About 50 people attended a Dec. 11 Town Hall meeting to discuss the potential of Chicago re-bidding to host Gay Games VII in 2006. The group was about evenly divided, with athletes and business people on both sides asking the tough questions about should the city bid when Montreal is going ahead with their own plans for a festival in 2006.
The same questions we are addressing in the re-bid group were raised. Those include:
1) Can we attract athletes from outside of the U.S.?
2) Will anti-American sentiment, including because of our HIV immigration ban and higher expenses, mean that many will choose Montreal instead?
3) Is there enough time to produce the best Gay Games possible in just over two years?
There are not solid answers to these questions. Decisions will need to be made based on the best information available. The questions and input provided Dec. 11, as well as in individual meetings with city and state officials and other community donors, will help shape Chicago's decision. Dozens of new individuals have come forward to volunteer for the potential re-bid, and most of the original volunteers are also stepping forward to help decide.
The Dec. 11 meeting first focused on the actual plan for a Chicago bid. The bid would be due Feb. 1, so everything presented was a very preliminary version done in just two weeks. The original bid took more than two years, so two weeks just gave us enough time to outline a potential new plan.
Dennis Sneyers, the man who helped spark us all to do the original bid, spoke first about the Gay Games movement, followed by Kevin Boyer discussing the Federation of Gay Games annual meeting, the negotiations with Montreal, and the past few weeks of work. Boyer and Mona Noriega (the Chicago 2006 original co-chairs) oversaw the discussion period at the end.
In this revised new plan, we cut the number of athlete participants down to 12,020. The cultural program is for 2,500 in the only three required events—choral, band, and a Rainbow Run. Scaled-down opening and closing ceremonies rounded out the bid. All other events would be done by licensed vendors, with a share of proceeds going to the Gay Games organization, in exchange for cross-promotion and marketing considerations.
The budget, also in transition, has been adjusted down to $7.3 million in expenses, including a 10% contingency and the Federation of Gay Games fee. The revenues of the preliminary plan are about $8,496,000, including a large portion from participant fees. With this budget, again still being fine-tuned, the surplus would be more than $1 million, leaving a lot of flexibility. Many of the expenses are directly tied to revenues.
R. Sue Connolly, Liz Valenti and I have been working closely on redrafting a budget and event plan that focuses strongly on the athletes and downscales all elements of donations, government and corporate funding.
The sports program is the core of the new plan. Suzi Arnold, sports director for the original bid and now co-vice president of the Federation of Gay Games, presented a program that calls for registration fees starting at $125 and based on 12,020 athletes, some sports with just 200 slots, some more than 1,000 (popular sports such as softball and tennis). However, all of the sports start at a low break-even point—and each would allow for more participants if interest developed.
The important planning element was to see if we could create a budget and sports program that could have a low threshold of break-even, with room for growth. Most past Gay Games athletes have come from the U.S., but the midwest itself has had a low turnout. Given that half the U.S. population would now be within driving distance of a Gay Games in Chicago, our assumption is that if we can fill most sports with midwest athletes, the remaining athletes from around the world would be 'gravy'—they would just make the effort that much more successful, but even with a lower turnout the Gay Games would not be in jeopardy.
We created these sports and budget models because there are many intangibles that can not be known until after the bid process is over. Those include the questions at the top of this story—will people come to the Gay Games? Many of the athletes Dec. 11 and in e-mails to us in the past few weeks say that the 'brand' of the Gay Games is what carries the weight. People see it as their 'olympic' moment, not just another sporting tournament. Is the brand strong enough to overcome the resources Montreal has put into this effort for two years? No one really knows—but given that probably 95% of the sporting world does not likely know or care about the behind-the-scenes controversy, it will mostly be a public relations challenge for the winning bid city to promote the 'Gay Games' the best way possible. The Federation does have access to 9,000 athlete e-mails, and there is a whole world of athletes who have never been to the Gay Games from countries around the world. [Let's see, 10% of 5 billion is ... .]
The question is, can we get 12,000 athletes? Yes, I do believe we can because in Chicago every year we host major tournaments and meets, races and leagues. More than 12,000 GLBT athletes are within a short drive of Chicago. But can we attract the world to Chicago? Again, this is a question unknown at this time. If our budget does not depend on it, then I say it is worth the risk. Because the Gay Games 'brand' will bring past Gay Games participants, even if they also choose Montreal. It is not the best solution, but can still be an amazing sporting event, and can continue the vision of Gay Games founder Dr. Tom Waddell.
Many of the statements and questions Dec. 11 were impassioned and educated. We are continuing to ask them of ourselves. With a 50/50 split that night, and so many other elements to base our decision on, we are all still torn. We have asked the Federation of Gay Games for a delay until Dec. 31, to make our decision, and they have granted us this request.
The final issue for me is: Will Chicago support this? During our last bid, despite the fact that more than 400 people contributed to the amazing effort, there were still many individuals who were very divisive about the effort. They attacked individuals involved, and were basically not just uninterested, but I would say aggressively opposed. For whatever reasons they had, will there continue to be divisions? That, for me, is another intangible that I may not be willing to bank on. After all, bidding is one thing, winning another. Can we use a branded international event to leapfrog our city a decade ahead in terms of the world's view of Chicago's GLBT sports and culture? Or will internal differences stop us from even getting started?
It's one thing to be opposed or not be interested, another to criticize every step of the way. If we win, undoubtedly mistakes will be made. I never expect everyone to agree on anything in this community. It's what makes it a vibrant, thriving place to work and live. In fact, last week's meeting, with very reasoned debate, was wonderful. We had great questions asked that we will try to answer for ourselves and the community very soon. Some are intangible, and our response will be based on our most experienced and educated guess. But will people actively oppose this? If so, our city may not be ready for the bid.
We are still listening and learning. What's your take? editor@windycitytimes.com .
