GAA and Paisley both discover the downside of a photo-finish

IT was probably a huge understatement when Northern Secretary Peter Hain said after his meeting on Wednesday with Ian Paisley that the DUP had put its views of recent developments in the North "extremely strongly and critically".

A meeting with Ian Paisley always reminds me of somebody going home at about 4.15am after an estimated 25 pints and having to explain to the wife why they have managed to arrive home in that condition and couldn't find the key to the front door.

It's impossible, even the following morning, although you would hardly have to be a rocket scientist to explain why arriving home in that condition and not being able to find the key are somehow connected.

Apart from that, Peter Hain had the experience of protest movements in his native South Africa decades ago, but even the apartheid regime there could not have prepared him for the DUP.

The fact that at one stage the present Northern Secretary advocated a united Ireland hardly endeared him to the voice of Northern Ireland, a voice that believes that what is good for the majority community is good for the north.

Well, it seems he doesn't believe the announcement from the IRA about the armed struggle being over, especially if it means that the British Army is seriously beginning to remove the comfort blanket of installations, as it has already begun to do.

One of the first things Ian Paisley resurrected was the inane insistence that the IRA's decommissioning should be photographed. From his point of view, it would be better if they never did, but a picture would prove the contrary, and thereby defeat his intransigence that direct rule is preferable to sharing power with republicans.

He should realise that photographic evidence can prove to be quite negative, as the GAA realised at the start of the week in which the IRA eventually dropped its very welcome bombshell.

There were about 55,000 fans in Croke Park for the Cork and Waterford All-Ireland SHC quarter final, preceded by the Clare and Wexford game, and thousands more, if not millions, watched on television.

Yet, not one of them spotted the four offensive items of footwear that were desecrating the sacred turf of Croker for about 70 minutes.

Until the next morning, that is, when photographic evidence showed that the Guinness-sponsored series was spiked by a Mexican competitor. The thing about Corona, apparently, is that it creeps up on you - with, or without, the twist. Obviously it does, because just two were a bit much for the GAA to swallow as their effects began to produce a monumental hangover for the organisation.

Guinness may be good for the GAA, but Corona can, apparently, put the boot in. Having watched the match on television, like hundreds of thousands others, I can honestly say, like them, that the pitch was an alcohol-free zone, apart from the hoardings.

Not once during the entire 70 minutes did I even notice what Kieran Murphy or Niall McCarthy had on their boots. The same could be said of the attendance at Croke Park and those who tuned into the match.

But what had happened? Nothing, as far as any ordinary punter was concerned, but a mortal sin was committed as far as headquarters was concerned.

WHAT actually happened was that one drinks company got the drop on another. That's all. Nobody died, but, to judge from the reaction from the corporate GAA, anybody would think the Government wanted its grants returned, or the potential rugby stadium had been hit by an unnatural disaster.

The problem, of course, was that two players were promoting a drink other than the main hurling sponsor.

We know that drink is not a problem for the GAA, because drink is never a problem for them. If the two lads were advertising sausages or black puddings on their boots, there probably would have been no hassle.

The interesting thing is that Guinness was far more logical in its response, such as it was.

A spokesperson for Diageo, the multinational parent of the brew, said: "Guinness sees this as very much a matter for the GAA and will not be making any further comment on the matter."

Let it settle, in other words. And, of course, Diageo was absolutely right. It is a matter for the GAA. It is a matter of sponsorship. It's a matter of money.

Guinness has the wit to know that the vast majority of people at the match, or those watching it on television, never sucked on a twist of lime from the neck of a beer bottle, and the chances of them doing so are about the same as scoring from a puck-out.

But the GAA is too sensitive - especially where money is concerned. Its philosophy was summed up by Jim Forbes, chairman of the Cork County Board: "If they (Corona) want to plough money into the GAA, why don't they do it through the proper channels? They were grossly irresponsible in approaching the players."

Forbes said this after he ranted that: "This is a very cheap trick by someone trying to extract as much publicity as possible for giving a paltry sum of money to players."

He is right insofar as Corona extracted as much publicity as possible, which they did, and with the predictable cooperation of the GAA's indignation. It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, though, to refer to a paltry sum of money. They got absolutely zilch - not even paltry - from the GAA, which made a lot of money from the fixture by the appearance of those two players and others like them on the Croke Park turf.

I haven't a clue what Kieran Murphy and Niall McCarthy received from Corona, and whether it was €500 or €1,000, the blessings of God on them. But the GAA tolerates individual sponsorship for some players lucky enough to attract it, without a murmur. They are allowed to have individual sponsorship and that's no problem for headquarters.

Consequently, it tolerates a two-tier system of sponsorship which can only irritate those who are outside the perks circle. As a result, there was widespread support among players for the two lads taking the Corona deal.

Inter-county footballers, hurlers and camogie stars backed them, well aware of what players give to the game to the detriment of their family lives.

They went so far as to hint that if there was any suggestion that the two players in question would be banned, it would not be tolerated.

Despite the fact that GAA chiefs have warned they would not delay investigations into the controversy, they should relax. In the scale of things, it wasn't so much a tsunami as a Mexican wave.