Is there too much GAA on television?

The GAA has completed its TV rights deals for coverage up to and including 2010, and nobody, it seems, has been left out.

Under the deal, RTÉ secured the live rights for 40 GAA championship games, with the exception of ten games, which will be shown by TV3. The live rights to the Allianz National Leagues and Club/Cup Championships were awarded to TG4 and Setanta Sport respectively. TG4 will have the rights to Sunday afternoon League games and Club and Colleges games, while Setanta will show floodlit games on Saturday nights and four Sunday afternoon League games. A range of highlight packages have been awarded to RTÉ, TG4, Setanta Sport and the BBC. UTV secured a 'Clips' package.

In addition, BBC NI, RTÉ and the GAA have agreed a new deal that will mean significantly more GAA matches being broadcast live on BBC NI over the next three years. Under the new agreement, BBC NI will be able to show live any game in the Ulster Football Championship that RTE is also broadcasting.

Even less high profile competitions such as the Sigerson and Fitzgibbon Cup finals, the U21 championships, the Mc Kenna Cup O’Byrne Cup, Leinster Colleges, Féile na nGael and even Cumann na mBunscol finals, all of which had previously struggled to receive any television coverage, now get televised. Such comprehensive GAA coverage on television is good news for armchair GAA fans all across Ireland. But, isn’t there a balance to be struck?

Despite the high numbers of championship games to be broadcast—in total, 52 live championship ties were broadcast last year, including replays and with 50 games already divided up between RTÉ and TV3, that will be exceeded under the new contract which kicks in after the National Leagues—Nicky Brennan has emphatically rejected the suggestion that there is overkill regarding live coverage at this point.

‘‘All we’re doing is what we’ve been doing for the last number of years. There’s a strong audience out there for it. Our attendances have not been impacted on over the last number of years, we’ve continued to maintain our attendances. It’s always something we’re conscious of, I won’t deny that.”

Nicky is in denial about a lot of things these days, the grants for example, so maybe he and the lads at Croker Park have neglected to think of the wider impact of televising more and more games. Does all this GAA on television mean that less people are now inclined to go and watch club games, which take place at the same time as televised matches on a Saturday evening? And who is going to decide the throw-in times for the matches—the broadcasters or the GAA—and how will this affect fans?

In England the traditional Saturday kick-off time of 3.00 pm for football matches has been sacrificed to accommodate the whims of the broadcasters, much to the disgust of fan groups. It’s the broadcasters, not the clubs or the League, who specify the times on which most teams play their games. The new times, such as Monday evenings, greatly inconvenience fans travelling to games. We’re lucky as travel distances are not too much of a problem in the early stages of GAA championships and it ceases to be an issue from the quarter-finals on as the majority of games are played at the usual Sunday time.

The impact of televised games on attendance at club matches is still worth considering. Although, proving there is a link is next to impossible as there are no statistics to evaluate the trends maybe the GAA should still think about blocking hours for club matches at weekends. For example, Article 48 of UEFA's Statutes and Article 3 of UEFA's Broadcasting Regulation provides for member associations to block broadcasts during certain hours. The Football Association in England does not authorise the broadcasting of football matches played during its main fixture on Saturday afternoons to protect attendances at the game.

TV coverage does provide the opportunity to watch a game fans want to attend but are unable to get tickets and for neutrals to watch the best matches—all GAA fans want to, and should, see Munster hurling matches. Some fans, however, are influenced to watch games on TV rather than go to the match. So maybe the comfortable option of watching a game on telly rather than go see a local club game is becoming more popular with all these games now on TV.

What do you think?

GAA TV Rights: not just for the money

There it is again!

B-O-N-A-N-Z-A

"€30m: Croker's bonanza from new TV deal" is the headline in today's Irish Independent.

At least the headline is tempered by the contents of the article where Nicky Brennan explains that money was not the most important consideration in the deal: "We went for a combination of finance, quality of coverage and experience."

Thankfully, there's no pay-per-view deal with Setanta. Imagine the hay the GPA would have made out of that.

There's still no mention, however, of all the good uses this money will be used for. Danny Lynch may be gone, but the ineffectiveness of the GAA's PR team appears to remain the same.

Why the GAA must remain amateur

Bonanza!

No, not the American western/cowboy TV series set at the Ponderosa Ranch, but the most popular word used in headlines to describe GAA finances in recent years. Whether announcing rental income from Croke Park, TV rights money or a new sponsorship deal, “Bonanza” is the word of choice for journalists, evoking images of a GAA treasure chest as deep and as rich as Aladdin's Cave.

Just like Aladdin’s Cave, however, it is a myth that the GAA is overflowing with riches. While it is true that the popularity of Gaelic Games ensures that the GAA generates substantial income for an amateur organization each year, reports rarely tell the full story of the GAA's finances. The false impression created leads many to the lazy conclusion that “with all the money floating around why shouldn’t the players get paid for their efforts?”

The untold story leads to a radically different judgement. For a start, the media seldom reports on the enormous costs involved with running an Association of the size and nature of the GAA. The cost of staging the games alone is considerable. In 2002 the GAA spent almost €4.5 million on match related costs (over 27% of total gate receipts). Nearly half of this money went straight back to the various grounds as rent, to be used for ground maintenance, development and to assist with recurring running costs. Another 25% was accounted for by sundry expenses such as Gardai and security, printing and promotional expenses, stewards and catering, medals and trophies.

Then there’s the money directly related to the needs of the panels involved. In 2001 up to €10 million was spent by county boards on preparation of their county teams alone. Croke Park contributes most of this both directly and indirectly subsidisng activities at County level with €8.7m in 2006. This money is spent by county boards on players to cover expenses such as travel and accommodation, meals, equipment, playing gear, and other general expenses incurred by county boards during the preparation of teams during a Championship season. The enormity of the expense involved can be gauged from the fact that the increase in the minimum mileage allowance for players costs county committees an average of €1.25m per annum (that was the cost in 2002). A further 6% of gross gate receipts are used to finance the players Injury Scheme which is available to players at all levels of the Association.

The alarming expenses of training inter-county teams have to be added to the increased expenses associated with county teams administration of internal club competitions and other general running costs. The number of games played at all levels of the GAA gives a clearer indication of just how much money is needed to fund the Association. For instance, the Leinster Council estimate that up to 1,800 games are played throughout the province in second level school competitions alone in any given year. Only a tiny proportion of these games would even collect a gate—even then it would hardly be worth counting—and thus the cost of running such competitions has to be financed from more central funds.

Aside from match related costs, grants to the Association’s club and County board units, and administration expenses, plans for the development of the games have all to be financed from central funds. To date all surplus revenues from previous years have been used to fund the redevelopment of Croke Park or loan schemes for clubs. The GAA’s commitment to coaching and games development is an investment in the future, designed to protect the Association’s longer term ambitions. €5 million was spent on Games development in 2002 to finance a network of coaching officers and administrators, summer camps, schools of excellence, grants to primary, second and third level schools and colleges, subsidies for hurleys and helmets, Feile competitions etc. The Provinces similarly reinvest the revenues they earn. In 2001 Leinster Council alone had a coaching and games development budget of well over €1.25 million.

In total upwards of 75% of the revenues generated by Central Council in 2006 were ploughed back into the Association. (See the 2007 Annual Report) This resourcing is intended to benefit players, clubs and counties alike. Contrast this with professional soccer where the wages to turnover ratio for Italian clubs was 76% in 2002-03, Spain (72%), France (68%) and England (61%) according to Deloitte Football Finance. Or look at it another way, the Premier League redistributes just 7½% a year to the Football Foundation, the body responsible for grass roots and community football development.

The GAA’s income and re-investment is an unbroken virtuous circle (see diagram above) whereby the commitment to investment in the future will guarantee the survival and continued development of Gaelic games. This outstanding contribution—propelled by voluntary input—depends on the money staying in the game.

Show me the money!

"Kevin Keegan has offered me more money. I am definitely leaving Spurs. It's all about the money, I don't care about the [Carling Cup] final".

Apparently Pascal Chimbonda made this remark-brazenly exposing his mercenary motivation-when questioned about rumours in the media that he was looking to leave Tottenham Hotspur. Paul Wilson, a respected football journalist for the Guardian, applauded Chimbonda for his honesty, as he's sadly resigned to the reality of what really inspires professional footballers today. He was also critical of fans for their continued, naive adherence to the sentimental belief that players measure their careers in cups and medals, rather than pounds and pay cheques. "Football may have been like that once", he writes "but no longer".

Unlike GAA. We (GAA members) don't have to worry about accusations of being over-romantic about Gaelic games because that situation doesn't exist in our sport. Right?

Not quite. As Martin Breheny points out today, the player-County Board dispute in Cork, is part of a bigger battle -- a battle for the "GAA's soul and identity". The inter-county players regard themselves as the "wealth generators" of Gaelic games, and their philosophy (essentially that they are the sun around which the rest of us should revolve--my interpretation not Martin's) is putting them on course for a critical pay-for-play showdown.

The idealistic view that Gaelic games should be all about participation, and the medals and the glory too, of course, is being rapidly eroded by the GPA on their blinkered march to reimbursement. As Dessie says, the players no longer "really buy into the traditional GAA line, certainly not the one that highlighted our ethereal rewards - honour, adulation, camaraderie, recognition". They want something "more tangible". They want what Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.) in the movie Jerry Maguire, called "the Kwan".

"Kwan means love, respect, community... and the dollars too".

But footballers in England didn't always have this Rod Tidwell mentality. Wilson describes the situation when fifty years ago all First Division fooballers were on more or less than same wages as a result of the maximum-wage system. The crucial difference today is the difference in earnings which means that players are no longer loyal to the club that formed them. The only values the players deem important are those in pay packets. Do we want a similar situation to develop in GAA? The categorical response from most GAA members would appear-from the debates that have taken place on the proposed grant in counties like Tyrone and Dublin- to be no.

Under EU law, however, there is no middle road. If accepted, the grants system will establish an economic link between players and Gaelic games, meaning that the players can appeal to the European Commission, and ultimately the European Courts, to move counties freely. The players may be happy to divvy up their prospective grant money now. But it won't always be like that. Self-interest and the free market will eventually win out, just like it did in English football. It will only take one disgruntled player- and there are enough of them already- to tear the county structure down. And then, it really will be all about the money.

The grants agreement that never was

“There was no grants agreement; there is no grants agreement; and there will be no grants agreement unless it gets full and proper support at Congress.”

This is the conclusion drawn from the DRA hearing on Friday night. Solicitors for the GAA's Central Council argued at the hearing that an agreement had not been reached at its meeting on 8 December. At the time, however, the Central Council was interpreted as having rubber-stamped the grants agreement and the perception was that the deal had been done. Instead, we now understand the situation to be very different. A letter sent to the DRA by the GAA's solicitors last week instructed that: 

Discussions between the GPA and Government bodies on the structure and content of a possible  agreement have already begun and will continue over the coming weeks.

When that agreement has been negotiated and is in final form, it will be submitted to Ard Comhairle for approval.

"Agreement will not be finally approved or implemented unless the agreement in final form is presented to Congress and approved. Accordingly, if Ard Comhairle approves the agreement, it will be on condition that the agreement is approved by Congress."

This means there is no fait accompli. More significantly, there must be a debate. That’s what Of one Belief have been campaigning for since 29 November last, because that’s the way the GAA should do its business. 

This also means that the battle has just begun. All gaels who believe in the Association's amateur ethos need to make sure their views are represented at Congress. That’s the challenge before the meeting of GAA's Annual Congress in Sligo on 11 and 12 April to make the decision.

Everyone associated with “Of One Belief” remains firm in their belief, backed by legal advice, that any grants/awards scheme for GAA players breaks Rule 11 of the Association. 

If you do too, join www.ofonebelief.org. Make your voice heard.

The grants, the GAA's amateur status, and EU law

Jean-Marc Bosman was catapulted into the headlines in 1995 by a "landmark" ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Bosman case transformed the player transfer system and changed the make-up of club sides throughout Europe by effectively ending limits on "foreign" players in clubs in Europe. Nearly every GAA fan knows that the consequences for soccer have been far-reaching and all would agree that a Bosman scenario would be catastrophic for Gaelic games. No one wants to see a transfer system in place because the county is fundamental to Gaelic games. But how professional or amateur do our games have to be for the Bosman ruling to apply? And where does the grant leave us on that question?

The GAA Central Council claims that "nothing in this agreement shall be allowed to undermine the amateur status of Gaelic games". The Bosman ruling would apper to validate this claim: the essential difference between an amateur and a professional or-semi-professional is that the professional earns a salary under contract and is thus regarded as an employee, and that his activity as a player is not to be regarded as purely marginal. Therefore, it would seem the grant would have little or no effect. But, it's not just the Bosman ruling we need to be concerned about.

In a less-celebrated case five years after Bosman, Christelle Deliège*, a Belgian judoka (a practitioner of judo is known as a judoka) who practised judo at an international level, challenged the Belgian Judo League's (BJKL) federation-based system of selection of competitors for international competitions. The importance of this case for the GAA and the grants system is not the decision on the dispute itself, which concerned the authority of the BJKL to determine selection for participation in the Olympic Games, but rather the court's conclusion in relation to Ms Deliège's status.

Although the case concerned the participation of Ms Deliège in an international tournament for which she would not be paid, Ms Deliège claimed that she practiced judo professionally or semi-professionally. The BJKL disagreed, arguing that judo is a sport which, in Europe and in Belgium in particular, is practised by amateurs. It is the court's analysis and determination of this question-where the distinction between amateur and professional lies- that is of interest to the GAA.

The GAA and the GPA that all parties involved "state their absolute commitment to the maintenance of the amateur status" is worthless. 

Notably, the BKJL claimed that judo was an activity that is not pursued for profit, but which aims to satisfy social and cultural aspirations. No doubt, the GAA would too. The amendment added to the agreement with the GPA that all parties "state their absolute commitment to the maintenance of the amateur status" tends to suggest that the GAA thinks a claim, or affirmation, of amateur status by those involved-both the players and the Association itself-offers some sort of legal protection. It doesn't: the court noted that, although relevant, the mere fact that a sports association or federation unilaterally classifies its members as amateur athletes does not in itself mean that those members do not engage in economic activity.

The factors that determine whether members engage in economic activity were then analysed by Cosmas, the Advocate General (the AG advises the court on the legal matters ahead of the final decision) in the case. Cosmas' analysis of Ms Deliège's activities and conclusion that her practice of judo constituted an economic activity should alarm the GAA, as it undermines the assertion that the grants agreement does not harm the GAA's amateur status. 

Firstly, Cosmas pointed out that the Ms Deliège the size of the grants Ms Deliège received from the federation were irrelevant. It was the legal nature of the 'contributions' that she recieved that mattered. Contributions or grants to athletes "were analysed from the point of view of the possibility it gives to the advanced level sportsman, who receives the contributions to devote himself to the sport as would a professional sportsman." Although it is arguable the sums of money which the grant will involve will not permit GAA players to pursue their sporting career in the same way and under the same conditions as a professional, they are a start down that road. According to the agreement between the GAA, the GPA and the government the grant is designed "to meet additional costs associated with elite team performance and to encourage aspiring teams and players to reach the highest levels of sporting endeavour". The grants will be awarded on the basis of "standards and performance-based criteria". 

Secondly, although the Advocate General distinguished amateur athletes from others who "carry out their activity on a continual basis and receive financial support the objective of which exceeds the mere improvement of their performance." Critically for the GAA, the Advocate General concluded that the regular payment of aid by federations to their champions often extends beyond the context of performance enhancement. High-level athletes provide an important service to the sport's governing bodies-their success makes them idols helping attract young people to the federation, they are a magnet for sponsors and provide an argument for sports organisations to rely on when seeking a larger share of publicly-funded subsidies. In certain cases these non-amateur athletes provide to the governing bodies, of a so-called amateur sport, services in return for which it receives various forms of material or financial aid on a regular basis. These athletes pursue an economic activity which falls within the scope of EU law. 

The Advocate General's reasoning would tend to suggest that it does not matter whether the players receive the grant directly from the federation or from elsewhere; what matters is that the grants are paid to them consistently over a period of time and are dependent on their participation in the sport. The hullabaloo over whether it is the GAA or the Sports Council that pays the grant would then be irrelevant. Paying a grant for participating in a sport establishes an economic link under EU law.

Thirdly, the Advocate General also considered it necessary to look at whether the sporting activities themselves have an economic dimension. If the organiser of a sporting competition offers athletes an opportunity to compete with others, and, at the same time, the athletes, by participating in the competition, enable the organiser to put on a sports event which the public pays to attend, which generates television broadcasting rights, and which, may be of interest to advertisers and sponsors, then it constitutes an economic event. That is already the case in GAA today.

Finally, Ms Deliège's individual sponsorship contracts were also taken into condisderation. Cosmas determined that it was wrong to separate completely an athlete's performance and sporting activity from the advertising service provided to the sponsors as sporting performance and advertising services are so closely linked. Advertising through sponsorship requires high-level athletes who are known to the general public precisely because of their participation in major sporting events. Products as diverse as Ivomec 20 (Joe Cooney) and Club Energise (the GPA) have capitalised on the profile of the players and the GAA to capture their markets for many years now.

From the combination of the various factors outlined above the Advocate General concluded that Ms Deliège was in principle protected by EU law and in particular by the rules on freedom to provide services. In other words, she had the same protection under EU law as Bosman did.

Although Gaelic players may not yet qualify under these conditions as non-amateur athletes-like Ms Deliège did-and therefore be protected by EU law, it is clear that the closer the link between sport and economic activity the more relevant the rules of EU law. Paying a grant to players strengthens this link. Paying a grant to players harms the GAA's amateur status.  


*Christelle Deliège V Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines ASBL (Joined cases C-51/96 and C-191/97)

Dublin club delegates against pay-for-play

The latest news from Ofonebelief.org informs us that 35 club delegates spoke out against the grants proposal at the Dublin County Board meeting on Monday night. According to the update Dublin’s Clubs were very clear about two things. They don’t want the scheme and they were bitterly disappointed that the whole thing had been handled as a “done deal” at a high level and they had not been consulted.

The Hoganstand confirms that a majority of Dublin club delegates are against the scheme. But, strangely, no vote was taken and it has been left to Dublin's Central Council delegate "to take all the views expressed at the meeting into consideration".

A sizeable rump there.