'Farcical' - controversy erupts over Mayo GAA club competition restructuring

Numerous Mayo GAA club delegates have expressed their dissatisfaction with the planned restructuring of the Mayo club football leagues for 2026.

The proposed new structure was brought to the floor and sparked controversy at the January meeting of the Executive and club delegates on Wednesday, January 28.

The proposals, which were shown to delegates by the county vice-chairman, Michael Diskin, would have seen eight divisions, each featuring ten teams, established.

Divisions One, Two, Three, Four, and Five would feature ten sides, with two sides being promoted and relegated at the end of each campaign.

The majority of consternation, though, came in the structure of Divisions Six, Seven, and Eight.

The leagues were divided geographically, with each league having a final contested between the top two sides.

From the thirty teams in the three divisions, two sides would be promoted to Division Five for the following season.

Four 'A' sides (Kilmovee Shamrocks, Northern Gaels, Ballycroy, and Ballycastle) were due to be in Division Six, while Moygownagh were placed in Division Eight. The remaining 25 sides consisted of 24 'B' teams and one 'C' team.

The prospect of two sides being promoted from 30 clubs per season was one that was questioned by Ballycroy club delegate, Michael Gallagher.

"In what world is that correct?" queried Gallagher.

Diskin responded that there had been no issue when the structure was brought up at a meeting with club officers two days prior, a fact that was disputed.

"I'd find it very patronising the notion that Kilmovee, Northern Gaels, Ballycroy, and Ballycastle, we might not be able to travel the length of the county, Gallagher stated when the geogaphical issue was mentioned. "We're well sued to traveling a lot further than the length of Mayo.

"Kilmovee, for example, have to beat 28 other teams to be promoted, or else they're there for the rest of their life.

"I think it's farcical."

Another aspect that caused upset was the proposed geographical division of the county.

Kilmovee Shamrocks, for instance, would have to travel to Crossmolina, whereas they would play sides much closer if they were in Division Five.

"We've young lads coming through, and there's no incentive," said Kilmovee Shamrocks delegate, James Kilkenny.

Another delegate likened the idea of clubs in Divisions Six, Seven, and Eight approving the new structures to 'turkeys voting for Christmas'.

Ardagh delegate, Padraic Doherty, also queried why some sides were placed in certain leagues.

"I would question whether Islandeady, Tourmakeady, and Achill should be in Division Five. They were well able to put it up to Ardagh, who are in Division Four, in the Championship."

Ronan Kirrane, Mayo GAA Secretary, was vociferous in his defence of the decision to adopt this structure.

"Last Monday night, every club was represented and were given two different options. One option was based on League results from 2025.

"The second option was the re-jigging of Divisions Six, Seven, and Eight. And there was not one dissenting voice."

"The Kilmovee officers brought that back to the clubs and we met on it and there was consternation about the proposals," Kilkenny stated.

Another option which the county board considered was the separation of the leagues so as to not have 'A', 'B', and 'C' sides in the same pyramid. All 44 'A' sides would have been split into four eleven-team leagues, with a separate league structure for 'B' and 'C' sides.

Multiple alternative league structures were brought to the floor. One suggested that those sides who didn't wish to be in Division Six be added to Division Five.

Kiltimagh's Paddy McNicholas suggested that Division Six operate in the same format as Divisions One to Five. Divisions Seven and Eight, in this proposal, would be changed to Divisions Seven A and Seven B.

Those two leagues would operate on a regional basis, with semi-finals, a league final, and two sides being promoted to Division Six for the next season.

This proposal was seconded by Gallagher, the Ballycroy delegate.

In the end, this structure was the most amenable, and was taken away by the CCC for consideration.