Increasingly, the GAA’s annual congress has turned into a clearing house for rule changes. That is what occupies the central part of the proceedings, most of Saturday, on the relevant weekend.
It has become questionable to what extent the two days are necessary and four years ago, in Connacht GAA’s lamented – but due to be rebuilt later this year – air dome in Bekan, the business of congress was completed within a day.
The clár for this year’s event at the end of the month is a modest 25 motions, the majority of which come from various central committees and work groups, such as Central Council, Amateur Status Review, Demographics Committee et cetera. Nuts and bolts stuff.
This balance between what is centrally proposed and what arises from individual units of the GAA has tilted greatly in the last couple of decades. Originally, the national administration had no way of tabling motions, which meant that when a taskforce or work group reported, it was necessary to get a county to propose the initiative.
READ MORE
It has led, however, to a problem in that clubs and counties have become more discouraged from submitting ideas, lacking as they do the resources to research, formulate and promote compared to central committees.
There has been a focus on the lack of any motions to do with the Allianz sponsorship issue. This doesn’t mean that it won’t get discussed, because in the debate on the director general’s report there will be an opportunity to raise the issue, as Tom Ryan included in his text a defence of the commercial link.
Whatever the views of the floor, they will be purely advisory as, in the absence of a motion, there can be no rule passed.
Not that such a move was likely. In general, the GAA has steered clear of allowing anything to do with its commercial activities get aired in congress motions. Those matters are considered more appropriately dealt with by Central Council or Management Committee.
On a vaguely comparable matter, however, there was a motion taken 10 years ago on what then was the contentious issue of subscription broadcasting – a proposal that all senior intercounty championship matches be available free to air. It was heavily defeated, attracting just 15 per cent of the votes and the vocal support of two counties, Dublin and Donegal.
[ Pro-Palestine protesters gather at GAA headquarters to oppose Allianz sponsorshipOpens in new window ]
This time around, the issue of Allianz was considered at county conventions before Christmas, with nine – the six cross-Border counties plus Offaly, Roscommon and Leitrim – looking to have the matter debated. None of their motions made it to the congress clár.
Also, days before Christmas, the GAA released some details of the deliberations of its Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC), to which body the sponsorship had been referred.
The back story is well known. Allianz plc in Ireland is part of a global conglomerate, one of whose subsidiaries, Pimco, was found by the UN special rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, Francesca Albanese, to be financially complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The report, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, was released last year and prompted questions about the GAA’s continuing partnership with Allianz, which ultimately led to its referral to the EIC.
That committee’s recommendation to maintain the link with Allianz has been criticised as a cold upholding of commercial interest over human rights. The fault for that unflattering characterisation owes something to the press release on December 19th, which in three of its four points emphasised the impossibility of breaching contracts.
Only at the end did it state as a fourth argument that “Allianz plc has no involvement with the IDF or corporate entities involved in the war in Gaza. Any such relationship is with a ‘sibling or cousin company’.”
In the EIC report, a copy of which has been seen by The Irish Times, the thinking is more nuanced than presented in the media communiqué.
It references Irish, European and international law and looks at the position of the UN in relation to commercial contact with Israel.
Also acknowledged is the Albanese report – as is the rapporteur’s scandalous targeting by a delinquent US administration – which is nonetheless presented as an inquiry or position paper, albeit “an authoritative expert” analysis rather than actual UN policy.
It also accepts the widespread concern within the GAA about the sponsorship but points out how difficult it is to source unambiguously ethical connections in the contemporary world of digitally fluid financial flows and intersecting interests.
The ubiquity within the association of Microsoft and Google products – two companies also identified as complicit in supporting Israel’s war effort – which are widely used within the GAA is also cited as an example of this intractability.
The overriding issue has to be how the membership views the association with Allianz. It would be appropriate if the DG’s report on the Friday of congress hears the positions of various units on the matter.
There is presumably not a single member of the GAA – or as close as makes no difference – who is not appalled by the wickedness of the assault on Gaza where since the October “ceasefire” an estimated 600 Palestinians have been killed. That is a given.
The remaining question is whether the same members see a sufficiently strong link between this situation and Allianz plc on the Merrion Road. That is open to question.
Of course, the membership should have a say on whether a sponsorship is morally acceptable and whether the rank and file feel comfortable about its maintenance.
But every county is represented on Central Council and if there is a strong consensus on ending the commercial partnership, that is the forum at which to raise the matter and deliberate on the merits and demerits of such a termination.
It may not be easy but it is achievable. If that is what the association wants.
– sean.moran@irishtimes.com
