Faced with a bitter public outcry over the FAI deal with Sky, the Taoiseach may live to regret Government inaction, writes Mark Hennessy
The only real surprise about the Football Association of Ireland's four-year rights deal covering home internationals with the Rupert Murdoch-controlled Sky Television is that it took so long.
The warning signs have been clear for years that, sooner or later, one of the major Irish sporting bodies would opt for the satellite shilling, regardless of the fans. Certainly, the Government cannot credibly argue - even though it has tried - that it has been studious about its responsibilities.
The image of a soccer-loving leader rescuing the hopes of fans from the jaws of perfidious commerce is one that any Taoiseach could be forgiven for wanting as the country heads off on holidays. Trying to close the stable door, Mr Ahern has threatened a big stick over the heads of the embattled FAI leadership. Change the terms of the deal with Sky, or we will change it for you, he has warned.
But the matter may not be so simple. Put simply, the FAI will be sued if it breaks its deal without Sky's agreement. So why should it put itself out on a limb? If it does nothing, the Government will have to act, and take the risks.
Finally accepted in 1997, the European Union's "Television Without Frontiers" directive was designed to keep major cultural and sporting events on free-to-air television. But the directive is vague about whether all or just some events should be covered live, or if deferred broadcasts - such as TV3 will do one hour after the Irish games - is enough.
Five countries have taken up the freedom offered by the directive. Indeed, the UK had acted a year before its introduction, when it produced one of the most comprehensive of all lists.
In June 1999, the then minister for arts, culture, heritage and the Gaeltacht, Ms de Valera, brought the EU directive into Irish law with the Broadcasting Major Events Television Coverage Bill. Under the legislation, a broadcaster "under the jurisdiction of the State" can be required to pass on rights to a designated event "for fair market value" if it cannot provide a free-to-air service.
Clearly, Sky Television cannot provide this. But is the company "under the jurisdiction of the State"? Since possession is nine-tenths of the law, what will happen to the soccer rights if the issue heads towards the Four Courts?
Both the European Commission and, latterly, the Government insist that moves can be made to protect Irish home internationals, despite the FAI/Sky contract.
However, the freedom to act retrospectively has still to pass the European Court of Justice - which has yet to rule on the British government's decision to protect all World Cup games.
Faced with a ban in the UK, the German satellite broadcaster, Kirch, sold the TV rights to the BBC and ITV for £170 million sterling, but its legal challenge remains alive, even though Kirch has gone into financial meltdown.
Speaking to the few TDs interested in the subject in 1999, Ms de Valera acknowledged that the pace of change in television sports coverage was "truly breathtaking".
"There is a danger that if market forces are left to themselves without some level of co-ordinated control by the member states of the EU, a small number of companies would dominate the market," she said.
The legislation, which was welcomed with just a few caveats by the opposition, gave Ms de Valera the power to designate events, a power which she failed to exercise.
"Pay channels should not dominate our lives. Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch and those who own pay channels should not become billionaires at our expense," declared Fine Gael TD Mr Austin Deasy.
Talks with the FAI, the Irish Rugby Football Union, the GAA and, indeed, others would be finished in two months, Ms de Valera promised back then - though that commitment did not survive long.
An amendment by the Waterford Labour TD, Mr Brian O'Shea,would have legally required her to act within six months.
But laying down such a deadline would "artificially cut short" the consultation she had in mind to hold with the sporting bodies: "It should not just be a cosmetic exercise," she had said.
Following its Oireachtas passage, the minister tried to use the legislation to nudge the sporting bodies to agree but she backed away after they rounded on her.
In letters to the minister, the chief executive of the IRFU, Mr Philip Browne, spoke for colleagues when he railed that RTÉ had been guilty of "ruthless exploitation" of them for years.
Up to a few days ago, the Cabinet believed that the sporting organisations had a point: "You have to leave them something with which to negotiate. Otherwise RTÉ would simply walk all over them," said one adviser.
Now, though, the public's blood is up and the tenor of the Government's public statements - initially resigned to the deal - have had to move accordingly.
In fairness, Mr Ahern was astute enough to realise the political significance of the Sky deal when he first heard about it last Friday week, even if the FAI's chiefs believed the fuss would be short-lived.
The legal investigation started the next day. By last Monday, civil servants were going to Brussels to talk to the European Commission.
Bizarrely, however, the Government continued to talk down the prospects of change.
On Thursday, the European Commission declared that the Government could act under "Television Without Frontiers", and they made it clear that they had told the Government this as well.
Initially, the Commission's intervention irked the Government: "Is the Commission trying to tell a member state what to do?" asked one official.
Within hours, the same official had mellowed. "We were aware of the Commission's attitude before this story was published. We have been working hard to clarify matters," he said.