The Future of LGBT Sport and Culture - 2 October 2009

Summary
“The Future of LGBT Sport and Culture”
09:30 – 12:30, 2 October 2009
Cologne, Germany

Moderator: Darl Schaaff, with assistance from Martyn Pickup
40 Participants: See Annex 1

- Ground Rules:
o Darl Schaaff (FGG former Site Selection Officer and current Ceremonies Officer) led the meeting, with assistance from Martyn Pickup, and requested that everyone listen and speak with respect.

- Introductions by all

- At the end of the meeting, Team Berlin presented an open letter to FGG and GLISA, which will be posted on the FGG Intranet with other open letters received during the last year.

Review of actions to date
- Emy Ritt presented a summary of actions to date and reported on several positive exchanges between FGG and GLISA leadership. Both organizations have acknowledged each other’s contributions to the LGBT community. See annex 2 for more detail.

o Summary of Copenhagen session, 27 July 2009, “The Future of LGBT Sport and Culture”
See Annex 2, 3, and 4.

o Dialogue between FGG and GLISA
§ Teleconference on 27 August, 2009
§ Meeting in Brussels on 29 August, 2009 – See Annex 5.

o Future opportunities for continued dialogue include:
§ On-going teleconferences and meetings to be scheduled
§ March 2010 – Manchester, UK - EGLSF AGA
§ July 2010 – Cologne, Germany – Gay Games VIII

Discussion:
- Darl Schaaff presented an overview of organisational structures and typical evolutions of organisations, with a focus on LGBT clubs and teams, including regional and national development. It was pointed out that while many clubs took different paths and started from different directions, the end result was a common framework.

- Group discussion took place regarding potential components of a quadrennial event:
o Sports
o Culture
o Conference

SHOULD THERE BE A CONFERENCE COMPONENT?
- Participants discussed a conference component.

- Some participants mentioned that the size and scope of a conference would need to be closely managed and that resources would need to be considered for such a large component.

- A comparison was made between Culture and Conference components. The Culture component was added some years after the start of Gay Games and is now an important aspect of the event. Participants mentioned that changes in any event are to be expected based on changes in the LGBT community and the world at large, and are often evolutionary. Therefore, adding a formal conference component would be another example of such an evolutionary change.

- Some participants noted that they would like to attend conferences, but they are usually busy with sports.

- Some participants noted that they would be open to attending a conference during their sporting event if they did not have to pay an additional fee.

- Some participants noted the need to outsource a Human Rights conference due to lack of resources in the organizing teams.

- Participants noted that conferences often serve as a “cover” for those needing a non-LGBT reason for attending, for example, for athletes from countries where homosexuality is illegal and life-threatening.

- Participants also noted that conferences often provide an opportunity for funding.
o HIVOS (http://www.hivos.nl/english) provided funding to Outgames human rights conference
o Many businesses will donate towards a conference rather than a sporting event.

Break

STRENGTHS OF ORGANISATIONS
- Participants discussed the strengths of FGG and GLISA, as mentioned in the introduction and as discussed by Wessel and Emy on 29 August 2009. See Annex 5.
o FGG: Sports and Culture
o GLISA: Conferences and Regional Events


ORGANISATION OF A CONFERENCE COMPONENT
- Some participants asked who would own a conference. Is there a need to “own” or “control” the conference?

- Some participants felt that the conference component should be outsourced.

- Some participants felt that FGG should control the content of a potential conference component.

- Some participants felt that another group of experts would or should do this work.

- The dual expressions of “need to control” vs. “need to outsource” appeared to be contradictory.

- There was a suggestion for FGG to possibly license out or outsource the conference to be able to oversee the content, rather than letting a conference organizer decide unilaterally the content. Due to the predominantly LGBT audience at such an event, this seemed necessary by some participants to avoid anti-LGBT content.

- Some participants asked if there were no conference, who or what would motivate scholars to research, write and further educate the world community regarding LGBT Sport and Culture Events and the Gay Games core values, mission and success?

o Example: LGBT sport and culture scholars
§ Caroline Symons, Caroline.Symons@vu.edu.au published works on Gay Games history.
See http://www.amazon.fr/Gay-Games-History-Caroline-Symons/dp/0415472962 .
See also http://www.vu.edu.au/about-vu/our-people/caroline-symons

§ Philip Liotard, liotard@univ-lyon1.fr, who organized the FGG Conference on « Sport, identités, homosexualités, homophobie » in Lyon, France, on 1 December 2006. See: http://www.liens-socio.org/article.php3?id_article=1665


§ Sylvain Ferez, sferez@univ-ag.fr,
« Homophobie et structuration des jeux sportifs homosexuels »
See: http://corpsetculture.revues.org/personne837.html?type=auteur

- Some participants expressed concern that sports with a smaller number of participants would be eliminated if the quadrennial event expanded to include a conference component.

- Building on the acknowledged strengths of FGG and GLISA and recognizing the apparent consensus to have one quadrennial event as soon as possible, participants were asked to consider the possibility of a quadrennial event with sport and culture components organised by FGG and with a conference component organised by GLISA.



WHAT SHOULD THE FUTURE DIRECTION BE and WHAT SHOULD A QUADRENNIAL EVENT LOOK LIKE?

Participants were asked to reflect on the future direction of LGBT sport and culture and to reflect on what a quadrennial event might look like in the future; with components and aspects of such an event (text below was taken directly from flipchart – no editing):

Direction
1 quadrennial event
Health and wellness
Continental Associations
International Sponsors
Regional Conference
Cooperation vs. antagonism
Conference with outreach at quadrennial event
Flexible host organisation
Relationship with national/government bodies
Harmony with LGBT Sports organisations
Media with international coverage
Partnership with GLISA and other qualified partners
Sports and Cultural component
Affordable and outsourcing
Relationship with political institutions
Capacity and capability building
Partnership with business
Financial stability
Outreach – global diversity


Summary:
The consensus appeared to indicate support for one quadrennial event with sport, culture, and conference components
o Organised with qualified partners
o With support from business and international media


Next Steps:
FGG and GLISA will discuss and review the results of the latest session and report back to the community.


ANNEXES:
List of Participants, Cologne session, 2 October 2009
Message to Participants of Copenhagen session on 27 July 2009
Summary of Copenhagen session on 27 July 2009
List of Participants, Copenhagen Conference, 27 July 2009
Summary of FGG-GLISA meeting on 29 August 2009


For any comments or questions, feel free to contact eritt@gaygames.org or kdahl@gaygames.org .