Nov 14, 2003  |  By: RYAN LEE  | COMMENTS     

A bitter two-year licensing dispute between the Federation of Gay Games and the host city for the 2006 games ended earlier this week in a dramatic showdown at the Federation’s annual meeting in Chicago.

After a weekend of intense negotiations, organizers from Montreal announced they were severing their relationship with the Federation, after the two groups failed to agree about the size and scope of the Gay Games, and who should have the final say during planning.

“When we won this thing in 2001, none of us signed up on the route that has actually happened,” said Mark Tewksbury, a former Olympic medalist and co-president of Montreal 2006, the group organizing the games. “It’s been a sad and difficult journey.”

The Federation — having endured four consecutive deficit-posting games — wanted Montreal organizers to downsize their participant and cost estimates, and pay a $655,000 licensing fee to use the Gay Games trademark.

Montreal organizers were planning for 16,000 athletes to attend the 2006 Gay Games, and had worked out a budget that fell between $12.4 million and $17.1 million in Canadian currency. To avoid budget problems, the Federation wanted the number of athletes pared down to 12,000.

Montreal predicted more athletes and spectators would attend the 2006 games because they were being held in North America for the first time in 12 years.

Montreal also protested the Federation’s authority over planning, saying the group wanted to make decisions without contributing financially or logistically.

Marathon negotiating sessions produced dueling proposals and after reaching a dead end, Montreal and the Federation officially severed ties Nov. 11.

Competing events?
It is uncertain what impact the split between Montreal and the Federation will have on the gay sports world.

Two years into planning for Gay Games VII, Montreal organizers remain defiant about still hosting a gay international sports and cultural festival in 2006 without the official Gay Games banner.

“It’s sad it won’t be under the Gay Games banner, but all of our partners are completely on our side, and we’ve received great support from gay athletes across the world,” Tewksbury said.

The Federation is uncertain if the quadrennial games will proceed as scheduled in 2006, and has initiated discussions about how to select a replacement host city, according to Jake Stafford, a spokesperson for the Federation.

Whether the bid process would be entirely re-opened, or if only the cities that originally vied for the 2006 games — Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles — would be eligible was not decided by press time.

Montreal organizers initially hinted they may sue the Federation and any city that hosted the Gay Games in 2006.

“I think it’s curious that Montreal feels so threatened by the Federation that they [would sue],” Stafford said. “It’s just continuing this attitude Montreal has had all along of the Federation as their enemy instead of their partner.”

Montreal leaders meant they would be prepared to fight any legal battles that may surround Montreal hosting a separate sporting event in 2006, Tewksbury said.

Battle for control
The Federation and Montreal’s public divorce earlier this week capped two years of bickering between the two sides over how big the Gay Games should be, and who should control it.

Both of the last two Gay Games — held in Amsterdam in 1998 and Sydney, Australia, in 2002 — were plagued by financial shortcomings and smaller than expected attendance. With the Gay Games name on the line, the Federation wanted to have oversight of how the event was planned, including size and cost, Stafford said.

But since Montreal was paying more than $500,000 to use the Federation’s brand — and received no financial or technical support from the Federation — it should have the final say over how the event is planned, Tewksbury said.

Both sides indicated they would try to hammer out an agreement at the Chicago conference.

“I am really an optimist by nature and I did expect something would break through and happen this week,” Tewksbury said.

On Nov. 8, Tewksbury and other Montreal leaders met with three representatives from the Federation in a 15-hour private negotiating session that lasted until the next morning.

Dissatisfied with the lack of progress, Montreal organizers thought they’d gain more sympathy by presenting their case to the Federation’s full board of directors on Nov. 10, Tewksbury said.

“But at the meeting of the full board, we answered nine questions in an all-day meeting,” Tewksbury said. “We were not allowed to ask any questions, we were not allowed to make any statements. Our entire [portion of the meeting] took no more than 12 or 15 minutes.”

Stafford disputed many ...