GAA Annual Congress 2026: Rounders bid for Central Council representation

At the GAA Annual Congress 2026 in Croke Park, Motion 2 seeks to add a Rounders representative to Ard Chomhairle, while 24 other proposals pursue changes to rules, schedules and governance

GAA congress set to debate giving Rounders a seat on Central Council

The GAA Annual Congress in 2026 at Croke Park will consider a series of proposals that could change how the association organises competitions, governance and development. Central to discussions this weekend is Motion 2.

The motion seeks to amend the composition of Central Council so that a representative of GAA Rounders holds a formal place on Ard Chomhairle.

Proponents say the change would do more than confer symbolism. A permanent seat would give Rounders a direct voice in strategic decisions about competition structures and resource allocation.

Opponents warn that altering council composition could complicate decision-making and require changes to internal procedures.

From an ESG perspective, broadening representation can strengthen governance and inclusivity across the organisation. Sustainability is a business case when governance reforms reduce organisational risk and improve stakeholder trust.

The outcome of the vote this weekend will determine whether Rounders secures formal representation at the highest level of GAA governance. Delegates at Croke Park will hear debate, ask questions and then cast their ballots.

Delegates at Croke Park will hear debate, ask questions and then cast their ballots. They will consider 25 proposals lodged by bodies including the Central Council, the Amateur Status Review Committee, the CCCC and other development and rules panels. Twenty-three proposals amend existing rules and require a supermajority of more than 60% to pass. Two proposals are new rules and need a simple majority of over 50%. The motions address player eligibility, season length, competition structures and governance reforms. Their scope makes this Congress a potential turning point for the association.

Why motion 2 matters for Rounders

Motion 2 has become a focal point because it speaks to representation and governance within the association. Proponents argue it would change how Rounders is represented in decision-making. Opponents warn that any change to governance could have wider implications for competition scheduling and resource allocation. From an ESG perspective, governance reform can influence long-term viability and stakeholder trust. Sustainability is a business case: clearer representation can improve strategic planning and resource use for smaller codes.

Practical effects of Motion 2 would depend on its wording and the implementation pathway. If passed, clubs and county boards would need to adapt governance practices and internal voting procedures. Implementing such reforms typically requires updated bylaws and guidance from national committees. Leading companies have understood that robust governance reduces operational risk; sports bodies face similar imperatives.

The Congress debate will test coalitions among delegates. With supermajority thresholds for most revisions, organisers expect extended discussion and targeted lobbying before ballots are cast. Observers will watch voting patterns for signals about the association’s appetite for broader governance change.

Observers will watch voting patterns for signals about the association’s appetite for broader governance change. One proposal would formally add a Rounders representative to Ard Chomhairle, giving the sport a seat at the GAA’s central decision-making table. The change would bring Rounders into routine discussions on resource allocation, competition planning and facility development. Proponents say the move would ensure Rounders interests are considered when policies are drafted. For many in the Rounders community, the motion is a practical pathway to influence rather than symbolic recognition.

Other motions that could reshape the calendar and governance

Related motions aim to alter the provincial and national calendar, adjust fixture windows and revise committee structures. These proposals could affect player availability, pitch scheduling and intercounty preparations. From an ESG perspective, proponents note potential benefits for participation equity and community access to facilities. Sustainability is a business case when fixtures are clustered to reduce travel emissions and maximise shared venue use.

Opponents warn that rapid changes risk unintended consequences for grassroots clubs and volunteer capacity. Leading companies have understood that gradual implementation with pilot programmes reduces disruption. Delegates at Congress must weigh practical outcomes against symbolic reform. The votes will indicate whether the association prefers incremental adjustment or broader structural change.

The votes will indicate whether the association prefers incremental adjustment or broader structural change. Several proposals now focus on the inter-county calendar and competition formats. Delegates are weighing limits intended to ease season congestion and protect player welfare.

Motion 8, tabled by the GPA, would cap the senior inter-county playing season at 30 competitive weekends. The cap would be 31 weekends only if an All-Ireland final replay is required. Proponents say the limit aims to reduce fixture overload and safeguard recovery time for players.

Motion 14 proposes moving All-Ireland finals back by two weeks. It also seeks to introduce clear start dates for inter-county competitions. Supporters argue those guardrails would protect clubs’ preparation time and clarify county panels’ pre-season programmes.

Taken together, the motions respond to long-running disputes over club versus county priorities, player welfare and calendar congestion. From an ESG perspective, player welfare falls within an organisation’s social responsibilities. Leading organisations have understood that structured seasons can reduce injury risk and improve player availability at all levels.

Eligibility, transfers and small-club measures

The central agenda item concerns eligibility rules, transfer procedures and measures to support small clubs. Delegates are considering several proposals that would change how players qualify for senior inter-county championships, how transfers are managed and how county committees may adapt team sizes in rural areas.

Motion 5 would require players to have taken part in at least eight club league or championship matches during the previous year to be eligible for senior inter-county championship selection. Proponents say the rule would strengthen club competitions and ensure match fitness among county squads. Critics warn the threshold could penalize players from clubs with shorter seasons or those sidelined by injury.

Motion 24 seeks to introduce a streamlined digital system for club transfers. The proposal aims to reduce paperwork, speed up processing and improve transparency for players and administrators. From an administrative perspective, a secure digital platform could cut delays and lower the risk of procedural disputes.

Motion 25 would issue Central Council guidelines on permanent residency for use in transfer and eligibility decisions. The guidelines would provide a common framework for counties to apply, while leaving final judgments to local committees. Supporters argue this would reduce inconsistent rulings across jurisdictions.

Motion 21 targets rural clubs facing player shortages. It would allow county committees to reduce outfield numbers to no lower than 11, enabling 12-a-side formats as an option. The change is intended to keep small clubs competitive and maintain participation in areas with falling player numbers.

Competition format and refereeing procedures

Delegates will also vote on alterations to competition structures and refereeing protocols. Proposals range from tweaks to championship draws to new guidelines for match officials. Advocates describe these measures as necessary to protect player welfare and uphold the integrity of outcomes.

From an ESG perspective, maintaining robust grassroots competition supports community cohesion and long-term talent pipelines. Sustainability is a business case as much as a sporting goal: healthy local leagues feed stronger inter-county competitions and reduce emergency interventions later.

Implementation questions remain. Who will fund a digital transfer platform? How will counties apply residency guidelines without creating loopholes? Which competitions will trial reduced-team formats first? The motions assign responsibility for pilot schemes and implementation details to council committees.

Leading counties and administrators have signalled openness to pilots rather than blanket change. Delegates are expected to weigh short-term disruption against potential long-term benefits for player welfare and club viability.

Delegates consider format and disciplinary changes to championship structures

Delegates are considering several motions that would alter championship scheduling and disciplinary procedures. Motion 6 and Motion 18 focus on the All-Ireland SHC preliminary quarter-finals. If Motion 6 is approved, Motion 18 will not proceed.

Motion 7 would schedule All-Ireland minor finals at Croke Park as curtain-raisers to senior finals. Motion 13 would extend the current “Winner on the Day” rule to provincial football finals. Motions 9 and 10 seek to clarify the role of match officials in hearings and to set the timing for when appealed decisions take effect.

Proponents say these changes aim to reduce uncertainty and streamline administration. Opponents warn of short-term disruption to fixtures and preparations. Delegates must weigh immediate disruption against potential long-term benefits for player welfare and club viability.

Equality and development-focused proposals

Several proposals target equality of opportunity and grassroots development. They would adjust structures to support smaller clubs and broaden access to elite matchday exposure. Supporters argue such measures can improve player pathways and local retention.

From an ESG perspective, equitable competition and stable club networks contribute to organisational resilience. Sustainability is a business case when clubs can develop talent locally and attract sustained community support.

Practical implementation would require clear timelines, funding mechanisms and monitoring. Changes to fixture lists and disciplinary rules must be communicated early to minimise disruption for teams and officials. Leading companies have understood that operational clarity reduces risk; sports governing bodies face a similar imperative.

The proposals will remain under debate as delegates balance competitive fairness, administrative certainty and the wider development needs of the game.

Governance, inclusion and club definitions under review

The assembly is also set to consider reforms designed to modernise governance and broaden inclusion. Delegates will debate motions that aim to change committee composition, expand advisory membership and clarify local decision-making on club status.

Motion 12 proposes updated wording to require that Management Committees include at least three female appointees. The change is intended to improve gender balance in decision-making bodies without prescribing selection mechanisms.

Motion 22 would expand the membership of the Development CCC and mandate operational reviews for under-17 competitions. Proponents say the reviews seek to align player welfare, talent pathways and competitive standards as youth participation patterns shift.

Motion 20 begins a process to establish a formal policy defining what constitutes a club. The motion would enable county committees to make determinations locally. Supporters argue this will provide clarity in areas experiencing rapid demographic and structural change.

From an ESG perspective, these measures reflect governance reform that links inclusion to organisational resilience. Sustainability is a business case for sporting bodies and for membership-led organisations facing evolving community needs.

The proposals remain under discussion as delegates weigh the practical implications for implementation, oversight and local autonomy. Leading companies have understood that clear rules and routine reviews can reduce disputes and improve long-term development outcomes; similar benefits are cited by backers here.

What the motions mean for clubs and governance

Delegates at the two-day congress will decide the fate of Motion 2 and several high-profile proposals that seek to shift the association’s internal balance. The votes will determine whether a group long on the periphery secures clearer representation at the centre of decision-making.

The package of 25 motions addresses calendar balance, governance clarity and grassroots resilience. Supporters argue that clearer rules and scheduled reviews reduce disputes and strengthen long-term development. From an ESG perspective, predictable governance also helps clubs plan resource allocation and volunteer engagement.

Implementation will require changes to committee procedures and reporting lines. Practical steps include standardised review cycles, defined voting thresholds and strengthened transparency measures. Sustainability is a business case: predictable governance can lower operational risk and improve funding prospects for community programmes.

Leading companies have understood that aligning governance with operational needs drives outcomes; the association faces a similar challenge. If delegates approve the reforms, clubs could see earlier clarity on fixtures, development funding and oversight. The final set of motions, taken together, promises substantive institutional change without prescribing every operational detail.