clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Gay Games 2014 bid analysis

New, comments

Longtime Federation of Gay Games member Roger Brigham has been kind enough to pore over the three final bids for the 2014 Gay Games, and he's written a synopsis of them for the Bay Area Reporter. Of course, everyone's wondering whom the FGG will select in September, and Brigham's analysis gives key insight into all three. I haven't seen the bids, but Brigham's analysis seems to lean toward Washington DC as the favorite. I have been intrigued by Cleveland's bid, but I hadn't even thought of the fact that the 2006 Games were "right down the street" in Chicago; Will the FGG really want to return to the Midwest so quickly? And the tenor of Boston's bid frankly sounds a little cocky or out of touch or something. Part of the bid reads:

The progressive nature and equality of the Boston and Massachusetts community will provide an environment of openness and comfort that the Gay Games has not seen in 25 years.

Really? Did any of them go to Sydney in 2002? Have they heard of a rather progressive city called Amsterdam, which hosted the event in 1998? And the atmosphere in Chicago seemed pretty open and comfortable to me. An odd, overreaching claim for them to make.

My thought on DC's potential ace in the hole? As Brigham observes:

Team D.C. became a member of the FGG in 2003; neither Team Boston not Team Cleveland is a member.

That can't help Boston and Cleveland.

I personally can't support DC's bid because they are the only one with no flag football. How can it be that a city with one of the longest-running gay flag football groups, which has won the Gay Superbowl twice and his hosting the Gay Superbowl this October just a couple weeks after the FGG vote, has no flag football; And Cleveland, with no history in gay flag football, included it. The message to DC: Make flag football happen!!

Regardless, I still say DC is the favorite.