Mr. Noel Quinn:

The impact would be substantial. How material it would be to us depends on how it is imposed. Our costs are significant. Production is still expensive, even though it is slightly mitigated with a digital set-up as opposed to a traditional linear broadcast. We would rather invest in quality programming and having the best people holding a microphone or pointing a camera. Any additional costs would probably impact that. The costs are significant already and are rising. It could impact decision-making in terms of the programming and the volume of programming we would do. If it was imposed, I suggest that it perhaps be looked at it in a fair way and absolutely in a different light from a global conglomerate with billions of euro of turnover. As I mentioned earlier, €1 less in our coffers is essentially €1 less available to repurpose back out. To give an example, this year, more than €9 million was repurposed in player welfare and €15 million went to games development pathways. It allows us to employ 340 coaches in schools and clubs. Any additional costs layered on inhibits us achieving what we want to do with our overarching goal, that is, to foster lifelong participation.

In respect of broadening the appeal of the game and participation because of livestreams, that is a real thing. To bring it closer to home, we are involved with helping camogie with its recent broadcasting with RTÉ to guarantee a number of games. When I say about bringing it closer to home, as a father of two young girls, in recent days, we knew we could sit down to watch the camogie quarter-finals. We will have the semi-finals and final to watch also. Broadcasting is still the most effective marketing tool. Particularly in the context of dropout and burnout rates, it is important to put our heroes on screens rather than people going to TikTok to see LeBron James or Messi. We want them to see David Clifford or the equivalent.