If a rule or regulation is outdated and obviously not fit for purpose, should it not be a priority to tackle that, rather than how to go about the increasingly difficult task of enforcing it?
At his inaugural media briefing in Newry last year, GAA president Jarlath Burns struck a bullish tone on the prospects for his new committee on amateurism. He was responding to a question loosely based on an aphorism of one of his predecessors – Peter Quinn, who chaired the 1997 Amateur Status Review Committee (ASRC) – that not alone were they unable to find under-the-table payments but they couldn’t even locate the table.
“I am not going to adhere to the ‘we couldn’t even find the table’ [line]. The table is a lot easier to find now, the world has changed significantly – and I say that having been born and reared in a cash economy in south Armagh.”
This reference to the greater frequency of electronic transactions, which leave a trail, was presented as a positive for the prospects of the association gaining some sort of control of the outgoings of its units.
Seán Moran: GAA rule on amateurism is a busted flush, so let’s change it
Na Fianna put in marathon effort and live to see another hurling county final
County championship round-up: Kingscourt Stars take Cavan crown on weekend of upsets
Naomh Conaill fight back to beat Gaoth Dobhair after extra-time in Donegal SFC decider
“I think one of the things we have to do in terms of governance, audit and risk,” said Burns, “we should have ... principles which you adhere to within your county in terms of your accounting and modus operandi before you can get a licence to compete.”
It was plain at the time that the concept of amateurism under scrutiny related to the running costs of intercounty teams, which he later assessed at €44 million for that year.
Nearly 20 months on, the travails of the ASRC have been bubbling to the surface. Over the summer the committee conducted a public survey on what people would like to see in terms of dealing with managers.
The options included treating managers as GAA employees, paying them a stipend with their expenses, or cracking down on the whole business of payments that break Rule 1.8, headed Amateur Status.
It was all rather reminiscent of former director general Páraic Duffy’s 2012 working paper on payments to managers, which proposed three options: legitimise payment, retain the regulation and rigorously enforce it or continue or persist with the status quo – essentially turning a blind eye to the problem.
Needless to say, the counties voted for the second option but continued to exercise the third.
Initial feedback suggests that these attitudes have not evolved much in the interim. There remains queasiness about putting managers on the payroll.
Returning to the opening question, is it maybe exaggerated to refer to the rule as outdated and not fit for purpose? No – and how do we know this? Simply because the GAA was told eight years ago that the rule on amateurism was about as useful for enforcing the provision as a colander would be for bailing out a flooded basement.
How are Leinster and Munster stacking up ahead of their first meeting of the season?
That ability to hold two conflicting views at the same time is becoming comical, as counties, encouraged by Croke Park, who have had to make an arrangement with the Revenue to regularise employment practices in the various units, have in some cases started to list payments to managers as part of their accounts.
This keeps those in question tax compliant, even as it makes a laugh out of the idea that such payments aren’t supposed to be happening.
The information about Rule 1.10 (as it then was) was contained in legal advice sought by the GAA around the time of Colm Cooper’s testimonial dinner in 2017. The retiring Kerry player was anxious not to be at odds with the rule book and asked would he have questions to answer if the evening went ahead.
Having considered the matter, the legal adviser said that there was “no actionable breach” to justify the pursuit of Cooper, as the phrase about not accepting payment “in conjunction with” playing the games was broad enough not to include the situation in question.
There was also a general comment on the rule.
“The notion of an amateur association is so general and so amenable to a multitude of interpretations that I think it highly unlikely that a disciplinary committee or the DRA [Disputes Resolution Authority] would be satisfied to rely upon the general nature of the first sentence of Rule 1.10.”
That same rule has not been changed in any way since then.
The ASRC follows in the slipstream of Burns’s hugely successful Football Review Committee (FRC). Choosing which one was the more intractable problem would have been difficult back in February 2024, but under Jim Gavin the FRC not only came to grips with the issue but produced plausible and well-received remedies for the ills of the game.
Maybe the starting point for the ASRC should have been less to do with nailing irregular payments to managers – important as they have become in the affairs of the GAA – and more to do with what amateurism should mean nearly a quarter of the way through the 21st century.
Just as the FRC initially envisaged football as it should be and then devised the solutions, the GAA should be looking at how amateurism is viewed by the membership at large, including players and officials, and seeing how best to protect the volunteerism ethos, which is its most vital manifestation.
When it is time to draw a line there needs to be consensus and a will to enforce. The culture of maintaining useless rules needs to change.
sean.moran@irishtimes.com
