Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm a little confused after reading the agreement (perhaps that's the intent of the agreement). Since there is a waiver clause that covers even negligence, doesn't that make indemnification somewhat irrelevant? If the wronged party cannot sue due to waiver, when does indemnification come into play?
Great question. If an aggrieved party really wants to sue, he/she can argue that, due to "willful misconduct" or some "egregious" behavior on the part of the tournament organizer or any of the other teams/players/referees/etc., that his/her waiver is void or inapplicable. Yes, it sounds circular, but there is nothing stopping someone from making a claim, even if it is meritless. Then if a claim is made, the indemnifying parties will be involved. Without the indemnification, the indemnifying parties will never be involved. At the end of the day, the waiver should stand and the aggrieved party's claim should not be successful, but not after everyone has been dragged through the mud (pun intended).
One thing to keep in mind is that most people tend to think about the "end result" (e.g., does he have a legitimate claim?), but very few people realize that the legal process (e.g., lawyers, courts, arbitrators, mediators, legal fees, costs, threats, etc.) that gets us to that "end result" is the thing that everyone should be trying to avoid. And part of the legal process is that any individual in this country who is not afraid of defending a malicious prosecution action can bring any claim regardless of what (e.g., waiver) he/she may have signed.