Dublin prove to be main attraction

The role of the Dublin footballers in attracting major attendances has been demonstrated at national level, according to a number of findings in a study on GAA grounds. The work was conducted by former Cork All-Ireland winning hurler John Considine and his colleagues in UCC's Economics Department.

The latest findings are cited in the annual report of GAA director general Liam Mulvihill, who draws the conclusion that there is little need for further development of major stadiums within the association.

Among the data collated was hard evidence that the bulk of the attendances at championship matches are to be found at a limited number of venues and that the total crowds for the qualifier series, which has spread matches around the country during the six years of its operation, are dominated by Dublin.

Among the study's statistics referred to by Mulvihill are:

- 75 per cent of all senior championship spectators from 2000 to 2005 watched matches at four venues: Croke Park, Clones, Thurles, and Páirc Uí Chaoimh.

- In 2002, 2003 and 2005 over 60 per cent of senior intercounty matches attracted attendances of less than 20,000.

- Over the 2000-2005 period only three grounds attracted an average of more than five inter-county matches per year.

He goes on to point out the qualifiers have increased the number of matches with small and medium attendances - a fact accepted by the initiators of the system, which was designed to give counties more matches during the summer rather than to generate revenue.

But the findings go on to indicate the importance of Dublin in drawing crowds.

- 80 per cent of the 166 qualifier events attracted attendances of less than 20,000.

- Only five of the 19 games that attracted over 40,000 spectators were not double-headers and all five involved Dublin footballers and of the nine matches with attendances in excess of 60,000, only one did not involve Dublin footballers.

- The only qualifier events that attracted over 40,000 spectators and took place outside of Croke Park were the two Dublin-Kerry matches (strictly speaking these were All-Ireland quarter-finals) in Thurles.

Mulvihill goes on to caution against the construction of large-capacity stadiums around the country and particularly in those regions (which cover virtually the entire country) where large venues are already located.

"The report gives us a clear indication as to the direction we should be taking in terms of the numbers of spectators we should be catering for from a strategic perspective. It is hard to make a case for a capacity in excess of 20,000 for a county ground where a larger provincial venue is available nearby.

"One of the more unfortunate knock-on effects from the quality of the facilities we have developed in Croke Park is the huge differences between Croke Park and most of our other stadiums in the context of spectator and player facilities. I would like to see us take a concentrated approach to our facilities development programme and develop grounds with smaller capacities but with a far higher quality of spectator and player facilities."

In relation to the size of Dublin's support the director general didn't confine his observations to the statistics collated by the Considine study and early in his own annual report he pays tribute to the crowds that turn out for the county's footballers.

"Mention must also be made of the outstanding support enjoyed by the Dublin team, which surpasses anything we have previously experienced. Their huge number of supporters gave a colour, an atmosphere and a swagger to the games that cannot be matched by any other county."

Only last month, Leinster secretary Michael Delaney in his annual report expressed misgivings about the extent of the financial reliance on the county.

"Nowadays apart from Dublin games in Croke Park," he said, "the general public are apathetic about our games. The frightening thing about this is that if Dublin hit a trough or go out early it will have serious financial implications for our council."

But on what will be regarded within the county as a less positive note, Mulvihill also raises the question of the division of Dublin into south and north, an idea that was floated by the strategic review committee in its 2002 report but which provoked a lot of opposition within Dublin and was finally devolved into a strategic plan for the capital.

Mulvihill raises again the basic structural question. "A key element of our structures that we have failed to come to terms with is how Dublin should be treated from a structural point of view. The strategic review suggested a split of the county based on the new local authority model, but this did not find favour in Dublin or outside of it. Since then the issue has been allowed to lie and, while some regionalisation of the county is now applied at underage level, the basic issue remains to be addressed."