The GAA's ruling body will consider its affairs this weekend firm in the knowledge that the association is on an upward curve. The games which they promote and foster have never been in finer fettle. Public interest in GAA affairs and attendances at matches have never been better and work on the provision of one of the best stadiums in Europe goes on apace.

The successes of the association will, inevitably, bring about many pressures and vigilance must be the password if the progress made is not to be set aside.

The association is also a victim of its own conservative nature and its own chequered history. Its critics, and there are many, will latch on to any little perceived weakness in order to make capital out of their own bias.

The GAA, however, seems to thrive on opposition from all sorts of sources and its ability to take the slings and arrows is quite remarkable and, at times, even admirable.

Because of its birth and growth it carries a lot of baggage and, in spite of having a rule forbidding the dabbling in politics of a party-political nature, it is a very politicised body. Some years ago there was an unmerciful row over the insertion of the innocuous work "party" in the rule and the matter was teased out right across and up and down the country with more heat than light being generated. Although this writer was deeply involved, in a journalistic way, in this controversy it now all seems so trivial.

For some people any mention of the GAA in a positive way excites extraordinary passions. This was clearly illustrated in more recent times when it was announced that the GAA was to get a grant of £20 million. Some people were on the verge of apoplexy as a result and, in order to bolster their anger, they even twisted the facts. They claimed that the money was "taxpayers' money" even though it was not.

The money came from the National Lottery, an operation which was set up precisely for the purpose of supporting sport and the arts. Vicious insults were hurled at the GAA, some suggesting that children were dying through lack of facilities while the GAA was lining its own pockets. Thankfully many pointed out that the lives of young people in this country would be a lot worse off if it weren't for organisations such as the GAA and other sporting bodies. Such arguments fell on deaf ears and are still being trotted out.

It is therefore inevitable that, following last weekend's dramatic events in Belfast, that Rule 21 has raised its ugly head again. The matter has been dealt with here and elsewhere in this and other newspapers recently and there is little need to go into the arguments again. The Rule (forbidding membership of the GAA to the RUC and British forces) is totally unnecessary and completely valueless but the problem is the manner of its abolition.

What seems to this observer as being of much more importance, is the way the GAA approaches its own future. Huge pressures are building up on its very ethos and must be resisted if that ethos is not to crumble.

Rumours of a lively transfer market among players moving from club to club, notably in Dublin, are rife. Calls are being shouted on all sides for a move to professionalism at the top level in football and hurling and some people seem to have lost their understanding of what the GAA represents.

All that needs to be done is to take a look at the way rugby union has gone within the last couple of years in this country and in our nearest neighbour. The introduction of "pay for play" has plunged our domestic game into serious trouble and our international game into disarray. In England there are serious problems too. Rich men with a yen for power and more money are threatening the very basis of the game.

Whatever else the GAA has done it has avoided major problems. From its infancy it had to contend with people who would use it for their own purposes. It survived a number of very serious problems including the Parnell Split, the influence of the IRB and later the Civil War. Cool heads were needed and were found.

Other cool heads are now needed to see off the increasingly strident calls for a form of professionalism and these must be resisted irrespective of the source of these calls.

It is to be hoped that a marker will be put down at Congress this weekend that those who wish to play professional sport are quite at liberty to look elsewhere either at home or abroad if that is their aim. Nobody in a right frame of mind will deny that players or others who make a huge commitment to the games either in time or otherwise are entitled to be well, even generously, treated.

What must be made abundantly clear, however, particularly to young people taking up the game, is that there will never be any question of being paid to play the game either on a full-time or part-time basis. Matters such as this have a habit of gaining momentum. Now is the time to put a stop to such dangerous talk.