Hey Paul:
I guess you are on to something with the apparent lack of exposure for the Outgames in the USA compared to what you were getting from the very good marketing efforts down there by KevinB and company. It certainly was the exact reverse of that up here. Ads for Outgames everywhere and virtually nothing for Chicago. So I guess marketing works!

And I don't want to get into an entire re-hash of who said what, when and what was or was not true, but in terms of the registration numbers - I think Montreal was as surprised as anyone that they fell well short of their 16,000 goal. I think I can confidently say that they truly believed that is close to the number they would end up until very late in the registration sign up season.

They had just under 11,000 registrations at the beginning of February (at about the same time Chicago announced 8,000). For Montreal that was with 3 months of 'regular' registrations to go. In some coversations I had with people in montreal there was a belief that because of travel considerations by then most international people had already registered. Plus Montreal's Canadian numbers were so good, they were not sure of really how much more growth they could expect from the homefront. But they knew that a ton of Americans had not committed to either Chicago or Montreal yet. So they did do a number of 'parties' or presentations over Feb - Apr in various large US cities hoping to land a good chunk of those who had not yet registered. I should know - I often booked their hotels. I think they were as surprised as anybody when almost all those Americans went to Chicago and only a small handful to Montreal. I think they really believed they would get 2-3 thousand registrations from the USA over those last 2-3 months of regular registration and those numbers just never materialized.

Hence - by mid April their pitch changed to the join the 12,000 already registered from all the previous pitches of the last year which had always said be among the 16,000.

So yes one could argue the 16,000 number they had been using for well over a year was in the end misleading, but I know that is close to the number they had expected to end up with right up until late March or April.

[ August 12, 2006, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]

I think it would be a mistake to place too much emphasis on the effect of games on the perceptions of the straight community. It seems to me that the main legacy of the Gay Games has been in inspiring the growth of local gay sports groups and the attendant growth of opportunities for gay people to participate in sports.

Do people really go to the games to "compete against the best gay athletes in the world"? If this is true then having multiple events probably is a bad thing. I find it hard to believe that this is the real reason people go to games though. It seems to me that people go to the games because they want to participate in sports in a gay-positive atmosphere. As I'm swimming down my lane in competition it doesn't make much difference to me whether the guy or gal in the next lane is gay or not, it's the experiences I have when I'm out of the pool that differentiate the games from other big swim meets. For me, any event that causes the athletes to go away inspired and recommitted to participation in sports, and perhaps to do some organizing and recruiting, is a good thing.

Lastly, I think the question of what the right size for a games is needs to be asked. The combined participation in swimming was over 1,800 swimmers, that's over the optimum for participant enjoyment in my books and would almost certainly rule out long course (Olympic standard 50m) competition. I really do believe that past a certain point more often is better than bigger. With less popular sports the situation is different.

Lindsay you are so right.

These games are more about community, friendship and support than they are about who's the best and who's the fastest.

It's also not about perceptions by straight people. We change more perceptions in our everyday life than we ever will in a big event such as GG or OG. What the games do however is give more understanding of our lives to a new area of the world. The impact of the games are localized, there really in no mass media involvement and no real spectator desire. I get a chuckle out of these comments that criticize the GG & OG for poor spectator attendance. I really can't blame people for not coming to watch me play hockey, it's just not that spectacular.

I have never been to a gay games before and this past experience in Montreal was so incredible for me. Walking done the street and having strangers (straight - I assume) ask me what sport I play and where I am from was just so wonderfull. In fact one day while walking in Old Montreal I was shocked to hear 2 idiots yelling profanities at two gay guys who were crossing the road. Well some guys from my hockey team quickly approached the SUV and challanged the two loud individuals to step out of their SUV and call us "fag". The two quickly drove of, tail between their legs. But the remarkable thing was the repsonse from the crowded street corner full of straight familys. They applauded what we did and made us feel so welcome. Wow! That was so empowering. That's what these games bring to our community.

Gay Games or Out Games they both have the same mandate. The problem however is we need to change our host cities from Chicago & Montreal to Alberta & Texas where they need a little enlightenment!

Long Live the Out Games & The Gay Games (just not so close together next time!)

Hi Lindsay,

You raise a lot of interesting issues, and I will hone in on one of them. I believe you are correct that when it comes to allocating resources, the Gay Games should emphasize inspiring LGBT athletes over improving our public image. My point is that despite our emphasis on making the participant's experience the best it can be every quadrennial cycle, we still manage to improve the public image of our community significantly, perhaps better than any other recurring LGBT event in the past quarter century. Cyd hasn't responded to my question about LGBT events that had more impact than the Gay Games yet, but does anybody else want to make the case for Gay Disney? EuroPride? The HRC National Dinner? The Black Party? ILGA Conferences? The GLAAD Media Awards? Something else I may have forgotten about? Please set me straight if I'm blowing smoke or am completely off base here.

After shouting hosannas from the rooftops that the Gay Games got their asses kicked after Chicago's astonishing accomplishments this year, and then suggesting that Gay Games volunteers don’t care about improving the lives of athletes, Cyd asked whether our community needs a Gay Games at all, and my answer is an unqualified “yes.” The Gay Games were there for many of us when we needed to be inspired, and they have served as a catalyst for growth in this great movement for decades. The reason I got involved in the first place was that I viewed the Gay Games as a community treasure that needed support. That’s not to say the Gay Games are entitled to special treatment or that we can become complacent, but the point is simply that the Gay Games are important to many athletes and artists throughout the world. Countless members of our global community want to see a great Gay Games VIII, IX, X and beyond. The Gay Games should be perpetuated and handled with great care rather than dismissed or turned into a personal punching bag.

So by all means please give us your feedback and constructive criticism. Help us to learn and improve. Give us some "tough love" if you think that is what we need to move forward. These are your Gay Games after all. We know we are not perfect, but please be careful not to unduly discount the value and resiliency of the Gay Games or our commitment to community service.

In any case, we will continue to celebrate the growth in this movement and focus our efforts on making the Gay Games the best they can be. And of course we will continue to welcome any and all volunteers and organizations who want to help shape our future. For those interested in getting involved, please feel free to contact me directly at rwilliams@gaygames.org.

Rich Williams
Vice President of Membership
Federation of Gay Games

[ August 12, 2006, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: rtwilliams ]

Pat – in regard to your post above where you wrote -- “They had just under 11,000 registrations at the beginning of February (at about the same time Chicago announced 8,000)." –- look on the Sports: Gay Games vs. Outgames thread for posts addressing this.

I don’t know how to link to it, but here is the related post:
“Related to size of competitions in Montreal, I just re-read the March 2006 Gazette article linked in a prior post and noted the following:
"Tewksbury said more than 11,000 athletes have signed up. Many of the 35 sports (categories) are filling quickly," he said. "Badminton, basketball, dancesport, soccer, squash, tennis and volleyball are almost full."
In Montreal this week, there are 11 basketball teams competing (compared with Chicago's 40+ teams). It is clear basketball, nor soccer, nor tennis were “almost full”.

Here is the link to the Gazette article again: “…basketball,... almost full” - March 2006 Gazette Article. ...Many questioned Montreal's registration numbers all along and statements like the one above don't help to build credibility."

Additionally, the detail by sport to arrive at a 8,100 sport registration number is provided in this same thread along with requests for Montreal or others to provide updates/adjustments were the estimates are off). Montreal's press release number is much higher (10.248) and appears questionable. This compares with Chicago’s 11,500-11,700 sports participants number (detail provided as well).

The point being that it appears Montreal was not truthful about sports participation numbers in March 2006 – thus, when you write that "I think Montreal was as surprised as anyone that they fell well short of their 16,000 goal. I think I can confidently say that they truly believed that is close to the number they would end up until very late in the registration sign up season.“ - it seems hard to believe that Montreal was surprised at the lower participant numbers.

Montreal has long been misrepresenting participation numbers as evidenced by the facts and their public statements being in direct conflict.

Montreal is on record that breakeven would require 15,540 (November 2003) or 1 13,000 (August 2005) participants. Was this inaccruate as well? I hope these statements were inaccurate (meaning, hoping the Montreal ends up without a deficit) and I imagine the taxpayers of Montreal hope so as well.

[ August 12, 2006, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: SportsGuy22 ]

Lindsay,

You asked "Do people really go to the games to "compete against the best gay athletes in the world"? If this is true then having multiple events probably is a bad thing. I find it hard to believe that this is the real reason people go to games though."

The answer, at least for soccer, is yes and no. The IGLFA holds an annual championship every year. The teams which compete in Division 1 are mainly former college players who are VERY serious about competing against the best and winning the gold. When the best teams are not there, it is a detriment. Paris won The Outgames, London won the Gay Games, and perennial powers Cologne stayed home. We don't have a true IGLFA Champion this year, even though London won the official tournament.

I would say, though, even in Division 2, most teams are there to compete. Sure, there are people who play on these teams just to enjoy the experience of being able to be out on a soccer field. And I do believe that all of us are there to cherish, as you said, "the experiences that differentiate the games from other big meets."

Your comment on what size is best was intriguing -- one of the reasons there was an initial confrontation between the Federation and Rendez Vous Montreal 2006 is that they wanted to hold a bigger and better event than any previous Games. I think Montreal would have been thrilled to have 24,000 athletes as where the Federation is quite content with keeping the numbers around 12,000.

Hockeypaul, one comment. You stated "there really in no mass media involvement and no real spectator desire." I believe there is -- U.S. media across the country, both gay and straight, covered the Gay Games like never before. Banking on that, the Chicago organizers were able to land a number of really significant private corporate sponsorships because people do take a vested interest. The lack of spectators is mainly due to the timing of many of the events. One of my soccer games in Chicago occurred in the evening and there were at least 50 non-Gay Games people there. The atmosphere was great! Perhaps Copenhagen and Cologne could look into staging some of the events in the evening to attract more people and give athletes a couple of days to tour around each city (and spend even more money!)

wink

Can someone respond on the financial outcome of the Gay Gmes in Chicago and if there was a surplus or deficit or if its too early to report this information? I think many people would like to know this as well.

ejcnyc,

final numbers for chicago are due in by the end of the september. i can tell you, though, having just bought my official dvd (ha ha!) that they are continuing to rake in money long after the gay games. i suspect montreal is as well. it will be a while until we know the numbers for sure on both events.

Rich,
The way that I read Cyd's comment was that the FGG could move the Gay Games schedule back a year to create a two year gap between the two games making everyone's life easier, but he doesn't think they will. I personally find it frustrating to hear FGG supporters wanting the 2009 Outgames to disappear because they might negatively impact the 2010 Gay Games when the option is there to minimize the impact by moving to 2011.
That said, whether they do or not I think the Gay Games are a great thing, I wish that I could have gone to both games and I hope to make it to Cologne.

[ August 12, 2006, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Lindsay ]

Hi Lindsay,

The FGG is already contractually obligated to our host organization to help them produce Gay Games VIII in 2010. Cologne Gay Games 2010 has already been promoted to our constituents, and they are expecting it to happen. Bidding organizations are already thinking ahead to 2014 and laying the groundwork for that. This is not a block party in Boise we are organizing after all. It is perhaps the most complex event ever created by the LGBT community. Moving could also disrupt schedules and plans for annual single-sport championships which occur in non-Gay Games years as well as the traditional EuroGames schedule.

Furthermore, as an athlete, I can say for sure that a four year interval between Gay Games is already long enough to wait, and I would be very disappointed if I had to wait yet another year to defend my title. I'm not getting any younger after all. :-) Why should our constituents have to wait five years for their Gay Games? It doesn't make the lives of LGBT athletes any easier. In fact it only delays their ability to participate in the eight installment of their multi sport world championships.

Cyd and others want to cast our decision to fulfill our mission and our commitments as being tantamount to something selfish or "playing politics." The argument is groundless and not constructive.

As for the argument that having the event in a Winter Olympic year hurts our potential for sponsorship, I think Chicago blew that argument away with their huge success at attracting major sponsors despite the presence of the Torino Olympic Games. If Coca Cola, Kodak, and other Olympic sponsors wanted to sponsor us, our proximity to the Winter Olympics would not be a deterrent. Please. These are large corporations with big marketing budgets and management that knows how to handle more than one sponsorship at a time.

[ August 13, 2006, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: rtwilliams ]

Rich (RT)

I am glad you are on this list. I see a lot of comments posted criticizing both the Federation and the Montreal folks for the split. Given that this discussion group is the future of the gay sports movement I would like to pose a question.

Do you see any issues within the FGG that contributed to the double games issue we now face or do you see it as 100% Montreal's fault?

Also do you see any issues within the FGG that need to be addressed to protect the future of gay sports?

I ask you these questions without a hidden agenda or any bias towards the future games and I recognize they may be difficult to answer.

I was not involved with the Federation when the negotiations with Montreal ended in an impasse, so I am perhaps not the best person to ask.

I've done a lot of private sector partner relations work with international 50%-50% joint ventures which are quite analagous to the licensee/licensor relationship between the Federation and their hosts, and my experience is that in general when a negotiation or relationship struggles or fails it is difficult to pin the blame on one side solely and that sometimes it is more a matter of fit. One point which should be made, however, is that since the Montreal/FGG fallout, the FGG has successfully negotiated agreements with Chicago and Cologne, and in short order.

In any case, I personally believe the community is ready to put the finger pointing behind us and hopefully move on so we can continue to grow this movement and better serve our constituents.

[ August 13, 2006, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: rtwilliams ]

Rich,
It seems to me that we probably have different models of who the athletes are and what they want. This probably isn't too surprising since the athletes are not a uniform bunch. If your model is that your constituents want to go to an event exactly every four years then there is no problem going forward, they will go to Cologne four years from now and FGG supporters can cease to concern themselves with what happens with the Outgames. If on the other hand some of your constituents think that four years is a long time to wait some of them might decide to attend Copenhagen in 2009, and some of those, especially from outside Europe, might not have the finances, time, or focus to go to Cologne only a year later. I have only my intuition to go on but I suspect that a greater number of athletes would prefer a 2009 and 2011 schedule than a 2009 and 2010 schedule and that the number of athletes participating would be greater in 2011 than 2010. There would no doubt be a group that can't or doesn't want to participate in 2009 that prefer a 2010 date, it's too bad there is no way to quantify the sizes of the respective groups.

It's kind of interesting to step back and say if we were approaching this fresh without any constraints what would we design? No doubt there are those that would go for one event every four years and undoubtedly there are those that would go for an event every two years. It would probably be nice to space out the games more evenly geographically. I personally think it would be nice if there were a games in North America every four years and a games in Europe every four years with a two year offset, but of course the rest of the world should get in on the act too.

My starting argument for more than once every four years is that life can get in the way of attending a specific event on a specific date, and eight years is a really long time to go without a games if you can't make one of them. I really wanted to go to both Amsterdam and Sydney but life got in the way both times.

At the risk of overloading a single post another interesting discussion would be the sport specific championships which are typical in North America versus the combined championships typified by the Eurogames. While I've never been to a Eurogames I tend to think I would prefer the co-located championships to the sport specific approach. I don't really see the advantage of having a single sport event except of course that you can optimize location and timing.

There will no doubt be athletes in that circumstance. My personal opinion is that participation in a sports event in other years will not preclude a sufficient number if not a very large number of athletes from also participating in the eighth quadrennial Gay Games. There are myriad sports events out there including 15+ LGBT multisport events held year in and year out. The presence of these other multisport events actually stimulates overall participation and interest in sports and benefits the Gay Games and the LGBT community.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. We also should not discount the possibility that somebody could or would pounce on the 2010/14/18/22 cycle with a major multisport event as soon the Gay Games left it. Such a circumstance could make it more difficult to perpetuate the Gay Games because of the additional delay as well as confusion about which event is the Gay Games.

With the proliferation of multisport games out there and signs of further interest in developing more, you will likely get your wish. The principal issue will continue to be the supply of host cities with the capacity to produce a complex multisport event and the ability of the sanctioning bodies to ensure consistent scope and quality in their events over time.

[ August 13, 2006, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: rtwilliams ]

I wasn't sure under which discussion board this should be posted - but I guess a discussion about the future is most appropriate. I was surfing around some city team websites last night just to see if any of them had any stories about their athlete's experiences at the Gay Games and Outgames. This news on the Team Sydney website caught my eye.
*****
15 August 2006 - Team Sydney board addressed problems concerning communication with the FGG:

Your board remains very supportive of the FGG but recently moved to address some problems with communications. At its board meeting on 15 August 2006 the Team Sydney board moved to withdraw it's current voting delegates to the Federation of Gay Games. Team Sydney has not resigned from the Federation of Gay Games but, as a result of this motion, is currently unable to fulfil it's role as Director Organization.

Your board offers this comment: The Team Sydney board has withdrawn the role of delegate to the FGG because it feels the organisation cannot satisfactorily be represented under the current arrangements.

*****
I know nothing beyond what is stated there - but you get the feeling that the next FGG board meeting may be an interesting one.

[ August 22, 2006, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]

Again I am too sports ignorant to know what that statement actually means. From first glance it seems rather bad - but how serious would something like that be? Can someone explain to me exactly what a move like that would mean for the Sydney team and for the FGG?

Good question Ras - and like I said - I have no idea for the motivation behind Team Sydney's decision to withdraw their voting delegate.

They state they are keeping their FGG membership and are still supportive of the FGG, but by deciding to take that action, it appears likely that they have some issues with the FGG as it is currently operating. In some ways it reminds me of when a country recalls its ambassador from another country so as to make as strong a public statement as possible to express they are not happy with something that is currently taking place.

Anybody from Sydney able to fill us in?

This was a release that Team Sydney made in 2005 - perhaps their current decission relates to these comments:

"Our membership of GLISA places no demands upon Team Sydney. Our position as a director organisation of the FGG has several demands. Firstly, we must send at least one delegate to Annual Meetings of the FGG which are usually overseas and delegates are required to serve on committees of the FGG. Secondly, we must ascertain how we should vote on important matters raised at the Annual Meeting which are sometimes concerned with the location of the future Gay Games, changes to the FGG organisation and the appointment of directors; in doing so we try to reflect the views of the Sydney gay and lesbian sporting community."

An interesting article on newyorkblade.com:
[url="http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/8-14/news/national/victories.cfm"]Gay Games, OutGames Both Claim Victories
Sports competitions to remain separate entities [/url]

"The Chicago Convention & Tourism Bureau estimated the Gay Games brought about $33 million to the city in hotel, restaurant and transportation receipts.

OutGames brought an estimated $100 million to Montreal, according to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal."

I wonder why the disparity? Unless they included all the cultural events and Divers Cite too??? Couldn't have been the exchange rate responsible for that big a discrepancy these days.

R

I put my bet on taxes We're so taxed here, I am sure that a good 70 million dollars was just off taxes on hotels, and outgame buttons

In all seriousness - maybe it was the fact that so many Outgame participants were not from Canada and Montréal? Correct me if I am wrong, but substantial proportions of participants in the Gay Games already lived in either Chicago, or in the United States? More people from out of town means more money on hotels, touristy nick nacks and visits, etc. Plus, the Outgames had the Human Rights conference component - perhaps generating other forms of revenue? Also, I am not sure if this would impact overal revenues, but Montréal is a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller city than Chicago. Metro Montréal is only 3.5 million people - and if I recall my census data for the United States, the Metro region of Chicago is around 9.5 million - again, correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps having such a smaller city impacts overal revenue? I am sure that if you drop 10 000 athletes and another 5 000 participants into a significantly smalelr city of maybe 100 000, I am sure the economic spin offs would be much more significant.

There could be a million reasons why there is such a difference, I suppose.

[ August 22, 2006, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Rastuurman ]

What is there to wonder???!!!

One city posts accurate figures, the other city makes numbers up, as they always have. Duh.

What? Do you think Chicago made less than $33M??? eek!

R

Trust me -- having covered the alleged economic impact of events on cities, ALWAYS be skeptical of claims by tourism boards. Chicago's #s do seem more grounded in reality than Montreal's, though. I simply don't believe an event like that would bring in anywhere close to $100 million.

For example, economists studying the economic impact of the Super Bowl --a weeklong event that brings in tens of thousands of high rollers to a city, corporate types with huge expense accounts and money to burn -- "indicates that at best the Super Bowl contributes approximately $75 million," a quarter of what the NFL boasts. Source.

Hi Softballstud,

I think before we start making accusations of "cooking the books", it would be easier to simply look at possibilities that lead to such divergent numbers. Or if there is that much a concern over fradulent activities, simply contact each bureau. As a government department i am sure that this is how things operate...

They have a series of quantified indicators of financial impact for each city. These indiciators can range quite significantly, depending on what each city is measuring. This in itself can lead to numbers that are not actually comparable. Do you know what I mean?

Here is an example I am more familiar with. The American and Canadian crime rates. Other than homicide, the two countries appear to be relatively similiar in terms of most criminal activities. However, this is if you compare the statistics based on their overall value. In fact, Canada has a significantly smaller crime rate because the Statistics Canada method of compiling most of these indicators are much more extensive, and include many more indicators - while the American indicators contain fewer indicators.

It's kind of like comparing apples and oranges. Always remember that it is not good to compare cited statistics without knowing the methodology of how those statistics were collected.

In essence, the way that Chicago collects their data may in fact underestimate their economic benefits, while the way Montréal collects theirs, may over estimate - or visa versa. It all depends on what they're measuring and the purpose of the data they're collecting.

Again, just another possible example of why these numbers differe so greatly. It may have sounded like an academic lecture - sorry!

[ August 23, 2006, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: Rastuurman ]

The only possibility that I see is your false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. But I won't jump to any conclusions, let's just wait and see what the books say.

That was somewhat agressive... yes?

Regardless, as I have always stated - and agree with you on - waiting and seeing is the best method rather than jumping to conclusions. But as a researcher I can defintely confirm that comparing statistics is often times like apples and oranges.

Rastuurman - lecture aside wink , I think the difference in economic impact figures is easy to understand.

It probably relates to who calculated the economic impact figure, what are the interests of who calculated the figure (further insights provided below) and how agressive was the methodology used.

Gay Games economic impact figure ($33.4 million) is calculated by the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau. Here is a link to an article in the highly respected business magazine - Crain's - where the methodology is explained. Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau has no direct financial interest in the Gay Games.

In a July 24, 2006 press release from Tourisme Montreal, the spectator number of 150,000 and the economic impact amount of $100 million were stated. Tourisme Montreal is a $500,000 financial supporter of Outgames and has to justify their "investment" to the tax payers as Tourisme Montreal is funded by the same three levels of government (as would be expected) as Outgames.

Prior posts have noted the rightful skepticism around the spectator figures.

Tourisme Montreal's economic impact numbers deserve to be viewed with reasonable professional skepticism due to lack of independence.

Hopefully the sources noted help in explaining possible reasons for why economic impact figures are different.

As far as what this means for the future of either Games may be more related to the pros and cons of a tourism organization's influence or involvement in running the Games. Tourisme Montreal probably was the primary reason that Montreal had the "show" and "feel" aspects that made Outgames a memorable experience.

That is probably one of the key differences between Gay Games and Outgames that has been subdued in discussions.

Is this model sustainable, and if so, who has more say in how the event is run, the sports organizations of the licensor (the FGG or GLISA), the local organizing committee, or the tourism organization?

Hmmm... yeah - what Sportsguy said...

Thanks for the info! Everything like that really does help put everything into perspective. I like it when we're able to pool our resources and get information that helps answer questions!

As for the model being sustainable - we'll have to wait and see some more I guess. If Coppenhagen can replicate the success of the Outgames then maybe we have something that will continue.

Thanks, Sportsguy!

P.S., I am also very interested in why these differences exist (obviously) and so I thought that it would be nice to get the information from the source.

I have e-mailed the Montreal tourism bureau. This is the english translation of what I sent:

Good afternoon,

I was hoping if you could provide some information for me. There is some curiosity about how the Outgames generated the quoted 100$ million in revenue for the city of Montréal.

Would you be able to provide what indicators you used to establish this number, as well as the sources where most of this revenue came from?

There is some extensive interest in these numbers because the city of Chicago, USA, held a similar event the week before Montréal (as I am sure you're aware), but the city of Chicago reports a significantly smaller revenue (approximately 33$ million) even though the events were comprable in the number of attendees.

Thank you very much for any help you can provide!


I will let everyone know when I get a reply

[ August 23, 2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Rastuurman ]

Wow - you are just not willing to give a single inch are you?

Even after several people have made fairly mild statements regarding being open minded; you just feel the incredible need to be aggressive and denigrating.

Even after someone put forth a fairly reasoned and concise explanation to my inquiry - you still feel the need to 'score points'?

What is up with that?

We get that you think everyone involved with Montreal is a liar - you made your point the first hundred times - its over.

Both events were successfull - whatever your problems were - get over it.

Time to move on.

Rob

I'm sure you'll get a quick response.

Always full of positive energy, aren't ya Softball...

Okay - nix that. I appologize. That was an intentionally antagonistic response that was unwarrented.

[ August 23, 2006, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Rastuurman ]

Hi everyone

I was in Montreal and had a fabulous time and only really became aware of the split there. I simply did not care enough beforehand and since I am not part of a gay and lesbian sports club I guess I also missed all the local rant and gossip... Intrigued by what happened a friend pointed me to this website to find out more and here I am.

I am amazed at the anger that is in this discussion and I think it iss ad that our community is not able to deal with such an issue more calmly. A few things I want to comment on because it involves my line of work are the statistics that are being quoted and used here. I am a professional researcher for a marketing research agency.

At the very first glance, it becomes clear that these figures are not comparable.

First off, checking the sources it appears that the Montreal Board of Trade put out a press release in CANADIAN Dollars. So clearly the figures have to be converted into the same curreny (bringing down the Montreal economic impact to US$89.6).

Secondly, the quote says that the Chicago figure includes only “hotel, restaurant and transportation receipts“. Economic impact of an event usually also includes entertainment, shopping and misc. spending, the first two usually make up a pretty portion of total spending.

At a closer look, maybe not so obvious to someone who doesn’t do this professionally, both figures were release BEFORE the respective events, i.e. they are at best educated guesses about the economic impact.

Montreal does not give specific details about the basis of the calculation, so it is hard to comment on the validity of the assumptions.

The methodology of the Chicago figure is highly questionable however. From the newspaper article you get 12.000 participants x $348 (lodging, meals, transportation) x 8 days = $33.4 m. As a researcher I have major issues with this calculation. (1) Not all 12.000 participants are from outside Chicago. I think somebody wrote on this board that 2000-3000 where from Chicago. On the other hand, visitors to Chicago fort he Games that did not compete were left out. (2) $348 for lodging, meals and transportation ON AVERAGE seems way excessive. According to the same source (Chicago CVB, the average hotel rates for 2005 were between $164 (downtown) and $110 (metropolitan), transportation was included in the registration so extra costs are probably only $10-20 per day for cabs on average. That would roughly leave a whopping $200 on food per DAY per PARTICIPANT on AVERAGE. I assume that the tourist board simply applied the average spending for large conferences (such as medical conventions, where hotel rates are a lot higher and people spend a lot on restaurants on their expense accounts...)

I am not saying that the economic impact on Chicago wasn’t 33m. The number actually seems realistic or even on the low side to me but only if it includes entertainment and shopping and it is actually based on Gay Games visitors rather than participants.

I would also like to point out that economic impact studies usually differentiate between direct spending (i.e. the actual money flowing into a community from outside) and the total impact which also includes indirect spending (i.e. the direct spending from outside is partly spent again by local businesses to further boost local economy).

I cannot comment on the Montreal methodology/numbers as there is no indication on how it was computed. Montreal apparently did use visitor numbers rather than participants which is definitely the “more correct“ approach. Whether the visitor numbers used hold true and what amounts were applied is something I cannot judge at this point. I doubt that they used 150.000 visitors (which is considerably less than the 500,000 spectators claimed by Outgames), because that would mean spending of only CD$666 per visitor for the whole period (or roughly CD$74 / US$66 per day) for lodging, food, transportation, entertainment and shopping. I am only guessing here (which I shouldn’t do on a professional level), and I will stop right here.

Overall, an event of the size and length of Outgames/Gay Games should easily produce an economic impact of $33m and should realistically produce somewhere between $80-120m.

One thing on credibility, both sources are government agencies and both cities certainly have an interest in portraying the event as successful as possible. And as governemt agencies they are subject to checks by other agencies and controlling bodies.

Lastly, statistics can justify anything you want and neither source has released any post-event data that was actually field-researched to give a more adequate and true picture of actual spending. Until that happens both pre-event statistics have to be taken with a very big grain of salt.

Hi Scientific,

Thank you very much for placing things into context. I like when we try to rationalize something to understand things - rather than jump to conclusions with no real basis to form those conclusions. Your perspective is insightful, well thought out and well articulated.

As for not knowing Montréal's methodology, I hope to provide that soon when the brueau responsds to me My e-mail has been "refered to the appropriate department" for response.

Sorry, I just saw this question. I don't think planned events have virtually any impact on how straight people view us. They can affect US, the attendees, very much. I think the media and personal interaction change how straight people view us. Ellen coming out had more impact on that than 10,000 Gay Games and Outgames combined.

I think the kinds of events that DO have an impact on how straight people view us are the unplanned events - the killing of Harvey Milk, the murder of Matthew Shepherd - and the community's response to these events.

Again, I think the ongoing individual leagues and single-sport events that happen every year have a FAR greater impact on the way straight people think of us than the Gay Games which is talked about in the mainstream press for maybe a month every four years, then disappears.

[ August 28, 2006, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Cyd at Outsports ]

Cyd,

I'm sorry to hear you think the Gay Games' impact on our public image is so marginal. Have you never seen the groundbreaking news coverage of Tom Waddell done by Hugh Downs and Tom Brokaw in the 1980's?

In my opinion, the Gay Games can and have changed the world we live in for the better, including serving as a catalyst for development of many of those leagues and annual events which you applaud for their impact on our public image. The Gay Games have improved your life, my life, and countless lives. Here is one example:

http://www.eurogames.info/1996/retrospecti...ve_english.html

Even though you don't think we care about making life easier for athletes, and even though you downplay our impact on the public image of the LGBT community, at least I can take comfort in knowing that a harsh critic like yourself is unable to name a recurring event with a greater impact on our lives and our public image than the Gay Games.

[ August 28, 2006, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: rtwilliams ]

Well, I'd say any gay-sports event has the same impact on straight people as the Gay Games. The Gay Games, because of their scope, just has the same limited impact on more people.

But, I'd say that gay teams playing in straight leagues and straight tournaments have a BIG impact because they're interacting with straight people, beating some of them, and proving themselves. Having a segregated sporting event that virtually no straight people participate in just isn't going to have the same punch.

The Gay Days events at ballparks also have a MUCH larger impact than the Gay Games. And there are lots of reasons these events have a bigger impact, the most important one being community membership and involvement. Most straight people don't give a shit that we all went to Chicago and played a bunch of sports. They just don't. What I hear from straight friends of mine and straight media people: "Oh, that's cool." And then: "Are you entering the handbag toss or the high-heels relay?"

But these Gay Days events hit people because you're in the stadium with them, cheering with them, experiencing an event with them.

10,000 gay athletes and 20,000 gay spectators listening to Megan Mullalley and screaming poets for four hours, then heading off to play soccer? No impact on straight people. 500 gay Phillies fans waving their flags and cheering for the Phillies in another excruciating season? They'll stand up and cheer for you and buy you a beer.

Guys on this board like Larry Felzer and Mark Kari - who are doing the really hard work of building gay-sports events within larger mainstream events - deserve a lot more credit for helping the cause than they get.

[ August 28, 2006, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Cyd at Outsports ]

Cyd,

You keep on answering a different question than I am asking, but that's okay. I don't expect you to publicly acknowledge that the Gay Games has improved our lives and our public image more than any other recurring event out there. But to suggest that "Night out with the Nationals*," or another event like it has improved our lives and our public image more than the Gay Games? Come on. There is no question these are wonderful and highly impactful events and successful fundraisers. I happened to speak with the organizer of DC's gay day in the ballpark this weekend about the same question, and I can tell you for sure that even he disagrees with you.

* http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-22/news/lo...ws/baseball.cfm

[ August 29, 2006, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: rtwilliams ]

Everyone has their own opinion. Unfortunately, whenever anyone disagrees with the Gay Games on this board, they get smacked down by someone on the FGG or, for the last few months, someone from Chicago 2006.

Funny you didn't mention that the organizer of the Nationals "Gay Day" is also on the FGG Steering Committee. Not surprising that he would have an elevated opinion of the impact of the Gay Games on the straight world.

But you are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said the Gay Games don't impact our lives. They do, in a WONDERFUL way!! I don't know why you insist on implying that I think the Gay Games are somehow a bad or useless entity. What I've said is that they don't impact how straight people look at us. The Gay Games appear to a small segment of the straight world for one week every four years. It's a tiny little blip on their radar screen, and I'd guess a huge majority of straight people have no idea what the Gay Games are; heck, I meet MANY GAY people all the time who say they've never heard of the Gay Games or the Outgames.

Again, the Gay Games and Outgames are WONDERFUL events that have a big impact on participants and much of the gay community. But, to say that they have a measurable effect on how straight people look at gay people is an overstatement.

I think the rivalry between Outgames and the Gay Games is pretty ridiculous. I mean nobody wants just one gay parade and party during Pride Week. There is plenty of room in the pool. Let everybody in. I think it would be polite and sensitive for the two sports events to coordinate with each other so that one event would not occur in the same time period as the other, due to the natural limitations of sports scheduling. But, let's face it: gay people are sports crazy. So, there are plenty of cities (and sponsors and funds) for both events to be held on the world's richest continent.

Cyd,

I must confess I have no idea what words you think I have put in your mouth. As for smacking you down, the harshest thing I wrote was that some of your comments were not constructive which is quite defensible in light of what you did write. I think you are getting a little bit fussy, but anyway thanks for acknowledging some of the merits of the Gay Games.

[ August 30, 2006, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: rtwilliams ]

Thanks for these words Glosterguy. I can't agree with you more about dialogue between these 2 groups, and find yours one of the best, not single-sided posts in this forum.

The fact is that egos are tied to each of these organizations and to each of these events. Athletes are forgotten in the quest to put on the "biggest" or the "best" event and to continue this one-upmanship. And I think that anything, media or otherwise, that plays into this will only continue to foster the competitiveness between the competitions and force a perception that athletes will pledge allegiance to one or the other event.

As an athlete, I would go to both events as long as they are both accessible, and I think that a majority of athletes would do the same. Nobody likes the politicking or the "U.S versus the rest of the world" image that has prevailed out of this terrible situation.

A point of clarification for Cyd. You stated "International Gay and Lesbian Aquatics has their championships every four years at the Gay Games...If these groups, and others, rethought that and opened themselves up to holding it at the Outgames instead..."

First, IGLA does not hold its championship meet at the Gay Games (no team scores are kept). It simply does not have a championship meet in the years of the Gay Games. We hold our annual board/membership meeting at the Games like we do during our nonGG or off-year championships. There were efforts made by members of the IGLA board to meet with aquatic athletes at the OutGames as well, and a different system of voting for board members was adopted to accomodate the fact that IGLA had member teams represented at the two competitions.

The wrench the 2 events now pose is for each of our governing bodies to decide how to treat the events and whether, for instance, we go to a schedule of 2 years of our own hosted championship event followed by 2 years of other hosted Games.

I do agree with you, Cyd, that how each sports governing body treats the 2 events will decide their ultimate success or failure. It will also decide the success of the international outreach of our sports governing bodies (i.e., IGLA).

Lastly, I would hate to see OutSports or anyone with a single bias state that these boards should support one event "instead of" the other. This is how the rumor of a "boycott" gets going and does little to foster a mending of our community.

Glosterguy said it too, history cannot be altered. The decisions of the past should help guide us as we try to reconcile this situation and move on. Best regards to all, Ande

[ August 31, 2006, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Ande ]