Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Duffy and Mr. O'Neill and thank them for their presentation. Every member of the committee is cognisant of the exceptionally good work the GAA does and the leadership it has shown in developing the sport at local and national level, including the investment the organisation makes. Any comments I make at variance with where the witnesses are on the issue should not be seen as negative towards the wonderful work it does.

Mr. Duffy says "if we had decided that all TV coverage of our games was to be free-to-air, we would have had to abandon what we saw as our obligation to our Irish supporters abroad". We are all cognisant of the diaspora and their needs. Could the reach to the diaspora not have been achieved through the RTE digital channel, which would not require taking certain games away from the free-to-air platform? I understand that the coverage is free-to-air in Australia and access to the diaspora could have been achieved through that platform without abandoning the obligation.

What unique access does Sky Sports have to the diaspora that other free-to-air broadcasters do not have? I accept the point made but we must take into consideration the RTE digital platform and Channel 7 in Australia. Could the GAA not have achieved the objective, particularly given that finance was not a key priority? The witnesses emphasised that the benefit is marginal.

We understand the need to trade off certain issues. What about the people left at home? What does the GAA say to the elderly club stalwart who lives in rural isolation and has participated in our national games, played the game, worked in the club, lined the fields and cut the grass but is unable to afford the Sky Sports package? What does the GAA say to them if their county happens to be playing? The big game for these people is when the county is playing. What if it happens to be an event that is on the Sky platform? What do the witnesses say to the family, the husband and wife with three kids who cannot afford the Sky package because of the economic circumstances? They are left with Hobson's choice and the trade-off of going to the pub to watch the game and introducing children to pub culture or staying at home and not watching the game. Some 14 games have been designated but people from the counties playing on a particular Saturday or Sunday are left with Hobson's choice. It may be a trade-off too far.

The witnesses' statement refers to cynical reaction by some to the announcement of the new contracts. Perhaps the witnesses can expand on where the cynicism resides. We have identified that this is a deal for three years. In 2011, the GAA hierarchy told the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources that it would not sell rights to a foreign channel as it was "contrary to the culture and national ethos of the association". Two questions emanate from that.

What has changed at the level of GAA hierarchy that would make a practice that was contrary to the culture and national ethos of the association acceptable now to the culture and ethos of the association? Is Mr. Duffy not concerned that when the process of moving to a pay-per-view environment begins, the association will start to move away from the notion of volunteerism towards pay for play? These questions need to be answered. I am not necessarily criticising the decision the association has taken but these questions arise among the electorate, those who love the game, who have participated in it and want it to retain a connection with the culture about which Mr Duffy talked, and the core ethos of the voluntary sporting environment. They want to see that continue. They need to hear from Mr. Duffy and Mr. O'Neill today how they hope to preserve and maintain that ethos.