“Our revolution begins tonight!” On Wednesday, August 28, in front of 50,000 spectators gathered on the Place de la Concorde for the opening ceremony of the Paris Paralympic Games, Tony Estanguet clearly displayed his ambition. The competition must allow us to “change our outlook, change our attitude, change society” in order to finally “give everyone their place”. For months, the objective of a “lasting legacy” of the Paralympic Games has been repeated over and over again by the organizers of Paris 2024: this edition must be one of profound change, making sport “a lever” to definitively change society’s view of disability.
But after the impressive sporting performances broadcast live on television, the speeches and the medal presentations, what will really remain? “The event of the Games, however successful, does not by itself solve the problems of accessibility to sport. […] “We must then be up to the task and ensure a substantial and qualitative offer on parasport,” warns Sylvain Ferez, sociologist specializing in paralympism and lecturer at the University of Montpellier. Interview.
L’Express: The organizers of Paris 2024 have talked a lot about the legacy of the Paralympic Games in France, particularly in terms of infrastructure, tolerance and reducing discrimination against people with disabilities. Has this idea always been at the heart of previous Games?
Sylvain Ferez: From the very first Paralympic Games, and for a very long time, we initially only talked about the material legacy of the competition, since it was tangible. We talked about the infrastructure, the equipment used, the technological performances and the technical feats, without which it would have been impossible to organize these Games. The question of the immaterial legacy of the Paralympic Games came later, notably at the time of the London Games in 2012. This was the first time that the competitions were broadcast in their entirety on a national channel, in the same way as the Olympic events.
There is much questioning about the effect of the media coverage of the Games, its consequences in terms of public policies, the fight against discrimination, tolerance, the desire to show different bodies… But this strong media coverage has also brought its share of controversy, with a fear of infantilizing the Paralympic athletes, of talking about something other than their sporting performances, of focusing on the aesthetic dimension of their bodies or on the twists and turns of their personal stories.
At the time, for example, Channel 4 caused controversy by making a video about para-athletes called “Meet the superhumans”, [NDLR : rencontrez les superhumains]. Was it really necessary to talk about “superhuman” people or simply about their performances? The fact of having forced the line on resilience, drama, the superhuman was not always very well accepted, it caused a slight unease. It was then necessary to reflect on these new questions, and it is a kind of intangible heritage to have allowed these debates to arise.
Did these London Games actually serve as a trigger for society’s view of parasport?
Yes, particularly in relation to these media coverage issues. The world of Paralympism has pushed para-athletes to do TV shows to talk about their sports and their performances, consultants specializing in the subject have been hired, exchanges with journalists have been set up to promote the federations… All of this has developed massively to arrive at what we see today, with 24/7 media coverage of the Paralympic Games on major national channels, which absolutely did not exist before.
After the controversies observed in London, we have also observed progress in the following editions, such as during the Tokyo Games, where the International Olympic Committee (IOC) joined forces with the World Health Organization (WHO) and a whole bunch of associations to launch the “#WeThe15” movement [NDLR : #NousLes15]referring to the 15% of the world’s population with disabilities who would like to have the same rights and recognition as others.
What do you think needs to be put in place to ensure a real legacy of the Paralympic Games in France, while avoiding a fleeting spotlight on disability?
This is indeed an important question. In London, we noticed that the high media coverage of the Paralympic Games had generated a strong enthusiasm for sports practice among people with disabilities who had not previously practiced any sport. But the disabled sports offer accessible in the country was not sufficient to cope with this wave of demand. This created real frustration for the people concerned: the inspiring nature of the images broadcast on repeat on television could not be satisfied in real life.
It is important to understand that the Games event, however successful it may be, does not solve the problems of accessibility to sport on its own, far from it. It can inspire vocations, but it is then necessary to live up to them and ensure a substantial and qualitative offer on parasport. Paris 2024 has worked in this direction, by trying to set up a network of 3,000 para-inclusive clubs since 2022, with funds raised by Paris 2024 and its various sponsors. Para-welcoming training has also been offered in these clubs, for managers, accompanying persons, staff members, etc.
“We must be wary of exceptionalism and “heroization””
But again, we need to see if it works in the long term, with adequate financial and human investment. For example, if no ongoing training is given in these clubs, with the turnover of employees and the evolution of equipment, all this enthusiasm can very quickly die out. It requires dedicated envelopes, a real commitment, and above all, I insist on this point, investment in research.
Why is research so important?
Because it helps increase the performance of athletes, who will then be more recognized in the world of sport, more publicized, better supported and sponsored. It’s a virtuous circle. In France, the organization of the Games has made it possible to develop a strategy for detecting athletes, to finance infrastructure, communication campaigns, etc. But once again, these investments must continue, and sports circles must impose monitoring, a fair evaluation of resources and skills.
What can be said about the legacy of the Paralympic Games from previous editions?
Each country has contributed a stone to the building. As I indicated earlier, London really allowed a new media coverage of the Paralympics, the multiplication of images, the emergence of a reflection on the subject of the athletes’ bodies. In Tokyo, we rather saw the establishment of a real media training [NDLR : la formation à une meilleure communication médiatique] on the subject and a great deal of thought around the themes of the aging of the population and the need to work on the autonomy of people, the management of seniors, and in parallel, those of people with disabilities. There has also been a real material effect, with an entire Japanese industry that has specialized in robots for people with reduced mobility (PRM). Today, Toyota is still one of the leaders in the wheelchair motorization system.
Beyond the sporting performances, the 2024 Games have also highlighted artists, models and presenters with disabilities, in a cultural field that has been very underrepresented until now. Again, do you think this “legacy” can continue?
Yes, if we are wary of exceptionality and “heroization”. Are these artists destined to exist in roles of artistic exceptionality, or will they be able to evolve in classic artistic universes, in which they could exist without discrimination and without distinction? This is the question that must be asked. In France, cultural actors have been addressing the issue for a long time, with in-depth work on the subject – it must continue in this direction. The opening ceremony of the 2024 Paralympic Games is a strong symbol: in London, Rio or Tokyo, there were timid introductions, with a desire to seek parity, of performers with disabilities, but there was nothing comparable to what we saw at Place de la Concorde.
.