After being given one last chance to accept the Federation of Gay Games conditions for hosting the games in 2006, Montreal has walked away from the bargaining table and is severing all ties with the FGG. The change can already be seen on the Montreal 2006 web site, where all references to the Gay Games have been removed.

“November 10, 2003 will remain for me, and for thousands of gay and lesbian athletes around the world, a day of mourning,” said Mark Tewksbury, an Olympic gold medallist, accusing the FGG of failing to bargain in good faith.

“Montreal’s opportunity to bring forward the ideals of participation, inclusion and personal best as put forward by Tom Waddell have just been crushed by the members of the Federation of Gay Games (FGG) who have, after two years of negotiations, rejected Montreal’s final offer to present the Games,” said Tewksbury. “We realize now that it is time to break with the past and with an organization that ultimately represents little more than itself, with only 21 of the 1000 sports teams around the world being FGG members.”

“Our event will take place without the FGG,” declared Tewksbury. “Our vision remains the same. We will offer the best sport games the gay and lesbian athletes of the world have ever seen.”

The announcement leaves the FGG with two major crises. First, it must find a new host city for the 2006 games. Among the possibilities that have been mentioned is Atlanta. Second, it must also contend with two sets of games in 2006, likely to be the greater problem as it forces teams around the world to decide which they will support.

“Their decision was not altogether a surprise,” FGG spokesperson Jake Stafford said, adding, “The games do not belong to the host city. They are for the global LGBT community.”

The biggest issues dividing the two sides involved the FGG’s oversight of the Montreal budget, and the number of athletes who would compete. The Montreal group, headed by Canadian Olympic gold medallist Mark Tewksbury, wanted a much larger number of participants than the FGG recommended, and the FGG “insisted on total financial control.”

“They are showing a perplexing disregard for the federation and gay teams from around the world,” said Stafford.

The finger pointing between the Federation of Gay Games and Montreal 2006 over who was responsible for the acrimonious split between the two intensified late last week, with both sides issuing lengthy press statements defending their positions and accusing the other of misrepresenting the facts.

The FGG disputed the Montreal allegation that the Federation had sought financial control over the Montreal games. The FGG calls it “robust budgetary oversight.”

The FGG said “after a fourth consecutive Gay Games budget deficit at the Sydney Gay Games in 2002 — this time largely due to over speculation in the amount of attendees — the Federation felt stronger than ever that it is the Federation’s responsibility to monitor the financial undertakings of a host city to ensure that participants at future Gay Games, including Gay Games VII, need not doubt the future of the event due to overspending.”

Montreal 2006 says it “has received statements from each of the past host cities that make it clear the leadership of the FGG was a major cause in making their own events a failure. Contract negotiations with both Amsterdam and Sydney, the past two host cities, both almost ended in failure. The problems faced by Montreal 2006 in the negotiation process seemed to be the culmination of years of dysfunction within the FGG itself.”

About all the two can agree upon is that they will each go their separate ways with, Montreal hosting it’s own gay sporting event in 2006 and the Federation in the process of finding a new host city and possibly setting a new date for the Gay Games.