Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games

The 2000 Summer Paralympic Games or the XI Summer Paralympics were held in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, between 18 and 29 October. The Sydney Paralympics was the last time that the Summer Paralympics were organized by two different Organizing Committees. In this edition, a record 3,801 athletes from 120 National Paralympic Committees participated in 551 events in 18 sports. The 2000 Summer Paralympics were the second largest sporting event ever until that date held in Australia and in the Southern Hemisphere. Sydney was the eighth city to jointly host the Olympic and Paralympic Games. However, it was only the fourth to jointly organize both events with the in complete conjunction with the Olympics. This edition was also the first time that the Paralympics were held in Australia and Oceania.

Host city bid process

Historical Context and Changes to Host City Selection

Before 1993, when the International Paralympic Committee became fully operational, the process of selecting host cities for the Olympic and Paralympic Games was separate and not always well coordinated. For instance, cities would bid independently for either the Summer or Winter Olympics and the Paralympics. And these issues are results of the successful issues and demands that arose from the 1992 Summer Paralympics shared by Barcelona and Madrid and those specific ones that put the 1996 Summer Paralympics at risk, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) made significant changes to the host city selection process. They started requiring cities to express intentions regarding the Paralympic Games when bidding for the Olympics. And the first of these questions were those that IOC made it mandatory to integrate both events into one organizing framework starting with the 2000 Summer Olympics. However, this unified approach didn’t fully materialize until the 2008 Summer Olympics held in Beijing, when the Organizing Committee for the Olympics was also responsible for the Paralympic Games. Despite this, Sydney was the last city in history to submit two separate bids: one for the Olympic Games and one for the Paralympic Games.

Different process, same results

Following the success of the 1992 Summer Paralympics in Barcelona, the International Coordinating Committee for Disabled Sports (ICC) was dissolved in February of the following year. Thus, the IPC assumed full functions in March of the same year. However, even before the ICC was dissolved, the IPC was in operation and had made the decision regarding the host cities for the 1994 and 1998 Winter Games in addition to the 1996 Summer Games. While the 1994 Winter Paralympics in Lillehammer were in a efficiently process and without major problems, the 1996 Summer Paralympics in Atlanta faced many obstacles due to an atypical and disjointed organisational model, resulting in a lack of communication and conflicts between the organisers of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. This led to a series of conflicts and hampered the planning of the Summer Games. Even before any attempt to cooperation, the Atlanta Olympic and Paralympic organizers had already lost all contact, which compromised joint planning from the outset. This lack of dialogue and integration led to a tortuous and fraught organizational process, marked by conflicts, legal disputes and a lack of mutual support. A clear contrast of what had happened in Barcelona, where both events were successfully coordinated by the same committee. Despite the problems with Atlanta, the IPC could not stop and takes to plan the future. It needed to continue its planning, as the processes for selecting the host cities for the 1998 Winter Games and the 2000 Summer Games were already underway. However, the chaotic experience of Atlanta had a strong impact on the IPC’s decisions, putting the institution on alert and directly influencing its stance on future possibility of the joint bids. As the IPC was still a young institution with little political clout at the time, it did not have enough power to negotiate directly with the Olympic organizers. As a consequence of the lack of communications and the financial support the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was forced to intervene in the relationship with its commercial partners in order to break the institutional boycott issues and consequently had to change several points in the rules relating to the process that would end with the selection of the 2000 Summer Olympics host city. The change was that the IOC was required to include topics in the questionnaires that were sent to the bidding cities with questions related to their plans for the Paralympic Games and if there were no clear responses from a city to these questions there would be a summary elimination from the respective interested from the process. This decision was seen as an important milestone in ensuring that the Olympic and Paralympic Games were planned together and on an equal place. The changes in the rules of the bidding process for the 2000 Games took some bidding cities by surprise, especially those that had not included the Paralympic Games in their initial plans. On the other hand, some bids were already more aligned with this new requirement and were able to adapt more easily and the bidding cities won a slightly extended evaluation period due to the added complexity of including the Paralympic Games. When the IOC eventually released the first evaluation results, it was realized that all five finalists were fully capable to hosting the Games. But Sydney and Beijing emerged as slightly ahead in terms of technical preparation, infrastructure, and overall vision.

The New Rules Impact

Even with these new rules about the Paralympics, IPC as newborn institution still had no voting power or direct influence on the IOC's decisions, that is, it was an interested party, but not a decision-maker. Thus, it had to continue developing its own planning in parallel, trying to strengthen its institutional position and ensure that the Paralympic Games were treated seriously — even without officially having an active voice in the process of choosing the host city. With three withdrawals from the process of choosing the host city for the 2000 Summer Olympics, five cities remained as the finalists. Given the new reality and the demands of the Paralympic Games, the IOC sent the projects of these finalists to the IPC for analysis, even though the Paralympic Committee had no decision-making power.

For the parasports this initiative was seen as a kindness, as they were being part of the process for the first time. Since this time he was seen as a stakeholder, even though the institution could not influence the IOC's final decision, he could now be consulted at any time.

Thus, the IPC won the opportunity to evaluate the projects on its own and continue your own separate process to ensure that the Paralympic Games were taken seriously in the bidding proposals. In the preliminary assessment carried out by the institution in early 1993, four of the five finalists — Beijing, Manchester, Sydney and Berlin — had their projects considered viable for the Paralympic Games. Only Istanbul was eliminated, as it did not meet the minimum requirements to host the Paralympic Games. However, there was a crucial difference between the four projects.

Beijing, Manchester and Berlin presented integrated proposals, with a joint planning between the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Sydney, on the other hand, which was the best evaluated presented a separate proposal with the Paralympic Games initially outside the main plan. This happened as at the beginning of the process, Sydney’s bid relied entirely on a financial model based on a 100% private funding, mirroring the approach previously used in Los Angeles (1984) and Atlanta (1996).However, this gradually changed due to the enthusiasm of the local and national population, who managed to convince local and national authorities to commit to the two projects, transforming the proposed financial model into a public-private partnership and which resulted in a gigantic change in the project and strengthened the bids. This movement ended up being decisive in turning around Sydney's position. However, in 1992,there were legal limitations in Australia at the time, particularly related to the use of public funds and the different starts of the projects blocked the merger of the two candidacy Committees, which remained separate until 1995 when a legislative act merged them. Nevertheless, the commitment from civil society and the recent created Australian Paralympic Committee to put in place the bid was recognised and the Olympic Bid Committee assisted this group in the last minute assembly of the project. As there was little time left for the project to be completed, a simpler and adapted version of the Olympic project was put together for the Paralympics. This draft was prepared and then presented to the 10th IPC Executive Board Meeting, held in Berlin during September of the same year. This papers marked Sydney’s first concrete step towards a formal commitment to the Paralympic Games and paved the way for the strengthening of the Australian bid. Despite being a simpler version of the Olympic project, Sydney's bid for the Paralympic Games stood out for its solid technical base and the logistics and a some parts was the same of the Olympic bid. Furthermore, it was the only proposal with real guarantees of being held, thanks to the commitment made by the Australian government and popular support. Meanwhile, the other three bidders — Beijing, Manchester and Berlin — faced difficulties: Beijing had political and logistical uncertainties, Manchester lacked solid financial support and ready infrastructure, Berlin suffered from internal issues related to the recent reunification of Germany. Thus, even with a leaner project, Sydney consolidated itself as the safest and most viable option to host the 2000 Summer Paralympic Games Given the lack of truly viable options, Sydney ended up being acclaimed as the host city for the 2000 Paralympic Games, with the unanimous support of the 94 National Paralympic Committees who are part of the IPC at the time. The Australian bid, despite being simple, was the only one that met the technical conditions, institutional guarantees and political stability to successfully hold the event.

It's not a certain

However, this result could not be announced immediately, as any official announcement could interfere with the process of choosing the Olympic host city, which was still underway by the IOC. To preserve neutrality and avoid any external influence, the IPC kept the decision secret for a few months, until the Olympic process was concluded in a clear reflection the institutional weakness of the IPC in that historical period. Exactly, that's a critical and often overlooked point. Another major issue that jeopardized the announcement — and the Games themselves — was the absence of solid financial guarantees. This uncertainty loomed over the Paralympic Games until just a few months before they took place, creating serious concerns within the IPC and among participating nations.

As a direct consequence of this financial instability, the organizers imposed registration fees on athletes, something unprecedented and controversial. Unfortunately, many National Paralympic Committees (NPCs), especially those from developing countries, did not receive financial support from their governments, and as a result, were unable to afford participation costs. This led to reduced representation and exclusion of athletes, highlighting the ongoing challenges the Paralympic movement faced in securing equal treatment and accessibility.

The second major issue surrounding the selection of the 2000 Olympic host city was if the IOC result could match with the Paralympic decision. The concerns about this were also alarming as this could be a real problem. For this reason, the Paralympic Committee itself had already prepared itself, as if had a possible disagreement, immediately a negotiations window with the city that won the Olympic process could start. With the aim of ensuring its commitment to the Paralympic Games through bilateral agreements, formal commitments or even changes in local planning. In case there was no consensus, a third possibility was left open: moving the Paralympic Games to the Great Britain as a backup plan due their historical relation with the paralympic movement. Fortunately, with the selection of Sydney and the city's formal commitment to the Paralympic Games, this emergency alternative did not need to be activated.

Impacts of Atlanta

The controversy surrounding the disorganization and lack of integration between the 1996 Olympic and Paralympic Games was still ongoing when the process of selecting the host city for the 2002 Winter Olympics began in 1993. As a result, the IOC decided to repeat the same requirement model adopted in the 2000 process. As any interest city could apply without presenting their intentions about the Paralympics intentions. Interestingly, the winner was once again an American city. This time was Salt Lake City. However, this time there was a significant change: even before the formal start of the process, the bidding committee had already publicly stated that they were committed to organizing the Winter Paralympic Games alongside the Olympic Games, on the same level of importance and the level of competition.

The last time

This was not the last time that the Olympics and Paralympics had different organizations. When the organization of the 2006 Winter Olympics realized that it would not be able to organize the Paralympic Games as well, with an operating deficit of 95 million euros, a difficult decision was made. In September 2005, TOROC, as the Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, announced the sale of its Paralympic department to a public-private partnership for the symbolic sum of one euro cent, while injecting 40 million euros into the operating costs of the newly created ComParTo (Turin Paralympic Organizing Committee).This entity was funded through a public-private partnership, involving local companies, the Italian Paralympic Committee, and the Piedmont Region. Although it was a separate organization, ComParTo shared operational sectors with TOROC, such as marketing, logistics and infrastructure as one body ensuring effective coordination until the conclusion of the Games.

Background to the bid process

Context before the Games

United States and Australia are very traditional countries in the Paralympic movement, always actively participating in the international Paralympic movement since its early days. Despite this, these historical characteristics did not help to raise awareness among local authorities when civil society movements in both understood during the late 1980s and early 1990s that the Olympic and Paralympic Movements were already going hand in hand and its two main events could no longer be held separately and despite the acceptance of their local societies, the Paralympics were seen as a second-class event or something of potential financial loss. While the organization of the 1996 Summer Paralympic Games was almost a "perfect storm", due to various administrative and financial issues as a result of the existence of two separate Organizing Committees that were always in conflict, result of several disagreements since the beginning of the Olympic bid in 1987.When Atlanta developed our Olympic project in a example of excellence. However, this did not open the door to any type of flexibility or any extra expenses due to the option of a 100% private financing model very similar to what Los Angeles had done during the organization of the 1984 Summer Olympics which put her ahead of all other competitors for the 1996 Summer Olympics.Although the IOC sees this as a gigantic and safe advantage, the possibilities for any other event scheduled for the city in 1996 and thisand this put the Paralympics on this "black list".
When Sydney won the internal process of the Australian Olympic Committee held in 1990, there were serious proposals for this model to be repeated. But, there was a huge public interest from all spaces, given the need to build public spaces and accelerate a re-urbanization process of the city. As the project progressed, the higher interest began to gather new groups, increasingly reaching a larger space, reaching all levels of government resulting in a project funded by 3 interested parties (federal government, city and private investitures) financing 33% of the Games budget.

History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia

Despite having a historical tradition in the Paralympics and having participated (and won gold medals) in the previous eight summer editions, Australia had traditionally looked down or had little interest in Paralympic sport, to the point that, during the 2000 Summer Olympics host city bid process, Sydney showed little or no interest in hosting the Paralympics and did not submit any proposal to host it. As the Olympic bid process progressed and Sydney positioned itself as the favorite, the lack of interest in the Paralympics began to be seen as a weakness in relation to Manchester and Berlin, which propose a management and organization model similar to that was used in Barcelona. Along Australia, Germany and Great Britain are traditional countries in the Olympic and Paralympic movement. However, between 1989 to 1993, the Europeans had much greater strength and reputation than Australia. Between 1960 to 1992, was normal on local media that the accomplishments and performances of local athletes were little noticed or ignored. Not even expressive results, such as fifth place in the medal table at the 1992 Summer Paralympics and the expressive second place in 1996, drew in a small attention that the Paralympic sport deserved and was treated in other countries and some sectors of society stayed give the same treat and conceptions that the Paralympics "were an event of second class".

The impact of Barcelona and Atlanta at the bids for the 2000 Games

*''See also'': 1984 Summer Olympics, 1996 Summer Olympics, 1996 Summer Paralympics.

If the joint management of the 1992 Summer Paralympics opened up new possibilities for the Paralympic Games, the confusion and discredit surrounding the 1996 Games could cause enormous damage to the image of the Paralympics. As the events in Atlanta they had no relation, and were planned to held with two separate Organizing Committees, functioning simultaneously and without any communication and inexistent relations. Even Nagano, which would host the 1998 Winter Paralympics, was further ahead than Atlanta and provided more security for the International Paralympic Committee, that despite having two separate organizations, the stakeholders were the same.

After the financial success of the 1984 Summer Olympics, "Olympic Fever" swept the United States, and their bids became common in the following years. Anchorage, Alaska applied to host the 1992 and 1994 Winter Olympics without success, and Salt Lake City also applied for the 1998 Winter Olympics, before the Utah capital "bought" the bidding process and won the rights to host the 2002 Winter Olympics in 1995: three years later, the ensuing bribery scandal became public, leading to the biggest crisis in the history of the Olympic movement until the 2020 Summer Olympics were postponed. Considered short-term bids, both Atlanta and Salt Lake City had used as a guide the financing model of the 1984 Summer Olympics, when no public funds were invested in the organization of the Games. Unlike Sydney, all the competition venues were ready and were mostly from private institutions. During the bid, all sponsors and interested parties financed all the necessary works.

By choosing this model, however, the Atlanta Olympic Bid Committee, caused the Paralympic Games to be "forgotten", as seen from the loss of funding and low market potential, closing the door to any kind of damage to the image of the AOCOG. However, when this situation was discovered, this led to a severe public outcry. As Salt Lake City was already in the bidding process for the 2002 Winter Olympics, the International Olympic Committee changed the process and signed a strategic partnership with the International Paralympic Committee in 1994, making the compromise to host the Paralympics under the same umbrella and Organizing Committee.

Two committees, too much confusion

Initially, the fact was raised that ACOG had purposely forgotten about the Paralympics, and the reasons became clear: the event lacked the potential economic returns, visibility and appeal of the Olympics. After this led to a civil movement led by the Shepherd Center, it became possible that the 1996 Summer Paralympics would be held in Great Britain, with an unknown city having already signed a pre-contract as a reserve if Atlanta chose not to, or was unable to, host the Paralympic Games.

The Shepherd Center's effort worked despite pressure from the USOC and its sponsors, who thought the Paralympics were taking advantage of the Olympics, and also forced a boycott from them: to that end, major local companies had threatened to withdraw funding to the event.

Despite all this, the Atlanta experience turned out to be disastrous for everyone involved, with all the money raised being used to outsource the essential services at the venues to the ACOG.

The Olympic bidding process

While all this confusion was going on, the process of choosing the host city for the 2000 Summer Olympic Games was already open, and eight National Olympic Committees showed their initial intentions to participate in the process: Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Turkey and Uzbekistan, with six of them also showing interest in hosting the Paralympics, having "open arms and hearts" to the Paralympics in their bidding documents.

Throughout the process, and for several reasons, Brazil, Italy and Uzbekistan withdrew, with the other five bids being automatic finalists. When publishing this list, the IPC evaluated these candidates in parallel and announced that Turkey did not satisfy the conditions to host the Paralympic Games. However, the remaining four still faced different technical and feasibility requirements.

Sydney's reluctance to host the Paralympics

The Sydney 2000 Olympic Bidding Committee (SOBC) was initially not concerned with the Paralympic Games due a several questions and themes and this list exemplifies these polemic and controversial issues:

*First: The risks surrounding the eventual victory at the respective process to host the Olympic Games and two weeks later, the Paralympic Games.
*Second: Due the size of the two events Sydney and Australia they might not be fully capable of providing equal conditions for both in a short spam of time.
* Third: The issues related to what was happening in Atlanta in which latent differences between the Olympic and Paralympic organizers were at war not only over budget but also support in practically all areas.
* Fourth: Atlanta cannot provide the same excellent conditions for Olympic athletes to Paralympic athletes and this is exemplified by the lack of services and viability of the Olympic Village and the competition venues, which were not the same. In some specific cases, some competition venues were outside the Olympic Ring and were located at distances greater than 50 km from the Olympic Village.
* Fifth: The extremity of the situation in Atlanta also reached the corporate level where institutional boycotts and threats of lawsuits by several sponsors and the then USOC turned the Paralympic environment into something nebulous, as several forecasts by experts at the time said that this organizational model would not work, which was proven during the Games, particularly in the areas of logistics, ticket sales and marketing.

Upon learning that there would be a lack of financial resources for the Games, the International Olympic Committee was forced to intervene and managed to convince ACOG to buy a sponsorship quota sponsorship quota of approximately USD$5 million. A small operational percentage of APOC was also involved in this negotiation with a view to accelerating some processes.US$5 million, sponsorship quota of approximately USD$5 million. A small operational percentage of APOC was also involved in this negotiation in order to speed up some processes. However, the condition for this investment was clear, that the Paralympic Committee would not sell its sponsorship quotas to competitors of the Olympic sponsors. However, this did not progress since legally and sportingly the two events have similarities but are totally different.

The situation really improved when the IOC intervened by purchasing another sponsorship quota and "forced" its partners to buy the rest of the remaining quotas and this involved several multinational companies such as (i.e. Coca-Cola, Delta Air Lines and The Home Depot).

In view of a brighter future, in 1993, IOC changed the rules to prevent a repeat: starting with the bid process for the 2002 Winter Olympics host city, it was required that each city interested in participating in the hosting process for the Olympic Games commit to publicizing its plans for the Paralympic Games, as the 1992 Summer Paralympics had been a success without precedence.

Disturbed by what was happening, an extensive marketing research, made for those the responsible for Sydney's Paralympic bid also considered the fact that the reach of the Paralympic Games was very small and limited which resulted in huge rejection from various sectors of local society. As there was no obligation at the time to also host the Paralympic Games, Sydney would only consider applying for the Paralympics if they could be successful in the Olympic bid.

This possibility did not interest the newly created Australian Paralympic Federation (APF), led by former athlete Ron Finneran, who was delighted with what had happened in recent editions of the Paralympic Games, where the same cities were hosting the Olympic Games. At the same time, that the disagreements and controversial issues surrounding Atlanta could be a highlight to draw attention to the Paralympic Movement at a time when the IPC was structuring and consolidating itself. These issues further contributed to the Olympic Bid Committee not believing that the APC and IPC was fully capable of managing the Paralympic Games. The financial difficulties encountered by Atlanta had repercussions since the beginning of Sydney's plans: the APC was small but had money to survive from its members and the Australian Government, though this would not be able to raise sufficient resources to promote the bid during 1992 and 1993.

Sometime after this situation was resolved, new questions regarding the reliability of the APF were raised by Australian public opinion. During the bid the issue of television and broadcasting rights was a latent concern from the early days and was only resolved in mid-1999 when Australia's public broadcaster ABC assumed these responsibilities in the local market.

At the same time, the Bid Committee was asked about sources of funding for the event, as that time, the Paralympics did not have the market appeal of the Olympic and Commonwealth Games and also, how the APF would be able to get other sources of private funding.

The beginning of the dream

With the successful integration in Barcelona, where the two events were marketed as a "60-day sporting celebration", the first contacts between the APF and the Sydney 2000 Bid Committee (SOBC) were made in 1991 and again in the first half of 1992, Sydney's registration for the Paralympics took place in March 1993.

However, like all previous Olympics host cities, the SOBC had no plans to bid for the Paralympics unless Sydney won the Olympic counterpart. The lack of knowledge of local legislation also hindered the planning of the APF.

Under Australian law, the SOBC was constituted as a "specific purpose entity", which barred any change in its composition. The SOBC operated as a joint venture company with a 100% of its composition divided into three equal parts: 33.3% owned by the Australian Olympic Committee, 33.3% owned by the Government of New South Wales and 33.3% owned by the Commonwealth of Australia.

Under the current Australian legislation at the time, regardless of winning or losing the candidacy, at the end of the process it would have to be dissolved. Thus, these rules blocked any change in the composition, structure and functioning of the SOBC. As a result of this, the bid committee created by the APF had to do all the work alone.

After the announcement that of the five finalists, four satisfied the conditions to host the Paralympic Games (Beijing, Berlin, Manchester and Sydney) – technical infeasibility eliminated Istanbul – the IPC breathed a sigh of relief at that moment as three of these cities were proposing to "jointly organize the Olympic and Paralympic Games to save human and financial resources": the only bidding city that didn't propose this was Sydney.

After the decision was made by the IOC, Berlin was seen as key favorites, as it was "considered the perfect proposal to celebrate the entry of the third millennium", as the same time that they want to celebrate the 10 years of the German reunification along the Expo 2000 and a lot of another events the German government seed the Games a big opportunity. But the support of its bid was marred after anti-Olympic protesters marched through the city just four days before the final voting in Monaco, claiming that the Games would be using funds to further domestic reconstruction efforts.

The Manchester's bid book was believed to be one of the most strong in years, but was harmed by recurring delays in the regeneration process and the ongoing works at the historic centre of the city. However, the praise for the project was lost when, during the promotion of the campaign, the first promotional materials were released and they did not even feature images of the city of Manchester, but rather of London. This led to a lot of criticism within Britain, since these controversial images were kept even in the final presentation to the IOC members: many opinions in the editorials in national and local newspapers the following day concluded "Manchester is in a severe identity crisis", and even with Great Britain being the "spiritual home of Paralympic sport", Manchester's candidacy was being rejected by political force, along with several failures - the most glaring being their proposal to hold the Paralympic Games over 15 days, whereas the maximum allowed at the time was 12.A review of the failed project in a smaller scale was submitted two years later to the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF), and the city was eventually named as the host of the 2002 Commonwealth Games.For the IPC's executive board, the city was seen as a favourite due to the bid book stating "The Paralympic Games will be jointly financed with the Olympic Games and athletes will have the same opportunities and conditions offered to their Olympic counterparts". Beijing had very weak arguments, similar to those of Milan (who withdrew in February 1993 due to a scandal involving overpricing for the project and involving environmental risks related to the Po River), though Beijing stated that "the city would accept the mission of organizing and hosting the Paralympic Games, and that the financing would be the same".

However, the entire project would be developed jointly between BOBICO and the IPC, respecting all international rules and legislation. Despite this, the Chinese bid was still frowned upon because of issues relating to the protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, along with a very weak legislation related to the disabled and accessibility in public places.

With all these problems seeing the other candidates eliminated, only the Australian bid remained, which also faced serious problems: despite being the only viable candidate, the risks were still present, as there were no financial and structural guarantees for the project.

During the first phase of feasibility studies, the Sydney 2000 Olympic Bid Committee (SOBC) had rejected the holding of the Paralympics, haunted by the stress and uncertainties showed to Atlanta. That made perfect sense, because after so many conflicts both events would happen, but being organized by two totally different and disconnected organizations. As the Atlanta Organizing Committee for the 1996 Summer Olympics (ACOG) was structured in a way that any possibility of an extra event related to the Olympic Games could be held. Leading the IPC to consider implementing a "plan B" which could be Manchester or any other city in the UK. While the host city for the 2000 Summer Paralympic Games was being discussed, the previous edition would have been a source of much headache, leaving IPC to discuss to also consider keeping them in Barcelona, something that was soon discarded, given the financial problems that occurred during the organization of the 1992 Summer Games. However, between 1991 to 1993, a lot of efforts of civil society in the city of Atlanta being led by the managers of the Shepherd Center the games could take place the games were able to take place and were organized in just 3 years. And not even the threats of boycott and legal action by the USOC and its partners interrupted the organization of the Paralympic Games.

The Sydney Olympic affair

On 19 June 1991, The Sydney City Council and the government of the Australian state of New South Wales decided to participate in the bidding process of choosing the host city for the 2000 Summer Olympics. On the same day, the Sydney Olympics 2000 Bid Limited (SOBC) was formed to prepare the bid. While its competitors appealed to other issues such as the economy and the growing role of their countries in the world, Sydney focused heavily in the special relationship that Australia has with the Olympic Games, being one of the rare nations that has never failed to participate on the Summer Games for any reason. The bidding was also based on something very interesting, which was the country's relationship with sports and physical activity and followed trends that were being inaugurated with the 1994 Winter Olympics, which were logistics and environmental issues. As this was a long process, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) set guidelines and rules for the bidding process during the 1992 Winter Olympic Games, held in Albertville, France. These documents were prescribing the limits which a bidding country should not exceed in order to secure their votes. The guidelines were, however, not comprehensive and the Committee did not enforce adherence to these guidelines. Sydney was formerly registered as a bidding City in April 1992, and the company was represented at the Winter Olympic Games in Albertville and the Summer Olympic Games in Barcelona, in 1992, sundry meetings of the ‘Olympic Family’ and another international promotional visits.

In March 1993, the IOC announced that seven cities from around the world had sent their intentions to host the 2000 Olympic Games. However, as decided the previous year, the IPC, as an interested party, would not participate directly in this process. Although issues related to the Paralympic Games were in the documentation sent to them.

During the evolution of the process, Sydney positioned itself very well during the preliminary evaluations, to the point of finishing this phase of the process in first place. But it was seen as an option by analysts at the time who placed Beijing as the favorite for geopolitical reasons. Although at that time China had just come from the 1990 Asian Games and was opening its economy to the world. However, it was Sydney that ended up winning the process by just 2 votes, as a result of other issues. After the results, some journalists realized the following reasons for the surprising Australian victory: Was the fact that Australia is a traditional, secure and experienced stakeholder in the sporting world. Melbourne had already hosted the 1956 Summer Olympic Games, Brisbane the 1982 Commonwealth Games and several world championships in Olympic and non-Olympic sports had been held in the country in recent years and their population was fully immersed in the idea and the possibility of the city to be chosen to host the Olympic Games .Sydney also stood out in environmental and urban issues promising modern facilities and impeccable logistics. Something that was confirmed by the then Italian member of the IOC Primo Nebbiolo, who told the New York Times, quote, "The members preferred Sydney because it was a bid which presented no problems". This declaration made by Juan Antonio Samaranch, the then president of IOC for the Olympic Review also represented the joy for the choice, "I am happy for Sydney. Australia has a long tradition in sport and Olympism". "These will be great Games, I am sure".

The Sydney Paralympic affair

For the Paralympics, this was not the case, as Sydney did not even care about these issues and at the starting of Olympic bid project, the intention to make the joint hosting of the two biggest sporting events on world didn't exist. According to what Dr. Hartung quotes that "given the fearful conditions for the 1996 Summer Games, the leaders of the newly created Paralympics Australia were uncomfortable with the possibility that this opportunity would pass them by and be ignored". As the organizers of Barcelona 1992 treated the athletes and the Paralympic Games without any differentiation, unlike what would be done in Atlanta, they felt that this was the right time to ask local and national authorities about the possibility of Sydney also hosting the Paralympic Games within a humanist concept of equal opportunities. They also wanted the Games to also serve as a perfect platform for the issue of people with disability and their causes in Australia.

A few days later after the Olympic application documents were released and the seven cities released their preliminary documents, it was reported that 6 cities except Sydney had given guarantees to host the Paralympics. Berlin and Manchester were still committed to financing and organizing the Paralympic Games with all the same organization and as part of their complete budget. Sydney was not yet the big favorite, but this NO for the Paralympics could cost the bid dearly, even putting it in a totally unfavorable position, creating a clear risk of defeat or summary elimination. For Sydney to be in a position to compete with its competitors, the Olympic project would have to be redone, and the intention of the Paralympics was added at the last minute in the material sent to the IOC headquarters in Lausanne. The initial No had already caused a big problem, because it was already clear that even if it had been the winner, the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games would have been organized by two different Organizing Committees, similar to what was going to happen in Atlanta. Immediately, the Olympic bid consultants advised the SOBC to reconsider its decision, and reluctantly they ended up accepting the guidance within the following argument: "the rejection of the Paralympic Games could be considered a crucial weakness for Sydney" and that "important votes for the end could be lost". Following the events, the Olympic Bid Committee redid much of its project and tried to add the Paralympic Committee to its structure, which did not happen due to a law in force in Australia at that time and the fear that could happen in Atlanta, could be repeated in Sydney, if the city were to win both processes.

Third phase: the fight continues

While the period of presentations was approaching, SPBC was structured. With a simpler and more modest structure than the other candidates as consequences of the lack of support. As the final evaluations approached, the Sydney bidding committee for the 2000 Summer Paralympics was structured in a simpler and more modest way than the other bidders as a consequence and they had to make a harder works.

The APF's resilience

The APF presented throughout the process a surprising level of articulation, willpower and organization for an institution that had only been in operation for two and half years. In its first months of operation, the APF formally assumed the functions of the Bid Committee for the 2000 Summer Paralympic Games (SBPG).

After the Australian Confederation of Sports for the Disabled (ACSD) ceased operations on 31 December 1989, the APF had the same functions and attributions that today belong to the Australian Paralympic Committee (APC).

In addition to these roles, they took on the duties and the matters of Sydney's bid for the 2000 Summer Paralympics. The APF also had the tasks of organizing its staff and interested parties, convincing sceptics about Australia's ability to host, organize and manage the Paralympic Games after the Olympics (hosted at a level of excellence never before seen), and show that a potential Paralympic edition on Australian soil could be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that para athletes are part of Australian society, and that they have enormous potential to demonstrate their inclusion and diversity.

The APC's arguments had previously been used successfully when they convinced former Prime Minister Bob Hawke to sponsor the foundation of the APF: nobody imagined that Australia would consolidate itself in the Paralympic movement in the same way as in the Olympic movement, or even that this would be done in just six years. As a courtesy from the NSW Government, APC would gain an office at the New South Wales Sport House.

Third phase: "We are on this"

The activities and the work of the Bid Committee gained greater intensity as 1992 drew to a close: the APC would have to present its project to external and interested parties.

At the same time that the engagement and involvement of the population in the Olympic bid increased, the rejection of the Paralympics grew in the same way. For many, the work of the APF was considered "opportunistic" and "rude", while others understood that there was an "obligation for pity". With this negativity growing, the APF continued to do its job, while the difficulties continued to increase every day.

Taking advantage of this and the increasingly shorter deadline for sending the necessary documentation - this was to be delivered to the IPC by 21 March 1993.

The late Adrienne Smith, who was then working as the executive secretary of the APC, sat down at a table with several consultants of the SOBC: in just eight weeks, Smith and the SOBC drew up the bid project that would be handed over to the IPC executive board in a meeting scheduled for Lillehammer, Norway. In a surprise action, the APF managed to add the letters of intent signed by the prime minister, the governor of NSW, and the mayor of Sydney.

At this meeting, the four candidate cities were aware of what their competitors were proposing to the IPC and, for the first time, face-to-face meetings between the members of these candidacy committees took place.

Some of the Australian journalists who were accompanying the Sydney delegation reported that "the APF Committee made a functional and realistic presentation, but which in comparison was much simpler and more modest than the others". As a sign of courtesy, approach and recognition, the SOBC paid the expenses for the trip to Norway and integrated the delegation and its executive manager, though the SBPC was responsible for printing all its promotional material, the necessary documentation and the application book (which were scarce compared to that of other cities).

Same sources that reported that the other three candidates "were very well represented" and all had "convincing and more strong arguments": a member of the Australian delegation even declared that "if we had a small team, all the work would be more difficult to do", scolding the local society by declaring that "there was an implicit lack of respect for the importance of the event, as it equated to the choice of the Olympic host city".

During the Lillehammer presentation, it was announced that the first estimated budget for the Paralympic Games was expected to be more than AU$84 million and this would be financed by the sale of sponsorship quotas, tickets, licensed products, marketing actions, and contributions from the Governments of New South Wales and Australia. It was not reported at the time how much was intended to be gained from the sale of media rights.

1993: almost everything collapses

1993 was the most important year for the ambitions of SOBC and SBPC: January could not have started better, as the APF was able to confirm that it had obtained the formal and official support of the governmental spheres involved.

A few days before the trip to Norway, the Federal Minister of Sports of Australia, Ros Kelly, confirmed that formal and official support from the SOBC was ratified and they would be partners for whatever the APC needed. Kelly also confirmed that letters of intent were being sent by these government levels.

It seemed that with this public support, everything would be solved. But after several denials, the most worrying issues would resurface: even with all the accepted and well-structured arguments, the APF still had not obtained the financial guarantees and it was feared that any request for financial assistance would be seen as a provocation.

Since at that time, the APF was not in a position to support itself financially - nor would its members be able to raise funds and finance all the costs of the bid and the Games itself - if Sydney was the winner.

The concern was valid because the choice of the Paralympics host would be before the Olympic host, and any eventual failure it could spill over into the Olympic candidacy. Further to this, there were studies that reported that the Paralympic Games had "low marketing potential" and did not have "the same commercial attraction as the Olympic Games".

In this letter there was relevant information that "in the first months, the SOBC had guided the APF to look for other forms of financing that were not public" and "we cannot finance you in any way". This thinking was gradually changing, and the SOBC became ready some time later to help the SPBC in whatever it needed. The SOBC had even guided the APF to look for other sources of income for its candidacy.

This statement came at the same time that the APF admitted that it did not even have the capacity to pay the US$50,000 if Sydney did win the hosting rights.

After becoming aware of this dire situation, Finneran sent a letter informing the minister that their recent studies determined that the costs to host the Paralympic Games would be AU$82.67 million, of which the SOBC would provide AU$15 million from the ticket sales. The sales of sponsorship, tickets, related events such as fundraising and licensed products were expected to generate another AU$14.49 million, leaving a deficit of AU$53.18 million.

Finnegan raised an even more urgent situation, the difficulty of carrying out a separate marketing campaigns for the two events, as required by the SOBC and the IOC itself, and announced a joint campaign by the two bids, understanding that the function would be to maximize opportunities to acquire unified actions as same sponsors as well as private sector funding.

However, the dice had already been rolled and the main challenge now was the candidacy itself, and the city's preparation for the IPC inspection visits that were scheduled for May and June of that year, as it had already been announced that the city's bid proposal had been accepted. As per the rules of the final process, the final report would be released and the members of APF would have to make a final presentation before the then 94 National Paralympic Committees members of the IPC in Berlin, Germany, on 12 September 1993.

This selection was made eleven days before the 101st Session of the International Olympic Committee that was to be held in Monte Carlo, Monaco. However, the signing of the city contract would have to wait, as this depended on the decision of the Olympic host: on 23 September, Sydney won the hosting rights in an upset, beating the favorite, Beijing, by just two votes. Thus, for the eighth time in history, the same city would host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in the same year:While the Olympic Games would be from September 15 to October 1, the Paralympics would be from October 14 to 26. This would give time for both events to be held without any possibility of a clash of dates or any type of problem.

After the win, Smith – now executive manager of the SPBC – commented that "we couldn't go public because if we did it would have ruined the Olympic bid. We had no acknowledgement of financial support from the government until the day of the bid in September 1993."

Between these actions, Smith, Finneran, and members of SOBC also ensured in a letter to the IOC, IPC and Australian and New South Wales authorities that if Sydney won both bids, the Paralympic athletes would have the same treatment, conditions and support as their Olympic counterparts as happened in Barcelona, but in a better and innovative way. This was unprecedented and would become a turning point for the Paralympic Games.

After the elections: first innovative proposal

A few days after taking office, on 19 April 1993, Finneran wrote a new letter to the Minister explaining that either the APF or the Australian disability sports community were unable to accept responsibility for the financial contributions or otherwise for organizing the Games, even if they are submitting a bid. In the same letter, he further proposed that al the organization and the marketing of the Olympic and Paralympic Games was done under a same banner and this would be the best solution to ensure a successful delivery of the 2000 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games.

At the first days of May 1993, a small Committee was organized by the APF and during the first meetings, a document described as a "white paper" was written. This document had the function of guiding all the actions that would be taken from there in the Australian bid. Another main objective was also to base its clear foundations with the government and consolidate the bid arguments during the hard process. After the ending of those meetings, Finneran sent the White Paper to his board on 12 May 1993, drawing attention with the following written statement made at the beginning message "this white paper … clearly states to all directors involved, the position of the Australian Paralympic Federation and therefore the position of the Paralympic Bidding Committee (SPBC) in relation to the conditions under which the Paralympic Games will be held if Sydney wins the bid."

Even with the victory on two fronts, new rounds of negotiations, the amount of uncertainty and lack of guarantees was so great that new rounds of negotiations needed to be carried out, reaching the point that in 1995, when legislation surrounding the Games had to be approved in the Australian parliament, the Sydney Paralympic Games Organizing Committee (SPOC) reaching the point that in 1995, when legislation surrounding the Games needed to be approved in the Australian parliament, the Sydney Paralympic Games Organizing Committee was created within the structure of SOCOG.

Costs

The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Bidding Committee (SPBC) outlined that a budget of AU$84 million (near AU$188 million in 2022) would be required to stage the games, largely coming from revenue from ticket sales, sponsorship quotas, licensed products, charities and marketing, with smaller contributions expected from the federal and New South Wales state governments. The initial budget had not forecast possible income relating to the sale of media rights to the games. Market research at the time indicated that the Paralympic Games had "little potential" compared to its Olympic counterpart and it was "uncertain and risky to invest in an event with no certain return", making the games a difficult sell to potential sponsors.

In 1993, the head of the Australian Paralympic Federation (APF) Ron Finneran presented the Federal Government with a revised budget of AU$82.67 million (AUD $185.48 million in 2023). Of this, the SOBC were prepared to commit $15 million, with a further $14.49 million expected from ticket sales, quotas and sponsorship partnerships and other actions, leaving a budget shortfall of AU$58.33 million. On 1 October 1993, the ''Daily Telegraph'' reported that AU$65 million (AU$145.83 million in 2023) had been allocated for the budget of the Sydney Paralympic Games. Around AU$40 million (AU$100.96 million) was committed from the New South Wales Government, after the state Premier committed to recover more than 50% of the money from other budget sources. The Federal Government allocated another AU$25 million (AU$56.06 million).

However, the estimated budget for organising the Games ended up being inflated in five years to values greater than more than AUS$136 million and on July 30, 1998, the Chief Executive of the SPOC, Ms Lois Appleby, announced that of the estimated costs of AUS$150 million, there was a shortfall of around AUS$14 million that could not be guaranteed in an extra way by public funds and they had and they would have to be obtained in other ways, including ticket sales and the enter of new sponsors.

The final estimates for the games came to AU$157 million (AU$325.25 million in 2023), with the NSW Government and Commonwealth Government contributing AU$25 million each (AU$56.09 million in 2023 values). The Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) contributed AU$18 million (AU$40.38 million in 2023 values), within the bid estimates. The Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee (SPOC) signed the host city contract with the recently formed International Paralympic Committee in 1993, a few days after the city had been chosen to host the 2000 Summer Olympics. This contract outlined the SPOC's obligations in hosting the Paralympic Games. To cover the remaining costs, revenue was raised via sponsorships quotas shared with SOCOG and ticket sales. The 110,000-seat Stadium Australia was completed three months early in February 1999, this stadium was funded mainly by the private sector at an estimated cost of AU$690 million (AU$1.548.090.000 in 2023 values), the Government contributed AU$124 million (AU$278.210 million in 2023) to this project. Though there was no budgeted profit, repayments to the State and Federal Governments were prioritised in the event of profit being made. In October 1998, governing bodies of the Olympics and Paralympics initiated a joint call for volunteers. An estimated total of forty-one thousand Australians answered this call, non-including those sourced from specialist community groups.

Environment

In an innovative way, the Olympic and Paralympic project had as the major focus, the completion of the first stage of the Millennium Parklands. This is composed of 450 hectares of landscape, with up to 40 kilometres of pedestrian and cycle trails. This major first stage included focus on the surrounding Olympic and Paralympic facilities, providing a beautiful landscape for recreational activities, conservation and environmental education/preservation. During this time work on the Water Reclamation and Management Scheme (WRAMS) will continue to progress. The WRAMS will be in use during the games with the first stage (recycled water to be used for flushing and irrigation) to be implemented. This system will continue after the games, and will be fully developed after the games has been completed. The WRAMS system is only one of the many water saving management strategies to be used during the games period. Plans to use stormwater runoff from Newington to be used as irrigation and a requirement for Olympic venues to utilise water saving techniques and devices are also some of the other water saving plans. Stormwater from the Stadium Australia roof is to be collected and used to irrigate the central stadium. An environmental education program is also delivered throughout 1999–2000 to ensure that Homebush Bay and the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympics continues to be recognised for their commitment to the environment after their end.

Administration

As the host city contract signed in November 1993, the 2000 Summer Paralympic Games were governed and overseen by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), led by them-President Robert Steadward. The Games were organised by the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee (SPOC) led by President Dr John Grant and chief executive officer Lois Appleby. The Sydney 2000 Summer Olympic Games Organizing Committee (SOCOG) and the Sydney Paralympic Games Organizing Committee (SPOC) were established on November 12, 1993, by the same creation act. Even though it had a different history, SPOC was absorbed as a subsidiary of SOCOG but with a bigger autonomy with separate budget forecasts and subsidies. In its first year of operation SOCOG and SPOC actions were carried out independently.

However, during the first rounds of negotiations held between 1993 to 1995, the authorities realized that both had several characteristics in common and motivated by incidents prior to the organization of the Atlanta Games, it was decided in the second half of that year to merge both organizations. As this could cause further conflict, both the Australian government and Sydney City Council decided that in order to jointly manage both parties, there was a need to create an Olympic Coordinating Authority (OCA) that would mediate any common or specific interactions.

In January 1995, SPOC (Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games) was created as a public company limited by guarantee within the umbrella of SOCOG (Sydney 2000 Organising Committee for the Olympic Games), but with both operating separately and without a total legal connection. Despite being different, they functioned in a complementary and supplementary way as they had the same structure, with the same people taking on the same roles and activities during the organization of both events in the same way as the government and entities. Within OCA, SOCOG and SPOC had the same administrative and legal duties and responsibilities related to the management, planning and execution of the Games.

But each Organizing Committee had your own competences to their relative questions: as marketing, ticket services, visual identity and the "look of games", information systems and services, conducting the test events, facilitating drug testing, arranging broadcasting conditions, the housing for athletes, arranging all the ceremonies, logistics of the materials, public and athletes and conducting and take their own Torch Relays. However, there were specific functions for the SPOC, which were the conversion of venues and the Village during the "transition between the Games" period and the functional classification of athletes. Along the IPC, the SPOC also had the responsibilities to regulate the use of Paralympic Games brands and images. At the first moment everything seemed completely different, but as the work progressed, both parties realized that they had a lot in common and began to get closer.

However, after the merger of the structures the following situation was observed: While the organization of the Olympic Games was progressing in a completely satisfactory and accelerated manner due to the previous experiences of those involved, those who were working specifically for the Paralympics were having huge difficulties. In June 1997, the OCA decided that it would be better to mediate the potential conflicts that would occur, creating a Joint Risk Management Committee with the skills to mediate potential conflicts between the management of the two events. In late November of the same year, the Sydney 2000 Games Administration was approved in the Australian Parliament and would be valid for 2 years until it expired on January 1, 2001. and their assets and liabilities were transferred to OCA who is still responsible for managing the event's legacy.

Even so, the demand for the specificities of the Paralympic Games forced the intervention of the IPC, even before the creation of the Liaison Committee in 1998.These demands and needs were few, but the main was the necessity to create a specific working group for Paralympic sports and competitions. Thus, a year earlier, the SPOC announced the hiring of Spaniard Xavier Gonzalez, who had performed the same role in Barcelona and Atlanta. Gonzalez was one of the few non-Australians who did not take on strategic roles during the preparation of the Games. Your department supervised more than 3 thousand athletes and the 21 competition venues. Within their competence were also the guidance to supplement any guidance and assistance for the athletes in Sydney and also the most important in the pre-Games period, the formulation of the calendar and the Paralympic program that needed to be revised several times until its finalization at the beginning of the year 2000.

Gonzales also mediated on several occasions the conversations between the Liaison Committee, which was responsible for mediation between the SPOC and the IPC, began working actively on October 8, 1998, performing functions similar to those performed by the IOC Coordination Commission in relation to the Olympic Games.

Educational program

As part of the Educational Program, developed with all spheres of government and civil society, a multitude of monitoring and participation programs were developed with a view to helping the Games organization raise the AU$20 million that was needed for the Games account to be closed.

"Set No Limits" kits

The first educational initiative started in July 1998, SPOC distributed 10,000 free information resource kits to public and private schools and also to universities and libraries across Australia an educational material called "Set No Limits". Designed to raise awareness and build anticipation of the Paralympic Games among students through a series of playing and learning activities based on the Paralympic sport and a collective healthy lifestyle. In this material there were also several questions related to the performance of para-athletes and what motivated them to practice the sport. Together with the function of encouraging the participation of young people in order to spark their curiosity so that they would assist them during the preparation period. This series of guides and proposed activities were developed by teachers, educators and Paralympic athletes such as the wheelchair basketball player Liesl Tesch. The "Set No Limits" was a multidisciplinary project and included technical sheets, videos, spreadsheets and other lot of class and work materials, activity proposals for physical education classes and official posters. The exercises and activities were all related to the athletes' personal life stories, health and quality of life issues and also specific focus at the venues on Sydney Olympic Park and had Lizzie, the Games mascot also a protagonist. Mainly aimed at students aged 8 to 15, the kit helps young Australians value and respect the commitment and performance of elite athletes with disabilities and encourages them to attend the Paralympic Games to see the athletes compete.

LEAP (Link Elite Athletes Program)

When a school finished all the stages from the "Set No Limits", the institution was invited to be part of LEAP (Link Elite Athletes Program). Schools interested in being part of LEAP received a series of documents that had to be sent to the SPOC education department confirming their intentions to participate. In these documents, the institution was consulted about their characteristics and what type of athlete they wanted to be chosen to carry out the project. Exchanges between schools and athletes took place three times a year between 1998 and 2000 and they collected letters, faxes, cards, emails, drawings and photographs as they learned from each other realities. If this athlete lived or trained less than 200 km from the school where he was communicating, he could, in one of these opportunities, adopt the school and, visit the students in person in special events or during the school year. The students learned about the lifestyle, routine and specificities of each athlete with their training schedules and training methods. They also shared their experiences and dreams in view of the Paralympic Games. The exchange also allowed students to break down ideas and paradigms about what is necessary to be a Paralympian the standards so that each athlete can qualify for the Paralympic Games, together with the understanding of what "disability is" and what sport is Paralympic or adapted and how it is practiced.

The original goals of the LEAP program were to reach more than 1000 schools by April 2000, with 60 of them in a special category. Because they were "schools that are more than 3000km from Sydney". SPOC aimed to attract more than 2,500 schools as members and encourage more than 170,000 students to be at the Olympic Park during the 12-day Games, a goal that was made easier with the introduction of a specific grant from the Australian Federal Government, which helped schools that were more than 200 km or more away from Sydney Olympic Park.

This donation of AU$1.3 million was specifically for those schools that were within the LEAP program. Those schools beyond 200 km of Sydney Olympic Park that participate in the Paralympic Games received AU$10 per student; Those who were ‘beyond 400km’ category received AU$20; Those in the ‘beyond 1000km’ category received AU$40; Those who were more than 2,000 km away or in Tasmania received AU$100 and those who are more than 3,000 km away received AU$200.

Schools could also take advantage of the Day Pass system, which was adapted from large resorts and theme parks and could choose which sports or events could be attended. The value of the Day Pass was AU$15 per person and each student paid half, which was AU$8.As an incentive for their participation, schools that completed the LEAP program had access to advance purchase of daily passes and had a different condition for purchasing them. For every 100 passes sold, each school received another 10 free passes as a bonus. the federal government and SPOC encouraged schools to use these bonus passes for parents, teachers or coordination assistants to accompany their students to the Games. Children under five do not pay for any type of day pass and they were admitted with any type of fee.

"As many Australian children as possible should witness the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games — our athletes are among the best in the world. Our children should be encouraged to experience first hand the triumph of our athletes who overcome their disabilities to excel." The Federal Minister for Sport and Tourism, Jackie Kelly upon announcing the LEAP Subsidy.

Given the gigantic success of LEAP, the Organizing Committee decided to reward those schools with the greatest engagement in the program, selecting around 900 students from 120 schools that were taking part in the program to assist authorities and security forces during the award ceremonies by loading trays with bouquets of flowers and medals.The students should be among the Year Five and the Year Six in 2000 and be between the ages of 10 and 12.

On February 29, 2000, SPOC announced that the number of schools involved in LEAP exceeded more than 2000 institutions involved in all Australian states and territories. Applications for the LEAP scholarship ended on April 30, 2000, and had no cost for the schools involved and covered all types of primary and secondary school institutions. By that date, approximately 272 LEAP participating schools in 5 states had purchased approximately 80,000 Day Passes.

Paralympic Voice

As part of the educational program, the SPOC also developed a program of lectures and face-to-face actions called Paralympic Voice, which had several similarities to LEAP. But now it was developed with companies, commercial and community associations and other types of institutions. In this case, in addition to the possibility of communications and exchange of previous experiences, Paralympic athletes and other partners could visit these institutions in person through lectures and other institutional events when available.

Public reception

The incidents that happened before Atlanta forced Australian organizers to rethink the way in which the Paralympic Games would be promoted, and this involved work related to local communities and across the country. A big novelty was the development of a marketing campaign in which the issue of disability was abandoned and there was a focus on the trajectory of each athlete, and this ended up resulting in something unprecedented, as around more than 1 million people were present in the Olympic Park during the Games, namely some 340,000 basic education students. Public and private schools were provided with free day tickets for students and teachers to attend, as a conclusion for the schools' education project which ran before the games. This was also the result of the involvement from a diverse range of areas and groups from the third sector.

Volunteers

As they were jointly managing several areas, SOCOG and SPOC were also responsible for joint management of the volunteer program resulting in a total number of more than 62.000 volunteers who were divided between the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games themselves.

Training for this gigantic number of the volunteers, contractors and headquarters staff working during the Olympic and Paralympic Games was totally integrated and involved specific actions for people with disabilities. Those actions were developed by TAFE NSW tasking Team and included a focus on disability awareness. In the period before the Games, TAFENSW was a reference in Australia on the issue of Education and Training of People with Disabilities or Learning Difficulties (VET). At the time, around 6000 students were part of the VET program. In order to complement these efforts, SOCOG's internal training team, which was made up of highly prestigious employees from the Olympic Organizing Committee and TAFE NSW, were no complemented by other outstanding employees from TAFE NSW. However, now with specific knowledge and experience in the VET area.

Service Clubs

Part of the local community involvement program also took place in the third sector through service clubs or associations. In this group were Rotary International, Apex Clubs of Australia, Lions Clubs International, Freemasonry, Soroptimist International and Zonta International worked together with the SPOC on projects to send groups of spectators. It is noteworthy that they also helped finance the logistics so that schools and socially vulnerable groups could go to venues during the Games. Another groups such as Probus Clubs and Legacy Australia
were encouraged to take actions and led their members to the be present at the Games. These actions also encompassed national scout and guide groups across Australia. As part of the education programs, they also received training about the Paralympic Games and their families also participated in the entire process, which culminated in active participation in several actions that took place in Sydney during the Games.

Multiculturalism

Just like the Olympic Games, the issue of multiculturalism in Australia was part of the planning of actions related to the Paralympic Games. Alongside SOCOG, SPOC developed several actions related to these delicate issues. This led to encouraging links between Australian ethnic groups and the visitors from other countries. And these communities worked alongside the organization to reach a new level of spectator support, raise funds and also provide a specific group of volunteers specialized in translation.

Spheres of local government

All spheres of federal, state and local government in Australia contributed to help and held the financial and promotional support to the Paralympic Games. It was observed that the effort regarding education programs also involved councilors, mayors, members of the state and federal parliaments and also the respective residents locals who also helped SPOC raise funds for the Games.

Fundraising and Partnerships

A number of connections and partnerships were made in unique ways, and valuable Special Projects were made with particulars, business, professional and industrial groups. The main focus along the fundraising actions and raising awareness among the Australian population to help to raise the necessary financial amounts in the final stretch of preparations for the Games. As the Games approached this list was progressively increased to the point that in the final remainder this number reached almost 45 partners and sponsors and, in many cases, sponsorships related to the Olympic Games were expanded. This is a list of those who first got involved with the financing actions.

Partnerships Program

The Paralympic Partnerships Fund was a unique program that offered individuals, organisations, trusts and foundations, local councils, community groups and associations the opportunity to make a tax-deductible specific and abrangente donation towards the successful staging of the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. started at amounts above AUS
$3,000 and were made appropriately and in proportion to the donated amounts made at various levels, from framed certificates and lapel pins to VIP status during the Games. On the shared list were Telstra, IBM, supermarket chain Franklins which was responsible for the exclusive sale of licensed products from the Paralympic Games, Westpac, AMP, Bonds which supplied the uniforms for the volunteers and also various products licensees EnergyAustralia, Ansett Australia as the international logistics partner, Fuji Xerox, John Fairfax & Sons, Swatch Group and Coca-Cola Amatil.On the list of exclusive sponsors were 2UE, Otto Bock, Shell and Boise Cascade.The following were already on the list of suppliers Woolcott Research, Rogen and Gerflor.

Seniors Card NSW

One of these partnerships was with Seniors Card NSW (which is an institutional elderly benefit card from the state of New South Wales).Creating a specific fundraising program called "One Million Smiles", committing to raising an amount over more than AUD$1 million in small charitable actions. This partnership was also responsible for guaranteeing the registration of more than 10,000 potential volunteers.

Quilts 2000

Some of Australia's best and largest quilt makers have embarked on a project involving potentially more than 40,000 people who have created specific designs to be sold at auctions or other events to raise funds for the Paralympics. In total, around 650 quilts were made and displayed in all major Australian cities with around 50 being sold in the pre-sale process raising around AUD$50,000.The mayor of the Paralympic Village, former prime minister Tim Fischer, announced that 60 of them were chosen to be displayed in the offices and international zone areas of the village during the Olympic and Paralympic Games within a decision that made sense, as these were the two busiest areas during both events.

St. Andrew's Student Business Club

Between 1999 and 2000, the Student Business Club of St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney School organized a number of activities to raise more than AUD$100,000 for the Paralympic Games, organizing an annual Celebrity Golf Day and a series of Gala Dinners and Auctions.

Participation of contractors

Another partnership developed was with the joint venture between the Transfield Holdings and the French company Bouygues, which was responsible for the construction of Airport Link, Sydney and the Sydney Harbour Tunnel supported the Paralympic Games through public fundraising events at various public and private events. They also purchased some sponsorship shares months before the Games took place.

NSWM Real Estate Institute (REI)

NSW real estate agents were encouraged by REI to consolidate their annual fundraising initiatives and this led to some groups to sending part of these funds to the management of the Paralympic Games. A number of additional fundraising initiatives and Games involvement opportunities were promoted by REI in the run-up to the Games.

Holy Grail: The Official Album

Another initiative that helped to finance the Games was the sale of the official album called "Holy Grail" and which was released on October 18, 1999, exactly one year before the opening ceremony. This album is a compilation of several songs that inspired Australia's Paralympic athletes to achieve their greatest triumphs. The main goal of this album is to highlight and promote the Paralympic Games (held in Sydney, 18–29 October 2000) through the entertainment industry, as well as fundraising for the Paralympic Games. The concept of an official Paralympic Games CD was brought to Warner Music Australia by a member of the 2000 Paralympic Ceremonies Production Team, Michael Chugg, as part of an inclusive idea to consult with Australian athletes regarding those songs that inspired and motivated them. During the release of the album, Chugg mentioned that Louise Sauvage had chosen a song by Jimmy Barnes, called "No second prize". In addition to the two official themes of the Games "Being Here" by Graeme Connors and "Dots on the shells" performed by Yothu Yindi & Jim Kerr.Ten of Australia's champion Paralympians have each chosen a piece of music which reflects their pride in the Games and their passion in performing. It is an emotion shared by the artists who perform their song. The CD was available at all Australian record stores and a percentage from each CD sold was go towards staging the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. Songs by Hunters & Collectors, Van Halen, Barenaked ladies, The Whitlams, Cold Chisel, Richard Clapton, Icehouse, Pretenders, The Superjesus, Marie Wilson, Marcia Hines and Goanna are part of this soundtrack.

Transport and logistics operations

Logistics management during the 1996 Summer Paralympic Games were a big disaster and were a key result of the lack of collaboration between the organizers, the city of Atlanta and the Georgia state government. As the services did not communicate with each other, this led to huge traffic jams and other problems during competitions. In Atlanta, the majority of venues were outside the Olympic Ring and very far from the Paralympic Village. Since the bid projects, Sydney treated this issue in a different way, which practically transformed this issue into something much calmer and easier. As 20 of the 25 competition venues were all practically centralized in the same region neighbouring the Paralympic Village, Paralympic athletes could reach them on foot or by their wheels. In this way the joint planning from the beginning ended the possibilities of different logistics for the two events, leading the reduction of these operations. However, the distances between the Homebush Bay precinct to the Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport, the city Downtown and the most populated neighbourhoods and their suburbs. Ended up leading to the expansion of the actions of the Sydney Olympic Transport and Roads Authority (SORTA), which also assumed the responsibilities of planning, managing and executing all logistics activities during the two events. SORTA was responsible for developing specific and differentiated actions for each one. Among this group was the hiring of 27 buses adapted to transport the blind and wheelchair athletes during the Paralympics in the daily routes between the airport and the Paralympic Village and also those competition and tourist and other sites further away from the Games epicentre. In addition to the roads management and the logistic operations during the Games, SORTA was also owned the responsibility to monitor, organize and prepare all transport routes that would take the public to watch the events. This involved cars, buses, the subway and surface trains, since most of the public arrived during the games using the Olympic Park railway line stations.

Political context

Ceremonies

With a few months to go until the opening ceremony, SOCOG was taken by surprise in May 2000, when they found out behind the scenes that the pop diva Kylie Minogue and group Yothu Yindi were going to headline the Paralympic opening ceremonies. Somewhat indirectly, the presence of Kylie and the group caused some embarrassment to the producers of the Olympic ceremonies who decided at the last minute to invite them to perform at their ceremonies.
But, at the same time that this was happening, it was already public knowledge that Kylie would not be in Australia during the first week of the Olympic Games, as she would be in Europe that week fulfilling her schedule related to the release of her most recent album. ''Light Years'' album scheduled for the upcoming week and wouldn't have time to get to Sydney before the ceremony. While the group carried out its concert schedule normally. In return, Kylie and the group agreed to participate in the closing ceremony where they performed two performances as a form of compensation.

Transition period

Despite 5 years of mediation and collaboration by the Olympic Coordination Authority (OCA), relations between the two Organizing Committees strained in the so-called transition period between the two events that lasted 16 days
(2 to 18 October 2000). Lead by OCA, there's a common commitment to make Sydney 2000 a joint-success. But, after the Olympics Closing Ceremonies, some attitudes on the part of some Olympic authorities caused a lot of embarrassment to the locals. A few hours after the end of the Olympic Games, SOCOG and Sydney City Council announced in a joint statement that the giant Olympic rings that were hanging on the Harbour Bridge during the 16-day Olympic Games would be immediately removed. And this decision ended up overshadowing the ritual of lighting the Paralympic fire at the gardens of Australian Parliament Hill in Canberra. that would take place days later. A few hours later, the chairman of SOCOG, Michael Knight, that he would no longer participate in all those public events that were related to the Paralympic Games. To the public opinion, this decision was frowned upon and was also seen as an insensitive, authoritarian, and self-centred attitude in
being also seen as a retaliation for some actions by the Paralympics organization that "ended up attracting more attention than the organization of the Olympic Games". Hours after this announcement, SOCOG scheduled a party for October 17 as a way of celebrating the help of volunteers in making the 2000 Summer Olympic Games a success. However, this chosen date clashed with the date on which the Paralympic torch would arrive in Sydney and refused to re-mark this celebration.

Controversies

Spanish Basketball ID Team

The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games were marred by a scandal which saw Intellectual Disability athletes removed from the next two Summer Paralympics. Fernando Vicente Martin, former head of the Spanish Federation for Mentally Handicapped Sports, allowed athletes without disabilities to compete at the Games in order to win the biggest possible number of gold medals. The distrust regarding this issue began during the first games of the Basketball ID tournament when some of the players' gestures, postures and behaviors did not match the type of disability they claimed to have. It was claimed that at least 10 of the 12 Spanish players had no disability, rather were recruited to improve the team's performance and guarantee future funding. Martin was later suspended by the IPC and expelled by the Spanish Paralympic Committee. The ID athletes were quickly exposed and after some studies, the International Paralympic Committee decided that starting at the 2002 Winter Paralympics which were scheduled for Salt Lake City, USA events for ID athletes were removed from the program. This decision was overturned only in 2009, when they could be back to games during the 2012 Summer Paralympics.

Along with the controversies surrounding the Spanish basketball team. Sydney recorded the highest number of positive doping cases in the history of the Paralympics to date. Out of 630 tests carried out, 11 athletes tested positive for various substances.

Lack of host broadcaster

During a series of events held to mark the two-year countdown to the Games and which were held between October and November 1998 and the launch of mascot Lizzie, The IPC authorities demonstrated their enthusiasm with what was being seen, since for the first time in 6 years integration between the Olympic and Paralympic Organizations was seen, but one specific issue was worrying the Paralympic authorities: the lack of a host broadcaster and domestic television partner on Australia. During this series of events, the then president of the IPC, Dr. Robert Steadward, praised most of the preparations for the Games, but expressed several concerns about the issue that was a lack of a host broadcaster as "the contract relating to this theme had not been signed". As the Sydney Olympic Broadcasting Organisation (SOBO) had this competence in the Olympic Games, there was no company with the same competence in the Paralympic Games.

Dr Steadward stated about the theme: "It is our great concern he lack of a host broadcaster" "As I understand it, they he Sydney organisersare still negotiating, they are hopeful that by or before the end of this calendar year they should have an answer on the situation of television support for the Games."

Which according to Steadward, the lack of a host broadcaster "could turn the Games coverage a difficult matter and could alienate the interest of audiences around the world. "Without a host broadcaster, interested television networks will have to send their own crews or pay local crews to generate footage and cover a limited range of events, which would be a much more expensive and laborious task."

Between 1996 to 1999, SPOC had been negotiating host broadcaster duties with Channel 7 and the other free-to-air Australian broadcasters in the hope of securing a deal to act as host broadcaster and domestic partner during the Games, but had so far been unable to secure a deal or meet several self-imposed deadlines. For Steadward, this was a latent preoccupation "The lack of broadcasters would greatly reduce the amount of local and international coverage of the Paralympic Games and would frustrate one of the main objectives of holding the event", said Steadward in the same press conference. "The problem was not only making sure Australians got the chance to see their Paralympic athletes on television". "It's one thing to make sure Australians are fully cognisant of what's happening to their athletes, but the French, Germans, Swedes and the Canadians and many other countries are interested in sending back a feed on what's happening to their athletes as well, and it's in our best interests that we do have that television information. Dr Steadward also said "that the problem was not new and that the lack of sponsors for the Paralympics was making it difficult for organisers to find the funds to pay a network to act as host broadcaster. This could cost between $5 million and $10 million". However, he said he was "very, very pleased" with Sydney's preparations. "There are no problems from our point of view," he said. He was also surprised by the level of excellence seen in Sydney and praised the cooperation between SOCOG and SPOC, prophesying what could happen from then on in the next editions, such as the unification of the organization of the two events, as Salt Lake City was doing for the 2002 Winter Games and Athens, which was already preparing in the same way for 2004."I couldn't be happier. I haven't seen better cooperation between the organising committee and the IPC. I'm very pleased with that aspect.

Two months later, exactly on 8 December 1999, Mrs. Louis Appleby, the then executive chairwoman of the SPOC revealed during another press conference "that negotiations with Channel 7 had collapsed because of an indecent proposal made by the station's directors. The proposal from Channel 7's board of directors was that none of the Sydney Paralympic Games events would be broadcast live on free-to-air television". Instead, "Seven proposed airing a one-hour "best of each day" summary at 11pm and then re-running the program on its pay-TV network the following day. Even the ceremonies would not be broadcast live." In the absence of available options, this proposal could be considered the only viable one by the SPOC board, But Appleby stated on the same day, "The Seven idea was well below the level we expected for a host broadcaster".

"SPOC had been searching for a broadcast host for over 12 months at this point, but had been unable to persuade any network to produce the main event footage so that it would not be exclusively for the Australian market but for the rest of the world"."The Channel 7's proposal was well below what SPOC itself expected from a host broadcaster and would level the Games coverage much lower than what had been done in Atlanta and Barcelona". She also made public her dissatisfaction with what this proposal would be. Seven wanted to use individual cameras for each event while the use of multi-cameras and the broadcaster vans, what is normal for events of this size, would be exclusive to the opening and closing ceremonies, but for none of the competitions". "Also, the single-camera coverage would inevitably focus on the Australian delegation, which would also result in low interest and audience in another countries. "Those foreign networks that were interested now also faced the prospect of sending their own crews to cover their own delegations, which would inevitably increase the costs for them and could and can also drive them away." The issue of broadcasting the Paralympics was complicated for Seven, as the broadcaster had purchased the broadcast rights to the 1996 Summer Games, with high expectations, as the next Games were scheduled for Australia, but which were frustrated throughout the broadcast, resulting in low demand for sponsors and an audience far below expectations, resulting in a gigantic net loss.When a round of negotiations was initiated, the broadcaster's directors asked for financial guarantees of more than AUD$3 million "in case they did not achieve the expected number of sponsorship quotas sold until the start of the Games".Mrs.Appleby when disclosing this requirement, he mocked the proposal for the guarantee value, saying as they were "very happy" "with the proposal, although there were concerns including "money... and the television time".She said SPOC "was still negotiating the cash values, but that they certainly weren't planning to spend money to buy time on a station".

The announcement of the host broadcaster was made at the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games World Broadcaster Meeting held in September 14, 1999. For the Paralympic Host broadcaster the joint venture composed by the local companies Global Television and All Media Sports acted on this functions. SPOC has also appointed a London-based Media Content, PLC as the exclusive world-wide (excluding Australia) TV rights sales agent for the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. The announcement was made at the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games World Broadcaster Meeting.

In December 1999, the public Australian broadcaster proposed ABC to be the SPOC domestic television partner was accepted. What influenced SPOC's decision to accept ABC's proposal were the previous experiences around the Paralympic Sport since 1988. Their television coverage included 96 hours of live action, with 2 hours live during the weekdays and a huge coverage during the weekend with more than 20 hours. Every day around 12 million Australians watched this unprecedented coverage during 17 days .The opening and closing ceremonies became the highest-rated shows in the channel's history, surpassing those recorded during the same events at the 1982 Commonwealth Games.The broadcaster's coverage was not restricted to television, a specific and innovative website was created to cover the Games. Quizzes were published on it and the results were updated in real time.

Media coverage

Despite having completely different rights owners, the relationship between the SOCOG and the SPOC resulted in providing a improved media coverage the Olympics and Paralympics. For the first time, the media services and operations were planned together for the two events, in an action that expanded the potential reach of both events to never-before-seen proportions. The use of the same facilities within the proportions of each event made the work easier. It is clear that the deactivated part of the MMC was converted into a venue during the Paralympics. Something completely opposite to what happened four years earlier in Atlanta. Implying clear changes in the form and size of coverage of the Paralympic Games.

The table below give some information about the staff work at the Media Centre at the Olympics and Paralympics respectively:

The Main Media Center (MMC) reopened on October 11, 2000 and operated 24 hours a day until the 30th of the same month. Coupled with the MMC was a research and information office, including a library operated by the SOCOG Communications offices. Some volunteers of the Centre for Olympic Studies at the University of New South Wales also worked in some functions. WeMedia also provided internet and the coverage of the games and was a sponsor and partner of the Sydney Paralympics. During the games, WeMedia had 300 staff operating in the MMC. The Australian official broadcaster of the games ABC, had a comparatively smaller team of 30 for its television coverage.

Also in the table below, the approximate number of accredited media at the Paralympic Summer Games from 1992 to 2008 has been listed.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had approximately 200 staff in Sydney for the Olympic Games, 6 people in strategic positions remained in Sydney to manage coverage of the Paralympic Games. Along the live coverage the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation aired four one-hour shows of the Paralympic Games after the event was finished.

Also with live coverage,TVNZ also aired four one-hour specials of the event after their ending.

In the United States, CBS broadcast a special called ''Role Models for the 21st Century: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games''. The special was two hours long and aired two weeks after the Games ending.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) who made a special coverage, allowed their viewers the opportunity to express their opinions towards the games. Comments were posted under the heading "Has the Sydney Paralympics been a success?" on their website. One viewer, Carole Neale from England, was cited as posting: "I am so disappointed to find the coverage limited to less than an hour per evening, on at a time when most people are still travelling home from work, and dismissed to BBC2, unlike the Olympics which had a prime time evening slot on BBC1 as well as constant live coverage".

Mascot

The mascot for the 2000 Paralympics was "Lizzie" the Frill-necked Lizard.

Look of the Games

Despite all the approximation and development in common through the development of shared actions the two events had different visual and corporate identities.As some editions before, this led a confusion due the hard differentiation of colour palettes, logos and other secondary characteristics, and led to the creation of different group to develop the Paralympic Look of the Games.As the Olympic Games, this group was responsible for providing a decoration, wayfinding and a common mark and identification program for some 20 competition venues, five major non-competition venues, the Sydney Olympic Park (SOP), and the touristic and common places in Sydney and Parramata. However, this group operated on an extremely very smaller budget and different conditions than its Olympic counterpart. This led in actions that led to the maximum reuse of several elements that were used during the Olympic Games as they were made by cardboards or another types of recyclable materials. However, one day after the Olympics Closing Ceremonies, an audit started to see which each materials were in condition to be reused and could be not descarted. Thus, huge number of plaques and kits of parts could be recovered or kept.That those that were discarded were replaced by the Paralympic brand/identity along the specific graphics. Thus, those elements in which the "Sydney 2000" brand was used were maintained, with a view to maintaining the festive atmosphere experienced at the Olympic Games and also to demonstrate the common values of the two events. The aim was to give the venues a fresh and specific Paralympic identity, while maintaining the atmosphere of festivity and a similar level of presentation as the Olympic Games.

Overlay time

The headaches experienced in Atlanta about the visual identities of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and resulted in a series of numerous problems and lawsuits and a lack of identification and differentiation by athletes, local communities and spectators. Due to these issues, for the first time a games overlay program was developed.

Between 1997 and 1999 a specific and totally different visual identity for the Paralympics was developed, but due
the approximation and fusion of the common areas of the two events through the OCA added to budgetary issues on both sides ended up causing the fusion of many graphic elements.An example of this integration was the creation of eight new specific paralympic sporting pictograms. Another integration in common was the use of the blue colour, the mark "Sydney 2000" and the "fluid energy" graphics. However, with new elements now in Paralympics logo colours. A survey with managers of competitions and arenas about possible changes in the visual identity during the Paralympics. The vast majority opted for maintaining the one used during the Olympics. However, minor changes had to be made in almost all marks and elements on all playing fields and information boards, which gave the impression that the two events were part of the same. Only in drastic cases, such as the three basketball and wheelchair rugby arenas, there was a need to change the floors of the courts that had the Olympic Logo at the center of courts.

The solution for the changes of marks was simple due the low budget used.That brands thar could be not replaced were covered with stickers in which the SOCOG and IOC brands were covered by the SPOC and IPC brands, lowering costs. Another plan was relocating the elements who were in good conditions to be used in another areas. For this action, a list of priority locations was created, based on the profile of each sport and also on their maintenance costs. On average, each received AUD$5.000, with the most expensive amount invested in the Olympic Stadium being AUD$80,000. The original values were downsized due of the reusing of most of the visual aspects of the Olympic Games, which were mostly made of recycled fabrics, cardboards and another flexible materials. Soon after adjustments, the final requirements were made in some specific and common festive areas, who were made after the execution of Olympic conversion and the technical-operational requirements, they were handed over to the respective operational managers. The planning also managed to produce results in the 5 venues outside the Sydney Olympic Park that managed to fully maintain the visual elements of the Olympic Games and also received others that came from other locations and that in some cases there was a need to cover Olympic symbols and change the brands. However, the Olympic Park became a problem during the event conversion period. In order for their Paralympic mode to be implemented and executed a last moment. Nearly 2/3 of the plates and identification signs were removed in its conversion in an intention to facilitate the operations during the Paralympics.Due to this discard, new materials had to be printed or created.

Logo

The Sydney 2000 Summer Paralympics logo and Paralympic torch were developed by marketing agency FHA Image Design from Melbourne and went public on 18 October 1996, four years before the opening ceremony, in a special event held at the Sydney Harbour Bridge.It is observed that despite being initially different visual identities, Sydney's Olympic and Paralympic identities complement each other and are personified by the same elements and graphic traces.

The Victorian agency was already involved with all the visual planning for both the Olympics and the Paralympics and unified several visual elements of the two events such as the pictograms, the street signals and the trademarks under the name of "Sydney 2000". The 2000 Summer Paralympic Games logo was a representative of a dynamic human form leaping triumphantly forward and 'breaking through' towards the games.Alt URL
/ref>

The logo came to life, three years after its launch, with the announcement of the Paralympic torch that it was in fact the Paralympic spirit in action. As the visual identity of the event that was focused on the energy dissipated by the paralympic athletes. It represented the energy dissipated by a paralympic athlete when "breaking a barrier" or a "wall of bricks, concrete or glass". This is also reflected in the Paralympic fire and the spirit, composed at the time by the motto of "body, mind and spirit".
/ref>

Another image that can be seen in it is the Paralympic torch that is in a handover position for the next carrier in inspiring views to the world and the future with the use of Futura Typeface to write the games, host city's and year's names. The host's unique characteristics are seen in the fact that it also refers to the Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour with its sea and the boats that are part of the most famous cityscape around the world, through the use of three exclusive graphic shapes who refer to this feature. The agency even developed unique tones of the 3 colours of the Paralympic flag to represent unique characteristics of the host country: the ocean blue represented the two oceans that bathe Australia: the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, the warm red of the Outback and a lush forest green which represent the Australia's endemic plants and animal species. The logo also embodies the host city vitality, Australia's spirit, and the achievements of a Paralympic athlete.

Ticket design

The comprehensive signage strategy, a design application specifically for the Paralympic Games, was fully connected to ticket design and layout and used a much simpler visual system, based on the Games logo, where the graphics were much larger.

Invincible Summer:Paralympic Arts Festival

As Atlanta and Nagano, Sydney had a Cultural Paralympiad.This arts festival was curated by local celebrity Leo Schofield.During this event, a film festival with giant inflable ducks, aerial acrobatics and dances in the middle of the street, giant puppets, giant dancing cows and singing sharks, Senegalese drummers and syncopated Australian singers raised the level of excitement at Sydney Olympic Park during the Games.This program, which was considered innovative, began in 20 October 2000 with a Paralympic Games Gala Concert at the Sydney Opera House.With participation of the Sea 2000 Choir and a notable theater and dance program involving artists with disabilities around the world at the University of Sydney's Seymour Theater Centre.

Spread across the city, several visual arts exhibitions are held, with multimedia experiences, visitors were able to experience works of art from the United States, France, Mexico, United Kingdom, Sweden, Brazil, Vietnam, Japan, Egypt and the Czech Republic, as well as one of the main artistic main names in Australia.

Ceremonies

Opening Ceremonies

The opening ceremony was held on the 18 October evening, with over 6000 performers and volunteers taking part. The show started by the Australian wheelchair artist Jeffrey St. John sang the national anthem "Advance Australia Fair" and a special song for the event called "The Challenge".World-known Australian actor Bryan Brown acted as the master of the ceremonies for the event and the country artist Graeme Connors sang "Being Here", as the event's official theme song.As the Addresses were given by John Grant, president of the SPOC, and Robert Steadward, president of the IPC, prior to Sir William Deane declaring the official opening of the games.In a break with traditions, the guitarist Nathan Cavaleri played the Paralympic Anthem with their eletric guitar with the Paralympic Flag was raised.This was followed by Tracey Cross, a blind swimmer, taking the oath on behalf of the athletes and Mary Longden, an Equestrian referee, taking the oath on behalf of the officials.The protocolar segments ended when Louise Savage lit the Paralympic Cauldron.

Among Yothu Yindi, two other indigenous artists performed at the beginning of the cultural part:the singer Christine Anu and Mark Atkins (playing the didgeridoo), another performers for the cultural segments included the band Taxiride, the actors: Melissa Ippolito and Jack Thompson.The singers Billy Thorpe, Renee Geyer, Tina Harris (Australian musician), Tina Harris and Vanessa Amorosi. .The 2h30 ceremonies ended when Kylie Minogue take the stage with a special acapella version of "Waltzing Matilda", her rendition of Celebration (Kool & the Gang song), Kool & the Gang's "Celebration" and her current hit "Spinning Around.

Closing ceremonies

After the ending of the last finals and their medals awarding, the "end party of all parties" happened without any trouble. The last event of the Games started at 7:30 pm and was a party filled with fireworks, emotions and celebrations. All the athletes and delegations met for the last time to say goodbye and conclude the Games. While Sydney wrote your name on history, the future of the Summer Paralympic Games was insecure and obscure. There were several uncertainties surrounding the Paralympic Movement’s next steps. This concern made sense because the host city contract and a multitude of issues turned the holding of the next edition into something totally uncertain and insecure. This issue was a result of the fact that negotiations between the International Paralympic Committee and the Greek authorities had stalled for a few months. and this could remove the Paralympic Games from Athens and transfer them to any other place, putting at risk any type of planning made by athletes, managers and other stakeholders. The crisis between the IPC and the Greek authorities was another chapter in the tense relationship between the IOC and them, which was revealed at the beginning of that year and it became so serious that the then president of the Olympic entity, the Spaniard Juan Antonio Samaranch, had to intervene directly in the Athens Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games, ATHOC because of the higher number of delays and bureaucratic obstacles that put the holding of the Olympic Games at risk.

Although the IOC's intervention at ATHOC was unprecedented, the lethargy of the Greek organizers in signing the documentation relating to the guarantees for the 2004 Summer Paralympic Games, irritated and embarrassed the International Paralympic Committee, to the point that during its first press conference held in Sydney, the then president of the IPC, Canadian Robert Steadward, made days before the opening ceremony made public that negotiations with Athens "had not progressed as expected in 1997" and "that until that moment the host city contract for the next summer edition had not been signed". Which reflected "the treatment that people with disabilities were treated in Greece, placing them as second-class people". Furthermore, his criticisms made a lot of sense, since the Paralympic Games were relatively unknown to the majority of the Greek population and the local authorities "did not stand by". Since the resumption of holding the Olympics and Paralympics in the same host city in 1988, this type of situation had not happened and as the uncertainties were real there was a risk that any reference to Athens or Greece would be removed from the closing ceremonies official protocol. This also probably involved a performance of the Greek anthem, the mention of Athens in the closing declaration and even the cancellation of the Paralympic flag handover with the expected cultural demonstration in the so-called Antwerp ceremony. This slowness in the process and also some embarrassing situations due to the ill will of the then Greek Organizing Committee encouraged other cities around the world that wanted to host the Paralympic Games in Athens' place. Rumors suggested that the Games in could stay in Sydney, due to the resounding success of this edition or that Stockholm, Cape Town (which lost the right to host the 2004 Summer Olympics to Athens), in addition to Barcelona and a joint project London and Manchester could already be in secret negotiations.

Stedward's scolding did not go down very well with the authorities of the Greek government and the city of Athens, who the following day countered the criticism. made public that "due to the intervention made by the International Olympic Committee since May 9 of this year, all negotiations between ATHOC and the International Paralympic Committee are suspended indefinitely. The city of Athens publicly commits to hosting the 2004 Summer Paralympics, but it still cannot give real guarantees for this, as it does not agree with some terms proposed in the host city contract proposed by the IPC. Further details will be provided soon when these issues are resolved in the progress of these negotiations. "Due to complete ignorance of these issues, Athens city hall was left in a "crossfire" situation, as it was in the middle of exchanging accusations between the Organizers and the Costas Simitis cabinet.

The issues of stress regarding these issues that could not be made public until that moment reached the ears of the IOC, which began to try to mediate the situation. But, even before the conclusion, the Athens city council, as a sign of goodwill in negotiating these "controversial" terms, decided to send a last-minute small informal delegation to Sydney to participate in the closing ceremony and receive the Paralympic flag. This delegation was led by the then-deputy mayor Nikos Yiatrakos to receive the Paralympic flag on behalf of the city during the closing ceremony. Confirming the real intentions of the Greeks in hosting the Paralympic Games. A few days later it emerged that the issue itself was related to the fact that the IPC was demanding that the Greeks would have to pay a guarantee of USD$3 million, more than double what the Australians had paid. Sometime later it was discovered that these 3 million dollars were related to the cost of registration fees for Paralympic athletes and that they were only guaranteed after the IOC injected part of this money through the first mutual collaboration agreement signed during the Sydney Games.

The IPC has expressed its concern, about that Greek organizers have shown little interest in the Paralympic Games. This was the case from the beginning. When Athens won the bid for the 2004 games they expressed surprise when they were told afterwards that this also meant they would host the Paralympic Games. The IPC has expressed its concern, noting that Greek organizers have shown little interest in Paralympics. But later they were shocked when they discovered that this would also take into account that they had the responsibility of jointly hosting the Paralympics.

Although Greece had participated in the Paralympic Games since 1976, Greek delegations were sent in a decentralized manner and according to the protocol any type of negotiations between the International Paralympic Committee and the Organizers of each edition must be mediated by the National Paralympic Committee, But at that moment the Hellenic Paralympic Committee didn't exist, which made it impossible to sign the host city contract. The late surprise arrival of the delegation was seen by the Australians and by the IPC itself as a sign of acceptance of criticism and also of humility and goodwill.After this arrival, SPOC agreed to produce a more simpler Paralympic handover ceremony than usual. To ensure this gap, the Australian producers invited the Millennium Choir of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia to made a special performance from the Mikis Theodorakis song "Tis Dikaiosinis Ilie " ("Sun of Justice", from the soundtrack of the movie ''Zorba the Greek (film), Zorba the Greek''). To close the ceremonies, the first Australian group to make international success outside the country, The Seekers, closed the games with their world know hit song "The Carnival Is Over". The band was originally meant to be the last act of the closing ceremonies of the 2000 Summer Olympics, but due to an accident some days before the event resulting in a broken hip, they moved their performance to the Paralympics and the lead singer Judith Durham sang the song sitting in a wheelchair.

A dispute with the Greeks would only be resolved in April 2001 when the host city contract was finally signed.

Calendar

In the following calendar for the 2000 Summer Paralympics, each blue box represents an event competition. The yellow boxes represent days during which medal-awarding finals for a sport were held. The number in each yellow box represents the number of finals that were contested on that day.

Venues

In total 12 venues were used at the 2000 Summer Olympics were used at the Games in Sydney.

Sydney Olympic Park

*Stadium Australia, Olympic Stadium: Ceremonies (opening/closing) and Athletics
*Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre: Wheelchair Tennis
*State Sports Centre: Table Tennis
*Sydney International Aquatic Centre: Swimming
*Sydney International Archery Park: Archery
*Sydney Olympic Park Hockey Centre, State Hockey Centre: Football-7-side
*Sydney Showground (Olympic Park), Sydney Showground Pavilions:ID Basketball, Goalball, Wheelchair Basketball (secondary venues), Judo, Wheelchair Rugby, Powerlifiting, Wheelchair Fencing, Sitting Volleyball and Standing Volleyball
*Sydney SuperDome: Wheelchair Basketball (main venue)

Sydney

*Centennial Parklands: Road Cycling
*Dunc Gray Velodrome: Track Cycling
*Sydney International Equestrian Centre: Equestrian
*Rushcutters Bay, Olympic Sailing Shore Base: Sailing
*Sydney International Shooting Centre: Shooting

Torch relay

Torch Design

How the Games logo became something real and physical, the theme of the relay was "Lighting the Way" because in addition to lighting the way to the Olympic Stadium, SPOC wanted this relay to also be an event to raise awareness about the culture of safe traffic, as this is still the biggest cause of paraplegia around the world.

Made from the same material and with the same combustion system as its 2000 Summer Olympics torch relay, Olympic counterpart The Sydney 2000 Paralympic torch, was a real representation of the games logo and when fully assembled it weighed around 1.5 kg and was 72 cm tall, being minimally smaller than its Olympic sister.
The torch was drafted in 1997 by one of the Sydney Paralympic Organizing Committee's (SPOC) in-house designers, who designed the first torch shell, referencing the layered, arched logo of the Sydney Paralympic Games.Between July 1998 and March 1999, the torch's design was refined and minimally changed by Sydney toolmakers and metal pressing specialists, G.A.& L. Harrington (GALH), which resolved issues relating to the interlocking shells, choke, filtering system, colours, surface textures and other elements. Following the media launch, on 8 March 1999, the company started torch production, making 1000 Paralympic torches (around 100 were made as a reserve supply) and 14,000 Olympic torches by early 2000.

The relay

The 2000 Summer Paralympic torch was born from a ritual carried out by the people Ngunnawal at Parliament House, Canberra, Australian Parlament House gardens held on 5 October 2000. In this ritual was also present the then Australian Prime Minister John Howard and the first torchbearer, the wheelchair tennis player David Hall (Australian tennis), David Hall, who, along the present public, witnessed the lighting of the flame on the forecourt of Parliament House, Canberra, and the performance of traditional and contemporary indigenous dance. In this ritual, three generations of the community, who are the original inhabitants of the Australian Capital Territory area, were involved today in creating the flame to fuel the MAA Sydney 2000 Paralympic Torch Relay as it travels around Australia. The Ngunnawal dancers, painted in ochre, then joined the three generations of the Ngunnawal community, who passed the firestick from the eldest to the youngest generation who lit the cauldron as dawn broke. The smoking then continued, with ceremonial smoking bowls of burning eucalyptus leaves used to welcome strangers and protect them. But, in this case, the smoke and the fire personify the Paralympic spirit, providing protection to athletes and all those who would be arriving at the next days.

It was up to SPOC's first specific partner, the Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (MAA) (who acted in a similar way which operated in a similar way to the Shepherd Center in 1996), all the responsibility for sponsorship, logistics operations and other actions relative to the Paralympic torch relay as part of a public awareness campaign regarding safe traffic. MAA strengthened its relations with SPOC in June 1997, when evolved to the first the first specific sponsor for the 2000 Summer Paralympic Games. Since the start, the Authority was extensively involved in sport for people with a disability. At the same time as investing in the promotion and organization of the event, MAA was responsible for carrying out a campaign and an awareness program focused on 13 to 25 year students about safe traffic and the catastrophic consequences of not respecting its rules. For this to be done, 16 Australian para-athletes who were victims of accidents were recruited to form a team of ambassadors in which they "were living proof that accidents can happen" and that if there was conscious responsibility on the part of those who are driving, these accidents would not even happen.Later,9 other athletes who were born with some other disability joined the team. MAA also gave 300 people a chance to carry the torch in the Torch Relay competition. In order for a person to apply, they must be over 12 years old during October 2000 and also be a permanent resident of Australia.

The function of the relay was to maintain the level of excitement and engagement of the Australian population during the transition period between the two events. His role was also to raise awareness among the population about the issue of integrating people with disabilities into society, traffic safety and several other issues. However, the land route was centred in New South Wales because it was there that the organization decided focus on ticket sales due to the close distance from Sydney.

The Paralympic Torch Relay succeeded in generating community and media support for the Games, with crowds in many areas and significant crowds lining the Sydney metropolitan route in the final two days of the relay and was the conclusion of a project that began through an educational process that began in 1997, when a totally different strategy was developed.

Torch Relay Route

The then Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, announced his government's support of the MAA Sydney 2000 Paralympic Torch Relay at a launch of the torch design and route in Canberra on 28 July 1999.But originally, this would be a relay exclusively within the state of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, with the torch route going exclusively overland between the Parliament House, Canberra to the Stadium Australia, passing only through the two territories roads.
However, in September 1999, the Federal Government of Australia announced that it was allocating an extra amount of around AU$500.0000 for the relay to visit other Australian states in their capitals

The first phase of the relay route involved the capitals of the six Australian states and the two contiguous territories, where the torch passed in a clockwise way. At relay's first morning in Canberra area, the torch visited the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) and passing nearby Duntroon, Australian Capital Territory, Duntroon before it boarded in a Royal Australian Air Force Falcon 900 executive jet in way for Melbourne. This air route covered 11,500 km by air and after Melbourne the torch visited on this sequence: Hobart (6 October), Adelaide (7 October), Perth (8 October), Darwin (9 October) and Brisbane (10 October) before starting a 750 km journey by road in New South Wales starting at the Moss Vale on 12 October. During the land component, the torch travelled about 7.5 kilometres per hour and covered around 65 kilometres per day. On average, each bearer ran with the torch for 1 km each. With each day of the relay ending at night in a major center, the torch travelled through 30 cities and towns during the 14 days of its route. The last two major urban centres in which the torch made its way were Newcastle, New South Wales, Newcastle and Wollongong, where it entered the Sydney Metropolitan Region, where it spent approximately two days before it makes its way to the Opening Ceremony. The route was developed so that each community makes the most of the torch's stay in its territory. It was also highlighted that there were several differences between the Olympic torch route and the Paralympic torch route in different aspects and points of interest. It is also noteworthy that each day of the relay lasted an average of 10 hours and during each night, members of the NSW Police Service were responsible for keeping the flame inside the lantern.

The comeback journey in New South Wales had legs at the Southern Highlands (New South Wales), Southern Highlands, Illawarra, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Campbelltown, Penrith, New South Wales, Penrith, Windsor, New South Wales, Windsor, Hunter Region, Hunter and Central Coast (New South Wales), Central Coast areas, before heading to Sydney on 16 October 2000 when the torch visited the city mainland marks. Also on October 17, the Paralympic flame was carried across the main arch of the Sydney Harbour Bridge by four torchbearers.

The then Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales was responsible for the planning, logistics and execution of the relay alongside the Australian State Security Forces.

Sports and impairment groups

The final program of the Games was presented by the Executive Council of the IPC in a meeting that took place between 12 and 16 March 1997 in Sweden. At this same meeting, SPOC presented its sustainability policies that were developed in a connected way and mirrored those implemented by SOOCOG. This program proposals needed to be independently approved by both the IPC and SPOC.

The first version of this edition's sports program was approved in September 1996, when the IPC Executive Board decided in a session held during the Atlanta Games that at the same time as lawn bowls would leave the program, wheelchair rugby and sailing would evolve into sports included in the official program, after being demonstration sports that year.The preliminary number of events planned for the Games was impressive because it was planned to hold 582 finals in 18 sports.However, this number fell at the beginning of 2000 to 551, as 31 events were discarded from the program for various reasons such as a low number of registrants, low or insufficient technical level recorded during the process of classification, review and merger of functional classes.
.

1997 draft program

In May 1997, the same group approved the final Sydney 2000 program with the following changes:

* The number of events in athletics rose from 211 to 234 with the addition of 14 new events for intellectually disabled people and a review of the sport's functional classification, which resulted in a 1 extra event.However, later 8 other events were added for other reasons.
* The addition of an 8-team basketball tournament for intellectually disabled.
* Omnium events for LC1, LC2 and LC3 classes in cycling were removed, and three time trials, three individual pursuit events and one Olympic sprint were introduced for the LC class.
* Powerlifting gained 10 more events with the addition of women's events.
* One more event was added in sailing: Single person 2.4mr
* Three air rifle events were eliminated from the shooting program.
* Twelve events were added to the swimming program for the intellectually disabled, while one was removed.
* The four open table tennis events for men and women were removed from the program and events for intellectually disabled people replaced them.

Sports events

* Paralympic archery, Archery (7) ()
* Paralympic athletics, Athletics (234) ()
* Basketball ID (1) ()
* Boccia (5) ()
* Paralympic cycling ()
** Road bicycle racing, Road (15)
** Track cycling, Track (12)
* Equestrian at the Summer Paralympics, Equestrian (9) ()
* Paralympic association football, Football 7-a-side (1) ()
* Goalball (2) ()
* Paralympic Judo, Judo (7) ()
* Paralympic powerlifting, Powerlifting (20) ()
* Sailing (sport), Sailing (2) ()
* Paralympic shooting, Shooting (12) ()
* Paralympic swimming, Swimming (169) ()
* Para table tennis, Table tennis (26) ()
* Volleyball (2) ()
* Wheelchair basketball (2) ()
* Wheelchair fencing (15) ()
* Wheelchair rugby (1) ()
* Wheelchair tennis (4) ()

Games highlights

The amount of advances and the strategy of transforming the event into something unprecedented, caused the then president of the International Paralympic Committee, the canadian Robert Stedward declared that Sydney had so far been the "best Paralympics in history" and the commitment of an entire society was reflected in more than 1.2 million tickets sold (exceeding the organizers' expectations by more than 100.000), well more than twice as many as were sold four years earlier in Atlanta.and it was very common to observe, during the 12 days of the Games, crowded arenas with a totally different audience than that seen at the Olympic Games.And such excitement from the public was reflected in the athletes resulting in the breaking of more than 300 world and Paralympic records.

The organizers proved that the risky proposal, resulted in a impacted success, with no type of differentiation in the basic services offered in the Paralympic Village. The information technologics, medical care and logistics systems were extended to the Games.There was not even any differentiation in services offered to the public present in the arenas.During the Games, the Paralympic Village housed near 7000 people. There were 3,824 athletes, 2,315 team officials and 804 technical officials. For the hosts, this edition is even more historic, because from the first day they remained in first place in the medals table and consolidated this position with 63 gold, 39 silver and 47 bronze medals, for a total of 149.Birth of the Paralympic Moviment, Great Britain took the 41 gold medals most silver medals, with 43, and tied Australia for the most bronze medals, with 47, reaching 131.

There were numerous athletes who contributed multiple medals to their national tally. In the pool these included Béatrice Hess of France at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, France who won seven golds, Mayumi Narita of Japan at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Japan who won six golds and a silver, Siobhan Paton of Australia who won six golds in individual events, and Stéphanie Dixon of Canada at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Canada and Hong Yan Zhu of China at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, China who each won five golds. On the track Tim Sullivan (athlete), Tim Sullivan of Australia won five golds, and Tanni Grey-Thompson of Great Britain won four.

However, it stands out that in individual terms, the greatest performances came from Australian athletes.The host team had a number of notable gold and historial medal-winning performances. Individual achievements included swimmer Siobhan Paton's six gold medals in the 200m SM14 individual medley, and S14 100m freestyle, 50m butterfly, 50m backstroke, 200m freestyle, and 50m freestyle. She set nine world records in the process.

Tim Sullivan (athlete), Tim Sullivan topped the athletics medal tally with five gold medals. Sullivan won three gold medals in the T38 200m, 100m, and 400m events, and won the two gold medals at their relays Darren Thrupp, Adrian Grogan and Kieran Ault-Connell (T38 4X400m and 4X100m races). The top performing female track and field athlete was Lisa Llorens, who won three gold medals from the F20 high jump, long jump and T20 200m. Llorens also won a silver medal in the T20 100m.

Other track medallists included Neil Fuller won two golds in the T44 200m, and 400m events, as well as one individual bronze medal in the T44 100m. Fuller later combined with Tim Matthews (athlete), Tim Matthews, Stephen Wilson (athlete), Stephen Wilson and Heath Francis to win another two gold medals in the T45 4X100m relay and T46 4X400m relay. Francis also went on to win a total of three golds and one silver after also winning an individual gold and silver in the T46 400m and T46 200m events respectively. Other track medallists were Amy Winters with two golds in the T46 200m and 100m T46, and a bronze in the T46 400m. Greg Smith (Paralympian), Greg Smith also won three gold medals in the 800m, 5,000m and 1,500m T52 events.

In cycling, Matthew Gray (cyclist), Matthew Gray won two golds in the velodrome in the individual cycling mixed 1 km time trial LC1, and a gold in the mixed team sprint with Paul Lake (cyclist), Paul Lake and Greg Ball (cyclist), Greg Ball. Sarnya Parker and Tania Morda also won two golds in the women's cycling tandem 1 km time trial and women's tandem cycling individual pursuit open.

Views

An example of this change in perception is cited by the British para-athlete Tanni Grey-Thompson, a multiple Paralympic gold winner, later said of the Sydney Games:

Medal count

A total of 1657 medals were awarded during the Sydney games: 550 gold, 549 silver, and 558 bronze. The host country, Australia, topped the medal count with more gold medals and more medals overall than any other nation. Great Britain took the most silver medals, with 43, and tied Australia for the most bronze medals, with 47.

In the table below, the ranking sorts by the number of gold medals earned by a nation (in this context a nation is an entity represented by a National Paralympic Committee). The number of silver medals is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze medals.

Participating delegations

Originally, organizers expected 136 National Paralympic Committees to participate in the Games, but only 123 sent their delegations to the Sydney Paralympics. Included among them was a team of "Individual Paralympic Athletes" from East Timor. The newly independent country had not yet established a National Paralympic Committee in time for send a delegation to Sydney, so the International Paralympic Committee invited East Timorese athletes to compete at the games under the title of Individual Paralympic Athletes.

Afghanistan at the Paralympics, Afghanistan did not participate in the 2000 Summer Paralympics, having been banned from the Games due to its treatment of women under Taliban rule.

El Salvador at the Paralympics, El Salvador and Turkey at the Summer Paralympics, Turkey were the only countries that were present in Barcelona and returned to compete in Sydney.

Barbados at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Barbados, Benin at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Benin, Cambodia at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Cambodia, Laos at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Laos, Lebanon at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Lebanon, Lesotho at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Lesotho, Madagascar at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Madagascar, Mali at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Mali, Mauritania at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Mauritania, Mongolia at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Mongolia, Palestine at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Palestine, Rwanda at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Rwanda, Samoa at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Samoa, Turkmenistan at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Vanuatu and Vietnam at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Vietnam competed for the first time.

Cameroon at the Paralympics, Cameroon, Ivory Coast at the Paralympics, Cote D'Ivoire,
Guatemala at the Paralympics, Guatemala, Guinea at the Paralympics, Guinea, Iraq at the Paralympics, Iraq, Nicaragua at the Paralympics, Nicaragua, Niger at the Paralympics, Niger, Sierra Leone at the Paralympics, Sierra Leone and Sudan at the Paralympics, Sudan classified athletes or won wildcards, but due to financial reasons they were unable to send their delegations to Sydney, and it was because of these denials that the IPC changed several clauses regarding the charging of registration fees in the contract relating to the 2004 Summer Paralympic Games and led to delays in the signing of the host city contract. Dominican Republic at the Paralympics, Dominican Republic, Luxembourg at the Paralympics, Luxembourg, and Mauritius at the Paralympics, Mauritius, who send delegations to Atlanta, did not classify athletes to compete in Sydney.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Chinese Taipei at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Chinese Taipei (25)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Individual Paralympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, Individual Paralympic Athletes (2)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

See also

* 2000 Summer Olympics
* 2032 Summer Paralympics
* Cheating at the Paralympic Games
*2000 Summer Paralympics medal table

Bibliography

Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee Annual Report. 1995–2000

References

External links

"Participation Numbers: Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games"
International Paralympic Committee

{{DEFAULTSORT:Summer Paralympics
2000 Summer Paralympics,
Summer Paralympic Games by year, 2000
2000 in Australian sport
2000 in multi-sport events
Australia at the Paralympics
Multi-sport events in Australia
International sports competitions hosted at Sydney Olympic Park
October 2000 sports events in Australia
2000s in Sydney