Just as it has been the GAA's good fortune to be on the receiving end of governmental patronage, it has also been the association's unhappy lot to have become the most visible focus of discontent for a variety of pressure groups disappointed with this year's budget.

Virtually all the cavils with this year's grant of £7 million (the balancing £13 million is payable over the next two years), relate to the personality of the GAA rather than to the work and value of its organisation.

Leave aside the irregularity of a budget speech being used for an announcement about the disbursement of National Lottery funds and look at the argument based on competing claims. Generally, controversy surrounding a budget is about the promotion of selfinterest. The central question is which `self-interests' the public elevates over others.

As a result, the complaints on behalf of the disabled and other disadvantaged sections of society have concentrated on the money being allocated to Croke Park rather than - for example - the £520 million given out in tax cuts targeting, largely, the better-off.

Even the figure bandied about is a slight misrepresentation in that £20 million over three years is not quite the same thing as a flat £20 million for purposes of comparison with annual allocations.

With these preliminary points in mind, there are two basic arguments to be addressed. Firstly, do the activities of the GAA merit the grant in question? Secondly - if the answer to the first question is yes - does the personality of the GAA invalidate the merits of its claim?

There is relatively little difficulty in disposing with the first question. The GAA is a huge, classless, voluntary organisation with a healthy income and relatively modest administration costs. It does not make money in the accepted meaning of the term because all surpluses are channelled back into the association through the provincial councils, county boards or the reserve funds set aside for special projects, most obviously the redevelopment of Croke Park.

Broadly speaking, there are twin thrusts to the expenditure: facilities and coaching. For instance, the GAA has already spent in the region of £1 billion on facilities and all around the country, the evidence can be seen in the existence of a recreational infrastructure almost entirely the result of voluntary endeavour. The benefits to the relevant communities and society in general is obvious.

Croke Park's redevelopment is an enormous undertaking and was initiated by the GAA with no promise of public funds. The plans are by a long shot the most architecturally-advanced ever seen for a sports venue in Ireland.

Taking into account the £% million granted to the first phase of the rebuilding, total Government spending on the project will represent 18 per cent of the overall cost of £140 million. A grant ratio of less than one for four is not unreasonable considering the contribution made to the community at large by the GAA. Furthermore, Charlie McCreevy's argument on the radio yesterday is sound. The GAA is the only organisation to have drawn up plans for a major stadium and proceeded to build it. Should other sports follow suit, they will be entitled to similar levels of support.

In one of this paper's editorials yesterday, reference to the grant was couched in sceptical terms: ". . . £20 million towards the development of Croke Park will be hard to explain to the many thousands of people in disadvantaged areas who are deprived of the most basic sports or social facilities."

It could have been added that without the GAA, there would be many more thousands deprived of these basic amenities. As the above facts suggest that the grant is not of itself unreasonable, the second question arises. Does the personality of the association warrant the denial of funds otherwise deserved?

This involves two specific issues. Of less relevance is the Rule 21 ban on members of the northern security forces joining the GAA, but it remains a vexatious provision hardly helpful to Government policy on the peace process.

Maybe the rule was considered or maybe not, but more pertinent is Rule 42 which prohibits the use of GAA grounds for the playing of other field games. This precludes the staging of rugby and, more controversially, soccer internationals. The GAA has always protested in recent times that this is simply to protect itself against what are termed "competing sports".

The rule remains an ungenerous provision which has damaged the GAA's image in the eyes of many reasonable people and it is only right that the Government has evidently taken the matter into account. Because, were Croke Park to be open to all sports, it would be an obvious location for a national stadium.

In that case, the development would merit substantially greater funding than 18 per cent. For example, the British government has totally funded the redevelopment of Cardiff Arms Park.

On the basis of its contribution to Irish society, the GAA deserves support for an ambitious project. Because of the restrictions imposed on its use, the association must expect limits on the level of that support and in that context, 18 per cent is not unreasonable.