Seán Moran Gaelic GamesChange is incremental. We get used to small innovations or big ones introduced in a small way and, before you know it, the big picture has changed. For example, four seasons of qualifiers in football have prepared us for the sight of Fermanagh and Mayo fighting it out for a place in the All-Ireland final.

Consequently, welcome change rarely bursts out of its wrapping and roars at us. Less happy examples of things that don't change also operate on an incremental basis: a steadily futile drip, drip.

But at times of frustration it's illuminating and comforting to reflect that the GAA is at least balanced between positive and negative influences.

Let's take as our text for this proposition the year 1994. It's chosen, a decade on, for not entirely random reasons.

It was the last year before the new Croke Park came on stream, the last year before live television became a feature of the summer and marked the first stirrings of the reforms that became known as the back door.

All of these developments have been massively beneficial for the GAA and it's interesting to recall the evolution of the debate on these matters. As has often been the case over his 25 years in Croke Park, Liam Mulvihill, the GAA's Director General, anticipated these issues in his annual report.

His proposed restructuring of the hurling championship is virtually identical to the model that was adopted at the 1996 Congress. It suggests the readmission of the defeated Munster and Leinster finalists and addresses the reasons behind the suggestions.

"There may be reservations about allowing a losing team a second chance in the competition but such an arrangement is not uncommon in sport. The advantages of this proposal are that Galway and the Ulster winners would have an opportunity of playing more games than at present, there would be a more competitive conclusion to the competition and public interest would be built up to an even greater extent before the All-Ireland semi-final stages."

That rationale is worth bearing in mind because it's the basis on which the Hurling Development Committee sold their blueprint. It can be argued that Galway and the Ulster champions haven't really benefited from the extra matches that the new structures and their successors have provided.

In the eight years since the introduction of the reforms, Galway have beaten only three major hurling counties - Tipperary, Kilkenny and Clare - whereas the Ulster champions have failed to register a single win - Antrim's close run against Wexford last year being the best display in that time.

But it could be argued that those counties aren't doing any worse given that in the three seasons immediately after Mulvihill's comments, neither Galway nor the Ulster champions won a semi-final.

But on the other front, the provision of higher-profile All-Ireland semi-finals, there is no doubting the success. During the August prior to the 1994 Congress, the two semi-finals were held, as was the custom, on the same double bill, which was attended by 43,527. Antrim-Kilkenny and Galway-Tipperary were the matches in question.

The past two years, however, have seen the highest attendances ever at All-Ireland hurling semi-finals (even excluding last season's Cork-Wexford replay) - 114,466 and 119,522 respectively.

This has had two knock-on effects. Firstly, and more obviously, it has generated more publicity and more revenue and, secondly, its success prompted the introduction of the football qualifier system.

Without dwelling too much on the various interim statistics, gate receipts in the 1994 accounts came in at 4,409,604 whereas the equivalent figures in the current accounts are €21,880,593, or an increase of 496 per cent.

The facts disguise other influences, principal among which is the new Croke Park. Back in 1994 the old Cusack Stand had just been demolished and work on Phase One of the redevelopment was in train.

In his report Mulvihill referred to the ongoing reservations about the corporate element in the new development. "A minority of the association's membership is unhappy with the provision of high-quality corporate facilities in the development. This is understandable and must be respected."

In response he emphasised the changing nature of the GAA's membership and support as well as the growing importance of sponsorship and links with the business community. Underpinning this was the financial reality that in return for a relatively small proportion of the new stadium's capacity a sizeable proportion of the cost could be secured - in relation to Phase One, half the cost for 15 per cent of the seats.

The greatly increased capacity, especially the seated capacity, of Croke Park has obviously added greatly to the possibilities of gate revenue but, interestingly, the extent to which the GAA depends on that source of income has hardly increased in 10 years: 71.1 per cent then as against 72 per cent in the recent accounts.

This is still high for an organisation that is anxious to develop its commercial revenue and lessen its dependence on gate receipts but at least the figure hasn't outrun the base figure despite the enormous increase in that revenue source.

Part of the reason for this is the rising value of media, which is included in commercial income, overseas television rights in particular. Mulvihill raised the question of television coverage in 1994.

Referring to the profile of major international sports and their impact on Gaelic games he said: "We must accept that high-quality television coverage of our games is essential and that the series must range over a reasonably long period if we are to attract young people in the numbers that we require."

The following year saw the first programme of regular, televised championship matches. Reticence was so pronounced, however, that during that first season, some broadcasts were delayed until after the match was over. Only when the world didn't fall in was permission given for exclusively live coverage in 1996.

Since then the profile of football and hurling has increased enormously and that at a time of rocketing gate receipts. Proof that progressive measures bring progress.