For those who have been calling for the last six years for a united quadrennial gay-sports event, that possibility is now on the horizon. The FGG and GLISA are considering merging their Gay Games and Outgames events and holding a joint event in 2018. From the European Gay & Lesbian Sport Federation, who held their annual general meeting last weekend in Manchester, U.K.:
For LGBT sports people, however, the most historic moment occurred within the Assembly itself, when the Co-Presidents of the Federation of Gay Games (FGG), Emy Ritt and Kurt Dahl and the Co-Presidents of Gay and Lesbian International Sports Association (GLISA) Julia Applegate and Wessel Van Kampen outlined a proposal for future collaboration between the two organisations, which includes the proposal to organise a joint world event in 2018.
I don’t have an opinion whether there should be one or two quadrennial gay sports events, but it is really great to see the FGG and GLISA working in partnership.
Hat tip to Fred K.
on Mar 10th, 2010 at 8:23 AM
It sounds great to me! I just don;t think the community is big enough to support seperate games.
on Mar 10th, 2010 at 8:25 AM
It sounds great to me! I just don’t think the community is big enough to support separate games
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 6:20 AM
I have to admit that I have concerns about this proposed joint venture, though the theory is sound. The two organisations are so different in their approaches that it will be difficult for them to agree on practically anything, especially on matters financial which I seem to remember was the root cause of Outgames setting up in the first place.
Hopefully I’ll be proved wrong, but, I suspect, if the proposal goes ahead, that 2018 could well turn out to be all about the glorification of the “Pink Dollar/Euro/Pound” rather than what it should be – a sporting competition for the worldwide LGBT community.
So my hope is that the event would be more on the GLISA ideals rather than the FGG’s, which at the end of the day is an American “Inc”.
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 1:22 PM
I’m confused by your comments, Mark. If anything, you should have reversed your conclusion to say the event should be based more on Gay Games ideals. The conflict between the FGG and Montreal was largely around funding, but not “the FGG wants more money,” but around the FGG’s need to ensure that the next Gay Games was financially sound (noting that previous Gay Games had lost a lot of money for the organizers.) Montreal’s complaints were that they didn’t want to give the FGG monitoring power over their budget, not that the FGG wanted a big check. The FGG’s recommendations were to scale back, focus more on the sports & culture components, and less on big tourism endeavors. In the end, the FGG’s worries were proven absolutely correct as Montreal lost more than $5 million CAD whereas Chicago’s Gay Games broke even.
Additionally, the entity running the event in Montreal – and in Copenhagen – was the tourism industry, whereas the FGG’s site selection process gives strong weight to community involvement, again an important part of the FGG’s grassroots ideals. Moreover, the FGG has emphasized sports (some say to the detriment of the cultural component) and has advised host organizations to focus on the production of a great sporting event, even going so far as to recommend that some typically “for-profit” activities like parties be farmed out to other people.
And, while we’re at it, the Montreal situation did not grow out of a conflict between the FGG and GLISA. GLISA was created by Montreal Tourism AFTER the break with the FGG had already taken place. In fact, OutGames Copenhagen people and Gay Games VIII Cologne people have gotten along quite well.
It’s simply not accurate to suggest that the FGG is focused on the the dollar at the expense of strong ideals. Your entire statement above makes sense only if in your last paragraph you swap FGG for GLISA and GLISA for FGG (and avoiding the gratuitous anti-American comment at the end while you’re at it).
Kevin Boyer
Co-VP Chicago 2006
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 1:41 PM
Kevin and I were apparently typing at the same time! Well, here’s mine:
I’m not sure where you get your information from, Mark, as your conclusions are contrary to public information.
GLISA’s main point of difference is that its Outgames add more non-sports events to the programs, chiefly the human rights conference component. As well, its founding body from Tourism Montreal was specifically all about holding what it initially hoped in 2006 would be the world’s largest LGBT event in history – arguably far more about tourism cash and future marketing aims than about LGBT sport. Before Outgames I was even held, Tourism Montreal turned the reins for Outgames II over to Wonderful Copenhagen, another tourism group.
The Federation of Gay Games has always been happy to have tourism support of local bids, but to date the best bids and eventual hosts have come from groups led by local LGBT community sportspeople, not led or controlled by local tourism groups.
As for the “American Inc.” charge, I’m not sure why today’s FGG need apologize for its founding roots. The FGG’s principles of an event that’s sports-oriented, financially sound and community led make sense across borders. In particular, for two decades now the Gay Games has enshrined the notion of running sports according to internationally recognized Masters rules wherever possible. So why is it necessary that the nationalism card be played every time this topic comes up?
Charlie Carson
FGG Board of Directors, 1994-2007
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 3:38 PM
read Roger’s column today in the SF BAR:
http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=4611
Someone needs to remind the overly zealous kumbaya striken Manchurian Candidate co-presidents they do not have the authority to agree to anything without the board and the assembly… especially something this substantial, without research and discussion. Now that they have think they have tricked the board because of PC pressure, we will see what happens.
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Well, geez, I contemplated whether or not to post my views on this, but since reading prior posts, I can no longer remain silent. I do not pretend to know a great deal about the OutGames other than what has been mentioned: financial losses, human-rights oriented aspects, and Montreal’s initial split with the FGG which predicated the forming of OutGames. Participants seemed to enjoy themselves and find the event worthwhile.
It seemed from the beginning that having 2 competing international sporting festivals was limiting the success of both of them. I certainly understand how different ideals and methodologies could force a split, but from a larger perpective, the resulting situation didn’t seem viable long-term. The concept of the groups combining and finding common ground in which to join forces sounds like a great idea to me.
Having said that, though, I can also say that my belief in the FGG and its ability to maintain respect in the international community has been severely damaged after observing it in action. What I witnessed were constantly moving regulations, lax enforcement of rules, absent standardization of criteria on any front, and unprofessional behavior by members of the FGG with a great degree of influence in decision-making.
Some of you recognize the references I make. Others of you probably know that I was a member one of the losing bidding teams for the 2014 Games. The comments I make here are in no way intended to reflect the opinion of our contingent at large, or even any other members of our contingent. Only they can speak to their views. I want to emphasize – though perhaps you may think differently – that my views are not ’sour grapes.’ That would be an easy way to dismiss the problems. Furthermore, the Gay Games have, in many ways, provided the most amazing highlights in my life, moments which have defined my future, built my self-esteem, and provided me with the faith that the world at large can elicit miracles.
The concept of the Gay Games (or whatever the combined festival would be called), is honorable and righteous, and there are individual members of the FGG and its Board who are fine, upstanding, dedicated proponents of the Gay Games and the mission Tom Waddell envisioned nearly 30 years ago. But, and this is a big but (so to speak), massive organizational and procedural changes must be made to bring the level of professionalism and integrity up to where the FGG purports to be. Not only do bidding cities need to be judged by the same objective standards, but the qualifications of those rating the cites and those casting votes need to be examined. Facts need to be verified, behavior needs to be addressed, and transparency needs to be adopted.
My words of advice to both groups before plunging headlong into an agreement: look very carefully and diligently into the other organization. Make sure all their standards, rules, behaviors, regulations, finances, motivations, guidelines, and principles live up to what our great community warrants and deserves.
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 4:43 PM
(While plucking at my blouse) So what, who cares? Until the boards of both organizations agree, this is like the biggest non-announcement ever.
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 5:54 PM
LOL to J. Behar’s post. To the world at large, that’s absolutely right.
To Steve H. — Got a million euros/dollars lying around somewhere for staff? (I’m only half-kidding.)
I hope you gave this feedback directly to the FGG after the meeting last October as well as here. 30 years after the LGBT sports movement began, it’s still grass roots organizations supporting similar grass roots organizations in charge of the large events. I wasn’t at the last bidding round for the first time in 5 cycles, but what you say has been a perpetual struggle, and in no small part due to the fact that grass roots organizations share similar aspects whether local, national or international. I hear exactly the same things about EGLSF, and I’ve seen in person the same things within our international sports groups around the world. A key dilemma is constant everywhere — in short, where’s the talent?
Long sentence: Why don’t LGBT lawyers, business leaders, accountants, sports experts, communications professionals, others with more than a few years’ experience in their fields — and who already belong to our local grass roots groups — agree to be nominated by their associations that belong to the FGG Assembly to serve a four-year cycle (or more) to ensure the global event is run at the level the community ostensibly demands? Or run for office on the FGG board? And, in cities where a Gay Games is being held, why do so many of them wait until the last minute to volunteer to make that event a success?
Perfect example (and only one of many): Women are constantly underrepresented, and they fret and complain about it — yet few women step forward to get involved at these decision-making levels.
There are a lot of meetings between now and a site selection for 2018. I agree this announcement was way premature, but it’s already clear the world agrees the old cycle was better. Getting there without people figuratively killing each other is the challenge ahead.
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 5:58 PM
the Outgames folks will never negotiate peace with FGG.FGG is bureaucratic out of necessity, as it is a loose federation of autonomous sports organizations who need to be carefully guided to consensus, as Robert Mantaci did so expertly
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 6:17 PM
As I said to you in Cologne, Steve, your input on the site selection process is very good and I hope you gave it to the FGG. That said, I experienced that process twice (from both sides) and in the first go-round I was angry and had a lot of the same comments to make. However, having seen how the FGG took great efforts to be accurate, fair, and thorough with the 2014 process I think the progress made is extraordinary, especially for a volunteer-run nonprofit organization.
Just like with the IOC process, the site selection process can always improve and specific feedback is the way to make that happen. But in the end I felt like the FGG Board members had more information than ever before, had objective as well as qualitative data, and also had good discussions that helped them make a mission-based decision. Either of the 3 bidding cities would have made amazing 2014 hosts.
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 11:35 PM
Charlie –
Certainly I didn’t mean to disparage those volunteers who spend so much time and energy making organizations like the Federation a driving force in the worldwide communty. I understand the limitations of working with a largely unpaid group, and it has always been one of my pet peeves to hear people complaining while sitting on the sidelines, letting others do the work. In 1986 I spent six months, unpaid, full-time, as Co-Executive Director of the Colorado Athletic Exchange, building momentum for a team of more than 125 to represent the state in San Francisco at GGII. It was always distressing to get those bits of criticism (e.g. ‘I’m not giving any money because you left me off the mailing list last time.’) which seemed to ignore the greater issue, as well as the time and staff needed to cover all the bases. Seeing and hearing from those who attended the Games and for whom it was a life-changing event was reward enough to erase any negatives.
I coudn’t agree with you more that those with the expertise, money, and time should be stepping forward and becoming a more active part of organizations so vital to our community. Unfortunately, with advances in acceptance, and ease of lifestyle, many settle down in their lives without even thinking about the ways that organizations can use their services. It’s distressing to watch the petty and superficial issues eating up our time and resources.
Charlie and Kevin,
My issues with what I witnessed (as we talked about in Cologne, Kevin) were not related directly to understaffing or lack of resources, although perhaps correcting some of them might require more people getting involved. The most distressing thing I experienced was the complete disregard for rules and regulations, the lack of consistency in procedures, and the absence of ramifications for breaking stated regulations.
To answer your question, Kevin, I have enumerated my issues, with specific examples, to select members of the FGG. Wishing not to reflect poorly on the Boston contingent – as I mentioned before – I did not write an open letter to the Board at large; I trust that pertinent issues will be discussed at future board meetings.
My distress was further hightened by the highly subjective and non-standardized method by which cities were judged, subsequently presented to the voting members, and the lack of a level playing field of required data and issues from each city. Why was one venue rated higher than another? Was there some quantitative method of regulating personal prejudices? What experience do each of the cities, and each of the individual sports, have in organizing LGBT tourneys? What has been the history of the LGBT sports community in each city? What are the specific criteria that each voting member should investigate before casting their vote? Should they be discouraged from casting their vote solely on a single issue, like how many badminton courts are there, or how many locker rooms are in the tennis facility? How much emphasis is put on the concepts that are distributed to the bidding teams? Are these issues also the ones which are most stressed to the voting members (e.g. athelete’s villages, close proximity of facilities, interest of the city’s other attractions, taking the Games ‘to the next level,’ experience in organizing within the gay sports community, fundraising history and experience)? How are the Games going to be a positive influence on the city, and the image of our community in the greater world? How much participation in prior Games has the bidding city shown? Should bidding cities be allowed to refute allegations against them? Should bidding cities be allowed or encouraged to make comparisons between them and their competition? At what point does cameraderie and good will end and hardball tactics begin? How does the Federation react when rules are bent, or behavior is questioned?
In short, when a bidding city spends tens of thousands of dollars (and sometimes hundreds of thousands) pulling together members of their community, their business and government leaders, the experienced organizers of their LGBT community, the professional sports leaders of their citiy, volunteers, and fundraisers, they should be secure in the knowledge that their efforts will be reviewed without bias, will stand on their own merits, and should they overstep their bounds in any way, they should be prepared for repurcussions.
Lastly, it is certainly probable that my objectivity is compromised when discussing these issues. But, as I explained to you, Kevin, there were far too many anomalies in the process in Cologne for anyone to come away with the impression that the bids were viewed with equal objectivity. This had nothing to do with staffing or time limits.
It bears repeating that the premise the Games was founded upon is a noble one and should be respected and encouraged. In addition, I highly laud those who have so generously given their knowledge and time in making the Games a force in the LGBT community. What I ask in return, though, is the discarding of personal agendas, the honoring of fairness and equality, and the professional demeanor and behavior every participant, board member, and supporter has earned.
on Mar 12th, 2010 at 9:14 AM
@Steve H, if you can’t point out any specific instances of “constantly moving regulations, lax enforcement of rules, absent standardization of criteria on any front, and unprofessional behavior”, you shouldn’t write anything at all. What you write is vague and boring. So what? Who cares?
on Mar 12th, 2010 at 9:58 AM
J. – ‘Who cares?’ seems to be a common thread with your posts. How unfortunate that you approach the seriousness of these issues so cavalierly without deliberation or thoughtful comment.
My goal is not to denigrate individuals or publicize specific behaviors, or to air all the laundry that was displayed. I have spelled out my specific issues to people in the FGG, complete with details, and feel that providing those on such a public forum as this would do nothing to further the cause of the Games, the desire to correct flaws, or advance the reputation of any of the bidding cities, vounteers, FGG board and members, among other issues.
I thought that my last post would have listed a great deal of the issues confronting the process (did you not read the third paragraph?) without having to spell things out in detail.
Don’t expect that to happen. Despite my misgivings with the FGG, I respect everyone involved too much to reduce the discussion to a level which would only appeal to the baser instincts of those wanting a story.
on Mar 12th, 2010 at 10:52 AM
@Steve H. How high-minded of you to allege all kinds of bad things in a public forum and then offer nothing to back it up. Yeesh.
Back to the topic…when are we doing to know if 2018 will be one event or not?
on Mar 12th, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Steve – while I appreciate your viewpoint, I think a lot of what you experienced can be summed up simply by saying “people make the decision, not computers.” In the aftermath of the loss by Chicago for the 2016 Olympic bid a lot of people asked “why?” There was a lot of second guessing about our city’s overall effort, and about the IOC members. At the end, it sounded like the IOC voters coalesced around a central theme – it was South America’s time to host an Olympics (with a bit of anti-Americanism harming Chicago that seems to always be part of IOC decisions). At the beginning of the process everyone thought “2014 will be a practice run for Rio, 2018 will be the real deal.” They proved they were ready now and so the IOC made a mission-oriented decision.
As I mentioned in Cologne, I didn’t vote, but talking with some delegates afterward it was clear to me that nobody voted on a single issue like how many badminton courts there are, nor was any city’s bid discussed negatively. For every glitch, no city had anything in their bid that did, or should have, disqualified them from consideration. In fact, everyone commented on how refreshingly well-qualified each city was, and how well everyone prepared their bids and presented them. From the public comments I read afterward, that seems to have freed the FGG Membership Assembly to consider the mission and vision of the Gay Games as they made their decision.
FGG co-President Kurt Dahl said this to the Cleveland Plain Dealer after the announcement: “We want to change people’s perceptions through sports and culture. Cleveland is the one that really could help further that cause along.” This sentiment reflects a lot of what I heard in Cologne from others.
I really believe that was the core of the decision, a mission-driven one. People don’t seem to have voted against Boston or DC, but rather FOR Cleveland because of the opportunity it represents. Certainly not everyone will agree, but I walked away from that meeting feeling like the FGG had turned a significant corner. Having established and followed (with some blips, of course) a professional, thorough, and well-informed site selection process – the best ever – they were offered an opportunity to make a decision based on what they thought would be best for the LGBT sports movement.
It’s tough to come out on the other side of that decision, and the arguments can go on forever about whether a different choice could have helped them achieve their mission. And, of course, your experience – just like my experience with Chicago – will be used by the FGG to improve the process even more. I hope you’ll take the chance to make your next comments directly to the FGG, or you can email me directly and I’ll pass anything along.
Kevin Boyer
on Mar 12th, 2010 at 1:39 PM
@J – Thank you for your thoughful and insightful comments.
Ken – I would be more than happy to discuss this further with you, and in more detail. I am searching for a more direct email address. Clearly, this forum is not appropriate.
on Mar 12th, 2010 at 5:55 PM
What, no props for my comments being insightful? LOL
kevin.boyer@allterrain.net
on Mar 12th, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Thanks, Kev. That made me guffaw. You’re comments have always been insightful.
on Mar 14th, 2010 at 3:25 PM
I’m actually excited to see the next Gay Games going to a smaller market city. I have been following their bid and the enthusiasm and city support seems to outweigh the other two bidding cities enormously.