economic benefits associated with such a change.
The cost to each of these bidding cities during this latest bidding cycle for the 2018 Games is estimated to range between USD$21 - $42 million just for the privilege of being a candidate city (Sports Pro, 2010b). Since this article was written in advance of this vote, the author has taken the liberty to use PyeongChang for the purposes of this case for the official merger of the Winter Paralympic Games into the Olympic Games. It is currently estimated that projected revenue/cost estimates of the 2018 Games in Korea will be USD$651 million. These revenue/cost estimates do not account for the existing sport and support service infrastructure in the form of sport venues, transportation and other hospitality-related capital projects that are already in place as a result of PyeongChang`s three previous Winter Olympic bids and thus can be assumed to be primarily operational costs (Sports Pro, 2010a; 2010b).
Holger Preuss in his landmark book, The economics of staging the Olympics: A comparison of the Games 1972 – 2008 (Preuss, 2004) expressed the inherent difficulties in trying to forecast the actual costs of hosting seven years away from the start of the Games. It also does not take into full account the potential volatility in global economic markets such as a recession or hyper-inflation, valuation or devaluation of key currencies (e.g., U.S. dollars vs. the Euro vs. the Yen vs. the Yuan), and greatly increased costs of security necessitated by an uncertain and hostile world which is particularly heightened by a very unpredictable neighbour in North Korea who the Republic of Korea (ROK) is still technically and occasionally actively at war with. Strong evidence exist that one or more of these factors can wreck havoc with the best laid plans of any Olympic-Paralympic Organising Committee (Preuss, 2008; Rosner & Shropshire, 2011).
The potential value of reducing and containing fixed costs of hosting the Games is therefore considered as the primary weighted factor (F7) in presenting the case for the merger of the 2018 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games within the traditional 16 day Olympic Games period. In examining the financial data from a number of official and unofficial sources related to the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver, it is difficult to find costs for each Games period broken down (VANOC, 2010).
Thus, for the purposes of this paper, a simple comparative will be used for factoring a percentage cost per athlete based on 2010 participation against the estimated cost of staging the 2018 Winter and Paralympic Games as provided by the PyeongChang Olympic Bid Committee. If the projected operational costs of the 2018 Games is estimated to be USD$651 000 000 divided by 3 124 athletes yields a projected cost of $208,386 of related incurred costs on a per athlete basis. Using this basic assessment, one could postulate that the savings yield of a combined Games would be an estimated USD$104 million. This does not include a more sophisticated modeling of other efficiencies that could be gained by eliminating operational redundancies in staging two Games or posit potential increased revenues that could be potentially realised (Preuss, 2008).
References
Battisoni, P. (2010). No need to combine Olympic and Paralympic Games, chief insists. Vancouver Sun, March 12, 2010. Available at: (http://www.olympics-now.com/2010/03/12/no-need-to-combine-olympic-and-paralympic-games-chief-insists/). (accessed 12th May 2011).
Bratensky, A. (2010). Disabled athletes show up Olympic Team. Moscow Times, March 18, 2010. Available at: (www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/disabled-athletes). (accessed 11th May 2011).
Brittain, I. (2010). The Paralympic Games explained. London: Routledge.
Burton, R. & O`Reilly, N. (2010d). Assessing Vancouver after the facts, accusations, shades of truth. Sport Business Journal, 13 (19), 21.
DePauw, K. P. & Gavron, S. J. (2005). Disability sport (2nd edition). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Fay, T. G. (1999). Race, gender, and disability: A new paradigm towards full participation and equal opportunity in sport. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Fay, T. G. (1989). Beyond the medals and fanfare: Nordic skisport – health and excitement for all. Palaestra, 6, 37 – 45.
Fay, T. G. & Wolff, E. A. (2009). Disability in Sport in the Twenty-First Century: Creating a New Sport Opportunity Spectrum. Boston University International Law Journal. 27, 2. pp. 231 - 248.
International Olympic Committee (2010). The Olympic Charter. Available at: (http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Olympic%20Charter/Charter_en_2010.pdf). (accessed April 11th 2010).
Legg, D., Fay, T. G., Hums, M. A. & Wolff, E.A. (2009). Examining the inclusion of wheelchair exhibition events within the Olympic Games 1984 - 2004. European Sport Management Quarterly. 9, 3.
Lord, J. E. & Stein, M. A. (2009). Social Rights and the Relational Value of the Rights to Participate in Sport, Recreation and Play. Boston University International Law Journal. 27, 2. pp. 249 – 281.
Mickle, T. (2010). Assessing Vancouver`s legacy . . . The Good-Time Games. Sports Business Journal, 12 (43), 1, 26 – 27.
Paralympian (2009). The ability of athletes with a disability: Summary of athletes who competed in the Olympic Games brings the question of potentiality to surface. 2, 3.
Preuss, H. (2004). The economics of staging the Olympics: A comparison of the Games 1972 – 2008. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Preuss, H. (2008). The impact and evaluation of major sporting events. Published as a special issue of European Sport Management Quarterly. London: Routledge.
Rosner, S. R. & Shropshire, K. L. (2011). The Business of Sports (2nd Ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. pp. 453 – 476.
Sports Pro (2010a August). 2018 Olympic candidates confirmed. 24, 31.
Sports Pro (2010b August). Bringing show business to the snow business. 24, 90 - 93.
Sports Pro (2010c August). The business of bidding. 24, 102 - 107.
Steadward, R. (1994). Athletes with disabilities and their quest for Olympic inclusion, Paper presented to the Joint Assembly of the IOC Executive Board and the Association of National Olympic Committees, Atlanta.
Steadward, R. (1996). Integration and sport in the Paralympic Movement, Sport Science Review, 5 (1), 26 – 41.
VANOC (2010). Vancouver 2010 Olympic Game: By the numbers. Available at: (http://www.vancouver2010.com/content/The-IOC/Commissions/Women-and-Sport/). (accessed May 10th 2010).
Contact
Prof. Dr. Ted Fay
SUNY Cortland
State University of New York College at Cortland
Cortland, New York
USA
Email:Theodore.Fay@cortland.edu

http://www.icsspe.org/