WHY MEGA EVENTS AREN’T ALWAYS THE PANACEA FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

The Paralympics may inspire, but without action, that inspiration fades — and disabled people are left behind.

Dr Chris Brown (University of Hertfordshire, UK.).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • The Paralympic Games have raised awareness of disability sport but show little evidence of driving long-term increases in grassroots participation.

  • Concepts like the demonstration and festival effects offer partial explanations for short-term inspiration but fail to address deeper structural barriers.

  • Without strategic leveraging, inclusive infrastructure, and targeted local initiatives, the Paralympics remain symbolic rather than transformational.

  • Marketing campaigns that celebrate “superhuman” feats risk alienating many disabled people by reinforcing unrealistic standards and narrow representations.

  • Sustainable change requires personalized, community-based approaches co-created with disabled people, not overreliance on elite sport spectacle.

INTRODUCTION

Can watching elite athletes at the Paralympics really spark a wave of grassroots participation among disabled people? Or is this feel-good narrative masking a more uncomfortable truth — that the Games inspire more headlines than habits? On this episode, Dr. Chris Brown joins us to challenge the assumption that the Paralympics automatically leads to greater inclusion and activity. From the demonstration and festival effects to the realities of legacy funding, classification politics, and technological bias, we ask: what will it really take to move from inspiration to inclusion?

“TO BE UPDATED POST REVIEW”

THE PROBLEM AND/OR OPPORTUNITY

For decades, organisers, broadcasters, and policymakers have pointed to the Paralympic Games as a catalyst for wider social change—especially in encouraging disabled people to get active. The rhetoric is powerful: elite athleticism inspires everyday participation. Yet the data tells a different story. Despite high-profile campaigns and widespread media coverage, most countries have seen little to no sustained increase in grassroots sport participation among disabled people following the Games. Meanwhile, deeper issues such as inaccessible infrastructure, funding cuts, and social stigma continue to block meaningful inclusion.

The opportunity? To reframe how we think about legacy. Rather than hoping that exposure alone will shift behaviours, we must explore how strategic planning, inclusive design, and genuine co-production with disabled communities can turn global sporting moments into lasting, equitable impact.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER NOW?

There are more than 1.5 billion disabled people globally—many of whom face disproportionate barriers to participation in sport, physical activity, and public life. The need for inclusive, healthy, and equitable opportunities has never been more urgent. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, disability-related health disparities have widened, and levels of physical inactivity among disabled people remain significantly higher than in the general population (Ginis et al., 2021). At the same time, we’re seeing a global push to use sport as a tool for health, education, and social inclusion through initiatives like the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

With mega-events like LA 2028, and Brisbane 2032 on the horizon, we’re at a pivotal moment. The decisions made today about how we leverage the Paralympics—how we define, plan, and deliver legacy—will shape whether these events truly serve disabled communities or continue to miss the mark. It's not just about inspiring individuals; it's about transforming systems.

“The decisions made today about how we leverage the Paralympics—how we define, plan, and deliver legacy—will shape whether these events truly serve disabled communities or continue to miss the mark.”

HOW DOES THIS ADD TO WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW?

Much of the prevailing discourse around the Paralympic Games assumes a straightforward, inspirational link between elite sport and grassroots participation—what’s often called the "trickle-down" or demonstration effect (Grix & Carmichael, 2012). This article challenges that assumption. Drawing on a growing body of research, it highlights the disconnect between elite sporting success and widespread, sustained participation by disabled individuals. While there is anecdotal evidence of short-term interest, studies show that without deliberate, targeted leveraging strategies, that inspiration rarely translates into action (Brown & Pappous, 2018); Weed et al., 2015).

This piece adds to current scholarship by critically examining how popular narratives about inspiration and empowerment may inadvertently obscure structural inequalities and reinforce exclusionary practices. It also surfaces under-explored concepts like the "festival effect" (Weed et al., 2012) and "cyborgification," (Howe, 2011; Howe & Silva, 2017) offering a more nuanced, systems-level understanding of what truly enables—or prevents—disabled people from getting and staying active.

WHAT IDEAS DRIVE THIS ARTICLE?

This article draws on a critical review of empirical literature and conceptual frameworks in the field of sport mega-events and disability studies. Key theoretical concepts include:

  • Demonstration Effect: This is the idea that watching elite athletes—particularly during high-profile events like the Paralympics—can inspire viewers to engage in sport themselves (Weed et al., 2015). While widely cited, this effect has been found to have limited traction (Misener et al., 2015), especially among inactive individuals or those with less pre-existing interest in sport (Brown & Pappous, 2018).

  • Festival Effect: A more socially expansive concept, the festival effect explores how the celebratory, communal atmosphere surrounding mega-events can stimulate temporary or lasting interest in physical activity (Annear et al., 2019; Weed et al., 2012). It broadens the frame beyond sport fandom, tapping into culture, place, and social participation.

  • Leveraging Theory: Building on Chalip et al. (2017), the article examines how strategic planning before, during, and after an event is required to convert public interest into participation. Leveraging involves creating the infrastructure, partnerships, and programs that allow individuals to act on their inspiration in accessible, inclusive ways (Brown & Pappous, 2024.

  • Social Model of Disability: This frames disability as a social construct shaped by environmental and systemic barriers, rather than an individual deficit. It is used here to critique how some Paralympic representations (e.g. the "superhuman" narrative) can unintentionally reinforce exclusion by othering disabled athletes (Crow, 2014).

  • Cyborgification: A provocative concept that captures the increasingly technologized image of Paralympians (e.g. blade runners, high-tech wheelchairs), which, while visually compelling, may marginalize athletes with less visible or more severe impairments—and, crucially, may alienate everyday disabled people who do not identify with such portrayals (Howe, 2011; Howe & Silva, 2017).

Methodologically, the article synthesizes longitudinal studies, media analyses, policy reviews, and first-person insights from practitioners and researchers. It also draws on interviews and podcast conversations with subject matter experts, creating a multidisciplinary perspective that interrogates both empirical outcomes and symbolic representations.

Key Arguments

  • Argument: Watching elite sport does not automatically lead to increased grassroots sport participation among disabled people.

    Example: Despite the wide reach and acclaim of London 2012, research by Brown & Pappous (2018) shows that participation among disabled people peaked only briefly in 2013 and then declined. No sustained change was found at the population level. The assumption that elite performance inspires mass behaviour change—a “demonstration effect”—is simply not backed by long-term evidence.

    Takeaway: The visibility of elite athletes may spark temporary curiosity, but without structural follow-through, there’s no sustained shift in behaviour.

  • Argument: Without planned, resourced leveraging strategies, mega-events fail to produce meaningful legacy outcomes in sport participation.

    Example: London 2012 only published a Paralympic-specific legacy plan two years before the Games (DCMS, 2010; Weed & Dowse, 2009) . Sports clubs weren’t prepared for post-Games demand, and no long-term support existed to help curious individuals transition into regular activity (Brown & Pappous, 2018; Brown & Pappous, 2024). The opportunity to build on the excitement of the Games was largely squandered.

    Takeaway: Leveraging requires pre-event planning, community partnerships, capacity building, and sustained investment—not last-minute legacy statements.

  • Argument: Austerity, benefit fears, and systemic barriers undermine the Paralympics’ potential to increase participation among disabled people (Brittain & Beacom, 2016).

    Example: In post-2012 Britain, austerity cuts disproportionately affected disabled people. Nearly half of disabled respondents in a 2018 Activity Alliance survey said they feared losing welfare benefits if they were seen being physically active (Johnson & Spring, 2018). This created a chilling effect: even if the Games inspired people, it wasn’t safe or feasible to act on that inspiration.

    Takeaway: Social policy matters. Without an inclusive welfare and infrastructure system, sport legacies fail before they begin.

  • Argument: The “festival effect” may be more powerful than the demonstration effect—but only when it’s rooted in place-based, inclusive design.

    Example: Fan parks, live sites, and social media have extended the reach of events like the Paralympics. But unless this enthusiasm translates into local, accessible opportunities—like inclusive taster sessions, peer-led groups, or local champions—interest fizzles out (Annear et al., 2019). As Chris Brown notes, we need events that aren’t just inspiring, but reachable.

    Takeaway: Participation is local. Inspiration must be matched with tailored, nearby, and ongoing opportunities to actually move.

  • Argument: Framing Paralympians as “superhumans” may backfire by reinforcing unattainable ideals and marginalising everyday disabled people.

    Example: Channel 4’s award-winning 2012 campaign spotlighted elite Paralympians as “superhumans.” While powerful, it arguably alienated disabled individuals who did not see themselves in such extreme physical feats (Silva & Howe, 2012). As Chris Brown explains, we don’t label elite surgeons or artists as “superhuman”—so why do we do so with athletes who use prosthetics?

    Takeaway: Representation matters. Messaging must celebrate excellence without turning athletes into outliers, freaks, or marketing props (Kearney et al., 2019).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the fanfare and feel-good narratives surrounding the Paralympic Games, the evidence suggests that elite sport alone does not shift the dial on grassroots participation for disabled people (Misener et al., 2015; Weed et al., 2015). The Games can indeed inspire — but that inspiration fades quickly unless it's caught, shaped, and sustained through deliberate action (Brown, 2019).

The problem isn't with the Paralympics themselves, but with how we expect them to function. When treated as a silver bullet, they inevitably fall short. But when embedded in a wider ecosystem of inclusive sport, policy, and community-based activation, they can serve as a powerful catalyst for change (Chalip et al., 2017). This article shows us how important it is to move from awe to action — from the spark of elite performance to everyday, meaningful participation.

The urgency is clear. With over 1.5 billion disabled people worldwide, and disproportionately low levels of physical activity among them, we cannot afford to rely on inspirational moments alone. The true legacy of the Paralympics will be measured not in medals, but in whether it helps dismantle the persistent barriers that stop disabled people from moving, playing, and thriving.

“The true legacy of the Paralympics will be measured not in medals, but in whether it helps dismantle the persistent barriers that stop disabled people from moving, playing, and thriving.”

PRACTICAL ACTIONS

  • Invest in community-based adaptive sport infrastructure
    Ensure accessible local facilities, inclusive equipment, and trained coaches are available at the grassroots level to support diverse impairments.

  • Leverage the Paralympics before, during, and after the event
    Use the Games as a “hook” in multi-year strategies with local taster sessions, community events, school partnerships, and public awareness campaigns.

  • Involve disabled people in programme design and delivery
    Co-create initiatives with disabled people to ensure cultural relevance, reduce tokenism, and address real access and inclusion barriers.

  • Provide choice and flexibility in participation opportunities
    Offer both integrated and disability-specific options across a range of sports to suit individual preferences, comfort levels, and support needs.

  • Train the sport and fitness workforce in disability inclusion
    Build disability awareness and inclusive practice into all sport leadership, coaching, and volunteer development programmes.

  • Create local role models and peer mentoring schemes
    Highlight relatable stories of participation and progress — not just elite success — to inspire sustainable behavioural change in others.

  • Secure long-term funding for post-Games legacy
    Allocate dedicated resources for inclusive sport programmes that extend well beyond the Games period to avoid legacy drop-off.

  • Monitor and evaluate sport participation outcomes by impairment type
    Collect disaggregated data to track who is (and isn’t) participating and adjust strategies to address underrepresented impairment groups.

  • Avoid “superhuman” marketing tropes
    Celebrate athletes without framing them as exceptional outliers. Focus on normalising participation and valuing diverse bodies and abilities.

  • Integrate sport into broader health, education, and inclusion policy
    Align sport participation strategies with national policies on disability rights, health equity, and social inclusion for systemic impact.

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

Lack of robust longitudinal data
There is limited long-term evidence linking the Paralympics to sustained increases in sport participation among disabled people, making it difficult to evaluate effectiveness.

  • Overreliance on elite events
    Policymakers and practitioners may place too much emphasis on the Paralympic Games as a driver of inclusion, overlooking the need for day-to-day, community-based infrastructure.

  • Inconsistent classification and eligibility systems
    The Paralympic system includes only a narrow range of impairments, which excludes many disabled individuals and limits wider relatability or participation relevance.

  • Cultural and economic variability across contexts
    What works in one host city or country may not translate elsewhere due to differences in policy, infrastructure, cultural attitudes, or economic resources.

  • Insufficient post-event legacy planning and funding
    Legacy initiatives often lose momentum after the Games due to political change, funding cuts, or lack of institutional commitment, undermining long-term participation goals.

  • Digital divide and inaccessible communication
    Online campaigns and digital engagement strategies may fail to reach people with certain impairments or limited digital access, restricting the reach of festival or demonstration effects.

  • Fear of benefit loss
    In some contexts, disabled people worry that being visibly active could jeopardize their welfare entitlements, discouraging participation despite interest.

  • Fragmented stakeholder coordination
    Lack of collaboration between sport bodies, disability advocacy groups, public health agencies, and local governments can lead to inefficiencies and missed opportunities.

  • Stigma and internalised ableism
    Deep-seated societal attitudes and self-perceptions may prevent some individuals from engaging, regardless of improved access or promotional efforts.

REFERENCES

Annear, M. J., Shimizu, Y., & Kidokoro, T. (2019). Sports mega-event legacies and adult physical activity: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Eruopean Journal of Sport Science, 19(5), 671-685. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1554002

Brittain, I., & Beacom, A. (2016). Leveraging the London 2012 Paralympic Games: What Legacy for Disabled People?. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 40(6), 499-521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723516655580

Brown, C. S. (2019). "I Still Think We've Got Mountains to Climb": Evaluating the Grassroots Sport Participation Legacy of the London 2012 Paralympic Games for Disabled People in England [PhD Thesis, University of Kent]. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/72201/

Brown, C., & Pappous, A. S. (2018). “The Legacy Element . . . It Just Felt More Woolly”: Exploring the Reasons for the Decline in People With Disabilities’ Sport Participation in England 5 Years After the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 42(5), 343-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723518781237

Brown, C., & Pappous, A. S. (2024). Leveraging the London 2012 Paralympic Games to increase sports participation: the role of voluntary sports clubs. Managing Sport and Leisure, 29(5), 813-829. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2022.2105253

Chalip, L., Green, B. C., Taks, M., & Misener, L. (2017). Creating sport participation from sport events: making it happen. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9(2), 257-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2016.1257496

Crow, L. (2014). Scroungers and Superhumans: Images of Disability from the Summer of 2012: A Visual Inquiry. Journal of Visual Culture, 13(2), 168-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914529109

Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) (2010). London 2012: A legacy for disabled people.

Grix, J., & Carmichael, F. (2012). Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2011.627358

Howe, P. D. (2011). Cyborg and Supercrip: The Paralympics Technology and the (Dis)empowerment of Disabled Athletes. Sociology, 45(5), 868-882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511413421

Howe, P. D., & Silva, C. F. (2017). The cyborgification of paralympic sport. Movement & Sport Sciences - Science & Motricité, 97, 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2017014

Johnson, E., & Spring, E. (2018). The Activity Trap: Disabled people’s fear of being active. https://www.activityalliance.org.uk/how-we-help/research/the-activity-trap

Kearney, S., Brittain, I., & Kipnis, E. (2019). “Superdisabilities” vs “disabilities”? Theorizing the role of ableism in (mis)representational mythology of disability in the marketplace. Consumption Markets & Culture, 22(5-6), 545-567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2018.1562701

Misener, L., Taks, M., Chalip, L., & Green, B. C. (2015). The elusive “trickle-down effect” of sport events: assumptions and missed opportunities. Managing Sport and Leisure, 20(2), 135-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2015.1010278

Silva, C. F., & Howe, P. D. (2012). The (In)validity of Supercrip Representation of Paralympian Athletes. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 36(2), 174-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723511433865

Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L., & Dowse, S. (2015). The Olympic Games and raising sport participation: a systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(2), 195-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2014.998695

Weed, M., & Dowse, S. (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), 170-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407960902992241

AUTHOR(S)

Senior Lecturer, University of Hertfordshire (UK).

Dr Chris Brown is an expert in disability sport and the Paralympic Games. Dr Brown is the founder of the Disability Sport Info project and host of the Disability Sport Info podcast. Chris’s PhD focused on the sport participation legacies of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Chris has published in international journals and book chapters on topics such as the Paralympic Games, Paralympic legacies, grassroots disability sport, and disability sport spectatorship. Chris has experience of media work, having done TV and radio engagements discussing the 2024 Paralympic Games. This included appearing on BBC News and France 24. 

Disclaimer
The views and insights expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and reflect their research and professional expertise. They do not represent the views of the Centre for Events & Festivals CIC or its partners.