When the purported hosts of the 2014 Gay Games and the international awarding body of the quadrennial event became ensnarled in a legal dispute this summer, the knee-jerk response of many was the cynical observation that it was Montreal 2006 all over again. The reality is the situation is almost the reverse of what it was then, and therein lies the hope that a cleaner solution will emerge this go round.
Cleveland Synergy Foundation filed a suit in Ohio state court Thursday, September 2 seeking to regain the right to host Gay Games IX in Cleveland in 2014. CSF had signed a license agreement with the Federation of Gay Games in late 2009 for the right to host the event, but in July of this year the FGG informed CSF it was terminating the agreement because non-delivery of various financial and performance documents by due dates constituted a material breach of the contract. (See July 22, 2010 Jock Talk.) The city of Cleveland, which was a major financial backer of the bid, also informed CSF it was withholding payments until the situation was resolved.
CSF is suing the FGG, the city of Cleveland, the Greater Cleveland Sports Commission, and former CSF board member Valarie McCall, who as a representative of Mayor Frank Jackson's office, was in the official Cleveland delegation that represented Gay Games during the opening and closing ceremonies in Cologne this year.
The 40-page suit alleges the city, the commission, and the FGG all conspired to cut CSF out of the agreement, with FGG representatives communicating directly with McCall rather than through Doug Anderson, CSF's founder and designated contact person; failing to deliver an adequate registration system as required by the agreement; and that CSF representatives walked into a July meeting expecting to meet with city representatives to discuss expenditures, only to be ambushed by FGG representatives with a letter terminating the agreement. About the only thing the suit doesn't blame on the city and the FGG is the free agency departure of LeBron James from the Cavaliers.
"The city of Cleveland's and GCSC's intentional procurement of the FGG's breach of the license agreement and purported termination of Synergy's relationship with the FGG was without privilege or justification and was done with actual malice and bad faith," the suit alleges.
None of the parties involved in the suit would comment publicly.
While the blogosphere is alive with commentaries on the comparative incompetence of the FGG, CSF and the city of Cleveland (the metro commentary on blog.cleveland.com seems the liveliest and most balanced), longtime observers of Gay Games politics have likened the current situation to that of Gay Games VIII, when presumptive host Montreal walked out of negotiations after more than a year of acrimonious talks, established a rival event, and ultimately tanked to the tune of some $5 million Canadian. Gay Games VIII ultimately went to Chicago after a new bidding process and finished with a slight budgetary surplus.
But legal tilts and near tilts between the FGG and host cities are nothing new �" you have an all-volunteer organization running the show and you get all of the strengths and weaknesses that lie therein �" and this current skirmish feels entirely different.
Montreal refused to sign; CSF signed. Montreal said it did not want to host the event; CSF and the city of Cleveland both say they still want to host. When Montreal walked, the FGG looked elsewhere; despite its falling out with CSF, the FGG still says it wants the Games in Cleveland.
My gut tells me it works out this time. What clearly emerges from the mess is that both CSF and FGG have had needless distractions on their plates in the past year, distractions of their own choosing. They need to cut out the crap and focus on the task on hand.
The FGG spent most of the last year doing what its primary task should be in the year before a Gay Games, working with the host to sweat the details to make sure the event is delivered; but also with dithering over how, why and if it should talk with the World Outgames (the event born of its Montreal disagreement) about having a "merged" or co-branded event in 2018 �" an event that diehard Gay Games enthusiasts are sure would dilute the sports program to subsidize conferences.
CSF, after shocking itself and the rest of the world by winning the bid in its first try, staged a mini sports festival in February as a kind of kick-off awareness event. It was nice, but it was clear from the exhausted staff faces that they were unprepared for the enormous volunteer work demands of hosting a multi-sports event at this stage of the game.
CSF would have been better focused on say, putting together an informative website that would engage potential volunteers and participants, inform people about who was on their board and what was the difference between nonprofit CSF and the for-profit CSF, and figuring out a transparent way to let the city government know where the money was going and why.
Best hope is the attorneys will find a way for parties to save face and work together. Unlike the Montreal situation, there is not a fundamental disagreement about what the Gay Games should be. Unlike the Montreal situation, there is fundamental agreement that there needs to be oversight and accountability in spending. It's a bit of a mess at the moment, but it isn't a lost cause.
Not yet.