Since the day the First World Outgames were announced, there has been a segment of the gay community that sought first and foremost to destroy the Outgames. The latest installment is a press release from Team San Francisco publicly refusing to support the Outgames or athletes attending the event in 2013. From Team San Francisco’s press release:
Reacting to the announcement that the Gay & Lesbian International Sports Association (GLISA) plans to hold a third World Outgames in 2013 in Antwerp, Belgium, Team SF held internal discussions as to whether it could in good conscience support WOG3. Following those discussions, the Team SF board approved without dissent the following motion:
Team San Francisco reaffirms its historical commitment to the long established and internationally recognized Gay Games as the preeminent quadrennial global LGBT multi-sport and cultural event. We believe unity behind the Gay Games is an effective and visible means of empowerment, and that continuation of the World Outgames would constitute a dilution of finite resources and a detriment to our community. Therefore, Team SF cannot and will not support any future World Outgames, and we welcome our fellow athletes and artists from across the globe to join us at the Gay Games.
While the Outgames and Gay Games have already announced the intention to hold joint games in 2018, that isn’t enough for some. I just don’t understand the need some have to try to destroy an event that thousands of people enjoy.
One very odd part of the press release really stood out to me, a quote from Team SF president Tyler Cole:
The Gay Games have changed thousands of lives across the globe every year they are held and are the best means we have available to come together in arts and athletics. The World Outgames gravely diminish that potential.
Two big problems with that statement. First, the Outgames have changed lives as well and continue to do so; The Gay Games don’t have the patent on “changing lives.” Second is this assertion that the Outgames dilute the Gay Games and “gravely diminish” their potential. Essentially, Cole is saying the Gay Games are so weak they can’t be maintained unless they’re the only game in town. I couldn’t disagree more. The Gay Games have a wonderful legacy that will be maintained for years to come whether there’s an Outgames or not. It’s a shame that someone running Team San Francisco has such little faith in the Gay Games.
I’d love to see the events merge into one quadrennial event again. But I’m not going to stomp my feet and try to demand that one of them ceases to exist to appease my whim.
Two (of several) factors cited by Team SF for their resolution: 1) “a notable registration decline since the advent of the WOGs in 2006,” and 2) “resources being stretched too thin to support multiple, competing events resulting in ‘tournament fatigue.’”
Um, from what I’ve seen there will be a notable registration decline for the Gay Games from 2006 as well. And “tournament fatigue” is more a result of an explosion of single-sport gay sporting events in recent years. Should the softball tournament in Seattle and the volleyball tournament in Las Vegas and the football tournament in Chicago cease to exist to make way for the Gay Games? Hardly.
I attended the Outgames in Montreal and loved it. I attended the Gay Games in Sydney and Chicago and loved them, and I will attend the Gay Games in Cologne this summer. And I’ll love it. These events are all fun and empowering, and I will never understand the need some have to shit on everybody else’s good time. I’m glad the Federation of Gay Games and GLISA have learned that attacking each other is the biggest problem; Too bad not everyone has learned that lesson.
Here’s the full press release:
Backing Gay Games, Team SF vows no support for Outgames in 2013
SAN FRANCISCO May 31, 2010 — Reacting to the announcement that the Gay & Lesbian International Sports Association (GLISA) plans to hold a third World Outgames in 2013 in Antwerp, Belgium, Team SF held internal discussions as to whether it could in good conscience support WOG3. Following those discussions, the Team SF board approved without dissent the following motion:
Team San Francisco reaffirms its historical commitment to the long established and internationally recognized Gay Games as the preeminent quadrennial global LGBT multi-sport and cultural event. We believe unity behind the Gay Games is an effective and visible means of empowerment, and that continuation of the World Outgames would constitute a dilution of finite resources and a detriment to our community. Therefore, Team SF cannot and will not support any future World Outgames, and we welcome our fellow athletes and artists from across the globe to join us at the Gay Games.
The action builds on Team SF’s 2009 resolution recommending a restoration of the EuroGames to all non-Gay Games years and that “the long established and internationally recognized Gay Games be the only quadrennial global LGBT multi-sport and cultural event beginning in 2010.” (See www.lgbtsportsfuture.wordpress.com.)
“We have heard only good reports from athletes who enjoyed competing in the EuroGames in Antwerp, but we believe staging another World Outgames is simply not in the best interests of LGBT athletes,” said Team SF President Tyler Cole. “The Gay Games have changed thousands of lives across the globe every year they are held and are the best means we have available to come together in arts and athletics. The World Outgames gravely diminish that potential.”
Factors cited by Team SF board members in their discussion included a notable registration decline since the advent of the WOGs in 2006, resources being stretched too thin to support multiple, competing events resulting in “tournament fatigue,” a desire to keep a mission focus on sports and culture rather than subsidizing conferences and parties, and Team SF’s historic ties to the Gay Games. Organizers of last year’s World Outgames in Copenhagen said they were unaware of the resistance to the WOGs or the difficulties they created for LGBT sports organizations. Team SF wants to make Antwerp aware of the situation well in advance.
The Gay Games were born in San Francisco, where the San Francisco Arts & Athletics hosted the first two LGBT quadrennial global sports and cultural festivals in 1982 and 1986. Since then the Games have been held in Vancouver (1990), New York City (1994), Amsterdam (1998), Sydney (2002) and Chicago (2006). This year’s Gay Games VIII will be held July 31-Aug. 7 in Cologne, Germany; and the 2014 Gay Games will be held in Cleveland, Ohio.
When the decision was made by San Francisco Arts & Athletics to take the Games out of San Francisco under the newly created Federation of Gay Games, Team SF was formed with a mission to support Bay Area athletes going to the Games, and that historical connection shows in past registration numbers.
Team SF board member Gene Dermody, who has served the FGG as a president, sports officer and technical officer, said, “In every Gay Games since Vancouver 1990, the absolute Gay Games registration has reflected huge San Francisco Bay Area support. Team San Francisco has been one of the first and strongest supporters of the FGG, often supplying crucial leadership, including about a dozen Team SF leaders who moved onto FGG leadership roles. I analyzed all of the registration databases from Vancouver on, and categorically, Bay Area registration has been anywhere from 10 percent to 15 percent of the total registration. This is a sizeable representation, and illustrates the power of Team San Francisco in promoting events.”
on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 2:24 PM
I strongly agree with Team SF,although I hate to discourage any effort to promote gay sports. I have alas aged out of my sports, so this does not directly affect me. The GG are a precious jewel, a unique product of an otherwise diffuse and often fractious oppressed community. I cite it to those who dislike our community and its organized events as an incredibly positive and constructive event which promotes healthy behavior and self-esteem No other community has achieved such a great success
on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 2:25 PM
I strongly agree with Team SF,although I hate to discourage any effort to promote gay sports. I have alas aged out of my sports, so this does not directly affect me. The GG are a precious jewel, a unique product of an otherwise diffuse and often fractious oppressed community. I cite it to those who dislike our community and its organized events as an incredibly positive and constructive event which promotes healthy behavior and self-esteem. No other community has achieved such a great success
on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 3:33 PM
I have to admit I originated and pushed hard for this motion in TEAMSF. I am a founding member of TEAMSF going back to 1987, having attended ALL the GayGames. I do not understand why Cyd does not appreciate and respect that TeamSF is VERY different than almost all other city teams. It started the whole GayGames LGBT Sports movement, especially with basketball, wrestling, softball, etc.. and it feels a deep loyalty and repsonsibility to the legacy of Tom Waddell.
The histories of almost all organized gay sports can be traced at some point to GayGames 1982 and San Francisco, not at all to Montreal 2006! That has to count for something.
TEAMSF is not discouraging ANYONE or ANY TEAM from going to WOGs. I went to compete in Antwerp in 2007, and LOVED IT! But I doubt if Cyd or many of you have every served on these city teams for long periods through a GayGames/OutGames cycle…. I have since 1987, and have earned that right to speak about it. It is a LOT of work. Having to deal with the added burden of yet another major quadrennial in the span of a 2 years makes you believe Jim Buzinski’s tournament fatique symptom is very real. Just think about ordering uniforms, double silk screening 2 events, collecting $$, deadlines, and distribution… It is a nightmare, especially in these days of lower volunterism rates.
So please do NOT read anything more into this TEAMSF policy other than it is narrowing the down of TEAMSF’s mission to JUST the GayGames: scholarships, uniforms, fund raisers, travel/housing options, web sites, etc… As Cyd says rightly, the LGBT sports teams have replaced the city teams as the real power in this struggle for a Single Quadrennial event (1QE) anyway.
Within TEAMSF, the driving force for this policy was the very low registration numbers for Martial Arts (26) and Wrestling (6) in Copenhagen WOGs that made me (wrestling) and Ken Craig (martial arts) re-evaluate our previous WOGs support. We simply wasted too many resources on it, and needed to re-entrench our focus and send a clear message to our members and international governing bodies about reliable WOGS regsitration numbers.
TEAMSF feels strongy as a leader in the community, it has the responsibility because of its experience to TELL its members that they risk very low registration numbers with WOGs for many sports. For Copenhagen, it was ~$2k to show up for an event with NO OPENING CEREMONY, and in the case or Martial Arts, Figuring Skating, and Wrestling, limited if any competiton.
Sure there are nicer ways to get this message out, but TEAMSF has limited resources to even get done what it needs to, and not try to get honest registration numbers out of a WOGS. Not even OutSports can do that.
on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 5:20 PM
Hey Gene: I do understand what you are saying and do appreciate the special situation of Team SF.
Having said that though I hope Antwerp is successful, just like I hope the regional Outgames in Vancover and Wellington next year are successful too.
I do agree though that from 2014 onward – there should only be one quadrennial event and I’ll repeat what I’ve said in other boards. After Cleveland in 2014 I hope there are fairly major regional events in each region (like the Eurogames) in either 2015 or preferably 2016, with no ‘major’ regional events scheduled for 2017 or 2018 that would either directly or indirectly compete with the one quadrennial event in 2018. No problem if Eurogames or even other regions for that matter return to the pattern Eurogames had pre-Outgames of smaller regional events in the year immediately before and after the Gay Games and the ‘major’ version of their regional event separated by two years from the main international quadrennial event.
And again – what to call that event – again I’ll paste here what I’ve posted elsewhere. Personally I don’t have a huge objection to Gay Games – but lets face it – whether we like it or not – over the last 15-20 years ‘Gay’ has for many become to mean exclusively homosexual men. That is why so many Pride events are no longer called ‘Gay Pride’ and it is why organizations like the International Gay Travel Association changed their name to International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association.
And without being some ridiculous acronym like The LGBTITQT etc Games some of the obvious alternates would be:
Queer Games – ‘queer’ youth seem to not to mind that term but many older gays still seem to have a problem with that term ‘Queer’ – myself included.
Rainbow Games – a possibility – but as a partner in a business with Rainbow as part of the name ‘hip’ marketing people are always trying to tell us Rainbow is such an old fashioned reference to our community.
Outgames – realistically a good option for most people would be my guess with the obvious exception of those closest to the FGG who hate it because Montreal/GLISA spawned it.
The only other idea that popped into my head would be to go in a different direction altogether and call them the Tom Waddell Games.
on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Thanks Pat..
But you miss the entire point by jumping to something as far more controversial as branding. While I vehemently disagree with this fear of using the word GayGames, it is irrelevent in this discussion… It is not going to happen in the very near future no matter how many times some people say it. Be honest, changing the brand is just a convenient way to destroy GayGames in the short term. The 2010 Manchester joint press release was premature and mistaken to say it, and it was subsequently withdrawn.
There are too many GayGames stakeholders who are just fine with ‘GayGames’, and too many political types who never went to a GayGames who want to enforce their political agenda.
The issue is too many quaddrennials in an overly tournament fatigued calendar. I supported Copenhagen. But it failed the smaller sports miserably, and we have to be honest that WOGS is an over reach that confuses & stresses the calendar for us organizers. Yes to regional games, yes to continental games, yes to EuroGames, NO to WOGs. It is that simple because business is business.
TEAMSF will not be the only group coming out with these pronouncements in order to force the issue with GLISA to concentrate on what they are good at. I will be the first to support Antwerp 2013 when it reverts properly to a EuroGames or continental games. When I went to Antwerp in 2007 as a EuroGames, it was great and inexpensive. Can I expect that an Antwerp WOGS will be as inexpensive even though probably the SAME size? No, I have to use my experience with WOGs. I expect another over priced event with low registrations if any smaller sports. I cannot honestly recommend that to my stakeholders. We can agree to disagree, but frankly anyone can register for WOGS, I wish them luck.. really… but the market has shown it cannot bear it (cf: Copenhagen Report). So no one can tell me I have to support them recommend them or compromise my principles for kumbaya. Let them volunteer with their teams and sport organizations and make their voices heard. I will respect that. But it is hubris to expect people like me to just accept opinions without experience and research, based upon feel-good slogans.
on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Gene, you and many of the people on Team SF are pioneers. Roger, Jim, you. Groundbreaking. But that press release doesn’t reflect the hopes of people who have the best interest for the movement at heart. It was so over-stated, and I truly think it shows a lack of faith in the Gay Games themselves. Besides, the two groups seem to be coming together. Just odd timing, hyperbolic language – I think the press release misses the mark.
on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 7:07 PM
Thanks Cyd..
I appreciate your kudos. But the statement is not over the top or hyperbolic. It is quite logical and does not attack. The fact that it is generating this discussion has already made it achieve its objective. It simply puts the mission of TEAMSF in a more realistic perspective for the so called leadership (who think they have our ‘best interests’ at heart) to better understand our grassroots predicaments.
Just who are these people and what is their pedigree that they think that destroying the GayGames brand should be the #1 strategy to achieve kumbaya.
Isn’t that policy position just too edgy, aggressive, and presumptive?
I am glad though that you see this as serious policy differences and not as personal attacks. This is a real debate not only with those of us in San Francisco, but with the entire GayGames Movement, and I object when people say that ’someone’ has already decided the outcome without an open honest debate.
We in TEAMSF are doing what we think we have to do to better serve our stakeholders and the LGBT athletic calendar. We welcome debate, we offer suggestions, but we are protective of our reputation, contributions, and heritage.
on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 10:00 PM
If I may be both indelicate and jokey, WOG [an acronym for "worthy oriental gentleman"is a racist epithet in white Anglo society for a person of color or of any non-white non-western European heritage . When I lived in Scotland, it was a commonplace racist statement that" Wogland begins at Carlisle"[a town on the border with England] How clueless of Montreal’s greedhead junta not to be aware of the connotations of the name they had selected, but typical of their self-righteous blindness as to the damage they were wreaking on our community, which is their ineradicable legacy in gay sports history- damn them!! I think they deserve to be forever banned from gay sports [ the Pete Rose verdict] Put that in your pipe, GLIZARDS, and smoke it!
on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 10:31 PM
“TEAMSF is not discouraging ANYONE or ANY TEAM from going to WOGs.”
I dunno, a statement like “we believe staging another World Outgames is simply not in the best interests of LGBT athletes” is sort of discouraging. Unless the statement is “Outgames is a garbage event, but go anyway.”
on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 11:34 PM
Hey Joe.. that is funny… and I see your point… but there is REAL data here… this is not blowing smoke.
I have Wrestlers from all different clubs asking me if they should save their $$ and go to Antwerp in 2013 or Cleveland 2014. As an organizer and leader with experience and expertise, should I just say nothing to make the PC types happy? The LGBT calendar is screwed by this Antwerp WOGS in 2013.
Wrestlers look for at costs and the opportunity of a lot of diverse competition as the hook.
i.e…
Sydney GG 2002 90 wrestlers 110 matches
Montreal WOG 2006 26 wrestlers 9 matches
Chicago GG 2006 100 wrestlers 100 matches
Antwerp 2007 EuroGames ~28 wrestlers
Copenhagen 2009 6 wrestlers total..
SanFrancisco Memorial Day 2010 30 wrestlers 43 matches
What would you tell the wrestlers… save $2.5k to go to Antwerp 2013 and take their chances that they will have any competition? I guess I can tell them if they don’t wrestle, they can go shopping for diamonds.
I KNOW Cleveland will get > 160 wrestlers, will be more like ~$800, and more like Chicago/Sydney.
I can give the SAME analysis for Martial Arts and Figure Skating.
As responsible leader I have to honestly advise my constituencies based upon data, not somebody elses’ kumbaya. If WOGs were more honest and timely with their registration#s so athletes could make informed decisions about flights and registrations, I would be more open to being less biased and decisive. But Montreal and Copenhagen were only interested in filling hotel rooms, and the smaller sports be damned.
Wrestlers WithOut Borders already has published that it will not support Antwerp 2013 2 years ago, not just because of Copenhagen. Cleveland’s FGG contract actually forbids the FGG from supporting Antwerp 2013.
This is business, not kumbaya politics. Make Antwerp 2013 a low cost EuroGames or Continental Games, and the problem is solved.
on Jun 4th, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Hey Gene:
I don’t have a problem with it staying the Gay Games – but I look at everything else that was originally called Gay and suspect the same will likely eventually happen to the Gay Games. I do think though that the FGG should be predominently in charge of the 2018 event and the Outgames folks should concentrate on partnering to make that work and by being the people to further develop and deliver the regional events.
Now if there is a name change to Outgames does that mean the FGG becomes FOG? lol – appropriate for an event started in San Francisco don’t you think.
And count me among those who was surprised when the Antwerp Outgames were announced. If it does stay as an international games – perhaps they should not even offer some of the sports that they are not likely to get enough numbers in to run a good tournament in that sport as per some of the examples you noted above.
Other than us agreeing to disagree on the likelihood of a brand name change – I don’t think our overall positions are really that different.
on Jun 4th, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Pat..
There are so many ways to honestly approach this 1QE issue with stakeholder input without angst. But I am going to be stickler for honesty and pedigree from these kumbaya types who only truck in pretty words like ‘can we all just get along?’.
This is serious business when you talk about a brand (GayGames) that has been around almost 30 years. The GayGames stakeholders, the ~19k registrants from previous GayGames, many of whom hold medals, records, and memories should have some input before erasing this event from history. This idea that we (GayGames) should just give up a brand to make the PC types happy is not going to fly.
This difference may be a generational and cultural difference between us. But I am more than willing to listen, debate, and compromise when I see more than kumbaya words in the discussions. But I will not be a party to a sellout by weak leadership, and I will not be bullied into not putting out facts about the competing events that stakeholders and future regsitrants need to know when they spend thousands of dollars.
We are not here to just blindly book hotels and airfaires without some level of comfort and reliable facts (and I am not attacking you personally because of your business). But this blind kumbaya promotion of events without giving out the past facts is being dishonest to our community. TEAMSF is just taking itself out of the business of vetting the WOGS based upon past history. This is not a boycott, or a condemnation, or an attack. It is just good business to serve your constituents honestly. But it seems I upset the hotel lobby of WOGS.
on Jun 4th, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Sorry SF, but you make just a tiny blip. You think you run the whole gay world but you don’t. TO say “TEAMSF is not discouraging ANYONE or ANY TEAM from going to WOGs” and then put out that type of press release…dude THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE.
I’ll go wherever the fuck I want to go and Team SF will have no say in it. Support me, don’t support me. I don’t care. I don’t do it for Team SF….I do it for ME.
on Jun 4th, 2010 at 5:00 PM
Cyd,
The Team SF is not an attack, it is a delineation of a position.
I have never felt animus to organizers and supporters of WOGs, I have never denied their right to do as they wish. I do think they are well intentioned but the numbers indicate their actions are unintentionally harmful. If you do wish the bellicose analogy, than I would have to say many sports and sports organizations have been under heavy ‘friendly fire’ for several years now and we want it to stop.
We have had one quadrennial event since 1982; we want a return to that, and the simplest way to do that it to stick with the brand that has been there for decades and has the stronger registration numbers.
It was important for Team SF to speak up because up until now, the conversation regarding quadrennial events has been almost entirely been discussed in terms of FGG and GLISA. Reality is it is the athletes and artists and their organizations we should be more concerned about. If we said nothing, we would be enabling this dysfunctionality. Yes, we knew some people would be upset, but we do not believe it is our stance that is the source of stress: the source is an overburdened quadrennial calendar. End the WOGs and help the continental games grow.
on Jun 4th, 2010 at 8:30 PM
Dear Papa Smurf..
Nothing in the TEAMSF pronouncement is at odds with your libertarian choices. They coexist just nicely.
But it does say a lot when you say:
“….I do it for ME.”
TEAMSF is trying to say something to help OTHER people make some expensive decisions.
on Jun 6th, 2010 at 10:44 AM
I get the feeling that TeamSF wants what’s best for TeamSF, not what’s best for the world community.
on Jun 6th, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Honesty is best for everyone.
Kumbaya emotional whirled peas means nothing…
“What’s best for the World Community?” is idealistic Hubris.
How about a rationale business model backed by facts in advising someone on how to make a decision to spend thousands of their dollars?
You have the option to have your -organizations- say and do whatever they want on this issue, and I would WELCOME hearing the rationale. But this libertarian silent kumbaya is not working.