The former president opposes the players grant scheme, but was instrumental in the introduction of a measure that has had a far greater impact on amateur status

IT WAS no real surprise to see former GAA president Peter Quinn nail his colours to the mast on the players' awards scheme when speaking on Questions and Answers on Monday night. After all he had been invited to the meeting in Toome before Christmas which had been the focus of opposition to the scheme and although he didn't turn up, he had excused himself on the grounds of being unwell.

But his comments this week were, as always, interesting. As a former president and chair of the committee that reviewed the GAA's amateur status back in 1997, Quinn is well qualified to have a view and his view is Rule 11 on amateur status is being breached.

"I believe this is still pay for play," he said replying to programme presenter John Bowman. "Who's going to get the money? Thirty players from each county. The 30 players who are on the panel for the championships. That's pay for play and in my view, once you break or abandon a core tenet - and amateur status was a core value within the GAA - you can never return to the status quo ante. It just isn't possible."

Probably the most interesting element of the above statement is the articulation of the "slippery slope" argument. Amateur status is an absolute concept and it can't be altered even by degrees without disappearing.

The reason this is interesting is changes introduced by Quinn's own committee in 1997 had a far greater impact on amateur status than anything contained in the Government awards scheme.

Rule 11 prohibits the acceptance of "payment in cash or in kind in conjunction with the playing of Gaelic games". If the rule as it stands allows players to participate in advertising campaigns, receive appearance fees for turning up at launches and endorsing products, how can it credibly prevent them from receiving token Irish Sports Council assistance with the additional costs of training and preparing for elite sport?

There have, of course, been dizzy exercises in semantics about how in one case you're being paid to advertise toothpaste or Dettol or whatever, whereas in the other you're actually being paid for taking part in the games.

But the only reason you're receiving the former payment is because you're a well-known player - in other words you're getting the cash pretty firmly in conjunction with the playing of Gaelic games.

Neither is this a cobbled-together post hoc justification of the awards scheme. The debate at special congress in 1997 that approved of players availing of endorsements did so in the full and explicit appreciation it was permitting players to exploit the profile they had developed on the playing fields "in conjunction with the playing of Gaelic games".

Here's a couple of the contributions on the subject, both from future presidents of the association : "The profile of the games raises the profile of the players and they shouldn't be asked to lose out on these opportunities. They are entitled to remuneration" - Nickey Brennan (member of the Amateur Status Committee).

"In the world we live in today, I would prefer to see our top players advertising in public rather than the players of other codes. It's not a bottomless fund. No one's going to make their fortune out of it" - Seán Kelly (Kerry chair).

Even the report itself viewed the prospect with enthusiasm, saying at 5.17: "The view has been taken that the GAA will benefit from the involvement of its playing members in product endorsement and the publicity which the sponsorship company will give to the player(s)." To be fair to Quinn he was at the time anxious to uphold the GAA's amateur status and differentiate between the ancillary, commercial earnings that he was proposing and the concept of "pay for play".

That was in keeping with the developing minimalism of the GAA's view of amateurism as something that wouldn't be infringed unless players were drawing a professional or semi-professional wage out of the games. I wouldn't have been the only one surprised back in 1997 to be told a scheme like the current awards was what anyone would have had in mind when thinking of "pay for play".

Given that the principle of amateurism can be plainly seen from the foregoing as, at its strictest, a moveable feast, the main practical arguments in its defence have been that the GAA couldn't bear the cost of the alternative, that its erosion would be the end of volunteerism and that it would mean the free movement of players liberated from registration constraints.

In this case the first objection doesn't apply, as public money is funding the scheme.

As regards the second it's genuinely hard to see how the introduction of the current awards - and remember they are expected to be worth between about €1,500 and €2,500 per annum - will create such discontent as to result in widespread alienation amongst the membership at large when other, more fundamental changes in the association in recent years, haven't had such an impact.

The third objection - the movement of players - is already catered for in the rules. All a player has to do is change residence and transfer his club and county registration. It's not as if this hasn't happened before.

Yet, it's remarkable how attached players remain to their own club and county. If all of the blandishments directed at Declan Browne down the years couldn't shake his loyalty to Tipperary football, it's ridiculous to suggest that an awards differential of around €1,000 would suddenly undermine that commitment.

Sometimes the slippery slope is eased out to apply to the size of the awards, but in the Ireland of today it's only amongst the ranks of those opposing the scheme you'll find a fear that Government funding allocations will escalate uncontrollably in the immediate future.

It was ironic in a way that Quinn should produce the slippery slope because in advance of his own report the same dread location was conjured up by then director general Liam Mulvihill. When addressing the Dublin county convention on January 11th, 1997, he had this to say about speculation surrounding the likely findings of Quinn's sub-committee, appointed at the end of the previous year.

"Since the appointment of the sub-committee," Mulvihill said, "there has been speculation, and I would be worried at what's being said. We should remember that any sport - athletics, rugby - which has liberated its players in terms of endorsements has found itself on a slippery slope where the matter has got quickly out of control."

Eleven years on and it's hard to say the matter has got out of control. But viewed from this distance Mulvihill's slippery slope at least had a greasier surface and steeper gradient than the one Peter Quinn was pointing at on Monday.