Just over 24 years ago, in Dublin’s Burlington Hotel, the GAA met to consider the role of women in Gaelic games. The theme of the forum was “alliance” and contributions were enthusiastic and forward-thinking.
Organised by the Workgroup on Increased Participation, set up by the late Joe McDonagh at the beginning of his presidency of the GAA in 1997, the mood of the occasion was probably best summarised by the then president-elect Seán McCague.
“For too long,” he said, “we have rejected half the population. Thankfully, it’s turning around, and women are demanding their rightful say.”
Sadly, neither of those former presidents are still alive, but they were probably there in spirit at Tuesday’s media briefing in Croke Park by the Steering Group for Integration.
Those corporeally present were struck by the ambition of the timetable: full integration by 2027, just three years away or by another metric, one GAA presidency. Jarlath Burns, who takes over at this weekend’s annual congress will be at the end of his tenure, just as his predecessor Larry McCarthy was at the briefing.
[ GAA welcome Government’s €50m funding package for Casement Park redevelopmentOpens in new window ]
There are still mixed views within the GAA on the whole process. Former president of Ireland, Mary McAleese, chair of the steering group, said that according to an extensive survey, of 30,000 respondents, there was 90 per cent approval for integration across all groups and interests.
That is a powerful consensus for change but there is at the same time an ambient cynicism within the GAA about the prospects of success for integration – not necessarily hostility towards the idea but world-weary pessimism: good luck with that.
What has changed in the years since 2000 is that the focus has moved from what role women can play in Gaelic games to what role they will play within the GAA.
It was clear from the update of the steering group that the issue has moved out of the realms of being a hard sell and difficult to implement and is now coming down the track with a declared time of arrival.
If there is to be any hold-up – and everyone involved swears that won’t happen – it’s not going to affect the reality of the process.
For a long time, the GAA has had plausible deniability when it came to the sister sports.
The existence of separate organisations for camogie and women’s football might have been superficially progressive over the long period of their existence – at 120 years and 50 years, respectively, their combined history is actually older than the GAA’s – but the modern imperative was captured in the GAA’s Strategic Review Committee report of 2002.
“Formal integration of Gaelic football, women’s football, hurling and camogie is necessary if the task of promoting Gaelic games to 50 per cent of the population is not to be left entirely to two very committed and energetic bodies which, as things stand, have too few resources and very little finance.”
The success of the One Club model in reflecting the GAA’s weekly existence with four field sports under one umbrella has to an extent smoothed the passage of integration. But privately, steering group members acknowledge that there are clubs where things have been more complicated, and they will inevitably command more attention as the countdown to 2027 begins.
It is accepted that the main sales job will be required at the middle level of administration, where some of the county committees are seen as more difficult to convince.
Only last September, when the GAA had to restructure its management committee to meet Government targets on gender balance – not an issue directly linked to integration, as emphasised at the time by director general Tom Ryan but one perhaps challenging the same sensibilities – the association’s top brass were quite concerned about the outcome after encountering some pushback.
Ultimately, there was a healthy 79-21 per cent margin to back the reform but it was equally acknowledged that the supporting vote wouldn’t have wanted to drop too far off the 80 per cent mark before reputational damage would have loomed on the horizon.
Integration is a far more thoroughgoing challenge. Some county boards are firing ahead and will easily evolve in the next three years. Others will struggle and the most common complaints about finding the money to support additional teams as well as the facilities to host extra matches will continue to surface.
What will change is the priority given to men’s games, which will have to be more fairly distributed. It is, after all, an accident of history that women’s games haven’t had that sort of access all along.
The One Club model is a rational and common-sense approach and exemplifies a grass-roots development that is very much within the ethos and philosophy of the Gaelic Games family
— Towards 2034 report
During 18 months of deliberation the steering group obviously considered the formalities as well as the knottier practicalities of facilities, finance, fixtures, human resources and player welfare.
According to the envisaged structure, there will be one president from 2027 with perhaps vice-presidents initially. The whole question of the “GAA” name was apparently considered but wisely, it was decided to persevere with the brand, which has become very prominent visually as well as culturally over the past 16 years since former president Nickey Brennan’s 2008 brand review.
A more recent appraisal of the situation comes from the strangely silent “Towards 2034″ report from six years ago.
“The One Club model is a rational and common-sense approach and exemplifies a grass-roots development that is very much within the ethos and philosophy of the Gaelic Games family.
“The One Club model is not, however, mirrored at national level, with separate associations (GAA, The Camogie Association and Ladies Gaelic Football Association) that collaborate to a greater or lesser extent. A single governing body, at club, county, regional, national and international levels, is now required providing equity for all players.”
This is now taking shape. About time.
