I didn’t buy tickets for the All-Ireland final, but I did enter a raffle to win one. There’s a full story behind that involving a forklift, but the only story in the days after the match was that of Mayo overcoming their 75-year “curse”. Such was the elation shown throughout the county in the aftermath; I was regretting going in for a ticket for the match itself instead of the afterparty. My social media over the next few days was flooded with the ecstasy of overcoming a near century of disappointment; primarily the demented joy of Mid West Radio’s commentary of the game (look it up, it’s excellent), but also scenes of celebration from across the county, as well as one touching feature where fans who had been alive to see Mayo’s last victory in 1951 were interviewed for their elation surrounding this one. Even on the side of the opposition, a better opponent could not have been found for the occasion: perhaps Dublin, who earned many of their titles in the 2010’s at Mayo’s expense, but instead it was to be Kerry, holders of the most titles in the competition, the GAA equivalent of winning your first Champions League title against Real Madrid. I didn’t make it to the Knicks victory parade either, but I imagine Castelbar could have given it a run for its money.
And yet, across the proceedings, hiding in plain sight, was the ungainly vision of the Allianz logo. Not to suggest that anything from the world of insurance giants is appropriate decor for a historic sporting arena such as Croke Park, yet it was especially offensive in this case given the GAA’s sponsor having significant financial ties to Israel, having held roughly $2.67 billion in Israeli Sovereign Bonds in September of 2025. Israeli bonds, dubbed “war bonds” by government officials and activist groups, have been marketed as a way to assist the Israeli government in carrying out its genocide in Palestine, including President Isaac Herzog’s remarks that buying bonds means “continu[ing] to support Israel” while “Israel is at war”, and YouTube videos where Israeli Bonds asked buyers to “support Israeli soldiers”. In communication with the University Times, Allianz requested that the phrase “war bonds” not be used to discuss its massive investment in bonds that directly fund the government of Israel, which is actively carrying out a genocide in Palestine that has killed over 77,000 people and mandates military service in the IDF for citizens. Allianz also requested that the University Times not say that Allianz has “known ties to Israel’s genocide in Palestine”, though it did not dispute that it has invested billions in the government carrying out the genocide.*
This partnership has been the subject of much controversy in recent months, especially given the organisation’s decision not to renege on the deal between the two, which currently runs until 2030, in spite of the protests that have taken place in recent months from fans and former players alike. Disappointingly, this past August saw President Jarlath Burns come out strongly in support of the relationship between the two. While the theatrics of words such as ‘disappointment’ may be spared in the context of another sport’s complicity in the atrocities in Gaza, such hypocrisy is even more glaring in the world of Gaelic games. A quick look at Allianz’s website describes their partnership with the GAA as being ‘more than a sponsorship.’ This ‘more than a…’ attitude is thrown around Gaelic games regularly; an idea that they represent more than sport, that they stand for something far deeper and more communal than merely what happens on the pitch. Of course, every sport would likely attempt to make such a claim, but in this case, the GAA may have a leg to stand on. A quick scan around rural Ireland reveals boarded-up businesses, young people moving abroad in a rush and a lack of necessary services in transport and housing. Often, the presence of Gaelic and Hurling is central to forming some sense of community within these areas. As a sceptic of the trappings of rural Irish communities as a whole, writing this does make me vomit in my mouth a bit, but its importance can also not be ignored. The GAA can reasonably claim to be one of the only sporting bodies that does represent its fans down to the grassroots; however, if this is true, they cannot be seen to put the interests of an international corporation with roughly a billion dollars invested in Israel over a fan base that has made its solidarity with the people of Palestine abundantly clear.
This issue isn’t solely contained to the GAA. Similar displays of fence-sitting can be seen within the world of Irish football concerning the treatment of Ireland’s Nations League fixtures against Israel. Despite clear public opposition towards the matches, the FAI’s solution towards opposition from fans is, disappointingly, to expel them from the stadiums through a ban on ticket sales (UT Sport is currently working extra hard on securing press passes, fear not). While some of the blame has to lie with UEFA and FIFA in their own leniency in this matter, once more, it is not unreasonable, as Irish sports fans, that we expect our sporting bodies to reflect our values and beliefs. Previously, the FAI has demonstrated its ability to involve itself in matters separate from those on the pitch when the momentum of opinion is moving in a suitable direction. They were one of 51 governing bodies within UEFA to come out in opposition to FIFA’s proposal to sell shares of the World Cup to private investors. Our governing body will find itself on the right side of history for this opposition towards perhaps the most soulless attempt at commercialism in perhaps the most aggressively soulless and commercial of all sports, yet it demonstrates an inability to act of our own accord. Boycotting Russian involvement in sports, as we were called upon to do following the invasion of Ukraine, is easy when everyone else is boycotting Russian involvement in sports, less so when it requires serious moral fibre to stand up against the disregard for Israel’s atrocities off the pitch. Officials can look no further than the scenes of protest at Bohemians games for displays of the effectiveness of a united political front in a sporting setting. As much as taking a stance against the matches given the genocide in Palestine may draw the ire of the wider footballing world, the FAI would find a great deal of support from the fans it supposedly represents.
These issues raise the question of where to begin with undoing this deep-seated lack of action in our sporting bodies. While former players seem fully capable of involving themselves, those currently active seem fully tasked with taking to the pitch and, in the old adage, ‘getting on with it.’ It’s a far cry from the likes of Diego Maradona and Socrates (not that one, Brazilian guy, lots of hair), who made no secret of their socialist and anti-imperialist beliefs even as they competed on the biggest of stages. Maybe it’s wrong to expect too much of people who have never claimed to be anything other than professional athletes, yet failing to take a stance speaks volumes as much as electing to do so. Not that one can expect too much from the English men’s team beyond failure, it was nevertheless disappointing to see captain Harry Kane, having been previously outspoken on the rights of members of the LGBTQ community and migrant workers in Qatar during the previous World Cup, reflect on his experience of playing golf with Donald Trump. Even the lows, such as Kane’s attempts to flatter Agent Orange’s golfing abilities (apparently great for his age) may be easier to stomach if the highs of footballers and politics were suitably affecting; alas, we’re not given much to reach for in the current state of the sport. While it is unfair to place blame for the failings of the sport itself on the individuals, it would be foolish to underestimate the influence of men who are very good at kicking a ball around. In 2021, Coca-Cola’s stock momentarily plummeted when Cristiano Ronaldo removed a bottle of their product from a table during a press conference and encouraged viewers to drink water instead. If there was a single sportsman (the women clearly outstrip their male counterparts on this matter, credit where it is due) who took as strong a stance on the wrongs of the world as Ronaldo takes on his Patrick Bateman-esque attitude towards his own nutrition, we would have a powerful and active voice on our hands.
The ability held by sports to bring people together is often upheld as a virtue in the face of the rampant corruption and commercialism that has grown exponentially in their ascent to the global stage. The beauty of triumphant campaigns from World Cup underdogs and the dispelling of Mayo’s long-held “curse” are meant to remedy the moral failings of these spectacles; rather, it is this inherent, universal appeal to the collective consciousness that makes sport so ripe for investment. Perhaps the trade-off is unavoidable; after all, we and all that gives our lives colour exists within the systems of capitalism, as much as we may attempt to glorify the idea of the purity that exists within anything beautiful, be it art, music, or indeed, two groups of sweaty men (or women) running around after a ball. But this does not invalidate the ability of the individual to take a stand against that which is morally unjust on a basic human level. All it takes is one voice to take a meaningful stand against the array of issues that permeate our favourite sports, and the more visible a figure that makes that voice their own, the better. The Irish public has made their feelings known on the plight of the Palestinian people and the atrocities of the Israeli government: it is time the athletes who supposedly represent us do the same.
*In a statement to the University Times, Allianz rejected the claim that Israeli sovereign bonds are “war bonds” and provided the following statement: “The conflict in the Middle East has caused immense suffering. The path to a just and lasting peace lies with political leadership and diplomacy; Allianz’s responsibility is to operate lawfully and responsibly. Against that background, Allianz wholly and unequivocally rejects the allegations contained in the July 2025 Special Rapporteur’s report and any allegation of complicity in violence. Allianz operates in accordance with applicable law, its fiduciary duties, and internationally recognised human rights and sustainability frameworks. These latest claims about Allianz are ludicrous and rely on incomplete information from datasets that simply cannot support the sweeping conclusions being drawn from them. More fundamentally, attempts to draw a direct line between Allianz’s lawful participation in sovereign debt markets and the actions of the Israeli Government are entirely without foundation. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument would implicate institutions across the global financial system simply for participating in lawful markets. Allianz does not accept that premise, and our position will not change through its repetition.”
On September 18th at 1:31pm, this article was updated to include a statement from Allianz. At 2:27pm it was updated to reflect that “war bonds” means sovereign debt. At 3:52pm the article was updated to include clarifications from Allianz on the phrase “war bonds” to mean sovereign debt.
