In the wake of Montréal and the Federation of Gay Games (FGG) going their separate ways on the 2006 Gay Games, the FGG is moving forward to ensure the future success of the games. At their annual meeting this month in Chicago, the FGG board approved a contingency plan for selecting a new Gay Games host city among candidates not chosen if, for any reason, the relationship ends between the FGG and the originally selected bidding organization, as it did this year.

“Gay Games supporters around the world can be assured that the Gay Games is going forward and its history will be respected,” said Paris-based FGG Co-President Roberto Mantaci. “I am personally proud that our board refocused its work to ensure that the Gay Games event remains a strong statement to the world about matters of importance involving the GLBT community in sports and culture.”

This contingency plan calls for each of the potential host cities to submit a revised budget and plan for a Gay Games VII in 2006, preferably not to conflict with the dates being proposed for the Sports and Cultural Festival in Montréal that same year. A copy of a proposed contract between the host city and the FGG will be included as part of the materials from the FGG. The alternate cities have been asked to indicate preliminary interest in the re-bid process by Dec. 1, 2003, with a formal bid due by Feb. 1, 2004. A new host for Gay Games VII will be selected by March 14, 2004.

Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles were the other candidate cities in 2001 when Montréal was chosen to host Gay Games VII. All three cities’ bidding groups entered exploratory discussions with the FGG’s site selection committee after the FGG and Montréal 2006 ended their relationship following a lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful license agreement negotiation.

However, a week after talks about a new bid for 2006 began, Atlanta — the runner up to host the games — pulled out of the process.

“It’s been two years since Montréal was selected. To start a four month re-bid cycle now for Games scheduled in 2006 would put any city at a clear organizational disadvantage,” said Atlanta Games President Margie Archer. “We cannot in good conscience ask sponsors and city partners to participate in a bid process that we disagree with and will put the winning city in a losing position as the 2006 games rapidly approach. AGI continues to be committed to the Gay Games movement and hopes that the 2006 host city will be a huge success.”

The only two remaining cities from the original bid process for the games are Chicago and Los Angeles. In the original voting, Montréal received 31 votes from the selection committee. Atlanta received 13 and Chicago got 11. Los Angeles only received one vote, and so far has not indicated that they will be entering into the new bidding process.

Chicago issued a statement saying, “We remain committed to the Gay Games movement and will spend the time necessary to appropriately consider the FGG’s request to re-bid to host the Gay Games in 2006. Preliminary discussions among the organizers of our initial 2006 bid will be followed by consultations with the City of Chicago, our proposed sponsors for 2006 and the GLBT community. We are aware of concerns regarding the cost of such an effort, the shortened planning time, and the public relations challenges because of the public disagreement between Montreal and the FGG. However, Chicago has a long and rich history of support for the Gay Games and the Federation of Gay Games and we want to act in a manner that will ensure the continuation of that movement. Therefore, we plan to seriously consider the FGG’s request for a re-bid. If we can develop a plan that would be fiscally sound, would not put undue hardship on the Chicago Area’s GLBT community or its organizations, and would be enthusiastically supported by the city, our sponsors, and the community at large, then we will seek to bring the Gay Games to Chicago.”

To help with future bids on the games, an official “Image of the Gay Games” position paper was also adopted by the FGG at the board meeting in Chicago. The paper includes recommendations from previous hosts, as well as suggestions from Gay Games participants, and serves as both an internal policy statement and a practical guide to future bidding organizations developing their plans to host a Gay Games.