Context before the Games

There are several similarities between the 1996 and 2000 Summer Paralympics. The first is that the Organizing Committees of the respective Olympics held in the same cities did not want to commit to two events of the same size held in a short span of time under their custody. Even though Australia and the United States had tradition in the event, there was little recognition of it, though the resilience of the leaders of civil movements guaranteed the realization of the Paralympic Games in their respective cities.

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 on Paralympic sport, to the point that during the 2000 Summer Olympics host city bid process. After won the Australian internal process, Sydney had showed little or no interest in hosting the Paralympics and had not submitted any proposal about hosting the event.The interest for the Paralympic Games only arose when there was the possibility of a defeat of the Olympic bid for two of its main rivals in the process: Manchester, in the Great Britain and Berlin, in the recently unified Germany.Even so, and being a traditional stakeholder in the International Paralympic Movement and with expressive results in all eight previous summer editions. It was normal 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 held in Barcelona, drew attention in the same way that Paralympic sport was treated in other countries: some sectors of society treated the Paralympics as an event of "second class".

The process to host the Paralympic Games

But this help did not change the way in which the host cities of the Paralympic Games and their events were chosen at that time.

For the 1960 and 1964 Games, Rome and Tokyo had accepted the direct invitation made by the International Stoke Mandeville Games Committee and hosted the Paralympics some weeks after the Olympic Games, but in different conditions.

Despite having given initial guarantees in 1964, in 1966, alleging increased costs and lack of infrastructure, Mexico City withdrew from host the 1968 Summer Paralympics and in 1967, as part of Israel's celebrations for their 20th anniversary of independence, the Israeli government made a bid to host the Games in 1967.

The 1972 Summer Paralympics and the 1976 Summer Paralympics were held in the same countries (West Germany and Canada), but in different cities (Heidelberg and Toronto, respectively).

The Soviet Union rejected the hosting rights for the 1980 Summer Paralympics out of hand, also issuing the infamous statement that "There are no people with disabilities in the USSR!" Following this, the Netherlands (Arnhem) immediately offered to host, which was accepted. After these problems, an attempt was made to approach Los Angeles so that the original concept of "one city, two events" could be resumed. But even with potential sympathy on the part of LAOCOG'84, formal relations did not exist between the Stoke Mandeville Committee and the IOC, nor even between the various American Federations of Sports for the Disableds. In the midst of conversations between Los Angeles and the Stoke Mandeville Committee, it became public that the chosen funding model intentionally overlooked the holding of the Paralympics, and upon learning of this, those responsible for wheelchair sports in the United States decided to request the holding of their event separately.^[5]

After this decision, the concept of the same hosting country (USA) was near to happen again, under an opt-out system in which wheelchair events would be at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and the other types of disabilities were scheduled for New York City: at the last minute the Illinois University withdrew, and the games returned to Stoke Mandeville.^[6]

This situation led the IOC to start talks with the 1988 hosts, Seoul, and the 6 cities interested in hosting the 1992 Summer Olympics.In 1984,Seoul accepted the Games in a late stage but with a different Organizing Committee, who worked with alongside their Olympic counterparts. However, the SLOOC only accepted help in trivial matters such as logistical services and the training of volunteers, but the South Koreans held the Paralympics by removing some different elements (i.e. different venues and a specific Paralympic Village), as the Olympics had poor accessibility conditions, while all the apartments were sold on the guarantee that they would be delivered to their buyers the week after the Games ended.

Seoul would ultimately finance the Paralympics with the profits and extendend sponships quotas and ticket sells from the Olympic Games.^[7]

In April 1987, Barcelona accepted the host of the 1992 Summer Paralympics jointly and with the same Organizing Committee, and in order to give improve the event's quality and secure its future, the COOB '92 decided to standardize the entire classification system for athletes, which would give them the chance to have the same experiences and opportunities during the Paralympics.

Contrary to what had happened previously, the Spanish city managed to finance the Paralympics with the extension of existing sponsorship quotas and signed new contracts with new sponsors specifically for the Paralympics.But this was not enough to raise more funds, given the fact that the initial budget could not cover the costs of preparation and initially it was proposed to use more public resources so that other expenses could be covered. Soon after the first denial of extra support by the Spanish government for the Paralympic Games, COOB'92 received support from the third sector, through a partnership proposed by the Spain's National Organization for the Blind (ONCE).

The city still managed to receive some additional public funds, and had the support of the ONCE Foundation who helped the Paralympic division of the COOB'92 to turn a joint venture with also helped to organize and also added funds of its own, buying a minority stake and also acting as a manager of personnel and resources to be applied. ONCE's proposal perfectly fit the needs of COOB '92. And it included the idea that the Paralympic division would become a joint venture between the two interested parties.Thus,with a big political power, ONCE was predisposed to help the Paralympic division to seek new financial resources to cover the missing amounts. for volunteers who would work in services for athletes with disabilities.

After the Games in Catalonia, ONCE and COOB '92 also helped to organize the Paralympic Games for the Mentally Disabled, which were held in Madrid following the closing ceremonies in Barcelona.^[8]

Despite what had been agreed in 1989, in which Barcelona and Madrid would be the last Paralympics organized by the International Coordination Committee (ICC) and that from the Winter Games of 1994 onwards, the powers to organize the Paralympic Games would belong to the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). And despite the intentions of this institution to carry out the Paralympics and the Olympics jointly in the city, this ran the risk of not happening,as the Olympic Organizers "closed the doors" to the Paralympic Games "claiming that the financial potential of a niche event could lead to any risk of loss and huge net losses",and this led to a public outcry in the US and also led to actions by civil society and the third sector led by the Shepherd Center,a world know rehabilitation centre.Due the lack of financial guarantees and other issues as the such as the non-involvement of local authorities.Due this situation, a Bid Committee led by the Sheperd Center members, signed a pre-contract with the IPC in 1991 and was only effective as host city in March 1992, but the two events were in the responsibilities of two different organizers.

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 Games 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.^[9][10] 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.^[11]

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.^[12]

Two committees, too much confusion

Initially, the fact was raised that AOCOG 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 Sheppard Centre, 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 Shepard Centre'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 AOCOG.^[13][10][14]

The Olympic bidding process

Then-president of the Australian Paralympic Federation, Ron Finneran, during the 1984 Winter Paralympics, held in Innsbruck, Austria

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.

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.

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 legislation, 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.^[15]

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 favorites, as it was "considered the perfect proposal to celebrate the entry of the third millennium" as they wanted to celebrate the German reunification by hosting the Games. But the support of its bid was marred after anti-Olympic protesters marched through the city just four days before the final vote in Monaco, claiming that the Games would be using funds to further domestic reconstruction efforts.^[16]

The Manchester's bid book was believed to be strong, but was harmed by recurring delays in the regeneration process and the ongoing works at the historic centre of the city, by criticism within Britain when its promotional videos and material featured videos and photos of the main tourist attractions of the capital London, such as Buckingham Palace and Tower Bridge, instead of Manchester's tourist attractions.

The first reactions in the UK were one of disbelief and embarrassment when the final presentation was taken in Monaco: 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 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.

Along Berlin, 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), 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, that 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 weak legislation related to the disabled and the accessibility of public places.^[17]

With all these problems seeing the other candidates eliminated, only the APF candidacy remained, which also faced serious problems: despite being the only viable candidate, there were still no financial and structural guarantees.^[15]

During the first phase of feasibility studies, the Sydney 2000 Olympic Bid Committee had rejected the holding of the Paralympics, haunted by the perfect storm that was brewing in Atlanta, who were organizing its event with two non-communicating organizing committees that operated completely independently.

The result of an "oversight" on the part of the Atlanta 1996 Bidding Committee, the Paralympic Games were only saved due to a collective action on the part of civil society and the administrators of the Shepard Center, who assumed the candidacy and eventually the management of the Games: at that time, they also had financial uncertainties which were only resolved at the last minute, when large companies and multinationals based in the city bought the sponsorship quotas, and when the situation became public after several reports, claimed that the Paralympics were undergoing "a corporate boycott" headed by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).

Sydney did not originally submit any documents regarding the holding of the Paralympic Games, which angered the Paralympics Australia, as the funding for the Olympics was secured: it seemed there was no realistic prospect of any funding for the Paralympics.

A few days later, when the application documents were released and the applications were accepted, it was reported that all cities except Sydney had given guarantees to host the Paralympics. Berlin and Manchester were still committed to financing and organizing the Paralympic Games with the same Organizing Committee and joint investment.^[15]

This triggered a red light for the SOBC: the bid planning needed to be redone, and a chapter on the Paralympic Games was included at the last minute.

However, it was clear that the two events would be organized by two separate Organizing Committees. Immediately, the bid consultants advised the SOBC to reconsider its decision, and reluctantly they accepted this: it was claimed that the "rejection of the Paralympic Games could be considered a weakness for Sydney" and that "important votes for the end could be lost".

Against its will, the SOBC approached the APF and tried to change its statute and the entire project to include the plans for the Paralympic Games, but the legislation in force in Australia at that time barred this structural change.

While the possibility of what was happening in Atlanta could repeat were real, the APF's resilience was what kept their hopes alive.

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 financial, organizational and structural 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 of it being operating separately and also because there wasn't had the structural, financial and organizational support of the Olympic Committee. Despite being there competing, Sydney's candidacy had more work than her competitors because of this lack of support. Sydney had a lot more work than the other competitors.^[15]

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 parathletes are part of Australian society, and that they have enormous potential to demonstrate their inclusion and diversity.^[15]

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 sx years. As a courtesy from the NSW Government, APC would gain an office at the New South Wales Sport House.^[15]

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 everyday.

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".^[15]

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.^[15]

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.^[15]

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.^[15]

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.^[15]

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: the SOBC had chosen 16 September – 1 October to hold the Olympic Games, while the APF chose 14–26 October to hold the Paralympic Games.^[15][18][19]

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."^[20]

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.^[20]

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.^[15]

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 in all the process. After the ending of the series of 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 "the white paper … clearly states to all directors involved, the position of the Australian Paralympic Federation and therefore the position of the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Bidding Committee (SPBC) in relation to the conditions under which the Paralympic Games will be held if Sydney wins the bid."^[15]

Overlay Time

The situations experienced in Atlanta and Nagano regarding the visual identities of the Olympic and Paralympic Games in which they clashed and led to 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.^[34]

Between 1997 and 1999 a specific and different visual identity for the Paralympics was developed,but due to internal administrative and financial issues at the Olympic Organizing Committee who that made the applications simpler and integrated them with the Paralympic Games. An example of this integration was the creation of 8 new specific paralympic sporting pictograms.Another integration in common was the use of the blue color,the mark "Sydney 2000" and the graphics works called "fluid energy". However, with new elements now in eucalyptus green.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 brand.

The solution for the changes of marks was simple due the low budget used.They covered with stickers in which the SOCOG and IOC brands were covered by the SPOC and IPC brands, lowering costs.Another plan was relocating that elements who were in using conditions to other areas.For this to happen, a list of priority locations was created, based on the profile of each sport and also on their maintenance costs.On average, each received AU$5,000, with the most expensive amount invested in the Olympic Stadium being AU$80,000. The original values were because of the reuse of most of the visual aspects of the Olympic Games, which were mostly made of recycled fabrics,as cardboards and another materials.Soon after adjustments and the final requirements made in the game areas and the common festive areas, made after the execution of the projects or else technical-operational requirements, they were handed over to the respective operational managers.Another change was that not a penny was spent on the readjustment of the 5 competition venues outside the Olympic Park.Because these were the last to be executed and received leftovers from the materials used for the Olympic Park. In addition, there was no need to prepare a specific project for them and only opted for changing the brands,just only covering the olympics signals.However, at Sydney Olympic Park,a keen trouble happened.In order for their Paralympic mode to be implemented and executed a last moment.Near about 2/3 of the plates and identification signs were removed in its conversion in an intention to facilitate the operations during the Paralympics and some project demands had to be changed.^[35]

Logo

The Sydney 2000 Summer Paralympics logo was developed by marketing agency FHA Image Design from Melbourne and went public on 18 October 1997, 3 years before the opening ceremony in a public event at the Homebush Bay precinct.^[36]

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.^[37]

The logo came to life with the design of the Paralympic torch and with the visual identity of the event that was focused on the energy dissipated by the paralympic athletes.It represents 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 spirit, composed at the time by the motto of "body, mind and spirit".^[38]

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 graphic shapes who refer to this feature.The agency even developed unique tones of the 3 colors of the Paralympic flag to represent unique characteristics of the host country: the 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.^[37]

Tickets 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.^[39]

Sydney Olympic Park

Olympic Stadium

Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre

State Hockey Centre

• Olympic Stadium: Ceremonies (opening/closing), Athletics
• Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre: Wheelchair Tennis
• State Sports Centre: Table Tennis
• Sydney International Aquatic Centre: Swimming
• Sydney International Archery Park: Archery
• State Hockey Centre: Football-7-side
• Sydney Showground Pavilions:ID Basketball,Goalball, Wheelchair Basketball (secondary venue), 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
• Olympic Sailing Shore Base: Sailing
• Sydney International Shooting Centre: Shooting