The organisation will have combined revenues of more than €200m – if the merger happens by the end of, or after, 2027 – making it the richest Irish sporting organisation.

The key business question is how this new equity-based body will be branded and what will it be called?

Already there is strong advice that the new Gaelic games umbrella body must be a brand new organisation with a new name, and one which is equal to all three federations.

While clearly the ‘One Association’ model must and will be equality based, when it comes to the business, financial and market segments, they are anything but equal in market and financial value.

Currently the three federations have a combined income of €106.2m, but the breakdown shows the sheer scale of their differing values:

- TOTAL REVENUE GAA – €96m (590k members) 

- LGFA - €7.3m (170k) 

- Camogie Association €2.9m (110k) 

Through matchday revenue, that percentage gap widens substantially, with gate receipts showing: GAA – €33m, LGFA - €807km, Camogie Association €546km.

While commercial income again demonstrates a disparity: GAA – €22m, LGFA - €602k, Camogie Association - €407k.

Perhaps most notably for all three is the engagement each association appreciates from the public through broadcast and social media, those prized marketing and advertising segments.

In broadcast, if we look at last year’s finals in each of the four sports, men’s football and hurling drew almost 1.25m more viewers than the two women’s finals in the valuable ‘average audience’ segment.

- All-Ireland Football Final: 862k 

- All-Ireland Hurling Final: 774k 

- All-Ireland Ladies Football Final 204k 

- All-Ireland Camogie Final 188k 

While in social media the GAA has approximately 1.14m followers across its main official platforms, with LGFA engaging 134k and Camogie with 92k.

Size shouldn’t matter under equality, according to the authors of a fascinating policy document – ‘Integration in Gaelic Games’, by Tyrone star Conor Meyler, Dr Katie Liston and Dr Aoife Lane.

Four of the group’s five recommendations include a ‘plan for a full’ merger, an agreement of ‘principles and values’, ‘prioritise female representation’ and ‘develop an equity-based funding model’.

A fifth, and most controversial pillar, is ‘Build a New Organisation For Gaelic Games’.

From a business perspective, the establishment of a new entity is something which presents the most challenges in taking a highly valuable, almost 140-year-old asset and changing it completely.

Katie Liston’s preference is for a new name and she points out that the current title has not been valid for more than a century – Gaelic Athletic Association – after the GAA ceded ties with athletics in 1922 when the National Athletic and Cycling Association was established.

This according to Liston is an important opportunity for the GAA to reconsider a name change which will be more reflective of a new era of equality.

“I think that’s an opportune moment to consider whether or not there were to be a new title, whether that is still relevant today - under the current structures I don’t think it is anyway, but that’s my own personal view,” she explained.

“I don’t think this is as necessarily controversial as a recommendation as some people might think it is and that’s largely because most people come at this from the close connection, the history, heritage and identity of whatever association means the most to them.

“We’ve discussed amongst ourselves what a new name might be but it’s not for us to dictate that to the public – we would have different views on it in terms of the title of the GAA.” 

Conor Meyler adds: “When we look at what has happened across other mergers across the world in other sports, whether it’s a formation of a new organisation and it’s a clean slate, that’s when you have your underpinning values which we have recommended.

“We’re not saying that you have to build this from scratch. A new organisation, can I think, be more than the simple sum of the best bits of the individual organisations right now.” 

Meyler concedes that perhaps the GAA identity is one that resonates most with camogie and ladies football: “A lot of people in the LGFA and Camogie’ would see themselves as members of the GAA.” 

For the policy document, Meyler, Liston and Lane looked at other examples of cross-organisational sporting mergers from around the world, including Cricket Australia and Golf New Zealand.

The most relevant example from an all-Ireland standpoint happened in 2019 when the Golf Union of Ireland and the Irish Ladies Golf Union voted to disband as standalone organisations, and form a single body – resulting in the formation of Golf Ireland in 2021.

CEO of Golf Ireland Mark Kennelly, who was appointed before the completion of the integration process, told The Pitch that a rebrand and name change was entirely necessary – even for a 135-year-old name, which was the oldest in the world of golf.

“Change is always challenging but because there had always been such a strong desire to change into something new, rather than an amalgamation, it did make it easier - it made sense,” he said.

“The very strong desire from the transition board was that there would be a brand created to reflect something new for the future (and) from a golf point of view, because there was such a desire for something new.” 

On whether Kennelly believes the GAA brand must also change… ‘no dice’: “We wish the GAA well in their discussions, but it’s not for us to advise them on what they need to do”.

Katie Liston believes that integration must be more than just “add women and stir” – but you get the sense that when it comes to changing such an iconic brand as the GAA, there will be a lot of stirring between now and the end of the process.

Sharp drop in TV audience between Greece and Gibraltar 

THE Republic of Ireland’s home win against Gibraltar on Monday was the third lowest television audience for a competitive (non-Nations League or Friendly) fixture in more than two-and-a-half years.

Only Ireland’s two games against Azerbaijan in the World Cup qualifiers in 2021 resulted in smaller numbers of those watching on TV, than the 398k who tuned in this week.

The Gibraltar numbers were 51k less than the 449k figure which had watched the side’s 2-1 defeat by Greece last Friday and represented a significant drop, which is down to a number of factors.

Significantly, more than 40,000 fans attended the match in the Aviva Stadium against the small number in attendance in Athens, and a bottom of the table clash on a sunny Monday evening was never going to motivate big interest.

The figures are alarming nonetheless, showing that interest from the general public outside of that core fanbase is not increasing into new audience, outside of key engagement match-ups against leading nations.

Over the past three years, the highest recorded audiences have been for Portugal at home in November 2021 with an average audience of 679k and the side’s recent defeat at home to France last March, when 598k tuned in.

With talk turning to a change of manager by the end of this campaign, a box office appointment is certainly what’s needed from a business perspective.

What did Rory really know about PGA merger With LIV?

AS the United States Department of Justice’s antitrust division investigates and reviews the PGA Tour’s proposed merger with the Saudi-funded LIV Golf franchise, it’s the right time to ask ‘what Rory McIlroy knew of the deal?’ The PGA Tour has told The Pitch that its board members fully backed discussions between the US tour, which includes Rory as a member of that Board, with its Saudi counterparts.

As the Chair of the Players Advisory Committee and leader of the Tour’s Policy Board – although holding no voting rights - McIlroy appeared not to have been informed of the secretive negotiation process being conducted by Jimmy Dunne.

Dunne, who is Vice Chair of the PGA Tour Board, led seven weeks of meetings with LIV Golf to agree a framework for a unification of the PGA Tour, LIV Golf and the DP World Tour, alongside Commissioner Jay Monahan.

The PGA Tour, when asked by The Pitch, if constitutionally the Board could take major organisational decision without the knowledge of elected representatives, said: “The framework agreement was done within the bounds of our governance.” 

A further inquiry on whether the Board supported the near two-month negotiation process by Dunne and Monahan, the ‘Tour said: “Yes, ‘full support of the board on the framework agreement.”