New study exploring the pressures on GAA Games Development Managers finds heightened fatigue, emotional labour and disrupted personal and family life

Study led by ATU’s GAA Development Manager published in Sports Coaching Review

A new study exploring the impact of the blurring of boundaries between work and personal life among GAA Games Development Managers finds high levels of achievement fatigue, emotional labour and disrupted personal and family life.

The study titled "Caution! Achievement Subjects at Work: A Hanian Analysis of Policy Enactment in Gaelic Games” is written by ATU GAA Development Manager Damien Coleman, stemming from his UCD Master’s Dissertation (UCD), and Paul Donnelly, Ulster University, Seamus Kelly, Northumbrian University, Peter Horgan, GAA, and Paul Potrac, UCD.

Published in the prestigious academic journal Sports Coaching Review, the study explores the emotional, relational, and temporal realities of policy enactment within the GAA, drawing on the philosopher Han’s critique of neoliberal subjectivity.

Damien Coleman says: “The study finds heightened fatigue and emotional labour due to the impact of metric-drive accountability on relational work and pressure to constantly “be on” in navigating the everyday demands and dilemmas of policy enactment. I’d like to thank all of the County Games Development Managers who took part in the study. The paper is a call to reflect on how we support those tasked with delivering policy in sport — not just in terms of outcomes, but in terms of their well-being.”

The study reveals that Games Managers are navigating a complex landscape where their roles are increasingly defined by data reporting systems and performance audits. While these systems aim to ensure accountability and consistency, they often come at the expense of relational and community-focused work.

One GM noted: “Everything now is based on metrics, AMS [Activity Management System], measuring everything, data, quantitative… no one cares, just send in the figures. Nothing about quality or standards or the human side.” — (GM7, Interview)

This sentiment was echoed across interviews, with participants expressing concern that their work was being reduced to numerical outputs, undermining the interpersonal and developmental aspects of their roles:

“Six projects, originally with six key areas. Now, it could be 30! The stress, the demands of it all are tough . . . different projects going on at the same time or overlapping. There’s no downtime anymore. You’re constantly spinning plates. It’s tiring. There’s always more to do. I’m not sure many people appreciate what this means for us. But you do it anyway . . . You don’t want to let yourself or other people down” (GM3, Interview).

"It’s the workload . . . it’s very high . . . the demands are constant from above and below. The job description says x, but you’ll soon find out it means as long as you need to get the job done well . . . the expectations just keep growing. You want to do well. But it can be really tough going." (GM1, Interview).

GMs reported regularly working 60+ hour weeks, often without recognition or support: "We’re officially down to work 39 hours a week, but we all do more. Often, it’s 60 hours or more. And if you complain, you’re told it’s your time management and asked how could you manage things better? It’s not fair or acceptable. Weekends, daily . . . it just never stops. And I don’t think anyone cares, so long as you’re doing the job well. And your sense of pride makes you want to do that." (GM6, Interview)

Another participant said:"The role can be very enjoyable at times. But it can also be very tough. You’ve got to ride that roller coaster of emotion. I’m not great at dealing with it because I take everything very personally. The work is stressful. The scope is enormous. Lots of stakeholders. No start or end. It’s just constant. I’m always worrying about the next thing coming up. I want to do well. I don’t want to let people down. But some days it takes you into some very low places". (GM1, Interview)

This internalised drive to perform, coupled with a lack of trust and autonomy, reflects broader systemic issues in sport governance. The study draws on the philosophical work of Byung-Chul Han to interpret these dynamics, suggesting that GMs have become “achievement subjects”—individuals who self-regulate in pursuit of productivity, often at personal cost.

Some participants said it was affecting their homelife:

"At home with the family watching TV, and I’m on my phone the whole time. Someone asks a question, and I answer it. But I haven’t a clue what they asked about. Because my mind is consumed with all the work messages and emails. This causes problems at home. I’m never present to my family. There’s so much going on and I know they suffer as a result". (GM7, Interview)

"When you reflect on life and go back . . . a young family back at the time, they’re all grown up now, and I wasn’t there. No. But maybe I should have been spending more time with them. My wife checks me up all the time . . .She asks for me to give her attention. She sees my mind drift off to something I should have done at work that day or will be doing tomorrow. She reminds me of the past, and the time lost over last 20 years. I didn’t look at it that way . . . but I should have. My family should have been first. And it wasn’t. I should have been better." (GM4, Interview)

The findings raise important questions about how sport organisations balance accountability with empathy. While data systems are essential for strategic oversight, the study argues for a more nuanced approach that recognises the human dimensions of policy work. The full paper is available on: https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2025.2556631 {note there is a paywall)