GAELIC GAMES: The GAA has come under renewed pressure to relax certain regulations that still apply to playing gear. Yesterday's announcement that 11 of the top footballers and hurlers in the county had agreed a boot sponsorship with Adidas for the coming year highlighted some of the enduring limitations of Rule 14, which refers to the manufacture and contracts of playing gear, and prompted calls for change.

All 11 players are household names and have agreed to wear personalised Adidas boots for the rest of the year. Under the strict enforcement of Rule 14, and the GAA's amateur code, they can't receive any financial recompense, and the sponsor can't extend the sponsorship beyond the boots as all other playing gear must be manufactured in Ireland.

Despite a few isolated attempts the playing gear rules have remained totally resistant to change. Speaking after yesterday's announcement in Croke Park, Adidas marketing manager Paul Moloney suggested the GAA should look again at some of the stricter regulations that apply to playing gear.

"When it comes to the GAA we've always gone through the official channels," said Moloney. "And again that's the case here. So this is strictly a promotional agreement. The players get their personalised boots, and that's it. And it won't involve any further promotional campaign. And until Rule 14 changes that's as far as we can go. Our hands are tied."

Under the GAA's own guidelines an individual player can't be formally paid to wear a certain brand of player gear, and financial agreements can only be made at county board level. Rule 14 also states that all playing gear - with the exception of boots - must be manufactured in Ireland. Although that market has expanded in recent years with the granting of two additional licences to Gaelic Gear and Azzurri, the bigger multinational companies are still kept out.

The Gaelic Players Association (GPA) took the issue on board early in their existence, but according to its chief executive Dessie Farrell, the Adidas sponsorship does highlight some of the concerns that remain.

"Certainly the granting of two new licences helped reduce the anti-competitive factor that did exist," said Farrell. "But of course the GAA is still limiting its assets by demanding them to be home based.

"So we'd always be looking at Rule 14 because we're very much of the opinion that it's becoming more and more detrimental to players. And I think the situation would improve if the bigger companies were allowed on the market, not just for the players, but for the clubs and county boards.

"I also believe the GAA can bend Rule 14 to suit themselves. We have a deal with Club Energise, which is a 100 per cent Irish company, and yet we're not allowed to advertise that in any GAA ground. Yet they've no problem with other drinks which are far from 100 per cent Irish."

Although Adidas will continue to examine new ways to invest in the GAA, Moloney believes that Rule 14 should be held up for greater scrutiny: "I think it definitely should be looked at again. We have invested in the GAA as much as we could. We've got our corporate box in Croke Park and we're always looking to invest further.

"I know the GAA is wary about making any changes to this rule, and wants to promote Irish products. But I work in Ireland, and this is Adidas Ireland we're talking, not Adidas Japan. We're also dealing with a sport that is only really played in Ireland. It's like Rule 42 really, in that it comes down to circumstances. Obviously when you have four or five different companies competing for rights there's much to be gained, and I think the GAA is definitely killing some of its assets there."

Rule 14 was last tackled at national level in 1999, when Adidas were given a special exemption to provide gear to six different counties. Kerry brought a motion to Congress calling for a relaxing of the rule, and although it was heavily defeated, yesterday's announcement could start a fresh drive for change.