GAA won’t drag heels on boot logo controversy

GAA chiefs have warned they will not delay investigations into the controversial deal which saw Cork hurlers Kieran Murphy and Niall McCarthy wearing boots with the Corona beer logo in Sunday’s All-Ireland SHC quarter-final.

Their participation in the semi-final against Clare remains in some doubt as Croke Park's Central Disciplinary Committee (CDC) threatens to get tough on such 'ambush marketing'. However, players representatives expressed confidence last night that the duo will escape a ban.

However, the CDC is likely to recommend some course of action to Croke Park's management committee that will reflect growing anger at the tactics employed by Corona.

GAA president Sean Kelly last night insisted: "We will not panic, but this isn't an issue we can sit on.

"We will be examining every aspect of this situation from the players, to the company, to the photograph which has given rise to this situation," he pledged.

The Gaelic Players Association (GPA) are adamant no rules were broken by Murphy and McCarthy, describing Rule 14 of the GAA's Official Guide as "pretty grey."

The players' representative body called on the Association to rethink the role of players rather than "hammering" them for individual endorsement deals.

Commercial director Donal O'Neill intimated that the players would escape sanction because there is a loophole in the regulation, with boots and hurleys not being covered by sponsorship rules:

"I know that rule was redrafted after the Paddy Power incident in 2003, but it still appears to be a loophole and the rules are pretty grey.

"We don't expect any sanctions will be imposed on the two players. A decision can't be definitive because the GAA are seeking to impose restrictions that may not have the force of GAA rule.

"The revision to Rule 14 was made by a President's ruling, which we understand didn't go through the formal channels to be incorporated into the guidelines, and that's where the ambiguity arises.

"As we understand it, that fact would make it very difficult to impose any form of suspension or other sanction against the players."

The original rule governing advertising and sponsors logos applied to playing gear (see panel), but did not specify hurleys or boots.

Cork and Wexford players escaped bans in the 'Paddy Power affair' two years ago because hurleys were not specified in the rule. The rule was subsequently re-drafted by President's ruling to cover both hurleys and boots.

O'Neill called for the debate to be broadened, saying: "I don't think imposing strict regulations on what players can or can't do is the way forward here. The GAA needs to take a long hard look at the players' role and putting a system in place which acknowledges their place and their contribution to the modern game."

Mark Hopkins, the PR consultant who put together the controversial boot endorsement deal, admitted last night the two Cork players involved are "extremely concerned" about the threat of suspension.

"Neither I nor the players expected this much media exposure," Hopkins admitted.

"The lads are now extremely concerned about the All-Ireland semi-final. Hopefully there will be no action taken. The most important thing is that a suspension is not incurred. They are worried, which is natural, and I am just trying to look after them. I personally would be disgusted if they were suspended.

"Basically my primary concern is the players and their welfare. It was never my intention to get them in any trouble and I am hopeful that there will be no suspension and no action taken."

Mr Hopkins has few regrets about the move, believing that it highlights the need for more opportunities for players.

"It is a tricky one. I feel that our intentions were to highlight a branding exercise but secondly to reward the players for the effort and thirdly to highlight the issue of financial support, or the lack of it that these players do for what is almost like taking on a second job.

Though there are opportunities for off field endorsements, Mr Hopkins pointed out that potential sponsors are much keener to be involved in competitive action. "The biggest exposure any company will want is on the field of play so from a business perspective that is where companies would like to be and that is where we targeted. But there was no malice intended to any of the other sponsors."