On Monday a couple of floors above the hubbub of the post-All-Ireland lunch, the GAA unveiled its plans to enable players to cash in on endorsements and promotions. It wasn't, in principle, revolutionary because the Amateur Status Congress had accepted it three years ago.
Neither was it startling. The GPA publicity coup of last month had fleshed out the theory of endorsements; and even decades ago, the likes of Tony Doran and any other high-profile farmer could advertise agriculture supplies because it was within the sphere of his work.
Others such as Cork hurler Charlie McCarthy and Dublin footballer Tony Hanahoe took part in public education campaigns on television in the 1970s. The idea of a Gaelic player's celebrity being used to push a message is not new.
What is new is the acceptance and assertion that it is a player's right to take advantage of such opportunities and the establishment of a mechanism to promote, administer and control them.
When such matters are being discussed, it is customary to hear - as bland as elevator music - the mantra about amateurism being upheld and players not wanting pay-for-play. Three years ago when the Amateur Status Committee (ASC) report was accepted, there was some irritation in Croke Park at the media coverage which represented the decision as a dilution - rather than affirmation - of amateurism.
Of course this was parallel to the hypocrisy which has long marked attitudes within the GAA to amateurism. For decades various accommodations have been made to keep important players onside for championships. Nowadays money is paid to managers, and even on the club scene there have been convincing allegations about players being paid to move clubs. The ASC merely addressed what was above the table.
The committee's chairman, Peter Quinn, spelt out the dangers inherent in the course the GAA was taking, but he felt confident the principle of amateurism could be protected. But he warned about the manner in which other sports had seamlessly embraced professionalism once a strict reading of amateurism had been relaxed.
It is an advantage to the GAA that their sports are purely indigenous. There's no international market for footballers and hurlers. Quinn also drew attention to the wooden horses of professionalism - sportswear companies and television rights.
Whereas the Official Guide to an extent regulates the activity of sportswear producers, the insistence on Irish-made goods may not be consistent with EU law. The lack of international profile impacts on the area of television rights as the view of satellite stations has tended to be that indigenous sports are best left to terrestrial broadcasters.
Which has left Croke Park dealing with a monopoly since the days when Micheal O'Hehir as Head of Sport was able to buy RTE's first season of coverage for a nominal £10.
But like it or not, the GAA crossed the Rubicon in 1997. There are no major sports left which operate on an exclusively amateur basis. The prominent ones like rugby union and athletics, which changed within the last decade or so, all began by introducing strictly controlled procedures through which players could benefit from payments.
These procedures only held the line for so long before professionalism was fully introduced. In the light of current developments, what are the chances that Croke Park can hold the line on professionalism?
There is already substantial public ambivalence on the question with the corporate facilities in Croke Park being advanced as an opulent backdrop to the spartan dedication of the players. This is, of course, illogical. The GAA is not a profit-making institution and any money it earns goes back into the system. But once you start moving in the commercial world, different standards apply. It may be unreasonable but it shapes public opinion.
How seriously are we to take the insistence by players they don't want to be paid for playing. How many have been asked whether they would like to be paid and replied that they wouldn't?
According to my limited research, many would like to be full-time athletes although some players do take the view that professionalism or - more plausibly - semi-professionalism would be too much of an intrusion into their lives and that the current system for all its hardships suits them better.
The latter view is more common among those with a fulfilling career. Those for whom football or hurling ability is by far their greatest talent suffer the frustrations of not being able to earn a living from what they do best. Not surprisingly, they largely hold the former opinion.
No one doubts the sincerity of everyone who believes that amateurism is essentially unthreatened - or at least capable of being protected - by travelling the road of endorsements and promotions. However, all available precedent argues otherwise.
Even the line about it being financially unviable isn't strictly correct. Australian Rules carries on in a semi-professional structure in a restricted market with no significant international outlet.
The central problem for those trying to hold the line is that once any money is made out of the game it becomes harder to control the movement of players. If a footballer in a weaker county argues that his livelihood would benefit from playing for a major county - as of course it would despite attempts to combat elitism within the process - how can he be required to continue to perform in obscurity?
Whether this will affect the GAA for better or for worse can't be forecast and none of these matters are currently of acute concern. But it's hard to look very far into the future and not see the landscape changing.
