Article of the day : With everyone stuck indoors, esports is poised for its time in the sun

With everyone stuck indoors, esports is poised for its time in the sun

Shutterstock

Michelle O'Shea, Western Sydney University and Sarah Duffy, Western Sydney University
Against a global backdrop of cancelled sports leagues, and as part of their season opening, National Rugby League (NRL) fans recently packed the stands of Townsville’s new Queensland Country Bank Stadium.
Fortunately, professional sporting bodies have now realised social distancing measures can’t be ignored. To maintain fan engagement, sports leagues must rethink their mode of delivery.
Esports is one promising option. This fast-growing, professional video game competition medium is played between individuals or teams. While it encompasses non-sport games, in the context of sports-based games, esports offers an alternate reality where athletes are digitally represented.
Esports is now drawing mass appeal, fitting easily into the online lives many of us lead.

---

Read more: Stadiums are emptying out globally. So why have Australian sports been so slow to act?

---

Response in uncertain times

Sports administrators are now faced with unprecedented disruption. Avid sports fans are self-isolating at home, cabin fever is setting in and they are craving their usual sports fix.
Initially, NRL and AFL administrators tried to maintain their season fixtures with no fans, but this quickly became untenable.
As we hunker down for the long haul, extending the AFL season suspension beyond May looks increasingly likely, making the prospect of esports all the more appealing.

Future proofing with esports

The financial cracks in Australia’s leading professional sports leagues are not confined to COVID-19.
Falling free-to-air television views and decreased numbers of match spectators pose a significant commercial threat. Generating revenue primarily from television broadcast rights is no longer sustainable. Thus, esports represents more than a season filler – it’s an opportunity sports administrators have largely ignored, but may need to quickly school themselves on.
Even before this pandemic hit, Australian sports fan engagement was changing. Data released in 2017 showed 11.4 million Australians consumed sports on a smartphone, desktop or tablet during July that year – a 6% increase from June. Growth was 10% among women, compared to 3% among men.
For Australian sports fans, the jump to esports would require little change in consumer behaviour. Other countries are already seeing this shift. The US Major League Soccer (MLS) administrators found 65% of their most devoted fans highlighted FIFA gaming as driving their interest in soccer.
“Gaming is actually more important to us than people playing soccer itself,” said MLS senior director of properties James Ruth.
Last year, a record breaking number (109,000) of worldwide participants competed in Formula 1’s Pro Draft, one stage of the 2019 Formula 1 New Balance Esports Series.

---

Read more: Are esports the next major league sport?

---

Esports and COVID-19

Formula 1 has led the rollout of esport contingencies during COVID-19, showing commitment by launching their Virtual Grand Prix series. Running in place of races planned for the postponed season, and featuring several virtual F1 drivers, fans at home can still get their F1 fix.
The National Basketball League (NBA) are more hesitant, but have dipped their toes in the water by promoting an esport competition featuring 16 of the NBA’s top basketball players. It’s likely we’ll see more sporting codes act and experiment with new modes of delivery in the near future.
In Australia, not all clubs were slow to recognise the potential of esports. More than four years ago, Adelaide Crows officials realised their traditional revenue streams were “maxed out” and identified esports as an avenue for growth.
However, the AFL’s commitment has been tentative at best. The NRL have also yet to make any real inroads, but did partner with an Australasian esports media company for a Fortnite event last year.

Not a gendered activity

Esports, like real sports, is not just for men. Research suggests women and men play video games in about equal numbers. According to Venture Bear, in the US alone 11 million women watched a live stream on Twitch last year.
In the Australian market, commercial growth through esports investment could be an influential strategy to seed youth leagues. As marketers seek to attract new fans and strengthen existing fan affiliations, esports’ effects could be twofold.
Esports could attract a new wave of younger sports fans, and bring ancillary opportunities to deepen existing fan engagement.

---

Read more: Time well spent, not wasted: video games are boosting well-being during the coronavirus lockdown

---

Keeping traditions going

As we all settle into the pandemic way of life, Australian sports administrators may need to shift from dabbling in esports to developing a more sophisticated and comprehensive esports strategy.
Reliance on traditional income streams and “bums on stadium seats” have left our sports vulnerable and in some cases, looking for a bailout.
Perhaps administrators missed the opportunity to pivot quickly, keeping their fans engaged, their staff employed and their future secure. Either way, during these troubled times, esports may help breathe new life into one of the country’s favourite pastimes.
Michelle O'Shea, Senior Lecturer Sport Management, Western Sydney University and Sarah Duffy, Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Article of the day: Why the fall-out from postponing the Olympics may not be as bad as we think

Why the fall-out from postponing the Olympics may not be as bad as we think

ARIS MESSINIS / POOL / EPA

Jack Anderson, University of Melbourne
At the 125th IOC Session in Buenos Aires in 2013, Tokyo won the right to host the Summer Olympics in 2020. The city was to join Athens, London, Paris and Los Angeles in the small group that have hosted a summer Olympics more than once.
Tokyo will now have to wait for most likely a year to join this exclusive club, however, after finally giving in to international pressure and deciding to postpone the games due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The pressure had been building over the past few days, led by Canada and Australia, both of which said they would not send athletes to Tokyo this year.
Stakeholders in the US, including the governing bodies of gymnastics, track and field and swimming, also called for the games to be postponed. Their messages carried extra weight as the three events are key anchors of the Olympics and of special importance to broadcasters in the US.

The ever-tightening travel restrictions of the past week also made it evident that even if the games were to go ahead this year, they would do so in the absence of key members of the Olympic family. This could have included athletes from the five countries – Greece, Australia, Britain, France and Switzerland – that have participated in every modern Summer Olympics.

---

Read more: Why haven't the Olympics been cancelled from coronavirus? That's the A$20bn question

---

There were other complications, as well. Sporting events have been cancelled or postponed around the world, making qualifying for the Olympics difficult for nearly half of all athletes expected to take part.
It was also becoming impossible to continue anti-doping testing to any meaningful degree.

Hungarian race walker Mate Helebrandt training at home in self-isolation. Attila Balazs/EPA

Only concerned about the bottom line

The IOC has been sharply criticised for its recalcitrance in not postponing the games sooner. Some have suggested its brand has suffered as a result.
There is no doubt that holding the Olympic flame ceremony in Greece and continuing with the torch relay was tactless at a time when fatality rates from the coronavirus were spiking in Europe and governments around the world were urging their citizens not to travel and stay away from public events.
The IOC’s decision to continue with these ceremonies and its dilatory and dithering response to the pandemic in general left it open to criticism that it cared only about the impact a postponement might have on its revenues.
It must be remembered that, although the IOC is an immensely rich and influential entity, it has in effect only one asset – the Olympic Games – to commercially exploit. And these come around only every two years.
But we can only speculate as to the role money played in the IOC’s reluctance to postpone the games.
To be fair to the IOC, it has said consistently that any decision on Tokyo 2020 would be guided by the health and welfare of the athletes and spectators, and based on the advice of recognised authorities such as the WHO.

The challenge of cancelling or moving the games

The logistics of reorganising an Olympics involving 11,000 athletes and thousands of support personnel and spectators will certainly be a significant undertaking. But this stands in stark contrast to the exponentially bleak figures of the toll of the virus – 12,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus on February 1, 87,000 on March 1 and now over 335,000 worldwide.
While Olympics have been postponed, cancelled and moved in the past, this has been mainly due to the outbreak of war. (Tokyo was, for example, supposed to host the 1940 Games before they were cancelled due to the second world war.)
Indeed, the current host city contract specifically states in clause 66 that if the host country is in a state of war or civil disobedience, the IOC can at its sole discretion terminate the contract.
Natural disasters have affected the games in the past. The 1908 Olympics, originally to be held in Rome, had to be moved to London when Mount Vesuvius erupted and the Italian government was forced to divert money to projects such as the rebuilding of Naples and not the construction of Olympic venues.

In a recent poll, 70% of Japanese people said the games couldn’t go ahead as planned. KIMIMASA MAYAMA/EPA

It is unlikely the IOC will seek to move this year’s Tokyo Games to another city. Logistically, it would be very difficult for any country to host the games on such short notice, especially given the massive investment in physical infrastructure required at a time when the world is pumping billions into stimulus packages for their economies.
It is also not in Japan’s interest to see the games moved. Under the host city contract, the failure to host the games is one of the specific contingencies that allows the IOC to unilaterally terminate the contract without affecting its rights to claim compensation against the Tokyo organising committee.
In addition, in cases when the IOC does unilaterally terminate the contract, the organising committee agrees to waive its right to receive any form of compensation from the IOC.
Further, the organisers (effectively, Japanese taxpayers) also agree to “indemnify and hold harmless” the IOC from any third party claims in respect of the IOC’s withdrawal from the games, such as those from broadcasters.
Then there’s the small fact that Japan has already invested A$20billion in the games.

---

Read more: Coronavirus: For the sake of athletes, it's too soon to cancel the Tokyo 2020 Olympics

---

Moving the games to later in 2020 is likely not an option given the accelerating nature, for now, of the coronavirus. Hosting the games in September or October would also wreak havoc with the scheduling of both athletes and broadcasters (although the 1964 Tokyo Olympics were held in mid-October).
As we saw from the Rugby World Cup held in Japan last year, moving into autumn also coincides with the typhoon season. And the Olympics would have to contend with the football seasons in Europe and the US at that time of year.
This leaves organisers with one decent option – delaying for a full year until the summer of 2021.

Why legal claims are unlikely

Apart from the logistical challenges of postponing the games, there are significant commercial considerations related to ticketing, broadcasting and sponsors. In simple terms, those holding tickets, those with the rights to broadcast the Olympics and those with exclusive “official” sponsorships may now attempt to seek their money back in full or in part.
The Tokyo organisers and the IOC might argue that so-called force majeure clauses apply and that the contractual commitments given to sponsors and broadcasters have been disrupted by an unforeseen, natural cause.
There are already reports the Tokyo 2020 ticketing policy says organisers would not be held responsible if the Olympics are cancelled due to a number of “force majeure” incidents, including natural disasters, war and “states of emergency connected to public health.”

While sports lawyers try to interpret these contractual clauses over the next few weeks, we all need to remember the wider context here.
If any broadcaster or sponsor tries to engage in legal action at a time when the world is facing its most serious public health emergency in a century, this may not sit well with their viewers or customers. The commercial losses sustained by large corporate sponsors for an event that can be rescheduled will engender little public sympathy at the moment.
If the Olympics do go ahead in 2021, it can then be a global celebration of the talent, hard work and resilience of the world’s leading athletes.
For now, the world needs to support the talent, hard work and resilience of the world’s leading health professionals. They truly have an Olympian task ahead.
Jack Anderson, Professor of Sports Law, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Japan Focus. Special Issue: Japan’s Olympic Summer Games - Past and Present, Part II

(Japan Focus is an excellent open access journal)
 
Introduction for Part II by Jeff Kingston

Olympic Moment
1 - William Kelly - Bringing the Circus to Town: An Anatomy of the Olympic Movement
2 - Stephen Wade - Did the 2016 Olympics change Rio de Janeiro? Not Much - At Least Not for the Good

Fool’s Gold
3 - David McNeill - Spinning the Rings: The Media and the 2020 Tokyo Olympics
4 - Michael A. Leeds - Can Cities Bring Home the Gold?: What Economic Theory Tells Us about Hosting the Olympic Games
5 - Eva Marikova Leeds - Tokyo 2020: Public Cost and Private Benefit
 
Paralympics
6 - Anoma P. van der Veere - The Tokyo Paralympic Superhero: Manga and Narratives of Disability in Japan
7 - Susan S. Lee - Promises of Accessibility for the Tokyo 2020 Games

Looking Back
8 - Mark Schreiber - 1940 Tokyo: The Olympiad that Never Was 
9 - Christian Tagsold - Symbolic Transformation: The 1964 Tokyo Games Reconsidered

Dissenting Opinions
10 - Taro Nettleton - Light, Currency, Spectacle, and War: Kobayashi Erika’s She Waited (2019)
11 - Koide Hideaki, translated by Norma Field - The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster and the Tokyo Olympics
12 - Shaun Burnie - Radiation Disinformation and Human Rights Violations at the Heart of Fukushima and the Olympic Games
13 - Akihiro Ogawa - As If Nothing Had Occurred: Anti-Tokyo Olympics Protests and Concern Over Radiation Exposure
14 - Sonja Ganseforth - Anti-Olympic rallying points, public alienation, and transnational alliances 
15 - William Andrews - Playful Protests and Contested Urban Space: the 2020 Tokyo Olympics Protest Movement 
16 - Alexis Dudden - An Opportunity for Japan to Change People’s Perception 
17 - Sean Michael Wilson, illustrated by Makiko Kodama - ‘Tokyo and Olympics Guide’

Article of the day: Coronavirus: For the sake of athletes, it's too soon to cancel the Tokyo 2020 Olympics

Coronavirus: For the sake of athletes, it's too soon to cancel the Tokyo 2020 Olympics

A man walks past a large display promoting the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. Organizers have resisted calls to postpone or cancel the Games, which are scheduled to start July 24. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Nicole W. Forrester, Ryerson University and Lianne Foti, University of Guelph
For many people, the COVID-19 pandemic became real when professional sports leagues around the world suspended their seasons. Amateur competitions followed suit, with many international sports federations cancelling their championships. But what about the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games?
The International Olympic Committee continues to support Tokyo 2020’s preparation and encourage athletes to train for the Games scheduled to be held July 24 to Aug. 9.
The IOC’s approach should not come as a surprise. Since the start of the modern Olympics in 1896, only the 1916, 1940 and 1944 Games have been cancelled — and that was because of the First and Second World Wars. The 1920 Olympic Games went ahead after the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, a deadly strain of influenza that infected close to 500 million people globally and claimed the lives of approximately 50 million people.
Now, 100 years later, the IOC and Tokyo 2020 are faced with an eerily similar pandemic, raising questions about whether the Games should be cancelled for the fourth time in history.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, there have been concerns raised about the perceived health risks of holding the Olympics. As Japan experienced rising numbers of cases in February, IOC member Dick Pound suggested organizers had until May to make a final decision.

Decision rests with IOC

Amid these fears, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Aby stated: “We will overcome the spread of the infection and host the Olympics without problem, as planned.” IOC president Thomas Bach has made similar statements; ultimately, the decision lies with the IOC.
The financial costs of hosting such a massive global event also weigh heavily on any decisions. The official budget for hosting the Tokyo Games is $US12.6 billion, with $7 billion to be covered by the Government of Japan and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and $5.9 billion from IOC contributions, sponsorship, licensing and ticket sales. However, a 2019 report from the Board of Audit of Japan shows the actual costs are closer to $26 billion.
There would be a substantial revenue hit for organizers if the Games went ahead without spectators. A loss of ticket sales alone would decrease the projected revenue by 13.5 per cent. Broadcasters are also concerned that television viewers would find empty stands off-putting. This will be a significant point for the IOC to consider because broadcasters contribute billions to the IOC coffers — NBC paid $4.38 billion to have the U.S. broadcast rights for all of the Olympic Games from 2012 to 2020.
Then there’s the additional positive bump to the local economy that all Olympic host cities experience during the Games.
One thing for certain is that the cost of cancelling increases the longer organizers wait to make a decision.

The athletes’ perspective

The perspective of athletes is often lost amid all these billion-dollar debates about the cost of cancelling the Games.
The months leading up to an Olympics is the time many athletes need to qualify for the Games. The IOC and the athlete’s National Olympic Committee set specific criteria that must be achieved — for example, the Olympic qualifying time for swimmers in the 100 metres is 48.57 seconds for men and 54.38 seconds for women. Additionally, some athletes must then compete and qualify at their country’s Olympic trials.
Great performances are the culmination of a perfectly timed program, designed to allow athletes to qualify while staving off peak performance results for the Olympic Games. It is an intricate science of balancing volume and intensity of training, while sharpening one’s mental skills.
It’s not unusual for an elite athlete to travel to several different countries across the globe in a span of one month to achieve a qualifying result. But national sport organizations like Athletics Canada are now instructing their athletes travelling and training abroad to return home.
With competitions being cancelled and countries rapidly closing their borders to international travel, the opportunity to qualify for the Olympic Games increasingly narrows.

Limited opportunities

That means even if the Olympics go ahead, athletes who have not yet met the Olympic qualifying standard may have a limited opportunity to qualify to represent their country, if at all.

---

Read more: The secret formula for becoming an elite athlete

---

However, even for the athletes who have already qualified, the uncertainty of the Olympic Games is still stressful. Regardless of the IOC’s decision, some athletes may weigh the risk and rewards and choose to not participate in Tokyo 2020.

Fans at a women’s soccer match at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Brazil hold up a sign that refers to the zika virus, a mosquito-borne virus that was a concern to some athletes four years ago. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

In 2016, the threat of the Zika virus resulted in many top athletes electing to sit out the Rio Olympic Games. At the 2010 Commonwealth Games held in Delhi, India, Canadian swimmer and former world-record holder Annamay Pierse contracted dengue fever and never recovered, ending her athletic career. And during the Spanish flu, professional baseball games continued as normal, resulting in many players contracting the virus.

Rewards may outweigh the risks

Despite this, many athletes may deem the rewards outweigh the risks. Athletes are well aware of the controversial Goldman’s dilemma, a research study that found 52 per cent of elite athletes surveyed said they would take a drug that would guarantee an Olympic gold medal even if it meant they would die five years later. While some researchers have challenged these results over the years, Goldman’s results highlight the value of the Olympic Games to world-class athletes.
The Summer Olympic Games occur once every four years, and for the athletes, it is a culmination of perhaps a decade of training and preparation for a single moment. So it is reasonable to assume there are many athletes willing to take the risk to become an Olympian and have a chance at winning a gold medal.
While the Olympic Games are significant to the athletes, they are equally important to the world. The Olympic Charter states:

The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.

If COVID-19 recedes in the coming months, the Olympic Games may be able to deliver some sense of healing — uniting nations in celebration. If the disease continues to grow exponentially, its trajectory will force the IOC to cancel or suspend the Games.
Ultimately, when it comes to COVID-19, we don’t know what we don’t know, and perhaps the IOC’s delay for a final decision may just be prudent at this time.
Nicole W. Forrester, Assistant Professor, School of Media, Ryerson University and Lianne Foti, Assistant Professor , University of Guelph
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Japan Focus Special Issue: Japan’s Olympic Summer Games - Past and Present

Here is the TOC of the open access journal Japan Focus' special issue on Japan’s Olympic Summer Games:


Introduction

Branding and Identity
1 - Jeff Kingston - Diversity Olympics Dogged by Controversy
2 - David Leheny - Opening a Storyline in the 2020 Olympics
3 - Gracia Liu-Farrer - Japan and Immigration: Looking Beyond the Tokyo
4 - Tessa Morris-Suzuki - Indigenous Rights and the ‘Harmony Olympics’ 
5 - Claire Maree - “LGBT issues” and the 2020 Games
6 - Ian Lynam - The Small Olympics

Past as Prologue
7 - Gerald Curtis - Celebrating the “New” Japan 
8 - Akiko Hashimoto - The Tokyo Olympic Stadium: Site of National Memory
9 - Asato Ikeda - The Tokyo Olympics: 1940/2020
10 - Robert Whiting - The 1964 Olympics
11 - Kazuhiko Togo - Unease about Tokyo 2020
12 - Roy Tomizawa - 1964: The Greatest Year in the History of Japan -- Three Reasons Why 
13 - Helen Macnaughtan - From the Witches of the Orient to the Blossoming Sevens: Volleyball and Rugby at the Tokyo Olympics

Environment

14 - Robin Kietlinski- Trash Islands: The Olympic Games and Tokyo’s Changing Environment
15 - Peter Matanle- Confronting the Olympic Paradox: Modernity and Environment at a Crossroads in Downtown Tokyo

特別映画上映『ピッチの上の女たち』- オリンピック・パラリンピック週間

Information forwarded from the website of the French Institute in Kyoto:

特別映画上映『ピッチの上の女たち』

2018年　90分　監督：ジュリアン・アラール (日本語字幕）

フランスでのオリンピック・パラリンピック週間に合わせた映画を上映致します。入場無料。日本語字幕付。あらすじ：1969年、フランス北部の街ランス。日刊紙のスポーツジャーナリストとして、女たらしポールが女子サッカーの試合を企画。犬猿の仲の秘書エマニュエルがサポート役につき、彼らの冒険はやがてフランス中を巻き込み、国内初の女子サッカーチーム結成へと発展してゆく。

アンスティチュ・フランセ関西ー京都　稲畑ホール

入場無料

• 2020-02-08 
• 10:30 - 12:00
• 入場無料
• 075-761-2105
• アンスティチュ・フランセ関西―京都
  〒 606-8301
  吉田泉殿町8 京都市左京区 京都府

Article of the day: The Paralympic Games fails to increase disabled people’s participation in sport

The Paralympic Games fails to increase disabled people's participation in sport

Great Britain’s Hannah Cockroft after winning a T34 sprinting heat at the 2012 London Paralympics. Richard/Flikr

Christopher Brown, University of Hertfordshire
Tokyo’s 2020 Paralympics promises to be a sporting spectacle that thrills and excites, showcasing the very best in Paralympic sport. However, looking at the legacy of London 2012 it is unlikely to inspire more people to take part in sports.
Mega sporting events do not automatically increase participation in sport. A systematic review of the evidence found mega sporting events unable to inspire sports participation on their own. Instead, the Paralympic Games and other mega sporting events must be “leveraged”. In other words, organisers and organisations need to strategically supplement the event with planned initiatives encouraging sport participation.
The problem is that hosts often assume the event will bring about increased sport participation but fail to capitalise on the event.
The problem with inspiration is its intangiable quality. How to turn inspiration into habits and concrete change? Trading on inspiration also fails to appreciate wider obstacles and barriers preventing disabled people participating in sport and society.
The London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics represented the first Games to make a concerted effort to achieve a positive sport participation legacy. This makes the London 2012 Games an ideal test case for exploring the viability of increasing disabled people’s sports participation through mega sporting events.

The London 2012 Games aimed to inspire a generation. British Rowing

London 2012 Paralympics

One of the main aims of the 2012 Paralympics was to increase the number of disabled people participating in sport. Despite an initial rise in once a week sports participation immediately after the Paralympics (19.1% in 2013), participation subsequently fell back to pre-2012 levels (16.8% in 2016).
My PhD research found that the 2012 Paralympics made minimal impact on the number of disabled people participating in sport club settings. Of the 538 voluntary sports clubs that completed a questionnaire about the impact of the London 2012 Paralympics, about six in 10 sport clubs saw no noticeable change in their disabled membership five years after the 2012 Paralympics. Furthermore, about six in 10 sports clubs agreed the 2012 Paralympic Games had no impact on the number of disabled adults participating at their club.
Interviews with 30 individuals from sports and non-sports organisations revealed a complex combination of factors explaining the limited impact. One of the main reasons for the decline in sport participation was the lack of strategic activities and initiatives by sports organisations to maximise the hosting of the Paralympics, as well as a failure to embed a culture of inclusion within sports organisations.
Many sports organisations were unprepared for the level of interest from disabled people and were unable to respond accordingly. For some disabled people, Paralympians lacked relevance. Reduced disposable income caused by austerity was also found to have been an important barrier to participation. Due to negative media portrayals disability, some disabled people were fearful of being active in case they were accused of being a “benefit scrounger” and potentially lose some of their benefits.
While these examples expose the folly of investing faith in a two-week sporting event’s ability to increase sport participation, it’s important to highlight there have been positive developments in disability sport since London’s 2012 Paralympics.
There is increased awareness in the sports sector of the need to provide sporting opportunities for disabled people: disability is an important focus in both the government’s sports strategy and Sport England’s strategy. Funding and research into disability sport has also grown. In the 2013-17 funding round, Sport England invested about £170 million pounds in disability sport, having previously invested significantly less than that.
Most national disability sports organisations gained funding for the first time after the 2012 Paralympics, while 42 national governing bodies of sport received investment for disability, compared to 11 in 2009-13. In 2016, Sport England released its research into disability in England, providing sports organisations with facts about disability.
Despite the positive developments, there are still mountains to climb. Disabled people are still twice as likely to be inactive than non-disabled people.
When you next listen to politicians extolling the benefits of mega sporting events when it comes to boosting participation in sport, be sceptical. It’s likely to be political spin to justify the huge financial investment.

The evidence suggests mega sporting events, on their own, fail to increase sport participation in the long term. Tokyo 2020 hopes to inspire change for disabled people and to make Japan a more accessible society. However, more work needs to be done to make Japan more accessible. If the London 2012 Paralympic Games failed to meaningfully increase sport participation, despite prioritising sport as a legacy goal, what hope is there for Tokyo 2020?

What is the Paralympic Games good for?

The Paralympics is, first and foremost, an elite sports event. Elite sport, by its very nature, discriminates on the basis of ability – only the best is acceptable. It’s questionable whether this is the best way to engage people in sport. There’s no doubt the Paralympics can be inspirational for some people, but its appeal and potency is not for everyone.
The Paralympic Games do not represent the diversity of disability and is not a substitute for educating individuals on the lived experience of disabled people. In fact, the Paralympic Games may propagate stereotypical narratives on disability, causing more harm than good. The Paralympics may shine a spotlight on accessibility and inclusion in the host country, but whether this can lead to lasting change is doubtful. For sport participation, the Paralympic Games is not the solution and should be one component of a wider sport participation strategy.
Christopher Brown, Lecturer in Sports Development, University of Hertfordshire
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.