No need for paid bosses to remain GAA taboo

Against the Breeze
By Paddy Heaney

First Published 13/01/09

HERE’S a question to get you thinking on this fine Tuesday. Why is it wrong to pay a manager in the GAA?

If you’re like me, then your gut response will be: ‘It just is.’ Then, after further consideration, you will note that the GAA is an amateur organisation and that it is supposed to be organised, governed, and played by volunteers.
Ever since it came into vogue, the business of paying managers has always been considered a subversive and shady enterprise.

The first chequebook clubs were widely ridiculed and criticised by neighbours that were quick to seize the moral high ground. But then, as one-by-one the majority joined the minority, the cat-calling became more and more muted.

Nowadays, there’s a deafening silence. The attitude towards paying managers is similar to the views on infidelity. People know it’s not right, but they accept it as the norm.

In this respect, yours truly is no different to the broad church of GAA supporters, and this column has frequently taken cheap pot-shots at recipients of the brown envelopes. However, those days are over.

Because after examining the whole issue of professional managers, I can no longer understand why it really is such a problem, or indeed, why it even contravenes the GAA’s rules.
My ‘Road To Damascus’ conversion on this issue started when I travelled to Croke Park at the end of last year for the launch of the GAA’s strategic plan.

Following an intensive consultation exercise, the six-year plan was compiled by Hutton/Kelly Consultants, a professional company, who were legitimately reimbursed for their efforts.

Paraic Duffy, the GAA’s highly-respected director-general, has taken ownership of the project and stated that he is willing to be judged on the results. Duffy is another salaried professional.
And, while speaking at the official launch, Duffy willingly acknowledged that the success and failure of the strategic plan hinges largely on the GAA’s network of full-time administrators who will try and roll it out to the county boards.

These full-time county secretaries and provincial council employees will be responsible for motivating, encouraging and showing the volunteer members of county boards how to meet the targets set out in the strategic plan.

Therefore the basic scenario we are faced with is this: it’s okay to employ full-time administrators to raise the standards of volunteer administrators. However, it’s not okay to employ full-time managers to raise the standards of volunteer footballers.
Can someone explain what is the major difference? The amateur ethos argument doesn’t wash. If the GAA was strictly amateur, no one would get paid a shilling.

Furthermore, consider the reasons which are used to justify employing full-time administrators: it’s too heavy a workload for a volunteer; no-one is willing do it for nothing; and the GAA benefits from the expertise of a professional.
The same arguments also apply to football and hurling managers. In some clubs and counties, it’s simply impossible to find an individual who will dedicate 20 to 40 hours a week free of charge.

In other cases, clubs and counties realise that their players and teams will benefit from the input of a qualified and respected coach, who requires payment. In many instances, it has proved to be money well spent.

Think of the example where a club has gone through its quota of managers who are members of that club. They are good, well-intentioned men, who nevertheless lack the know-how of a trained coach.

Under a proper coach, a fresh voice who costs a few quid, training sessions are properly structured. Players are stimulated by learning new techniques and derive greater enjoyment from playing in a team that has been trained properly.

If a paid manager can keep players involved in the game, if he can improve the standards of play, if he can provide an example of best practice for others at the club to follow, then why is it a considered a breach of the rules to employ someone who can produce such benefits?
Of course, for every top-class paid manager, there are half-a-dozen charlatans who are merely in it for the easy cash.

Again, the exact same argument can be levelled at the GAA’s full-time administrators and coaching officers – a professional body that has its fair share of premium class phoneys and bluffers.
Apart from being wholly inconsistent with its own rules, there are other reasons why the GAA should legitimise the payment of managers.

For starters, all the attempts to police or monitor the illicit payment of managers have proved utterly futile. And because the behaviour is considered a breach of the rules, it has led to solid GAA members engaging in all manner of dodgy book-keeping and other forms of shifty dealing in order to mask these tax-free hand-outs.

This is an unnecessary imposition on men who would otherwise be fairly law-abiding individuals.
The ban on paying managers has also cast an unnecessary cloud over hundreds of fine and upstanding members of the GAA.

Yes, we can all think of the shameless mercenaries. But there are also countless examples of quality gaels who are somehow deemed to have compromised their integrity by accepting payment for their sought-after services.

Again, this shouldn’t be the case, particularly when you can think of individuals who have devoted their lives to coaching children and adults free of charge. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to profit from their professional expertise?

The GAA has accepted that is requires the employment of full-time administrators and coaches in order to meet the challenges that it faces in promoting the game and dealing with the competition from rival codes.

It’s high time that the Association recognised the necessity of paid managers, who, like full-time administrators, are merely trying to raise the standards of the volunteers around them.
The bucks, however, must stop there.