Economics: Let's hear it for the rebel county. Inspired no doubt by her fellow Corkonians Roy Keane and Eddie Hobbs, Labour TD Kathleen Lynch is getting shirty with the FAI, taking up the cudgels on behalf of consumers and soccer fans over the issue of the Republic of Ireland's soccer strip.
The FAI - Freeloaders Association of Ireland - has become very fond of abusing what economists refer to as a natural monopoly. Not content with creaming millions of euro in fixture revenue from ultra-loyal fans, it has used its right to design the Republic's soccer strip to change that design faster than you can put one past Swedish goalkeeper Andreas Isaksson.
Lynch points out that the FAI introduced a new shirt in the summer of 2000, again in September 2001, yet again in March 2003 and then in September 2004.
That makes for an average of a new home shirt for every 10 games played by the Republic.
For the Republic's 3-0 stuffing of Sweden last Thursday - with a new manager to pay for and the team's failure to land a lucrative spot in the World Cup finals still smarting - the FAI decided to sock it to the soccer moms one more time.
As Lynch herself put it: "The Irish team appeared in the new home shirt which is to go on sale to the public on St Patrick's Day. Yet it is only 18 months since the team last launched a new jersey, and in that time have only played a handful of matches in that shirt."
Now economists do like to see people earning money. But the right of ownership of the State's soccer emblem constitutes what economists call a natural monopoly. Natural monopolies usually occur in utility networks - such as electricity and water - and arise because the overheads of network construction are too large to permit more than one firm.
But they can also arise by government regulation; where the Government grants an organisation the exclusive right to produce something. It is this latter form of natural monopoly which the FAI possesses.
Even the most hard-bitten free marketeer believes that natural monopolies should be regulated, so that its owner cannot abuse that dominant position.
Hence we have an energy regulator to control ESB price rises, a telecommunications regulator to encourage greater competition in the telecommunications market and an aviation regulator to control airport charges.
But no one regulates the FAI. In that scenario, it can profit from a phenomenon which economists refer to as "demand inelasticity". In layman's terms, national soccer strips are to a young soccer supporter what cigarettes are to a smoker or homes to a house buyer; something you simply must have, no matter how high the price rises.
The price of an inelastic good can be increased considerably before there is any significant reduction in the quantity demanded of it. The result is that you have every incentive to hike the price of the product.
By increasing the frequency with which the good needs to be purchased, the FAI is effectively increasing the price of buying the shirt.
You don't need a degree in economics to understand the concept, as Lynch makes clear: "Thousands of loyal supporters who spend huge amounts following the team across the world will feel obliged to fork out for the new replica when it goes on sale."
Not that the price is low to begin with. As Lynch herself points out, the last shirt retailed at €60, with the full strip costing €100. By the time the dedicated Irish soccer fan sits down to watch other teams contesting this summer's World Cup finals in Germany, they will have forked out around €250 since 2000 for the privilege of keeping their strip up to date.
In effect, you don't buy a Republic of Ireland soccer strip. You rent it.
And the FAI is a rackrenting landlord that knows it has its market over a barrel. But that market is mainly composed of young families on lower incomes, the very last people who need this kind of pressure.
The practice is hugely wasteful from a broader economic welfare point of view. As the proud possessor of a Bayern Munich soccer shirt - there are a few of us around - I know that these strips can stay in good condition for at least eight years (until recently I got far more victories per strip than the Republic).
Forcing the disposal and reproduction of tens of thousands of shirts every one and half years is a waste of economic resources, as well as being environmentally unfriendly.
That is even more apparent when you consider the inefficiency of the FAI. Its council is composed of 60 persons, whose expenses have to be paid. Then there is a 10-person body which the FAI laughably refers to as a board of "management". Top that up with six standing committees - each with up to 12 members - and you have enough people to govern a small country.
This army of bureaucrats is, of course, mainly male and perhaps ignorant of the moral blackmail which their greed imposes on mothers who have to make budgets go a long way. But ensconced as they are in their expensive headquarters in Merrion Square (that well known bastion of soccer fanaticism), such concerns are far away.
Trying to get the FAI's side of the story proved difficult as no one was answering the phone.
Kathleen Lynch's passionate defence of soccer moms is exactly the kind of economic issue that needs to be addressed more in this country; a passionate advocacy of consumer interests. It is also smart politically for the Labour Party.
Together with Joan Burton's refreshing criticisms of the present Government's tax policies, it will help bury the memory of the Labour Party's embarrassing detour on migrant workers.
More importantly, soccer moms have become a vital electoral constituency in the US, determining the outcome of the last two US presidential elections. Bertie Ahern, John O'Donoghue and the FAI; watch out.
