Picture this, it is September 2006 and the global gay sports movement is basking in the afterglow of two successful LGBT games. Energized by their experiences at the recent games, hoards of athletes gather online to discuss where to take the movement next...

Some argue that the two games should be merged into a single unified games. Others argue that a single games would be too large and that we need more smaller games not fewer larger ones...

Some argue that priority should be given to staging games in places like Africa and South America where they can make more of a statement. Others argue that holding games in places that are expensive to get to is just a recipe for financial failure...

Some argue that it only makes sense to leverage tourism and media money, others believe that these interests exert too much control, making the games into just another celebration rather than concentrating on participation in sport...

Some find it easier to sit back and criticize everyone and everything, but they are quickly ushered to the other thread, which has recently passed the hundred page point even though no one actually bothers to read it anymore...

Where do YOU think the gay sports movement should go?

[ November 18, 2004, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Lindsay ]

Interesting topic, Lindsay. I hope this thread manages to avoid the drama of that other thread.

First, I've never been to any of the games. My thoughts may therefore be somewhat idealistic and perhaps unrealistic, but that's probably not such a bad thing.

I guess I use the Olympics (despite their problems) as a model for the ideal games. Once every 4 years is a good interval. More often would dilute things out too much. For that same reason, I'd like to see 1 unified games, rather than 2 or more smaller games. I'd like to believe part of the value in having games comes from meeting people from around the world, and diluting the games out by having more of them would inhibit that process.

As far as location, it should be held wherever it's financially reasonable and feasible. I don't know how much of a statement would be made by holding them in S. America/Africa. (I'm assuming you're referring to the impact on the general public, who may not be exposed to much "gay culture" in those areas). The majority of people in those areas wouldn't see the games first-hand, or even covered in the media, so I would guess they wouldn't learn much nor gain any sort of insights from the games. I believe the first priority should go towards selecting cities that are capable and prepared to handle the games, regardless of which continent they're on or how much it costs to travel there. They should be rotated around, not to make a statement, but in the interest of fairness.

I strongly believe the emphasis should be on the participation/excellence in sport. There are a lot of great gay athletes out there, but if the general public sees a "gay games" where seemingly anyone that can afford the registration fee is allowed to compete, the only statement that will be made is that we're a rather unathletic bunch. I really wish there were some qualification standards - they could be set up as in the Olympics, where developed nations have 1 set of standards, and underdeveloped nations have a more lenient set of standards to encourage participation and bring the "Olympic movement" to more countries. I don't have a problem with various age categories, as long as there are some performance standards to make competing more of an honor. I guess that's my biggest turn-off in regards to the current games - it doesn't seem to be a big honor or achievement to compete. I know there are a lot of people that would disagree with me, and argue that we should be as inclusive as possible. My feeling is that sports are by nature somewhat exclusive, and by opening the competition up to anyone, we dilute the importance of the games and turn them into just another tournament, albeit one with more athletes and more events than usual.

On a bit of a side note, I was surprised to look at the websites of both 2006 games, and see that the cultural offerings mainly seemed to consist of color guards, band, and chorus performances. My expectation was that, with people from around the world, the cultural events would be geared towards exposing participants to cultures around the world. I would consider the current cultural offerings to be entertainment, not culture. I would be sorely disappointed to travel to a nation I've never experienced before, and find out the cultural offerings of their games consist of marching bands and color guards. No offense intended to anyone involved in those activities, but they wouldn't satisfy my desire to learn more about the various participating countries.

Those are my thoughts. Hope you have some luck with maintaining this thread as a good discussion for the future.

There are several possible goals for an athletic event like the Gay Games:
- benefit to the participants, e.g. fitness, health, goal setting and achievement, the pursuit of improvement and excellence
- benefit to the gay community in terms of affecting ourselves through inspiration, breaking down stereotypes and broadening our own sense of the possibilities open to us
- benefit to the gay community in terms of breaking down stereotypes the non-gay community has about us.

I think modeling the Gay Games on the Olympics would primarily fulfill the third objective at the cost of the first two. There are many great gay athletes but I don't think the level of competition at a Gay Games could ever equal that at an Olympics, purely on a statistical basis, which could very well lead to the GG being regarded as a second class Olympics or even evidence that gay people are second class athletes. Furthermore, I don't see the community mobilizing the support necessary to put on a games if those games are primarily for the benefit of an elite few. I prefer to see our games modeled on broad participation, pursuit of personal best, and sport for life, i.e. on the Masters sports model. Although a lot of people have never heard of them the World Masters Games are the largest games in the world based on number of athletes participating - about double the size of the Olympics or Gay Games.

My perception is that the Gay Games have always been intended primarily as a tool to empower the participants. If that is indeed the primary goal then the motivation for moving the games out of the major urban centers that are already very gay friendly is to extend that empowerment to the people who are most in need of it. Chicago and Montreal already have vibrant gay sports communities and the people who live in such cities are, as a whole, already highly liberated. Now it's certainly true that the participants in the games come from diverse places, but it's also probably true that the people in an economic position to travel to and attend the games probably represent a class of people who are already relatively privileged and liberated. If we could find a location that had relatively similar characteristics to the Bay area at the time the Gay Games were started we might set off a similar expansion of the gay sports movement in that region.

Weaselman, I agree with your muisings vis a vis culture. The origional Olympiads had significant cultural events attached to them. The saving grace is non-competition cultural events spring up in tandem, at least with the Gay Games. I saw lots of theatre, photography and art in Sydney. Montreal and Chicago are sure to have similar offerings. Of course, by talking about it, we risk opening the familiar "does offering culture dillute the focus on sports" question. Some people have quite strong opinions on this, and it's not just a gay thing. Vancouver (Canada) used to have a stupendous Dragon Boat Festival, which was created to foster multiculturalism and introduce Asian Newcomers to Canadian culture as well as introducing Canadians to Asian culture. I was involved on the Festival side (not the race side) for five years. We had stages full of taiko drummers followed by Welsh Choruses, followed by Acrobats direct from China followed by the Symphany followed by... You get the idea. If there were more tied-in cultural offerings, do you think they should be limited to Gay events, or should it be more broad? For instance, should say, "non-gay" dance troupes be tied to a gay festival?

Thanks to both of you for making thoughtful interesting posts. My own take on the cultural event question is that it is useful to distinguish between participatory cultural events and events athletes would experience primarily as audiences. I believe that events like chorus and band emphasize participation rather than being exhibits of local culture. I would guess that they are emphasized at this point because participants need to register for them. I expect that there will be many more opportunities to experience local culture in both cities, gay and non-gay. Some people think that having the Outgames coincide with Montreal's pride will detract from the profile of the Outgames, my personal view is that it provides additional activities that athletes and their companions can participate in at no cost to athletes that don't participate. As in the broader context, I think the conflict arises when one group feels it is paying for another group.

I would like to point out that the Cultural Festival to take place at the Chicago Gay Games will be comprised of much more than the required band and choral events. These Gay Games will most definitely reflect the broad cultural diversity of the host city AND our global LGBT community.

There IS however a distinction between the cultural events that are mandated in the contract (between Chicago Games Inc and the Federation of Gay Games) and the OTHER cultural events that will take place. The contract specifies four cultural components: band, choral, visual arts, and the International Memorial Rainbow Run. Chicago Games is required to present these elements and they will, in fine style.

Beyond the required cultural events, there will be a full range of events, including (but not limited to) theater, dance, cinema, comedy, poetry, art exhibits, literature, architecture, family events, and yes, even some dance parties.

The only difference is that the Chicago Games organization will not be directly producing these "other" cultual events. They will be produced by different individuals and organizations, most under a paid license fee to the Chicago Games. So, rather than run a financial risk on a cultural event, most of these will actually generate revenue for CGI in the form of these license fees.

Most of the distinction between the type of Cultural events will be invisible to Gay Games participants. I'm certain that detailed plans for the complete Chicago Gay Games Cultural Festival will be posted in due course. Rest assured that it will be a comprehensive array of cultural events in Chicago about which we will all feel very proud.

Hi Lindsay:
I'm very much in agreement with you that the more events the better. I would like to see major international events every two years or so, with other regional multi-sport events (modelled on the Eurogames) in between those. And I hope that all of those events would be open to all skill levels to maximize participation rates.

It is quite easy within many team sports for the more elite athletes to compete against similarly ranked teams, as happens now in sports like volleyball, hockey and softball, where teams register at their skill level AA, A, BB and B levels. So the AA teams compete against other AA ranked teams etc. If we started to limit the overall event to only accommodate the elite 'AA' level athletes, I agree that the result would be a huge drop in overall interest in these kind of events.

Also the reason I like the idea of more events with a large international event every two years or so, is because for many athletes in some sports, there are otherwise very few opportunities to compete against other gay athletes in their sport. I know this is not true for those of us playing very popular sports like I do (volleyball and softball) where there is lots of opportunity to play with other gay teams. There are games within our own leagues and a number of tournaments throughout the respective seasons and year end championships to choose from, so we have lots of opportunity to compete. And some of those tournaments can even have a bit of an international flare, so for us, I can see why some may think a big international event every four years would suffice. But that is not at all true for someone who may play a sport here in Canada that is only popular in Europe or Australia. Their only opportunity to play against other gays may be in major gay international events, hence I like the idea of at least something every two years with other regional events that they may take part in. I was surfing the web the other day and I noticed a field hockey team in Sydney Australia is raising money to go to the Eurogames in Utrecht in 2005, because that is about the only opportunity they will have to play their sport in an international event, as that sport is not part of either the Gay Games or OutGames. Just one example where by having more events there is a better chance that somewhere at sometime somebody will find a place to play their sport as part of an international multisport event. And this is very true of sports that are less popular internationally or sports that may have limited regional appeal.

Heck even the mainstream sport market has some pretty significant international multisport events that athletes can take part in between the Olympics. Such events as the Pan-American games, the Commonwealth Games, the Francophone Games, the University Games etc. So the more the merrier as far as I am concerned.

Pat

[ November 25, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]