Irish Examiner view: Resignation of Mary McAleese is a reality check for Gaelic games

Then GAA integration steering group chairperson Mary McAleese speaking during an update on the integration process involving the Camogie Association, the GAA, and the LGFA at Croke Park in 2024. Picture: Sam Barnes/Sportsfile

The resignation of Mary McAleese as chairwoman of the steering group on integration represents much more than an unfortunate bump on the road towards bringing the GAA, Ladies Gaelic Football Association, and Camogie Association together. It is a serious reality check for a process which, until relatively recently, appeared to have an agreed destination and an agreed timetable.

The target of full integration by 2027 now appears certain to be missed. GAA director general Tom Ryan has conceded that the deadline was too ambitious and that important questions around organisational structures remain unresolved.

There is nothing inherently unreasonable about acknowledging that reality. Combining three major sporting organisations, with different structures, finances, competitions and traditions, was never going to be achieved simply by setting a date in the calendar. The timetable may have been unrealistic. The ambition was not. That distinction matters following Ms McAleese’s departure.

The former president has expressed profound frustration at what she sees as a loss of momentum and leadership within the GAA, and raised the more troubling possibility that some remain uncomfortable with women participating in decision-making at the highest levels of Gaelic games.

Such a serious contention will inevitably be disputed, and the GAA has rejected accusations of misogyny. But it would be equally wrong to dismiss Ms McAleese’s concerns simply because some of her language has been uncomfortable for those at the top of the organisation.

Indeed, the events of this week suggest they should be examined rather than explained away.

Ms McAleese was not an outside agitator demanding change from an unwilling organisation. She was invited to chair a process the three associations themselves had committed to pursuing. The GAA’s own congress endorsed integration, and enormous work has already been done at grassroots level, where the distinctions between the organisations can often appear far less pronounced than they do in the corridors of administration.

That is why the sudden loss of confidence between Ms McAleese and the GAA leadership is potentially so damaging.

Nor has GAA president Jarlath Burns helped by placing such emphasis on the financial challenges involved. Those challenges are real. Integration will have consequences for funding, facilities, and resources, and pretending otherwise serves nobody. But money cannot become a convenient explanation for indefinitely postponing a change the organisation has already accepted is necessary.

There is now a danger of this dispute hardening into competing camps when what is required is precisely the opposite. Ms McAleese’s departure should prompt reflection rather than recrimination. A new timetable must be credible, transparent, and sufficiently flexible to accommodate the formidable practical difficulties involved. But it must also be a timetable.

The GAA has repeatedly insisted that its future lies in one organisation representing Gaelic games. That remains the right destination. The challenge now is to demonstrate that integration has been delayed because it is difficult — not because enthusiasm for getting there has diminished.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

AfD result is a warning to us all

For decades, Germany appeared to possess particular antibodies against the resurgence of the far right. Its contemporary history demanded vigilance. Its political institutions were designed around it. Mainstream parties maintained a “firewall” against cooperation with the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Yet voters in Saxony-Anhalt delivered a result that should reverberate far beyond Germany.

The AfD secured almost 44% of the vote in Sunday’s state election, more than doubling its previous support and coming close to an outright majority. Chancellor Friedrich Merz
conceded that the result had shaken his Christian Democratic Union “to its very foundations”.

It should. The AfD’s politics — fiercely anti-immigration, sympathetic towards Moscow, and increasingly hostile to Germany’s post-war consensus — warrant serious concern. But simply condemning the party while ignoring why millions of Germans are prepared to vote for it is not a strategy for defeating it. Saxony-Anhalt is among Germany’s poorest states. Voters have expressed frustration over the cost of living, economic insecurity, pensions, migration, and a political establishment many increasingly regard as remote from their everyday concerns.

None of those grievances’ excuses extremism. But neither will describing voters as extremists make those grievances disappear. That is the uncomfortable lesson for mainstream parties across Europe, and Ireland in particular.

Political firewalls can prevent parties from entering government. They cannot indefinitely contain the anger and alienation that drive voters towards them. Germany’s democratic parties should not respond by mimicking the AfD’s politics, particularly its dangerous rhetoric on immigration. But they must demonstrate that democratic government can still hear voters, address economic insecurity, and deliver meaningful change. The greatest gift the political centre can give populists is complacency.

For Germany, that complacency is no longer possible. The warning from Saxony-Anhalt could hardly have been louder.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

Social media ban

The argument over children and social media is rapidly moving from whether governments should intervene to how. That makes Ireland’s EU presidency conference on online safety, taking place in Dublin this week, particularly timely.

Across Europe, momentum is building for age restrictions, while Ireland has already indicated it is prepared to act nationally if agreement cannot be reached at EU level. There are legitimate questions about where an age limit should fall, how it can be enforced, and whether determined teenagers will circumvent it. Indeed, new Irish research suggests many children and parents favour education over prohibition. But those difficulties cannot become an excuse for inaction.

For too long, the burden of navigating products deliberately designed to capture the attention has fallen disproportionately on children and their parents. An EU-wide approach remains preferable. Ireland now has an opportunity to help deliver one.