By Cyd Zeigler jr. 

The Federation of Gay Games had it right in 2001 when, after long deliberations, they decided Montreal was the best choice for 2006. While there are some receipts left to be counted, the rest of the ballots are in and it is official: The Outgames kicked the Gay Games' ass.  

I went to both events. I went to both opening ceremonies. I traveled around their respective towns and I took in a number of sports. And there is no question who put on the better event. Virtually everything about the Outgames was better than the Gay Games, from the opening ceremonies to presence in the city to organization of the sports to evening activities. My final grade for the Gay Games was a C+ (which, after experiencing Montreal, I now think was too generous); My final grade for the Outgames was an A-, which is about as good as you can possibly expect from a reporter who is digging his nose into every nook and cranny of the event. 

While organizers in the months leading up to the competing events didn’t want to talk about it, their conversations with me at their respective events and afterward have told the story pretty clearly: They were watching the other one, comparing the two events, and they each wanted to do a better job. When the media in Montreal started questioning the Outgames on attendance at events, Chicago 2006 quickly issued a press release about what they claimed was better-than-expected attendance at their event. Organizers in Montreal were gleeful after the first day that their opening ceremonies were getting rave reviews compared to the negative reviews Chicago's opening ceremonies received.  

To me, the Gay Games' biggest failures were twofold. First, the overall tone of the event and presence in the city left much to be desired. In Montreal, St. Catherine Street was shut down (albeit partly because of Gay Pride, but that was all in the plan from the very beginning), creating a wonderful meeting spot for participants and spectators. Viger Square served as an incredible athletes' village of sorts. There were signs and posters and front-page newspaper articles and Jumbotrons telling you that the Outgames were happening and boy were they fun! In Chicago, there was none of that. No energy. Sure, there were some bars you could go to at night, but it wasn't even in the same league as what Montreal accomplished.

The other failure, and this one is possibly the bigger one, was the organization of the sports themselves. The reason I say it was bigger is because this is what the Gay Games was going to hinge its success on. I remember a Federation of Gay Games director telling me about 18 months ago that Montreal was just going to focus on parties and, oh by the way, have a couple poorly run sports events to keep people busy during the day. Chicago, on the other hand, was going to have first-class sporting events that were well-organized and well-run.  

But it was the virginal Outgames, Montreal 2006 and GLISA that put on better sporting events than the 24-year-old Federation of Gay Games. It was the Outgames' athletes that were singing the praises of the organization while many Gay Games athletes were moaning about their sports. According to the athletes I spoke to after the events, the Outgames were "top-notch," "completely organized," "extremely well-run," "the officials were terrific," "the venues were great," and "the volunteer base was phenomenal." In contrast, at the Gay Games, the "organization was poor," sports "were poorly officiated," "medals ceremonies were a bust," "the scoring was messed up," and "the venues were whack."  

The Outgames' success was probably the worst thing to happen to the Gay Games since the death of Tom Waddell. I'm left wondering, if another group, who hadn't put on an event like this before, can do a better job than the Gay Games, then what is the need for the latter? Is it just a 24-year-old brand that people have a sentimental attachment to, or does it still have a unique purpose? If the Outgames can continue to do a better job, then what will become of the Gay Games? I don't know, but we'll have a better answer four years from now.

I'm happy for the athletes, especially the first-time athletes, who chose the Outgames over the Gay Games. They experienced in Montreal the professional-feeling event that will become the new standard by which all future events are measured. 

I heard of one athlete saying he wants his money back from Chicago. I don't entirely blame him. 

While some slack has to be given to Chicago for putting together an event in just 30 months (they usually would have gotten double that), even more slack has to be given to the Outgames for putting on their very first such event. This was the seventh Gay Games; it was the first Outgames. The former should have had 24 years of information to pull from to organize an event; the latter should have stumbled and fumbled its way to the finish line. Instead, the roles were reversed and the Outgames ran their event like seasoned professionals; the Gay Games took a step backwards from what they did in Sydney four years earlier. 

The criticism coming out about the Outgames now is that they didn't have as many athletes as the Gay Games. And that's a legitimate beef. The Outgames were going to be bigger and better than the Gay Games; they got the latter right, but the former they fell short on. I was surprised to hear that the Gay Games had more athletes than the Outgames. In Montreal, it certainly didn't feel like it to me. 

What sticks in my craw, though, is that this all could have been avoided if the Federation of Gay Games had just stuck to its own plan. In 2001, they awarded Montreal the right to host the Gay Games. After the Sydney Gay Games in 2002, they decided to change the rules. They wanted more control of the finances. They wanted to force Montreal to plan for a smaller event. The organizers in Montreal balked and, in the end, the FGG pushed Montreal to walk away and we were all left with a choice. 

If the FGG had simply stuck to the plan and believed in the Montreal organizers, it would have been a wildly successful Gay Games with a budget surplus. Instead, the FGG let its own internal politics and hunger for power usurp what was a good decision in 2001.  

The most memorable conversation I had all week in Montreal was with 81-year-old Len Tritsch, a runner and coach for the Seattle Front Runners. He expressed disgust with the Federation of Gay Games, saying that he was tired of their politics and chose to go to Montreal instead of Chicago because of that. 

"There's a difference in philosophy between the Outgames and the Gay Games," he told me. "To me, the Gay Games is a top-down organization, and the Outgames have been more inclusive." 

I completely understood where he was coming from. That top-down management and dedication to politics is what created this rift in the first place. The FGG has long not only told people what they were going to do, but they try to tell people how to do it (one recent post from a Chicago 2006 organizer even told an Outsports member how he could talk to the FGG!). Until the FGG can start listening a little more and talking a little less, they'll continue to push people away. 

Now we're left looking into the future. Personally, I think the existence of two quadrennial games is not a bad thing. Each of these groups put on a better event this past year because of the competitive spirit that existed because of the two events. In the future, they'll be spaced out a year apart. The FGG could make it a lot easier for everyone by moving their event by a year (GLISA has already extended this gesture by moving their event one year); but, they won't because, at the end of the day, they're more interested in playing the sport they play best - politics - than in making life easier for gay athletes.  

What will help the Gay Games is their attachment to many organizations. International Gay and Lesbian Aquatics has their championships every four years at the Gay Games. Same thing with the International Gay and Lesbian Football Association. If these groups, and others, rethought that and opened themselves up to holding it at the Outgames instead, then the Gay Games would truly have to compete with the Outgames, and that's something the Gay Games really doesn't want. Politics is the sport the FGG plays best. 

While some may not be able to attend both, many more than could this past year will be able to. And I encourage everyone to support both events, and continue to support their local and national events as well. It's hard not to have a good time at an event with hundreds, or thousands, of gay athletes. Despite the politics and bullshit behind it all, the organizers would almost have to go out of their way to send athletes home thinking they didn't enjoy themselves.

But, after attending both of these events this year, if I have to choose again, my choice will be easy. The Outgames put on an event that I didn't think was possible. They shared a vision for these Games that was more wonderful than anything I had seen in Sydney or Chicago. If the Gay Games does some listening and less talking, maybe they'll get a glimpse of that same vision. But, I doubt it. 

Related
Jim Buzinski: Chicago saved the Gay Games

Complete Gay Games coverage

Complete Outgames coverage

Aug. 8, 2006