Amateurism at the crossroads

GAELIC GAMES: Correspondent Seán Moran believes the reasons for playing for no pay have disappeared and the push for reward has become inevitable

Even after the convulsions in Cork, Gaelic Games remain the only mass-spectator sports in the world that are still organised on an amateur basis. But can this state of affairs continue?

Last year the GAA's Strategic Review Committee ran to 265 pages but only seven of them were dedicated to amateurism and most of the points made related to alleviating players' conditions. Short of principled reasons to maintain an amateur ethos, the GAA has not been able to inhibit the influence of money or the growth of commercialism.

There is an argument that Gaelic Games, with their small, restricted audience, cannot afford to embrace professionalism or any variation. According to the Amateur Status sub-committee report in 1997: "Its (the GAA's) players, referees and elected officers all operate on a voluntary basis and there has been an acceptance that as an essentially Irish sport with little access to international markets and the wealth-creating potential they bring, that situation is likely to continue."

But that is a consideration unrelated to the concept of an amateur ethos and can only be argued on its practicalities. The amateur ethos originally went hand-in-hand with the ideal of "muscular Christianity" espoused in the 19th century.

In other words sport was not an end in itself but part of a young gentleman's preparation for life, inculcating in him a taste for healthy pursuits and a sense of fair play. Not surprisingly the notion of being materially rewarded for participation would have been anathema.

In many ways the GAA was founded as a response to the elitism of the amateur athletics establishment. This was, after all, an environment where, according to Marcus de Búrca's history of the association, "much of the adult male population, including manual workers, policemen and soldiers, was debarred from competing simply because its members were not 'gentlemen amateurs'".

The whole basis of organised sport was essentially a British one. In the words of Mike Cronin in his book Sport and Nationalism in Ireland - Gaelic games, soccer and Irish identity since 1884: "What is fascinating about the GAA as a sporting body, driven by a desire to represent and reflect a variety of Irish nationalist forms, is that it has used the lessons learnt from British sport to become an effective medium . . . the GAA, in expressing a range of unblemished Irish nationalist traits that involved the outward rejection of all things British, adopted wholesale the British model of codified sport and sporting organisation, and an intensely British ethos toward sport."

This ethos encompassed amateurism but the Corinthian ideal wasn't a pressing item on the GAA's early agenda. The desire to suppress British influence in sport occupied the early association. This was achieved by a number of bans, on the playing of what were termed "foreign games", the suspension of anyone who did and on police or army men joining the association.

It was more than half way into the 20th century before the GAA actually took action on the issue of amateurism. This found expression in the abolition of collective training, a practice whereby county teams came together for two weeks before All-Ireland finals and other big matches and trained intensively. After some years of debate about whether this constituted incipient professionalism, such preparation was prohibited in 1954.

In a way the GAA's action missed the point. If players were to leave preparations until a couple of weeks before major events, it meant that routine training would be less likely to be as intense. Nowadays the training schedules of inter-county teams are so demanding that an intolerable strain is being placed on players who also have to earn a livelihood. In other words, footballers and hurlers are professional in most respects except the capacity for rest.

It is, however, probable that modern training techniques would have caught up with Gaelic Games anyway as the imperative of success pushes team managements to adopt training regimes of escalating severity but the abolition of collective training accelerated rather than inhibited that process.

As late as five years ago, the Amateur Status sub-committee report's headline recommendations were that players be allowed benefit from certain activities associated with their public profile in football or hurling - principally endorsement money.

The association was, however, extremely anxious to emphasise that it remained amateur. But there was an acceptance that the issue wasn't as simple as before.

"Concerns have been expressed that, with much of the island of Ireland having gained its independence three quarters of a century ago, the original vision of the GAA has been diluted for many of our members; at the same time, equal concerns have grown about the implications of breaches of the association's amateur ethos and rules . . ."

There is implicit in this statement an acknowledgement that the pure amateurism of a century ago was part and parcel of an organisation driven by nationalist idealism. The raison d'etre of Gaelic Games was the service of this ideal, a cultural expression of separation. That players would be paid in any way for this service would be a shocking, almost sacrilegious notion.

There are, however, increasing signs that elite players are finding the strain of combining their sporting careers with maintaining a livelihood intolerable. There is no right to an amateur's time, particularly at the expense of his livelihood. If an amateur ethos prohibits any compensation, the games lose out.

The demands of the modern game have escalated the commitment for inter-county players to levels far beyond anything that could be regarded as even vaguely recreational. In the absence of principled reasons to maintain amateurism as an ethos none of the practical considerations are totally convincing.

That certain people give of their time for free and coach children without asking for reward is a red herring. Every sport can boast such stalwarts and they are motivated by recreational reasons and the feeling of satisfaction such involvement brings them.

Even sports historian Lincoln Allison's strong defence of amateurism - Amateurism in Sport: An analysis and a defence - as conferring economic benefit through voluntary labour doesn't advocate that all sport should be conducted on that basis.

Another argument is that there's not enough money in Gaelic Games to support semi-professional or part-time players. But this is based on current revenues that have considerable scope for improvement.

One development about which more is likely to be heard concerns the financial status of counties. At present they keep very little of the revenue generated by their own teams but there is already discontent at this restriction. But would any movement in this direction shut out smaller counties without wealthy benefactors?

Maybe - but hardly to any greater extent than a system which pitches Leitrim into the same championship as a county, Galway, more than five times as populous. There is, however, one major uncertainty. How will the public respond to teams featuring players with little or no direct connection to the county?

Given that Gaelic Games are so bound up with a sense of place, it's hard to be certain but other sports cope with that loosening of local ties. That imponderable is perhaps the most significant aspect of abandoning amateurism. The GAA's interlinked groups of players, officials and spectators form what might be seen as a delicate ecosystem.

If there is to be fundamental change at one level - such as remunerating players - no one can be sure of the impact at other levels. What we can be sure of is that the pressure to reward or compensate players will increase. The GAA is aware that only through expanding its schedule of competitive matches can the association optimise exposure and promotional opportunity.

The days when the GAA's membership, including players, was driven almost exclusively by a sense of national purpose have long gone. With that idealism a thing of the past, for how much longer will the same players be content to bear the demands of an extended inter-county season purely for the chance of a medal and the knowledge that they are helping to market indigenous games?