Explore clean, standardized, granular datasets on the Olympics & Paralympics only on Dataful
India’s Paralympians delivered their best-ever performance at the 2024 Paris Games, setting a new national record with 29 medals—7 gold, 9 silver, and 13 bronze. Data from the Paralympics medals tally reveal that China has emerged as a powerhouse, far outpacing the second-ranked nation. Before China’s rise, countries like Australia, Spain, and Canada were top contenders in the medal tally.
India’s Paralympians delivered their best-ever performance at the 2024 Paris Games, setting a new national record with 29 medals—7 gold, 9 silver, and 13 bronze. This achievement marks a remarkable improvement from past performances, growing from 4 medals and a 43rd place finish in Rio 2016 to 19 medals and 24th place in Tokyo 2020. The 2024 Games will go down in history as a defining moment for the Indian Paralympics, with the country reaching 16th place on the overall medal table.
In this context, we look at some interesting insights on the Paralympics.
A Brief History of Paralympics
On 29 July 1948, the day of the Opening Ceremony of the London Olympic Games, Dr. Ludwig Guttmann organized the first sports competition for wheelchair athletes, known as the Stoke Mandeville Games. The Stoke Mandeville Games eventually evolved into the Paralympic Games, which debuted in Rome in 1960, featuring 400 athletes from 23 countries. Two versions of the Paralympic games are conducted- Summer & Winter, with Winter games being usually smaller in size than the summer games.
In the early years, both the 1960 Rome and 1964 Tokyo Games saw the Paralympics hosted in the same city as the Olympics, but this practice didn’t become standard until 1988 for the Summer Games in Seoul and 1992 for the Winter Games in Albertville.
Since then, the Paralympics and Olympics have been staged in the same city, with only a few weeks between the two events. This was solidified through the “One Bid, One City” agreement, which ensured that organizing the Paralympic Games became an automatic part of the bidding process for the Olympics. Though this arrangement had been informally followed since 1988, it wasn’t until 2001 that a formal agreement between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) guaranteed that Olympic host cities would also host the Paralympics, utilizing the same venues and infrastructure. Starting with the 2012 bid process, cities competing understood that they were bidding for both the Olympic and Paralympic Games as a single package.
How are athletes selected and classified?
To compete in Para sports, athletes must have an underlying health condition that leads to ‘Permanent Eligible Impairment’. The Paralympic Movement offers opportunities for athletes across ten different types of impairments, with classification determining who can compete and how athletes are grouped based on the degree of their impairment. This is similar to grouping athletes by age, gender, or weight in other sports.
Since different sports require different skills, classification is sport-specific, ensuring fairness by minimizing the impact of impairments on performance. Some sports, like Para athletics and Para swimming, are open to all ten impairment types, while others, such as goalball, cater to specific impairments. Ultimately, classification ensures that sporting ability, not impairment, decides the outcome of the competition.
The ten eligible impairments in Para sports are divided into three categories:
- Physical impairments – which include eight types: impaired muscle power, impaired range of movement, limb deficiency, leg length difference, hypertonia, ataxia, athetosis, and short stature.
- Vision impairment
- Intellectual impairment
While having a permanent eligible impairment is required to compete in Para sports, it’s not the only factor for eligibility. An athlete may have a genuine impairment but still not meet the specific criteria for a particular sport, as eligibility is determined by sport-specific rules.
How countries differ in their performances in Olympics and Paralympics
While the host city remains the same, the Olympics and Paralympics are separated by at least two weeks. There are significant differences in terms of participation and size of the events. The 2024 Paris Olympics saw a participation of 10,500 athletes, across 32 sports and 329 medal events. In contrast, the 2024 Paralympics saw a participation of 4400 athletes across 22 sports and 549 medal events.
A country’s performance across both events could be an indicator of the attention and resources diverted towards those sports. An analysis of the share of medals of different countries across the Olympics and Paralympics since 2000 shows that China stood first in the Paralympics, with 11% of the total medals, whereas its share in the Olympics is around 7.4%. In contrast, the USA accounted for 6.9% of total Paralympics medals and 11.1% of the total Olympics medals. China dominated at every Paralympics since 2004, by a wide margin. Part of its success is due to the sheer amount of funding, with a 23-hectare parasport training centre, inaugurated in 2007. Since then, there’s been no looking back for China.
China and Great Britain dominate Paralympics, while Australia and Spain’s tally decline
Success at the Paralympics is shaped by a range of factors, from funding to the availability of a strong talent pool. While the US consistently excels in the Olympics, it lags in the Paralympics, highlighting the complexity of global sporting performance. Many nations with lesser wealth such as Nigeria, and Iran, among others excel in the Paralympics more than the Olympics.
Looking at the data from the recent Summer Paralympics, China has emerged as a powerhouse, far outpacing the second-ranked nation. Before China’s rise, countries like Australia, Spain, and Canada were top contenders in the medal tally. As more nations increase their investment in Para-athletes, maintaining dominance becomes increasingly challenging for traditionally strong nations. Prioritizing Paralympic games could be a better bet for smaller nations as they could get more medals with far less funding.
India and Paralympics
India’s Paralympic journey began in 1968 when a team of 10 athletes participated in Tel Aviv, Israel. Though the country didn’t win any medals, this appearance was a significant step in showcasing Indian para-athletes on the global stage. The breakthrough came four years later at the 1972 Heidelberg Games in Germany, winning India’s only medal at the event, placing the country 24th out of 42 nations.
India skipped the 1976 and 1980 Games, only returning to action in 1984. This return marked a turning point, with India winning four medals—two silvers and two bronzes. After a long gap, India found success again at the 2004 Athens Games, winning two medals. However, the period from 2012 to 2020 brought a transformative era for Indian para-sports. Girisha N Gowda’s silver at the 2012 London Games marked the start of a new chapter, followed by a four-medal haul at Rio 2016 and a historic 19-medal win at the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics, highlighting the remarkable talent of India’s para-athletes. The 2024 Paris Paralympics, held from 28 August to 08 September 2024, were a landmark event for India, with a record 84 athletes competing across 12 sports, with a historic medal tally of 7 Gold, 9 Silver and 13 Bronze medals.
Ethical issues in Paralympics and the way forward
Paralympic sports have become a major enterprise, with countries and sponsors investing millions to support and promote athletes. However, just like in the Olympics, cheating occurs in the Paralympics. Some athletes use banned substances or engage in practices that enhance performance. Yet, the most common form of cheating involves manipulating the classification system set by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC).
The integrity of the classification relies on athletes having similar levels of impairment. However, some athletes exaggerate their disabilities to be placed in classes with competitors who have greater limitations. One of the most notorious examples of this occurred at the 2000 Sydney Paralympics, where Spain’s basketball team fielded 12 players who falsely claimed to have intellectual disabilities. Even in the Indian context, para-athlete Vinod Kumar was banned for ‘intentional misrepresentation’ of his abilities.
Gaming the classification system is one thing, whereas some para-athletes claim that Paralympics are not that inclusive. The classification system is outdated and does not cover the present-day broad spectrum of disabilities.
There are also concerns about the equipment used by the athletes. Countries with better research and funding invest in better equipment, such as the weight of wheelchairs, and prosthetics involved that allow the para-athletes to enhance their performance, surpassing the rest.
Given the growing significance of the Paralympics, it is high time that the IPC undertakes the overhaul of the existing classification system and review the existing eligibility criteria to accommodate all forms of disabilities. Further, the IPC must ensure that athletic excellence is not achieved with hypertechnologization and unfair technological access.
