Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
26 October-November 2025
Governnce nd inudibiliy under scruiny
By Michael Smith
NEWS
1. Systemic hidden economy
The GAA nationally has tolerated a parallel grey economy in
which managers, selectors and backroom teams receive six-
figure under-the-counter payments, undeclared to Revenue.
Jarlath Burns has admitted that historically “% of our
operations were in-auditable. Every county was like that”.
This culture of concealment has cost the Exchequer hundreds
of millions of euros over years.
2. Myo GAA nd he McHle Prk lon scndl
Evidence shows that when Croke Park bouht Mayo’s €m
Ulster Bank debt at a sinificant discount of % or more
it took over years for it to become public knowlede. In
May Director General Tom Ryan admitted to a €m
reduction, but Mayo’s audited accounts never recorded it
and no evidence was provided by Ryan that the €m was
ever passed to Mayo GAA. Mayo supporters are still payin
€, a month until without clarity or where the
missin benefit of the €.m discount went.
3. Mayo county board mismanagement
Whistleblower evidence, Tim O’Leary’s disputed €,
and €, donations, and a Revenue probe, all point
to opaque practices includin o-book “barter” deals,
unexplained swins in surpluses, and misapplied donations.
Chair Seamus Tuohy has deflected responsibility, framin
the problems as sector-wide. O’Leary’s complaint to Revenue
now places Mayo at the centre of a national overnance
storm.
4. Suppression of whistleblowers and critics
At a May Mayo GAA emerency board meetin,
Burns and Tuohy denounced online critics as “not Mayo
supporters”, even thouh some were former players. This
public characterisation may amount to unlawful penalisation
under the Protected Disclosures Act. Whistleblowers were
denied statutory feedback and their identities risked bein
exposed.
5. National implications
The Mayo case is a test of whether the GAA can hold its own
leadership to account. Dublin’s opaque finances under Jim
Gavin, the collapse of Parnells GAA under €.m of debt, and
Revenue investiations into other counties (Wexford, Galway)
show the problem is systemic. Without an independent
inquiry, the oranisation’s rhetoric of volunteerism and
transparency will remain fatally compromised.
SUMMARY
REVENUE
COMMISSIONERS
VERSUS THE GAA
The Problem
When Jarlath Burns admitted in May this year
that % of the GAA’s historical “operations”
were “in-auditable”, it was a rare moment of
candour from the president of one of Ireland’s
most powerful institutions. The fiure was
staerin. This was not a matter of misplaced
receipts or outdated systems but an
acknowledement that a substantial portion
of the Association’s financial past exists in the
shadows, undocumented and dicult to trace
but still, it appears in the cases of a number of
counties, of interest to the Revenue
Commissioners. What bean in Mayo has now
spread across the wider GAA, with multiple
counties, includin Galway and Wexford
under investiation, and all counties bein
asked by the Revenue to make disclosures.
The Examiner reported on December
that the GAA had called “an urent meetin of
all county chairpersons, secretaries and
treasurers on Tuesday to discuss the
Revenue’s risk reviews of counties”. Particular
areas of interest for Revenue includin Cúl
Camps, mileae related to players’ sponsored
cars, referee fees, and team holidays. The
investiations are forin a new model of
amateurism: Burns has recommended that
“maybe there should be a new way of lookin
at how the GAA amateur athletes honour
obliations to the Revenue in terms of
expenses, vouched expenses, nutrition
expenses, all of those other expenses that
players incur”.
Behind the Revenue concerns lie cash
payments to manaers, referees and
backroom teams that constitute outriht tax
evasion. Irish law is unambiuous. O-the-
books payments are criminal. When ocials
conceal them, they risk far more than financial
penalties. They step into the territory of
obstruction of Revenue, falsification of
records, conspiracy.
The GAA Revenue crisis was forced into
sharp focus on March, , when Tim
O’Leary, a former bi Mayo GAA benefactor,
delivered a -pae letter to Burns. Backed by
documentation, O’Leary’s dossier charted a
decade of financial malpractice within Mayo
GAA. His findins were damnin: missin ate
receipts, dubious expenses, barter accounts
desined to keep transactions o the books.
What emered was a pattern that looked
like concealment. In his letter, O’Leary
accused Mayo GAA of systematic tax evasion,
fraud and cover-up. The fact that Mayo’s
eventual disclosure to Revenue only occurred
after his formal complaint, and not throuh
proactive oversiht is tellin thouh the move
towards cashless transactions, larely
October-November 2025 27
It is n open secre h sizeble shre of
he GAA’s hidden finnces is funnelled ino
under-he-ble pymens o mngers,
selecors nd bckroom ems, despie
he orgnision’s insisence h hese
roles re meur nd volunry. The sums
involved re fr from oken, sreching ino
six-figure pckges in some counies
Ard Siúrhóir Tom Ryn with
President Jrlth Burns (on right)
post-Covid, charts a more orthodox future, in
Mayo and everywhere else.
Audit & Risk Committees are supposed to
be the GAA’s safety net. They exist to ensure
financial interity, to fla risks, and to hold
county boards accountable.
Mayo’s Audit & Risk Committee did not
brin these issues to liht. Nor did the central
committee. Instead, the alarms were raised by
an outsider forced to push throuh the inertia.
A shadow inevitably falls on Pádrai Ó
Céidih, the vicissitudinous businessman,
and former Senator, who occupied a uniquely
sensitive position. At one point he chaired
both Mayo’s Audit & Risk Committee and the
GAA’s central Audit & Risk Committee. On
paper, this looks like interated accountability,
linkin county and central oversiht. In reality,
it risks creatin the opposite: a closed loop,
where scrutiny is blunted by conflictin duties.
If concealment did occur in Mayo, and
oversiht failed centrally, Ó Céidih’s dual role
ties the two failures toether.
History
Founded in in Thurles, the GAA has
rown into the world’s larest amateur
sportin body that runs a sport at national
élite level, with over half a million members
and a vast lobal network of clubs. A historic
role as the uardian of Irish nationalism and
community has made it central not only to
sport but to cultural and political life. The
oranisation clins to its amateur ethos while
operatin in a hihly professional manner.
Finances
The GAA has become a major financial force,
drawin income from ate receipts,
sponsorship, broadcastin rihts, and
fundraisin. In , central revenues stood
at €. million, eneratin a surplus of €.
million, which positions the GAA amon
Ireland’s wealthiest sportin bodies. These
central fiures exclude provincial, county
board and club revenues.
In , the Irish overnment ave €.
million to the Gaelic Athletic Association (and
up to € million to Casement Park in Belfast)
makin Gaelic ames the larest beneficiary
of its rant fund.
Top Executives
The GAA has faced criticism for not releasin
detailed salary information for its top
executives.
FAI
The FAI publicly discloses the remuneration of
its top executives, includin its CEO, in line
with its Memorandum of Understandin with
the Irish overnment. For example, in ,
CEO Jonathan Hill received a total of €,,
includin base salary and pension
contributions. However, the association has
faced scrutiny over additional payments, such
as €, in lieu of untaken holidays, which
were not initially disclosed and led to a
temporary suspension of overnment
fundin. These disclosures and controversies
hihliht the FAI’s comparatively hiher level
of financial transparency and accountability.
GAA
Tom Ryan, Director General
The precise salary of the Director General (Ard
Stiúrthóir), Tom Ryan, is not publicly disclosed.
In , however, media reportin indicated
that the averae salary for GAA executives at
Croke Park was approximately €, and
his will surpass this.
Jarlath Burns, President
The President of the GAA, on the other hand,
does not receive a direct salary, as the role is
honorary and ‘voluntary’ in keepin with the
Association’s amateur ethos. However, the
position is eectively full-time, so the GAA
covers all related expenses, provides a car,
and oce support, and, where relevant,
compensates the President’s employer
(indirectly payin their salary and pension) to
allow them to take leave from their job for the
three-year term. In this way, the President is
not paid directly but is fully supported to carry
out the role without financial loss. Honorarily,
it’s a bit of a scam.
Mayo
However, beneath Croke Park’s professional
facade, overnance falters at County and club
levels. Nowhere is this more evident than in
Mayo, where the leacy of the MacHale Park
redevelopment has left an onoin trail of
financial controversy spannin years.
Forensic review
In late , a former Mayo player, PJ
Monahan, contacted both Tom Ryan and
Jarlath Burns settin out details of an
independent review of Mayo GAA finances
which revealed major delinquencies spannin
a -year term.
The followin response was received from
Burns:
“PJ a chara,
Thank you very much for taking the time to
share this comprehensive and detailed
information. Your dedication to Mayo GAA and
the time you’ve invested in addressing these
issues is evident and deeply appreciated. It
reflects your unwavering love for your county
and your determination to see Mayo GAA thrive
both on and o the field...I will ensure that the
issues you have highlighted are given the
attention they deserve within the appropriate
channels”.
Tim O’Leary’s press release
The allegations
Followin up on PJ Monahan’s initiative of
which he was aware, in December , on
the day of a Mayo GAA convention, lontime
benefactor Tim O’Leary, Chairman of the Mayo
GAA International Supporters Foundation,
issued a blunt press release callin for “a full
formal investiation into the financial aairs
of Mayo GAA”, and urin Jarlath Burns to
approve an independent inquiry. He said
Garda Commissioner Drew Harris should act
to protect the records. He framed the issue as
a betrayal of ordinary volunteers by “the
chosen few”, and confirmed his roup had
already conducted a forensic review of audited
accounts –, to be completed on
receipt of the draft accounts.
O’Leary’s statement situates Mayo within a
broader trend: risin ate receipts in the
cashless era — €, () to €,
() aainst fallin attendances, but he
paired them with a dauntin ocial reaction
unique to Mayo: a Revenue probe of Mayo’s
accounts and the board’s decision not to sin
o on accounts pendin that review.
Ominously, Chairman Seamus Tuohy
publicly linked the issue to sector-wide
expense practices: “these potential tax
28 October-November 2025
35% of our operions
were in-udible. Every
couny ws like h.
— Jrlh Burns, Wespor
redirected to charitable causes and individual
sportin projects.
Promise of independent review
Followin his appointment as Chairman of
Mayo GAA in late , Liam Moatt promised
Tim O’Leary an independent financial review
into the county board’s affairs. This
commitment was made in the context of
resolvin O’Leary’s dispute, after he withheld
a €, fundraiser donation over his
concerns reardin overnance and financial
transparency and the failure of Mayo GAA to
properly account for his earlier €,
donation.
GAA-funded review instead
However, Moatt later backtracked, citin a
lack of support from GAA HQ, particularly
Director General Tom Ryan and Connacht
Council CEO John Prenty, and instead
proposed a review conducted by Mazars, a
firm funded by the GAA, which O’Leary
perceived as lackin true independence.
Moatt’s reversal on the independent
financial review and failure to honour
commitments drew criticism and contributed
to his decision to step down as chairman in
. Eectively, Moatt, the Mayo County
Board, and GAA HQ walked away from a multi-
million-euro investment rather than endure a
fully independent examination of historical
financial dealins.
In an interview with the Sunday Independent
in December , O’Leary confirmed it was
he who loded a formal complaint with the
Revenue Commissioners about Mayo GAA’s
financial practices. O’Leary stated that he
hoped the Revenue’s scrutiny would prompt
supporters and stakeholders to demand
clarity on the county’s historical accounts.
Strategic Review
The Mayo GAA Strateic Review, led by
an independent steerin committee and
chaired by journalist Liam Horan, was billed
as a root-and-branch reform to address the
county’s failins both on and o the field.
Central to its findins were calls for a full
“independent” financial audit, a five-year
fundraisin plan, and stroner overnance
structures to deal with the cripplin debt from
the redevelopment of MacHale Park. However,
PJ Monahan, who was then the Chair of
Mayo’s Finance and Fundin subcommittee,
publicly complained of bein denied access to
key financial information, while the final
version adopted by the county board was a
watered-down document that stripped out the
most urent recommendations. Governance
concerns subsist.
In eneral there appears to be somethin of
omerta about interest in these matters from
Mayo media and politicians, particularly those
from Fine Gael which dominates Mayo county
board.
Other allegations
But O’Leary’s are not the only serious
alleations and questions.
Mayo GAA: financial Tturnaround,
anomalies, and governance concerns
(2012–2024)
Over the -year period from to ,
Mayo GAA recorded a ross surplus of
€,,, averain €, per year.
While was the only year to post a deficit
(-€,), the overall pattern of surpluses is
hihly irreular and, in many instances,
extraordinary especially in the post-Covid,
‘cashless’ era.
Even durin the Covid years, when income
from club ames was eectively non-existent,
Mayo GAA posted a €, surplus in
and an astonishin €, in . These
results are particularly strikin iven that all
matches, includin the All-Ireland Final,
were held behind closed doors, and
match attendances were heavily restricted
under the GAA Covid- rules for clubs across
the counties; the All-Ireland Final was
played in a half-empty Croke Park.
The annual surplus peaked in at an
extraordinary €,,, nearly four times
the -year averae, yet no explanation has
been provided for this result. The draft
accounts show a dramatic collapse to
€,, down sharply from €, the
previous year, with no provision made for any
liability arisin from the onoin Revenue
Audit.
In any business environment, the
turnaround since the Convention would
be truly astonishin, and it runs contrary to
the historical financial performance of Mayo
GAA.
The likely explanation is Jarlath Burns’
admission that the missin % — probably
cash — is now included in the audited accounts
of Mayo GAA.
Ticket-touting
In Tim O’Leary’s letter to Burns he revealed a
startlin episode in the financial and
operational conduct of Mayo GAA. In ,
Irish leislation bannin ticket toutin came
into force. Yet, in a move that appears
desined to circumvent the law, Mayo GAA
promoted a “Corporate Packae” for the
All-Ireland Final aainst Tyrone.
Mayo GAA nd Fine Gel
In O’Leary’s letter to Burns he referred
to his enaements with former
Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, and current
Junior Minister, Alan Dillon. Accordin
to O’Leary, both men, who have deep
personal and historical ties to Mayo
GAA, were fully aware of onoin
financial irreularities and
overnance failures.
O’Leary’s letter details his eorts to
enae Kenny. In , he met Kenny
at a Gala Dinner in Chicao, where
Kenny initially expressed support for
O’Leary’s Foundation and areed to
liaise with Mayo Chairman Michael
Connolly.
However, durin a hih-profile New
York fundraiser, Kenny failed to
deliver on key commitments,
includin securin the attendance of
former US President Joe Biden, a
pivotal element for donor
enaement. This shortfall forced
O’Leary to personally underwrite
$, to save the event.
Compoundin the issue, Kenny
refused to cover his own travel and
accommodation costs, demandin
business class flihts and a luxury
hotel suite for himself and his wife,
totallin over $,, which O’Leary
had to pay personally.
Alan Dillon, despite his hih-profile
Mayo football career and political
influence, also failed to take a
proactive role in addressin the
county’s financial mismanaement.
Accordin to O’Leary, both men’s
inaction has allowed a culture of
financial opacity and overnance
weakness to persist within Mayo GAA.
Tim O’Lery pid €10k for End
Kenny to ttend New York
fundriser for Myo GAA, in 2019
liabilities… may also impact every other
county board in Ireland”.
In , a sinificant dispute had arisen
between Mayo GAA and Tim O’Leary who had
made substantial financial contributions to
the county board, includin €, he
raised at a New York fundraiser. Subsequently,
O’Leary withdrew his financial support, and
the Mayo GAA International Supporters
Foundation was wound up, with the funds
October-November 2025 29
Tom Ryan
(Director-General)
Record: Confirms a write-down;
describes pooled discounts; asserts
no capital surplus was kept centrally;
alternates between HQ’s leverage
(“they were approaching us”) and
banks’ primacy (“this is how the banks
wanted it”).
• Evidence indicating
misrepresentation:
Contradictory framing of bargaining
power (HQ as leveraged buyer
vs banks dictating terms). Taken
together with the audited accounts
not showing the € million capital
reduction along with the non-
disclosure for a decade, the record
supports an inference of selective
disclosure designed to obscure the
true allocation of benefits. Deceit by
omission is a reasonable inference
from the documents.
The files don’t prove a knowing false
statement of fact; they DO show
inconsistency that, without the actual
contracts, reads as misleading.
• Denials/defence:
Ryan claims that “No capital surplus”
was retained centrally; discounts
were pooled to help weaker units; the
structure reflected banking realities.
Jarlath Burns (President)
Record: Admits % “in-auditable”
operations historically; forerounds
safeuardin over alleations of finanial
wrondoin at Westport; no line-by-line
rebuttal of sinificant alleations made
by O’Leary in his March letter to
him.
• Evidence indicating
misrepresentation:
Silence in the face of
material alleations can be a
misrepresentation by omission
where a duty of candour is owed
to members. By acknowledin
systemic in-auditability yet not
compellin publication of the
write-down allocations, the record
suests protectin the institution
over members’ rihts to probity and
truth.
• Denials/defence:
Burns emphasises volunteer
protection and that he has
condemned abuse; contextualised
historic record-keepin weaknesses.
Mayo County Board
(past/present officers)
Record: O’Leary’s €k donation
alleedly not used as intended; $k
fundraiser diverted to charities after
disputes; discovery of o-book/“barter”
arranements; dramatic surplus swins;
Revenue issues centered on expenses;
accounts not sined pendin
Revenue approval.
• Evidence indicating lies/deceit:
If an earmarked donation did not
reach its stated destination (senior
team support) and explanations
were withheld, that’s evidence
of misrepresentation to a donor.
The persistence of barter/o-book
practices breaches ood-overnance
norms. Deceit: (use-of-funds
misrepresentation) is supported by
the donor’s record.
• Evidence of fraud/corruption:
O’Learys letter of March to
Burns allee misappropriation
and personal enrichment, but do
not contain adjudicated findins.
They do, however, show patterns
consistent with risks of fraud: opaque
expenses, barter, non-disclosure,
thouh nothin is proven.
• Denials/defence:
Chair Seamus Tuohy frames Revenue
issues as expense-related and sector-
wide; process steps (Mazars’ review;
Revenue enaement) are cited
rather than line-by-line rebuttals.
Possible Impropriety
Accordin to O’Leary, the scheme involved
sellin ordinary tickets at € each,
despite their face value of only €.
Supporters were required to pay €, for
the option to buy tickets at € each, a
structure that eectively inflated prices while
sidesteppin the new anti-toutin leislation.
The oer proved wildly popular, with
packaes sold within hours.
What is particularly strikin is that the
arranement reportedly occurred with the
knowlede and support of Croke Park and was
executed under the direction of five county
board ocers, includin board secretary,
Garda Inspector Dermot Butler.
Journalist Ewan MacKenna has raised other
important questions on his far-reachin blo,
These include:
Sponsorship
Were the Mayo board and GAA were aware of
certain individuals receivin personal
payments in return for maintainin exclusivity
in relation to sponsorship deals at any time
over the past years. Why, he wondered in
, did Mayo aree to a smaller sponsorship
deal in terms of money, and that also included
MacHale Park namin rihts, when a larer
deal was on the table that excluded those
namin rihts?
Credit card-profligacy
Were they aware of the county board credit
card bein used by a specific ocer in pubs in
Belmullet? Were they aware in recent years of
overpayments bein made for hotel bedrooms
for teams, with that extra amount used as
credit for personal use of these hotels?
Mysterious exceptional item
Has the “exceptional item” in the
accounts, that cost €, usin
invoices, ever been explained or investiated?
If so, what was found? If not, why not?
Offshore account
Are they aware of an oshore account held by
Mayo GAA that is in breach of GAA
uidelines?”.
Solicitor and former Mayo player John P Kean
has also raised questions. He queried if the
money in Central Accounts is accruin interest
for Mayo and why it is not bein used to
promote the infrastructure for junior players.
He notes: “Compared to many other counties,
Mayo is now in the dark aes with no proper
facilities, a record of spendin a minuscule
amount of their budet. By that I mean . per
cent across all underae compared to the
spend on the senior team”.
Reardin a speech made from the Hoan
Stand by the GAA President followin the
national leaue final, he considers: “It
displayed Burns’ complete lack of knowlede
of the most destructive board in the history of
Mayo GAA, which existed less than years
before his speech, in which he bestowed on
them a presidential pardon. Thirty three other
county boards are linin up as we speak”.
Other counties
Worryinly, several other counties, includin
Wexford and Galway, are also under
investiation by the Revenue Commissioners
for similar concerns.
The national syndrome this represents:
‘inaudibility’
Reflectin this, President Jarlath Burns
acknowleded at the Mayo emerency board
meetin in Westport in May that
historically “% of our operations were
in-auditable. Every county was like that”. It is
a stark admission that the oranisation’s
rowth outpaced its volunteer-run systems
and ethics.
30 October-November 2025
Central Council and mered with the existin
Central Council loan into a sinle € million
facility. This was recorded in the Mayo County
Board’s accounts for the year endin
October .
At the May emerency board meetin
in Westport, Director General Tom Ryan
outlined Mayo’s restructured loan deal with
Croke Park. He said Mayo had been carryin
close to € million in debt at an averae
interest rate of .%, with monthly repayments
of about €,. Under the revised packae,
he claimed, € million of capital was written
o, reducin the debt to € million, split into
two facilities: Loan A (€ million, years at
.%, €,/month) and Loan B (€ million
amortised annually). He stressed this was
voluntary, notin: “Nobody had to sin up for
this.”
Official view is a distortion
But — scandalously — the audited
accounts tell a dierent story. Mayo’s
statements still record liabilities of
€,, with no evidence of a €
million reduction. This contradiction has
fuelled suspicions that while Ulster Bank’s
€ million exposure was reportedly bouht
for €. million, Mayo may not have received
any portion of the €.m discount and the
full proceeds of the discount was redirected
elsewhere under the banner of “solidarity”.
The effect
The result is that Mayo GAA supporters
continue payin €, per month until
without clarity on who benefited from
the Ulster Bank write-o. If, as Tim O’Leary
claims, Croke Park bouht Ulster Bank’s €
million exposure for €. million, and the full
benefit of the €.m was redirected elsewhere
under the banner of “solidarity”. Critics call it
redistribution without transparency or
consent.
Three facts sit uncomfortably toether in
the record:
.
The audited accounts do not support Tom
Ryan’s numbers
.
Ryan said banks “were approachin us”,
implyin Croke Park held leverae as the
buyer of distressed loans;
. He also said “this is how the banks wanted
it”, implyin HQ lacked leverae.
Mayo supporters feel duped
The contradictions o to the heart of trust. If
Hundreds of millions of Euro lost to
Exchequer
Extrapolated over a -year period, this would
amount to a cumulative loss to the Exchequer
in the reion of € million to € million,
a phenomenon for the nation’s finances.
GAA surveys members and suggests
paying managers 20,000 euro stipend
Since takin oce, Jarlath Burns has moved
the issue of manaer payments from the
shadows into open debate, acknowledin
that the role of inter-county boss has
eectively become full-time and that the
current “expenses only” model is
unsustainable.
Under Burns watch, the GAA has launched
an Amateur Status Review Committee and
circulated surveys canvassin members on
whether manaers should receive reulated
allowances and contracts, or remain voluntary.
The acid test will be whether proposals
translate into enforceable, transparent rules
that satisfy both county boards and the
Revenue Commissioners.
Burns has proposed an ocial €,
taxable stipend for manaers to provide
transparency and accountability, aruin it
would preserve the amateur ethos while
reconisin modern demands. Burns believes
this small, reulated payment could replace
the need for informal cash arranements.
But how would an official €,
allowance, subject to tax, truly eradicate
under-the-table payments of up to €,?
Right-off on MacHale Park
The redevelopment of MacHale Park
cost over € million includin a shockin €
million cost overrun. Mayo GAA, secured a €
million Central Council rant, borrowed €
million from Ulster Bank, took another €
million loan from Central Council and the
balance was funded from Mayo GAA
resources. Servicin these € million loans
soon crippled the county. By , despite
payin €, in interest, Mayo had
reduced the principal by only €,.
From to , averae annual
servicin costs were €,. Crucially,
Mayo GAA had to fund repayments from clubs
and members, since it did not benefit
financially from the venue despite bein the
leaseholder. Connacht Council and Croke Park
claim the lion’s share of ate receipts, while
Castlebar Mitchells retain income from the
stadium shop. From to , Mayo
repaid €,, on MacHale Park loans but
received only €,, from ate receipts,
a net deficit of €,, borne by clubs and
supporters. At year-end , Mayo’s debt
had fallen to €,,, with annual
repayments of €,.
In , the debt was restructured: Ulster
Bank’s € million loan was refinanced by
No eleced officil hs
he righ o decide wh
informion should nd
should no be shred…
— Tim O’Lery.
Spillane
In September , talkin to Joe.ie, Pat
Spillane — broadcaster, -All-Ireland-winner,
and former school principal — inited debate
over GAA-manaer payments, claimin some
inter-county manaers are earnin up to
€, in unreported cash payments
despite the sport’s amateur status. He has
acknowleded the demandin nature of the
role but warned that formalisin lare salaries
undermines volunteerism.
Grey economy
For years, substantial flows of money across
counties concededly lacked proper audit
trails. This created a compromisin rey
economy in which cash payments were
routinely used to avoid tax and evade scrutiny.
Rapid rowth outpaced the volunteer-run
systems oriinally desined for a smaller
scale, leavin systemic aps that extend well
beyond Mayo.
Ironically, Burns’ acknowledment
indirectly validates O’Leary’s claims,
confirmin that aps in record-keepin and
reliance on cash transactions were part of a
systemic problem within the GAA.
Under-the table payments behind the
ocial accounts, it is an open secret that a
sizeable share of the GAA’s hidden economy
is funnelled into under-the-table payments to
manaers, selectors and backroom teams,
despite the oranisation’s insistence that
these roles are amateur and voluntary. The
sums involved are far from token, stretchin
into six-fiure packaes in some counties.
What this means, nationally
Based on an estimated annual GAA turnover
of € million (central and county boards), if
even % of this activity is not subject to
formal audit or accountin controls, it would
imply a cash-driven ‘rey economy’ of rouhly
€ million each year. If such sums were bein
channelled directly to individuals in the form
of undeclared payments, the correspondin
tax leakae, comprisin income tax, USC and
PRSI could rane from € million to over €
million annually, dependin on the recipients’
income brackets and whether employer PRSI
is considered.
October-November 2025 31
Under Jim Gavin’s leadership from to
, Dublin GAA achieved unprecedented
success, clinching five consecutive All-
Ireland titles. However, this sporting triumph
was overshadowed by a significant lack of
financial transparency, raising questions about
governance and accountability within the
organisation in Dublin.
Most egregiously, Dublin based Parnells
GAA club collapsed earlier this year under
debts of around €. million, including
€, owed to the GAA and €,
to the Dublin County Board. Despite a €
million windfall from a land sale, the club
pursued unsustainable expansions into
hospitality and leisure, burdened by high
costs and weak oversight. Warnings from
were ignored, while COVID- deepened
losses. Wage disputes, unpaid creditors, and
governance failures followed. Its voluntary
liquidation in January exposed gross financial
mismanagement at every level.
Despite the substantial public interest in
Dublin’s dominance, the county’s financial
operations remained largely opaque. Annual
reports, such as those for and ,
provided insights into team performances and
development initiatives but conspicuously
lacked fully audited and published financial
statements. This omission is particularly
concerning given the substantial funding
Dublin received from Croke Park for games
development, nearly € million between
and , much of Gavin’s time. vastly
outstripping allocations to other counties.
Without independently verified accounts,
stakeholders, including rival counties and
the general public, were left in the dark.While
Gavin maintained a focus on discipline and
professionalism, his tenure coincided with
a period of significant financial disparity
between Dublin and other counties. Under
Jim Gavin’s tutelage, Dublin GAA assembled
a comprehensive and highly structured
backroom team to support their unprecedented
success. While the exact number of sta varied
over the years, reports indicate that Dublin’s
backroom team included up to individuals,
encompassing a range of roles such as
selectors, medical sta, analysts, strength and
conditioning coaches, and logistical support.
The lack of financial transparency during
this time has led to criticisms that Dublin’s
success may not have been solely due to
athletic prowess but also to an uneven playing
field created by unequal financial resource
distribution.
While the GAA’s Central Council publishes
audited accounts annually, providing a
consolidated view of the association’s
finances, counties like Dublin have not
followed suit.
Dublin GAA’s financial secrecy: a legacy of Jim Gavin’s era
HQ had barainin power it should have
passed the full discount to Mayo supporters,
the people still payin €, per month
until . If Ryan (and Burns) want to rebuild
trust with Mayo GAA supporters, they should
appoint an independent Financial Expert to
review the loan areement and supportin
documentation and provide a written opinion
to Mayo GAA Clubs and Supporters.
Supporters and deleates were asked to
approve accounts without bein told the
sinle most consequential fact of the county’s
modern finances. The documents presented
describe this as concealment; Ryan’s
defenders call it a complex, multi-county
rescue.
2025 meeting
At the May emerency board meetin,
both GAA President Jarlath Burns and Mayo
County Board Chairman Seamus Tuohy
publicly addressed a campain of abusive
emails and online commentary taretin
board members. But he eneralised unwisely
and perhaps unlawfully.
Burns condemned the messaes as
“vicious and nasty”, while Tuohy stated that
the individuals behind the campain were
“not any part of Mayo. They are not Mayo
supporters. They were never Mayo
supporters”, warnin that continued
enaement could “destroy the association
within this County” and deter volunteers.
However, at least two of the individuals
commentin online have played at all levels
for Mayo GAA, demonstratin that some
critics have enuine ties to the county and its
football community. Publicly characterisin
these commentators as outsiders can be seen
as a form of bullyin and intimidation,
desined to suppress dissent and discourae
leitimate scrutiny. This approach risks
stiflin transparency, erodin accountability,
and underminin the confidence of volunteers,
donors, and former players who wish to
enae responsibly with the oranisation. It
may also be criminal.
National GAA
Past is foreign country
While Jarlath Burns has taken steps to
reularise current and future payments to
inter-county manaers and backroom teams,
there is little evidence that he is actively
addressin past under-the-table payments
and alleations of financial wrondoin. In
fact, his response to concerns in Mayo would
indicate that he is coverin up sinificant
issues of financial wrondoin. His focus has
larely been forward-lookin: acknowledin
that escalatin team costs are unsustainable,
establishin the Amateur Status Review
Committee, and proposin licensin and
oversiht measures for county boards to
prevent hidden or excessive spendin.
Abject “in-audibility” as a comprehensive
policy on the past sits uneasily with Burns’
public commitments to transparency and
accountability for the future.
Unlawful treatment of whistleblowers
One of the whistleblowers told Village he was
considerin pursuin the matter criminally.
Section of the Protected Disclosures
(Amendment) Act criminalises:
•
Penalisin or threatenin to penalise a
reportin person (includin by reputational
harm/blacklistin). By publicly portrayin
the email authors as abusers/non-
supporters at a hih-profile meetin, when
their emails in fact contained disclosures
and a request to meet, the GAA’s actions
harmed whistleblowers’ reputations and
risked blacklistin.
•
Hinderin or threatenin to hinder the
makin of a report. Public denunciation of
reportin persons at an ocial forum,
coupled with the display of emails, had a
chillin effect and hindered further
reportin.
•
Breach of the duty of confidentiality
reardin a reportin person’s identity. If
Garda find that whistleblowers’ identities
were directly or indirectly revealed (or could
be readily deduced) outside what was
strictly necessary, that may be a criminal
breach of the Act.
•
Despite written assurances on December
that the matter would o to the Audit
& Risk Committee, whistleblower received
no statutory feedback in the required
timeframe, contrary to the -day/-month
reime the GAA is oblied to operate. While
failure to ive feedback per se may be
reulatory/non-criminal, it is material
context for hindrance and penalisation.
Incoherent stance on integrity in Mayo
Despite publicly laudin both past and
present Mayo GAA officers on multiple
occasions, notably at the Allianz Leaue
final in Croke Park and durin the meetin in
May Burns conspicuously inored the
fact that the current Mayo GAA president, JP
Lambe, had been found uilty of price-fixin
fuel in the West of Ireland. In his speeches,
Burns commended the county board for
financial reforms, portrayin Mayo as a model
of transparency and resilience. Yet brutally
inorin Lambe’s criminal history tended to
undermine the credibility of his own
statements on interity. Jim Gavin’s campain,
Mayo county board and the GAA nationally,
were asked to, but did not, comment.
