Five years ago, a second LGBT Sport organization having in its mission the production a quadrennial multi sport event was created and just recently Copenhagen has released registration figures that are somewhat disappointing even considering the current state of the economy. Some individuals and groups, like Vorspiel Berlin, seem to feel that the LGBT sports community has eluded for too long the question of the sustainability of two such events and the rifts this situation produces, and that it may be time to look at possible ways out of it.

Who’s suffering of this?

First victim of these circumstances is in fact the LGBT sport community, since this scenario further erodes the opportunity to get athletes from all over the globe together every four years, thereby perpetuating the damage created by the occurrence of two competing events in 2006.

Other primary victims are the two hosts and the events themselves, since, regardless of the occurrence of a planetary financial crisis, they have to compete for participants, sponsors, strategic partners and exposure.

Copenhagen will probably not attract more participants than Large EuroGames and in particular, it seems it will not attract a significant number of participants outside Europe and Canada, thus becoming de facto very similar to a large EuroGames. It is sensible to imagine that a well promoted EuroGames, well governed under the aegis of an experienced organization with a developed and effective network like EGLSF, would have attracted more participants.

More collateral casualties and damage of this scenario can be found all across the LGBT sports community (e.g. IGLA) as I stated in the interview to the BAR and the EDGE magazines. (http://www.edgesanfrancisco.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=90568)

But probably one of the organizations affected the most is the EGLSF, facing a significant loss of revenue represented by the license fee for EuroGames, and a loss of branding value by not having its event.

The EuroGames, usually held in between Gay Games years since 1992, will now have a three-year gap. The rendez-vous for the next EuroGames at the closing ceremony of Barcelona 2008 was given in 2011. The 2009 EuroGames have been cancelled, because of the presence of a worldwide event organized the same year in the city of one of the EGLSF members. Similarly, EuroGames 2013 will be cancelled because of OutGames in Antwerpen, but not in 2014 when Gay Games IX will take place outside Europe.

Not everything is so bad.

A positive outcome of the current situation has been the birth of some multisport events on continental basis, in particular in continents where, unlike Europe, no such tradition had been established, namely, North America and Australasia. Although in the most cases these events were simply a renaming of pre-existing tournaments that would have taken place regardless, the establishment of new events on continental basis is a good thing, as long as the eventual conflicts among them and between each of them and a worldwide event are rationalized and minimized.

A good thing is also the creation of continental organizations to federate sport clubs in the corresponding geographic regions as well as to produce and govern these continental events in between Gay Games.

Ideally, this should be encouraged and started in the remaining continents of Africa, Latin America and possibly Asia, as a separate entity from Oceania.

EGLSF, for their experience and expertise may have a major role to play as a model and an advisor in the development of the recently born North American organization and in the permanent constitution of similar entities in other continents or regions. As for any model, each entity should then adapt it to the local reality, priorities and needs. For instance, by choosing to schedule their own continental event only one or two of the three years in between Gay Games.

One solution that can allow all this to happen would be for World OutGames to be disbanded after Copenhagen, while continental games – called EuroGames, Outgames, Asia-Pacific Games or however pleases their respective bodies – continue on a well established calendar in between Gay Games.

Ways can still be found to make Antwerpen 2013 become the 2013 EuroGames that could be large and open to non-European participants, if this is the wish of the host and of EGLSF, who could on this occasion apply a more flexible version of its “priority to Europeans at the Eurogames” policy.

The results?

We've already had a restructuring of the Federation of Gay Games (the Federation). Interestingly, a structure that looks much more alike the EGLSF’s structure now : a board of individual directors and an assembly of member organizations having replaced a mixed board of individuals and organizations.

A warming of relations between the Federation and EGLSF seems already being happening. EGLSF now could return to the Federation as a member organization with a voice.

Ideally, all organizations representing the interests of a continent or region should be a member of the Federation with a voice, as long as their statement of purpose and mission are compatible with those of the Federation. The same applies to one-sport international organizations and city teams.

This would not only make the Federation more legitimate as the community-based governing body partnering with the Gay Games Host to produce the best possible event for the participants, it would also improve the standards of the site selection process by allowing more bodies to look at the bids from different perspectives (geographical, by sports, etc.).

The combination of a continental event with annual international championships of a specific sport, similarly to IGLA and Copenhagen in 2009, can also be desirable on a case-by-case basis, whenever it is possible to reach a mutual agreement that is beneficial and not detrimental for both respective governing bodies in terms of finances and exposure and for the athletes as well.

We would put more order in an overcrowded quadrennial calendar and less of a drain on the taxed resources of supporting LGBT sports and cultural organizations. Every single organization could then be able to rely on a more consistent and stable quadrennial pattern on which to adapt its own schedule and projected revenue stream.

The EuroGames and other continental Games, since there athletes would not be traveling as far, would be free to put on the parties and conferences appropriate to what their continents' needs are, and the Gay Games could continue to unite and inspire the global sports and cultural community.

Roberto Mantaci
Honorary Life Member of the Federation of Gay Games

-- With only one global event every four years, the work that the continental GLISA organizations started could continue and grow, with continental games emerging as more effective vehicles for reaching all corners of their respective jurisdiction to make choices regarding conferences, marketing and sports that will be more effective at reaching their constituents who may live in less tolerant areas.

-- Individual sports can make decisions for themselves as to what parties and what conferences they want and are able to support for their individual disciplines, and regional multi-sport events can do the same. Their are several opportunities for us to connect globally beyond sports; assuming that just because we are all together to compete at one time means that that would be a good time to stage major conferences is naive. It is difficult enough to organize the sports in a way that is cost effective; rare is the event that can pull it off profitably. (Eg., most Summer Olympics have lost money). And when we take a break from our work and our community service and we finally get a chance to experience competition at the highest level we can reach, as athletes most of us will want to focus on our sport on that week -- not on pre-tournament parties or conferences.

I'm leaning towards one major event every four years with the in between years featuring regional events that are fully supported and nurtured by the organization putting on the quadrennial event - as the best route forward.

All of what Roberto & Roger say makes perfect sense, but I doubt it is registering with the right people, and the reticence of many (~22k & ~820) who already read these threads to reply is especially troubling to me. Is it a lack of clarity or is it a lack of cajones to state your opinion? I suspect the latter. Kudos to TravelPat to actually defy the PC 'timidness' of so many. How else can we expect to 'change' things unless we debate?

What is telling about all of this is that instead of furthering the GLBT Sports Movement with bold steps like putting on an OGs or GGs in places where it would do a lot more good than preaching to the choir, we continue to pick the predictable GayGhettos, and dilute the Mission with questionable add-on events that are not even 'athletic'.... i.e... it begs the question of a previous post.... how many of the 5k Copenhagen registrations are for non athletic events??

Why are there no plans to do -anything- in places like Johannesburg, Buenos Aires, Rio, Bangkok, or Atlanta? Why is is OGs going back to Antwerp in 2013 when there already was a very successful EuroGames there in 2007? Is it because EGLSF has everything already in place for another success, and GLISA can just co-brand and dramatically raise the registration costs? I just don't get it!

In the past, the FGG has had to step in when host cities were not performing well. In 1990 veteran San Francisco GGs organizers went to Vancouver to pretty much pull together a lot of sports. In fact the same can be said for every GGs to some extent. There is the broad professional expertise/experience, the on going research/policy drafting, and loyalty that make it possible for the FGG to pull off an event just about anywhere if it had to.

IMHO, the FGG needs to start rediscovering their Mission and looking more at Africa, Asia, and Latin America instead of GayGhettos. Yes there is a place for big multi purpose GLBT GayGhetto events, but as we all know we are victims of our success, and our GLBT athletes compete quite well in the mainstream thank you. Our Mission today is different than it was in 1982. So how do we take on the complex taks of recasting our Mission when we are still infighting over putting on Pride Events on steroids in GayGhettos?

In fairness, we cannot expect this organizational depth from GLISA. Their one foray (Montreal) did not inspire confidence, and I am sure the lack of experience prevents them from venturing out beyond the GayGhettos. So what then is the point of the Regional, Continental, or local GLISA events that co-opt existing events and just raise the registration costs? Again, what does GLISA bring to the table?

I really want to know because I really like the idea of unifying the GLBT athletic calendar and athletic/organizing expertise. But until the constituent stakeholders of GLBT Sports start putting pressure on the right people, we will continue with this debilitating status quo.

I agree Gene:
I really do think it is unfortunate that it is only Amereican cities bidding for 2014. Even if in the end the selection went to an American city - I would be fine with that - but there really should be bids from places like Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires or South Africa - even if to just gain the valuable experience and lessons learned by participating in the bid process.

And just an aside - I'm in and out of various functions that are part of the IGLTA (International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association) annual conference taking place here in Toronto this weekend. That includes a big consumer trade show at Maple Leaf Gardens that I'm just about to run down the street to set up for which has everybody buzzing in the village because the Gardens - which is right in the heart of the gay village here - has not been open to the public for years since the Leafs and Raptors moved to the Air canada Centre.

But back to the relevant point I wanted to make - the next conference next year is in Antwerp and some tourism delegates from Antwerp were promoting their event at a function I was just at. In chatting with them I brought up the 2013 Outgames and sort of jokingly said 'if there still is an Outgames by then'. The reaction I got surprised me. It was a sort of 'Yeah - I know what you mean' sort of reaction. So I sensed they are already aware that 2013 might not happen as an full blown Outgames.

So as somebody else suggested earlier if we can get the various stakeholders together to start making decisions for the good of LGBT sports - not just for the good of the Gay Games or not just for the good of GLISA we all will be better served. Let's bury the hatchet and start to debate open and honestly and start to work together to make decisions that need to be made - such as perhaps making that 2013 event in Antwerp a 'big' Eurogames (open to others if they want - but 'International' not being the focus of the event) - and likewise getting behind and supporting Vancouver's North American regional event in 2011 and doing whatever can be done to make Gay Games 2014 as successful as possible. We should also be doing whatever we can to start to encourage bids for either regional or the full blown quadrennial events from 'non-gay ghettoes' as Gene says. If we do that we may get this entire worldwide gay sports movement back on track.

And let me reiterate - the key to this will be for everybody to step back and look at the larger picture and to start making decisions that are good for the entire movement - not just what they perceive to be is good for their 'side'. And don't get me wrong - I'm sure there will be some big disagreements - there always will be - but let's always try to keed the 'big picture' in mind. Something I can honestly say has not always happened in the past. I'm guilty, the FGG is guilty, GLISA is guilty - let's all get past that and move forward.

Considering you have some of the most fierce partisans of the FGG and GLISA talking reasonably right here and AGREEING in principle is a major accomplishment. The trick is to get to the GLISA, FGG, and EGLSF leadership and make them understand the significance of this, and that they are responsible to their shared constituencies.

IMHO, the agreement would have to include:
1. first and foremost an acknowledge of a single international GLBT quaddrennial: Gay Games
2. a standardization of a joint GLBT calendar including the sports organizations as well
3. as standardization of some very controversial policies like drug testing and transgendered participation
4. a sharing of the valuable intellectual property developed by the FGG over the last 28 years, e.g..... the GLBT Sports RedBook policies
5. a common Mission statement that addresses some of the sidebar issues like ceremonies, conferences, awards, and non-athletic events
6. GLISA, EGLSF, and the FGG remain intact, cooperating, but each with a very differentiated event(s) focus

I am sure these will cause a lot of interesting discsussion, but it will expedite things if we have the experts lay it all out before the politicos meet.

btw...
I have just closed a deal to get 2 wrestlers to Copenhagen... a NY'r and a Bosnian using donated airline miles and individual donations.
#4 above is moot, since both IGLA and WWB are already using their FGG 'RedBook' rules in Copenhagen.

Given the news recently posted on the Copenhagen 2009 thread, I think it is appropriate to try to reactivate this one, perhaps this time explicitedly asking some sort of reaction from GLISA to tell the community what they think to do to solve this deadlock.

I acknowledge that the current GLISA leadership only inherited this difficult situation from the Roy-Czerniecki-Duthel-Tewksbury gang and their Dolan-Meade-Corbett compatriots and friends that they put at the head of GLISA (both groups which, despite their own statements to the contrary before the Montréal debacle, seem to have disappeared now that there are no longer Canadian interests on the table).

However, I do believe that at these times of distress, the community deserves better than PR-handbook-like, self-congratulatory press releases like this one : This_is_a_significant_event_in_the_life_of_GLISA_and_the_OutGames.

I note that such a self satisfaction is rather incongruous with what M2006 and GLISA made a point of pride of including in their Request For Proposal for OutGames 2 : "Beyond the requirement for the OutGames to include at least 10,000 participants GLISA does not prescribe any aspect of the event". Does it mean that Copenahgen is now in breach of contract?

But a that time M2006/GLISA were attacking the FGG for giving what they consedered to be too many guidelines to the host, in particular with respect to using prudent planning, including participation figures.

Regardless of all this, the community deserves answers now. Even at times when the FGG was under the fire of criticism, several FGG officers during and after their terms have made themselves available to answer to the questions and concerns of the community. Why GLISA officers have always snubbed this forum, which is to my knowledge the only place where these issues are discussed?

Roberto Mantaci
Honorary Life Member of the Federation of Gay Games

But are you saddened by this because of institutional preference for an American city host or saddened because none of the cities you cite had the organizational skills to put together a bid? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the games branch out to BA or Cape Town, but we should all be happy that the three remaining candidate cities (Boston, Cleveland and Washington) are all first-time bidders.

I also question why people are slamming the "gay ghetto host city" phenomenon. Is the mission of a gay games' organizing body to host a successful games or to make political statements? If the goal is a successful games, the organizing body can be assured of a greater number of volunteers from a large local GLBT community and greater tourism spending that goes along with a games hosted in a destination popular with gay tourists. In addition, our straight brothers and sisters in those gay ghetto cities are often more open and affirming to GLBT folks, making the total experience better for the athlete and the fans. If the goal is to make political statements, organizers can expect a lot more controversy, if not outright hostility from the local populace (picketers, church groups, etc.), if it decides to hold them in a conservative place like Utah. (I'm not saying Utahans are unfriendly -- I used it merely as an example of a place that might not be the most gay-affirming, especially given the recent Prop 8 fiasco.)

You hit the nail on the head with your questions.... it is a paradox, these are conflicting seemingly irreconcilable missions. I personally am saddened by the attempted ghettoized commercialization by some of the past GayGames bidding hosts, which would automatically have excluded not only BA or CPT, but even some very deserving American cities like ATL, SLC, or DFW. But I also want financial responsibility (not necessarily profits), and good media PR.

From day one, GayGames -WAS- a major political statement, and its impact on the meteoric growth and success of GLBT athletics is on the effectiveness scale of a few good SCOTUS court decisions.
Just like the Olympics always comes back to Los Angeles to make $$ and get great PR, it does absolutely nothing for changing the culture or increasing the visibility of LGBT athletes where it needs to be changed most. It is preaching to the choir. So then the Olympics goes to Bejing.

That is why I prefer the FGG bidding process and partnership to the GLISA model, which as Roberto points out puts the cart before the horse. With the FGG, model, we -CAN- do what the Olympics does, and rotate the intent around to keep us true to our 'Mission', -and- keep us financially solvent.... but across a few cycles. The FGG makes a concerted effort to include the GLBT community of the host cities and GLBT sports santioning bodies -BEFORE- choosing a host, or asking for upfront $$ from the city itself!

We are victims of our success that our GLBT athletes can today compete anywhere and more than hold their own. They do not need a GayGames in a Gay Ghetto to prove anything anymore, certainly not their elite athletic status.

So our real constituentcy to fulfill our Mission is what I call the 'critical mass', the majority of GLBT athletes; e.g.. recreational, novices, and other abled. We achieved the Mission for our elite athletes 25 years ago. Now we need to open the door for the rest of us, and not be afraid that a Buenos Aires GayGames might be 'socially difficult'. If given the option, I personally would relish fighting for our collective rights where it is really needed most over just another Gay Ghetto party.

So in summary, to answer your question, we need both intentions/motivations in choosing a GayGames host. Just like the IOC, we have to look over the pluses & minuses of past few cycles to decide what is needed at the moment.

To use your Prop8 inference, as a Californian I would put it to you point blank as a series of questions:
What is going to have more of a positive global impact on the lives of GLBT athletes.....
A very large successful GayGames in Los Angeles or a smaller more focused break even GayGames in Buenos Aires or even Fresno?
Will having the GayGames in Los Angeles change the voter perspective of Californians on Prop8 any more than having them in Buenos Aires or Fresno, or will it change no one's mind, and even entrench existing stereotypes (like the last anti-Prop8 campaign did)?
Is Prop8 or any local gay issue something that should even enter the criteria discussion when talking about a true global movement?

Sometimes we who achieved such great rights & freedoms in North American & Europe need to raise our eyes a bit, and realize that a major portion of the world's GLBT population is being left in the dust. I use the derogatory term 'Pride Festival on Steroids' in hyperbole to describe what I do NOT want to use as the criteria for picking the GayGames host.

I have voted in the selection of every GayGames host since Amsterdam '98, as either a representative of Wrestlers WithOut Borders or an FGG officer. This year I will be going to Koeln for the choosing of the GayGames IX host representing Team San Francisco with 2 votes. So I really appreciate these good questions... Please keep them coming!

Gene:

Thanks for the thoughtful response to my questions. I've never doubted that the top criterion in selecting a host city (for any event) should always be the prospect for the most successful games among the candidates. Getting to that "critical mass" is key. But I think part of getting to that critical mass is locating the games in a city or region that the participants will want to go to, either because of its sports facilities or because of its off-court appeal (tourist infrastructure, recreational opportunities, history, shopping, cultural significance, and even gay bars/clubs/social life).

As for my reference to Prop 8... it is a narrow issue relative only to one geographic region and I mentioned it only because it was the top issue that sprang to mind. It has no particular relevance to the current crop of candidate cities.

But back to the gay ghetto. I'd be opposed to a circuit party dressed up as a sporting event (which is, I think what you mean when you used your "on steroids" phrase), but I want to get your opinion on the following. My question is about successful games vs. making a political statement. What if there were two candidate cities: one which promised a smooth ride in terms of GLBT relations with the local universities and institutions (San Francisco, for example) and one which could involve a number of speed-bumps, street protests, etc.? Hypothetically, let's just say the second candidate city was Dallas, but that the Southern Baptist Convention has promised pickets at each venue and boycotts of any commercial enterprise that sponsors events (but assuming Dallas has already assembled the requisite facilities and corporate sponsors to stage the events). The SF experience could be more comforting to participants (perhaps a little too safe for GLBT folks!), but the Dallas event could be more of a groundbreaker. Would the site selection committee be willing to engage in such a political battle?

You cut to the chase of what goes through the FGG delegates' minds when they choose a host.... that is always the elephant in the room after all is said and done.

In 2004 when Chicago was chosen to replace Montreal's backout, the strong contender was Johannesburg ZA! Given the Montreal turmoil, the 2 year window for turnaround, and the familiarity with the Chicago people who already been through a bid twice.... The exact choice was presented to the delegates, and they went the safe route, but not by much.

This time for 2014, we have a safe choice again in 3 capable American cities, so it is a moot point based upon your hypothetical. But for the next cycle, 2018, the FGG may be -very- much ready for that more risky trip to Johannesburg or Buenos Aires, and American cities may just pass knowing the pattern.

I take some issue when you infer that our GLBT athletes, especially the women, would not be up for some uncomfortable protests. Actually, I think we are a lot stronger and more resilient a community than that. I explicitly specifically objected to the veiled inferences in 1997 to the Dallas bid, in 2001 to the Atlanta bid, and in 2004 to the Johannesburg bid, that these cities were 'too dangerous' for white women! Tell that to you average jock lesbian.

IMHO, the FGG needs to explicitly manage the cycle much like IGLA does with their championships... One year Atlantic rim, the next Pacific rim. While the IOC may try an hide what it does, you just have to study the pattern, and it is also alternating weak/strong hosts albeit less explicitly. While it is good experience to bid many times like Sydney, Montreal, and Chicago did, the cost is really getting too prohibitive in spite of the great efforts to reduce the extravaganza of the host selection process.

At the 2001 Johannesburg host selection meeting where Montreal was chosen first ballot over Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles, I was one of a few that was explicitly not pro Montreal because of your very hypothetical... Montreal was an obviously too easy too ghetto reaction to recoup from the Sydney financial loss. However, I had been through a previous Montreal bid when they lost to Sydney, and I was not impressed then either. The strange sore loser attitude when they lost to Syndey was an omen that Montreal was not going to respect The FGG processes. Plus it was a cultural comparison IMHO of apples and oranges... Los Angeles, Atlanta, and especially Chicago had very strong traditions of local GLBT sports. While Montreal was pushing 'European-like city, Gayest city in the world, Canadian Gay Marriage, The Bad Boys Club, and general over the top 'Fabulousness' etc..'. Needless to say I went for Chicago both times as the real reliable 'safer' choice. I was proven right.

But to answer your question, it is my personal opinion that the presence of a GayGames in a hostile environment will always change people's minds much more because of the personal interaction. I have seen it with USA Wrestling. I have seen it in Vancouver GG3 where there were protests, GG5 Amsterdam, and GG6 Sydney. In so called liberal Amsterdam, we had to invoke the city to force their Dutch Wrestling Federation to deal with us and sanction us (insurance!). But once they showed up and met us, they were so impressed they came to our awards party, and I even wrestled one of them exhibition at the party! Today that same Dutch Wrestling Federation has had as its president one of those Tigertje wrestlers who they insulted & discriminated against in 1998.

So a choice for a super great gay ghetto GayGames that is a financial and PR success will take a back seat IMHO to actually effecting meaningful social change by taking the risk. But that is just my opinion.

How will I leverage this philosophy when I analyze the bids for 2014? I will primarily be looking for meaningful -athletic- outreach and scholarship to the USA hinterlands (like Chicago did), followed by the same from Eastern Europe, Asia, ZA, and South America. I could care a whit that the DC & Cambridge universities are very pro GLBT. That is once again preaching to the choir.

Gene:

Thanks for another great response. With respect to your quote above, I do not think I made the inference that GLBT athletes would shy away from protests (and I definitely did not single out women). My point was that a less hostile environment would make for a better overall experience for the athlete, but I can see how my post could cause you to fill in a blank created by my own sloppy editing. I mistakenly edited out of my last post something along these lines: "[provide a better overall experience partly] because the organizing body would be able to focus 100% on the events and not doing damage control or fighting a media war in the midst of the games." I have no doubt that the people who train to the levels of athleticism required for the games would face the protests firmly. My concern was more the havoc that could arise at the organizational level (fear of dropped corporate sponsors, increases to security costs, operating a "war room" to counter the protests and handle media relations, etc.).

aquaman (Liam)

Security today is already big business, and some old lady protests are not going to have much impact on costs. Remember no PR is bad PR. A media war room sparking a buzz would be a plus in promoting registration. I think you have created a 'red herring'. If you remember the Crystal Lake 'anti-Gay issue' with Chicago in 2006, the buzz of confronting narrow mindedness was a major PLUS in getting GayGames into the mainstream news.

Considering the abysmal 27 year history of GayGames $$ sponsors (as opposed to VIK sponsers), there are other issues that impact sponsorships. As for sponsors, It is simply three things: (1) the probability for a good Return on Investment (ROI); (2) a mismatch of 'values'; and (3) the delicate co-branding 'mix' that goes on with GayGames.

Remember, even the Olympics struggles with this sponsorship issue. It is not 1950 anymore, and marketing is not the slam duck it once was. Marketing to the GLBT community is more difficult for the mainstream, and it is an art that few have mastered well because that community is highly educated, highly informed, and sensitive to PC stuff. IOWs, just having a few banners or ADs running in the normal media are not going to have the same ROI as they would with the unwashed masses. The sponsors know we do our research before spending our $$... and this is the antithesis of the usual goal of mindless mass marketing. Throw in we are only 5%-10% of the general population, and it really puts the crimps on ROI.

When you analyze who has the big marketing budgets, they are usually products that IMHO do not match the 'values' of the GLBT community.... like Alcohol, credit cards with pious connections, Fast Food, or services that the community is already expert in like telecommunications. So where is the potential ROI for say a McDonalds in our community? The GBLT community is already much better 'connected' than mainstream, and would be skeptical of a mobile phone hard sell. We are all well aware of what over extended credit cards did to our economy. Alcohol succeeds in spite of the 'values' issue because we don't always practice what we preach. But I am not proud of it, anymore that I would be proud of having RJ Reynolds as a sponsor.

And finally the co-branding issue which is the most difficult to manage because so many of our typical GLBT community sponsors have to do with sex... like Lube, Bath Houses, and Porn. It is the juxtaposition of sponsor images that discourages mainstream sponsors more than anything. This is not homophobia, it is sound marketing. You would not want to market your images of 'Burgers' next to ADs of Lube & Condoms for better anal sex.

IMHO today sponsors would be even more willing than not to take the risk in supporting us on 'social consciousness grounds' if they could just justify the ROI. It is not even homophobia or fear of backlash that deterred sponsors in the past. Certainly this is not a factor anymore with global multinational corporations. The fear of boycotts and protests today is an old GLBT shibboleth.

So dismissing the 'distractions' issue, we are left with agreeing to disagree on the Mission of a GayGames.
IMHO, effecting social change for our community takes precedence over another GLBT event in a safe gay ghetto.
But as I have said, we can have our cake and eat it too by managing the choices and alternating like the Olympics do.

I was about to give a similar answer when Pat said that we should see bids from regions like South Africa. However Gene has never been very good in remembering history correctly, which has been the reason for several of our fights.

When Chicago was chosen at the beginning of 2004 as the host of the 2006 Gay Games after Montréal interrupted the negotiations and decided to produce their own event, the only competitor was Los Angeles, not Johannesburg.

It is during the Gay Games VIII bidding cycle, concluded with the vote in Chicago at the end of 2005 that Johannesburg competed with Cologne and Paris.

However it is absolutely true that the Johannesburg bid came out very strong and had very serious chances to succeed. In fact, when the ballot counting committee came back and announced that we had selected the Gay Games VIII host on the first ballot, I was practically sure that we had chosen Johannesburg until they announced it was Cologne. I thought that the two European bids would need at least one round of ballots to be separated. In addition, especially after Johannesburg’s presentation, there was a clear feeling for many delegates that Jo’burg was ready and that it was time to bring the Gay Games to South Africa. Eventually, as we all know, they were not the majority, but I am sure that one day they will be.

In fact, I was actually surprised and a bit disappointed that Jo’burg/Cape Town decided not to bid for Gay Games IX, as I think that their chances would be extremely good. I was told that Jo’burg/Cape Town believed that 2014 was “a right time” for the Gay Games to return in the US. My personal opinion is the opposite : that it would have been the perfect time for South Africa.

So, like Gene, I am not particularly attracted by the gay meccas and like him I feel it would be time to make the big jump to new frontiers, however I think that unfortunately the issue is much more complex than “gay meccas vs. new frontiers”.

There are many factors that are taken into account by the delegates when they select a Gay Game host. Just to make an example : the concerns about (real or perceived) issues of personal safety and security, especially felt by women, concerns that in some specific cases cannot be dismissed.

And it would be foolish to vote ignoring totally issues like : quantity, frequency and cost of transportations to the host city, density of potential participants in relation to BOTH distance AND travel cost to the host city, and, yes, in some part, popularity of the host city as a travel destination.

Perhaps the true elephant in the room is : what is the impact of a competitive environment vs. a unique event environment on the site selections process ?

I think that if you are in the FGG and have the responsibility to vote to select the Gay Games host, you want to put on the host’s side all chances to make the event successful, and that includes having a host with whom you can collaborate to bring to the Games that critical mass that makes it successful, financially and in any other way.

Now some people are starting questioning whether there is even the need for the Gay Games anymore. Well, without an event that has the appeal, the power and the uniqueness, that come from that critical mass, it would be more difficult to justify the need… On the other hand, let’s not forget that for several participants, particularly in some specific sports or coming from some specific regions of the world, the Gay Games still remains one of the few opportunities, if not the only, to take part in an LGBT sport event.

That critical mass factor seems necessary (but unfortunately not sufficient) for the financial success of the event, in fact all bidders have always made their projections on an estimated participation that averages at 10,000. Is the option of a Gay Games in a new frontier viable, if it does not accomplish participation targets or is unable to generate enough income and ends up in another deficit ? And diluting the critical mass with two events in the four-year cycle certainly does not help.

M2006 took (or tried to take ?) the competition even more in that kind of arena, because it seemed the most favorable to them. They made it a competition strongly based on popularity of the city as travel destination, glitz and parties and tourism appeal, conducted like the spin doctors of an election campaign would do at a time when they think they have the dominant position.

In the end, it all turned around to… generating that critical mass. Tom Czerniecki’s statements back in 2004 were clear: competition is not bad and the client declares winners. The practice of divulging participation figures that were not accurate was aimed to… generating that critical mass. Are polls in politics and society only a depiction of the society at a precise moment in time, or are they able to actually influence opinion and modify behaviors?

Granted, in 2009 the situation is a bit different, but in a competitive environment is there more psychological pressure on the delegates to give more weight than they should to criteria that are related to accomplishing higher numerical participation ? How strong is the desire to generate that critical mass that makes the event unique and still worthwhile because for the special impact it has on everyone that participates?

I think it can be said that that factor did not apply totally for the Gay Games VIII selection, otherwise Paris would have been the perfect choice. Which other city was better able to create a critical mass for participation than Paris, the dream destination for so many people around the world?

After all, the delegates voting for Gay Games site selection are human beings and I think they cast that vote with care and with a sense of responsibility, but they are not machines. And as much as the Site Selection committee has to be praised for making the process more and more objective (score sheets, etc.), each individual votes in part according to what in their conscience thinks to be the best option for the Gay Games overall and in part for their constituency, if they represent one. And that’s alright. In the end, the result should be the one the encompasses most of the criteria of as many as possible representatives of the LGBT sport community It’s one of the reasons why I have always been in favor of an FGG membership (previously directorship) with a spectrum as wide as possible.

Roberto Mantaci

I have participated in only two site selection votes (not counting the votes as Montreal was withdrawing from the Games). In both of those votes I had very torn feelings much as I do as I get ready now to cast my votes for Wrestlers WithOut Borders for 2014 from among Boston, Cleveland, and Washington, D.C.

In the vote between Los Angeles and Chicago, I based my choice on the connections I saw or did not see with local LGBT sports groups, conservative scope of budget (recall what a dicey proposition it was going to be having to market with a competing event). I also polled my clubs and went to southern California to meet with the wrestlers from San Diego and Los Angeles, who would have served as host clubs if the bid had been awarded to LA, to see what their preference was. In my gut I think either bid would have worked out well and that ultimately the vote for most of those casting ballots was probably determined on things such as choice of venues for some of the bigger sports, size of budget, sense of going to a part of the country that had not had a Gay Games, etc. Almost unanimously wrestlers told me not to go to Los Angeles, where we had a club, but to Chicago, where we had none but we knew was smack dap in the middle of an area that produces some of the country's best wrestling. That ended up meaning more work for WWB, but we got a wonderful tournament out of it and we were able to encourage the establishment of a new club.

I think Chicago proved to be a better host than we could have hoped for under the circumstances. But at the time, I was upset that Atlanta had pulled out of the bidding. From what I saw, Atlanta would have been an extremely strong contender because it would have combined some of the infrastructure and critical mass the Gay Games needs with the ability to change attitudes in an area perceived as hostile to gays.

When it was time to go through the bids for Paris, Cologne and Johannesburg, I was excited as I had been when I first was selected to be a WWB delegate in 2003 and though three years from then I'd be in Montreal competing in the Games and marrying my husband. Cologne I had been to and knew what a great city it is, how wonderful the restaurants are, what a jewel it would be for the gay sports community to 'discover.' Paris I had never spend as much time in as I wanted to and, as Roberto says, who doesn't want to go to Paris? And Johannesburg? That was the most exciting of all.

But when I went through the bids and when I submitted my questions and got my answers, my choice was nudged toward the candidate I would have thought least likely. Ultimately I concluded that there was so much infrastructure and so many venues that had to be built in Johannesburg, and the organizers were counting on more out of the federation in terms of sports expertise than what I felt we were capable of delivering and sustaining at that time, that it would be a mistake to go into Johannesburg then when both the city and the FGG were both likely to be much, much better ready for each other in another 4 or 8 years.

I was surprised they did not bid in this cycle, but I think their reasoning is sound; I look forward to their bid for 2018.

This year we are again presented with three strong contenders each with big upsides and also downsides and challenges. I'm familiar with all three cities. When I end up casting my vote, I will not be at all certain that I have made absolutely the BEST choice (no one can know that) and will be very glad that my votes will be just a small part of the total count. One thing I do know: there are no 'wrong' choices among the three.

Go back and re-read the last paragraph of Roberto's previous post. Until you've been involved in the process, you can never know how true those words are.

Suppose that one day a group of individuals decide that outsports.com is "too american" or that it is "too dictatorial" or that they simply realize that a site like outsports in a situation of monopoly represents an indeniabe commercial interest and they want to get a part of the cake and possibly, eventually, the entire cake.

Therefore they independently decide to create a competitor website. Let's call this imaginary website "gaysports.ca".

Suppose that despite the name of the website, and possibly in the attempt to make "gaysports.ca" the leader in this category with respect of number of hits and hence with respect to the commercial value of the ads, this group of individuals decide that "gaysports.ca" will deal not only with LGBT sports but also, and with the same extent, with LGBT culture and LGBT human rights.

Suppose that after a while, it turns out that "gaysports.ca" has more difficulties than foreseen, not only to replace outsports.com as the leader of LGBT sports websites but simply to take off with respect to the number of hits. Their attempt of putsch has failed and they are in trouble.

Outsports.com, on the other hand, remains the leader, however the duopoly situation heavily affects the total number of hits outsports.com receives and hence reduces the value of ads therein, so putting in jeopardy its existence as well.

Furthermore, suppose the entire LGBT sports community is pissed at this situation that basically generates only duplication in contents as well as practical problems such as discussions that take place simultaneously on the two sites, forcing people to follow both sites if they want to keep up. The LGBT community hence starts asking for a return to a unique main LGBT sports website.

In such a situation, would outsports.com accept a "merging" with "gaysports.ca" even if they do not have the least responsibility for its creation ? And should it?

And if so, would outsports.com accept to modify its core mission (which is to cover almost exclusively issues related to LGBT in sports or mainstream sports as they relate to the LGBT community) and include also LGBT culture and LGBT human rights? And should it?

I have written a paper about the "merging" of GLISA and the FGG, which has been published here.

Roberto Mantaci, Former Co-President of the Federation of Gay Games, 2001-2006. Honorary Life Member of the Federation of Gay Games

Hi Roberto:
Thanks for posting that link - interesting article and even more interesting discussion after the article. I take it that you are not a huge fan of conferences and cultural events being a distraction - both financially and otherwise to the delivery of the sports event - The Gay Games. I know from my limited time as the Team Toronto rep on the FGG board back in 1997 and 1998, that at that time the direction from some was that the cultural aspect of the Gay Games - was to be given equal weight or almost equal weight to the 'Sport' aspect of the event - but that direction clearly has changed since then.

In fact perhaps one of the turning points where the sport wing - for lack of better term - began to take control back was when some of the first Sydney 2002 logos came out. The logo had in smallish print across the top the words 'GAY GAMES VI'. Beneath that appeared a large 2002 with a javelin pearcing through the 0's. Then across the bottom it said only 'CULTURAL FESTIVAL SYDNEY'. I had one of the baseball hats with that logo. That made it sound like the entire event was a Cultural Festival to some of the sporting types and they objected and demanded changes. Organizers in Sydney tried to argue the javelin made it clear that sport was an important part of the event. But in the end Sydney relented and the bottom of the logo was switched to a much smaller font that read 'SPORT AND CULTURAL FESTIVAL, SYDNEY'

We've been told that after Sydney's financial results the FGG was determined to have a say on how money was spent - not only to avoid another financial failure - but also to ensure that sports had spending priority over the conference and cultural events. For example be sure there was money to pay for water along the marathon route before using your last dollars on an art exhibit. Is that a fair description?

So I can understand how you reach the conclusion that moving forward the FGG should still stick with the sports focussed model. Of course clearly some others would argue there is an important place for cultural events and conferences moving forward. We'll see where that debate goes.

All of that is a rather long preamble to my actual questions. What do you forsee happening after the FGG and GLISA have these discussions? Obviously it sounds like the momentum is there to return to just one quadrenial event - which will clearly be the FGG's Gay Games. I'm assuming that is where you see things going - correct? I'm interested to hear your thoughts of what should become of GLISA?

Do you see a role for them as an international organization moving forward? Should they continue as a worldwide organization with an emphasis on continuing to develop their Eurogames-like regional events beyond Vancouver and Wellington in 2011? Do you support those regional events continuing? Or should GLISA International fold up shop and regional bodies alone - such as GLISA North America (like EGLSF) be responsible for the regional games in their zone.

If so should GLISA NA be an FGG member? Should the FGG have an official entity such as one of its committees or tasks force be responsible with helping in some official way with ensuring the success of these regional events too? Assuming that they do continue.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts - or anybody else's for that matter on that.
Pat Barry

That direction started to change after GGV, in particular when Niek van der Spek, the director of operations for Gay Games V, in her post-event report at the 1998 FGG Annual Meeting in Seattle stated clearly that they had tried to have a cultural festival on equal footing with the sports festival and that, with hindsight, "they should not have done that".

First, because the cultural component lost a huge amount of money ending up being the determinant factor for the overall deficit of GGV (do you know the economy axiom called Baumol’s law, stating that cultural events belong to the so-called "arcaic sector" and as such are destined to produce deficits?) , and second because they realized that their offer of culture was disproportionate wrt to the actual demand of Gay Games participants, in fact, culture is not the main thing that Gay Games participants expect at the Gay Games and the offer of LGBT cultural events (both worldwide and in particular in the host city during the gay games) remains very high even without the Gay Games host having to produce directly more of them.

It’s funny you mention that episode, because it was I who first raised the question of that Sydney logo at the 1999 AM of the FGG in Berlin. But on that episode, the situation was even more aberrant than having sports and culture on equal footing : sports had purely and simply disappeared from the message conveyed by that logo! I would have challenged anyone who had never heard about the Gay Games to understand that they were a sports event only looking at that logo.


It is a pretty fair description, and the episode you mention about the water for the marathon in Sydney is very real. Despite the fact that the total expenditures of the sports component had been under budget, the money for that water had already been spent (for non sports components) at the time it was needed, and, as we all know, the event as a whole still went in the red by 2M AUS$. Cherchez l'erreur, the French would say.

The reasoning of the FGG was the following: how many LGBT events offer culture and/or human rights conferences? Probably dozens. How many LGBT events offer sports? Only the Gay Games (this was before M2006 created the OutGames). Therefore, if there is one element that make the Gay Games unique, that’s sports and hence sports should be the component on which the host should focus first and foremost its resources, because if the Gay Games do not do that, nobody else will.

Since then, however, the FGG has indentified a set of "core" cultural events that the host is required to produce directly.



I think I already answered to most of these questions (in particular regarding what GLISA International and regional bodies should do) in several posts, including the one that initiated this thread, you can just scroll up to re-read it.

Obviously, I do not think anyone not belonging to an organization is entitled to say what that organization should do. For instance, I do not think that anyone outside the FGG could say to the FGG that they must add a human rights conference to the Gay Games. On that basis, I can only say what, in lights of present circumstances, seems to me the most sensible path.

My personal position is that GLISA and the WOGs add nothing to the panorama of LGBT sports and therefore if GLISA international and the WOG “folded shop”, as you say, there would be no loss for the LGBT sports community, on the contrary, the advantages would be many (see section “the results” in the post that starts this thread).

On the other hand, I have always stated my support to continental events. Once again, it is not up to me to say how these events should be managed and by whom, however it would make much more sense that the regional bodies (e.g. GLISA NA) and not a worldwide organization would do that, following the model of EGLSF/EuroGames. At that point, obviously there would not be much left for GLISA Int’l to do, but that problem is only related to GLISA's choice of substantially only duplicate things that already existed.

I also already responded in the first post of this thread that these continental bodies have all their place in the FGG and in fact that their joining the FGG would be "ideal".

Should GLISA international also join the FGG if they remain alive as an independent organization? The answer is why not, as long as, (and this applies to ANY organization who would like to join the FGG, including the regional bodies) they totally embrace the FGG core missions and pledge to foster it. Arguably, until GLISA Int’l promotes another quadrennial event in competition with the Gay Games, they are not yet eligible to the FGG in my opinion.

I do NOT think that the FGG should be involved in any direct way in those continental events, like I do not think that the FGG should be responsible for the success of events organized by other organizations -- FGG members or not -- like IGLA or IGLFA championships or the EuroGames. That would be a huge interference on those events and probably unacceptable to the organizations like IGLA, IGLFA or EGLSF, who manage them, as well as something that is way beyond the core mission of the FGG, the Gay Games, which is already a huge task in itself.

Not only is this a concrete documented example from 1998 GG5 Amsterdam GayGames, but similar examples from 1990 GG3 Vancouver GayGames, which 'proudly' elevated cultural events to the same level as sports for the first time, and produced the first deficits; but also GG4 NY'94 GayGames as well, which inappropriately tried to compete with very competitive cultural NYC by renting City Center for a massive modern dance event, and sold very few tickets. There are numerous examples of documented 'cultural' mis-steps over the years in GayGames that have contributed to deficits. IMHO, it is a FACT that needs to be accepted and not ignored for PC reasons.

The most telling data comes from the 2002 post Sydney survey of the 26k GayGames constitutents identified and contacted from the registration databases of 1994 1998 2002. That survey produced a response of 10% that -clearly- directed the FGG to refocus on sports, along with a lot of other data that up to that point was suspected, but not validated. It was this survey that was the underlying validation for the 'Image of the GayGames' whitepaper. I will locate that survey and get permission to repost it here for those who do not remember the great effort the FGG took to find out what their constituents wanted in a GayGames.

IMHO, it is has been this consistent FGG effort to deliver a GayGames which reflects what its athletic constituents want, not what the Pride, Tourism, or Political-Conference axis of GLISA wants, that clearly distinguishes the FGG. There is none of the grassroots connection to the athletes in any of the GLISA operations. It is all manipiulated by a few people out to steal a Brand. Their press releases are purposely dominated by references to non-athletic stuff like conferences, culture, politics, and even my pet annoyance luxury cruises. It is this major disconnect that IMHO shows GLISA as a shell that will resort to stealing FGG resources to achieve credibility (re: Copenhagen Secretariat's report that has the hubris to credit Sydney GayGames reports and data, all FGG property!).

What I do not get, is why GLISA is given a mindless pass by so many Canadians, and I suspect subtle anti-Americanism.

Sign the Petition to keep GayGames 50-50 Sports-Culture...

An online petition calling for the continued sports-culture focus of the Gay Games has been created and is available for people to sign.
This petition will be presented to the Federation of Gay Games at its annual meeting this month in Cologne, Germany.
Your signature and email address can be kept confidential, but will be used internally to make sure you do not vote more than once.
You can go read the Petition at the URL link below.

The petition's author, Roger Brigham, is a journalist with the Bay Area Reporter, Edge Magazine, a coach with San Francisco's Golden Gate Wrestling, and the President of Wrestlers WithOut Borders.

We both believe strongly that smaller sports will be pushed out of the GayGames in favor of non-athletic/less work human rights Conferences and Pride parties.

Lets keep Tom Waddell's vision alive, keep GayGames about the 'Games': More Sports, Less Talk.
Please pass this petition on to other interested parties

http://www.gopetition.com/online/30647.html

Thanks
Gino

OK Gene and Roger - I'm going to make you work for my signature. I very much understand your motivation and support it in keeping 'smaller' sports in the gay games. But I'm also a big believer in gay rights and feel advancements in that area will help encourage greater gay participation in all sports - including the smaller ones. So would it not make sense then - that there be some way to associate the human rights element - which I'm sure we all support - in an official capacity with the Gay Games as GLISA has done with the first two Outgames.

Surely there must be a way that the two can go hand in hand without negatively impacting the work of organizations like yours who do a great job for the wrestlers. Perhaps scale back the conference so it is not as much a financial burden.

My concern stems from the fact that I know in Montreal some of the international attendees - who participated in sports programs - were only able to attend because of bursaries or funding they received related to them attending the conference portion of the event. They then were able to participate in the sports programs which all started after the completion of the conference in Montreal.

So I want to be sure that in supporting your worthy efforts to keep smaller sports in the Gay Games - that we don't inadvertently prevent some smaller sport participants - who come in through the conference back door - from finding that door locked in the future.

I hope you understand what I'm saying there. I fully support your efforts to keep smaller sports - but I'm not convinced the approach you are taking to do so is the best one- that's all.

I'd immediately sign a petition simply asking for the protection of 'smaller sports' in future Gay Games.

Thanks for the opportunity....
My issue with the HRC is not the event per se, but the excessive investment and exposure it gets by GLISA in elevating it BEYOND its effectiveness. Copenhagen like Montreal WOGs outsourced their sports to STR8 mainstream organizations, and did almost nothing to create the athletic buzz & critical mass so important for this kind of LGBT event. You saw what happened. HRCs will not fill hotel rooms (athletes will), and I RESENT the athletes being USED as bait to support the HRCs.

I also RESENT the extraneous preaching to the choir victim focus of the HRCs co-opting the athletics. There are limited resources to put on a successful GayGames..... Sports deserves more resorces, not less. Instituting HRCs at would drain resources and do little politically or for critical mass registration, in fact it will hasten the demise of the smaller LGBT sports.

You read all the PR media hype... Most of the crap I read never even used the word sport or athletic.. In fact the word 'Baltic Cruises' was used more times. I do not think these HRCs are effective because if they were, they would be out of business. All vicitm talk, all whinning, no ACTION PLAN! BUT... Particpation, Inclusion, and Personal Best in athletics brings in the registrations. GayGames has proven this, with an average of ~10k athletic registrations since 1994.

I also do not like a lot of the extraneous topics thrown into the typical HRCs that are antithetical to healthy LGBT sports particpation (different thread!). Playing sports in a mixed str8/lgbt environment accomplishes far more politically in CHANGING MINDS than these navel gazing HRCs. I challenge anyone to compare the records of the various GayGames LGBT sports organizations in their accomplishments with mainstream sanctioning bodies to ANYTHING these HRCs have accomplished (except to schedule a follow up HRC).

I suggest you read the 225+ signatures & comments on the petition, with some very heavy hitters, from all over the world.... The message is simple.... there are many other venues for HRCs. GayGames can and has done them, but they are NOT a major focus.. something to be outsourced with a controlled POSITIVE message about sports.

Roger will give the good cop reason for you.
Thanks again..

Pat, the Gay games hosts have always had the capability to have the conference component sufficient to allow for the 'bursary' concerns you mention. The concern is scope, proportion, and subject. Thus the petition very clearly states, "We believe any conference component of the Gay Games should focus on sports and sports rights issues, be done in conjunction with the Games but outside the organization of the Games event, and exist as a tertiary activity." So this would keep the capability that has always existed and been exercised, only with the caveat not to make them a major component and not to stray beyond sports/sports rights issues. For example, 'negative recruiting,' homophobia in sports, empowerment through sports and HIV treatment concerns as they relate to sports drug testing would all be very valid and welcome topics.

For me, the petition was very much needed and launching it has been an enlightening process. I -know- the human rights component of sports because I have lived my whole life with it and I spend hours every week coaching inner city students to help them take command of their lives and steer their destinies. But recognizing that my viewpoint is not necessarily universal (and seldom is), I needed to make sure that there were sports people out there who felt as I do -- sports people who were perhaps too busy giving back to sports to have spoken up before when the topic was conferences. I have had sufficient emails and comments that I now know that I was correct.

In addition, I have seen the private concerns I have had voices but leaders of numerous sports organizations and numerous athletes. Their comments have been inspiring and informed, passionate and pragmatic.

It is not a negative petition; it is a very positive reaffirmation of the things that we cherish about the Gay games and wish to see preserved.

More than 245 signatures now ... and more than 40 percent of them have taken the time to file comments. Personally, the coolest for me to read are the ones whose lives I know I have helped change through sports, or who have helped shape my life.

Hey Gene and Roger.
Thanks or taking the time to reply. After considering your arguments and reading some of the other comments on the petition as Gene suggested I added my name to the petition this morning with this personal comment. (Which for somebody long winded like me took a few tries at editing what I wanted to say to keep the reply within the 500 character limit allowed. lol)

I came out in my mid 20's & even then I wasn't that comfortable until I joined the gay v-ball leagues & softball leagues in Toronto. Many friends today are people I either met directly there or from other cities through the many gay tournaments those sports offer or events like the Gay Games. I recognize for some smaller sports the Gay Games may be one of the few similar opportunities. So as much as I support HRC's I also support this petition's goal to keep smaller sports in the Gay Games.