WHEN in Paris last August the International Rugby Board decided that rugby would become an open game, the decision was hailed as a triumph by some and with dismay by many more. Talk of a smooth transition was quite frankly nonsense. It was inevitable that there would be problems, but not even the most pessimistic could have foreseen the utter chaos that has ensued. Meeting follows meeting as rugby is stripped of its dignity, particularly by events in England where they talk about a struggle for the soul of the game.

The reality is that the soul of the game was sold last August. Just about everything that has happened since makes that clear. The game is now primarily about money even the most avid advocate of professionalism would find it hard to justify some of the events we have witnessed and are currently witnessing.

The discontentment with the professional era grows by the day. It is true that there was a level of hypocrisy before professionalism. In essence, the game at representative level in the southern hemisphere was professional in all but name. The weakness of the International Board on the issue in recent years has come home to roost.

The belief that professionalism would bring honesty is a sick joke. It has brought out the worst elements of man's baser instincts: a struggle for power, control and money had followed, while principle has gone out the door, engulfed by greed and smothered by commercialism. The game is being held to ransom and discredited by greed, a lack of morality and - in England - personality clashes.

Some of what is happening is shameful The unedifying events in England are bringing the game into disrepute. It has promoted one official so say: "It makes you fee ashamed to be part of the game when you see what is happening.

However, what is happening in regard to club rugby in England, so vociferously opposed by the English Rugby Union (RFU), is comparable to the activities of the same organisation in their dealings over television rights for the Five Nations Championship. Why is it that RFU representatives have not answered whether or not they have had discussions with Sky television? The RFU is doing to its fellow Home Unions members exactly what they are resisting from their own clubs. That is about as double a standard as one can get.

It also illustrates the depths to which some rugby administrations have sunk. There is no doubt they would be worthy bed fellows with Rupert Murdoch. We hear talk from England of the benefits of shared viewing with Sky and terrestrial television for the Five Nations Championship. But is that not what we have now? I wonder who will get the lion's share under a new deal.

The secretary of the RFU, Tony Hallett, talks about "looking after ourselves and our own affairs as any sovereign state must do" as he seeks to justify what has happened in relation to the renewal of television rights for the Five Nations Championship. He talks about the need for money to finance the professional game. That is the very argument being put forward to the RFU by the English Professional Rugby Union Clubs (EPRUC).

It is nothing short of sickening to listen to some of the double talk emanating from Twickenham. We hear that between £150 and £170 million will be available for the Five Nations Championship from Sky. The Five Nations television sub committee has had no discussions with Sky. Can the RFU say the same?

IRFU president Syd Millar has got it right in his attitude to and in identifying the dangers represented by Sky television. Yesterday, the president of the RFU, Bill Bishop, talked about the Five Nations Championship being the jewel in the crown". But are England not now making it clear that their activity puts that jewel in peril of being lost for ever. The RFU executive committee decided on Friday night that England will go it alone on television rights. The timing, on the eve of the meetings in Dublin, was very convenient.

Has loyalty and integrity gone from rugby? Is not every semblance of morality being sacrificed on the altar of commercial expediency? The RFU is and always has been an integral part of the Four Home Unions Committee. That body was put in place for very specific reasons, and unity of purpose and the common good was its central plank.

The disgust and annoyance of Ireland, Wales and Scotland with the attitude of the RFU is absolutely understandable. The RFU is represented on the television sub committee of the Four Home Unions. That imposes its own obligations.

Is this another case of England wanting to be part of a club, but only on its own terms. They want to change the rules to suit themselves. Whatever may be said about England wanting to go it alone on television rights, the manner in which they did it was reprehensible . . .

Their argument about having the biggest television audience does not stand up. A rugby match requires two teams and there cannot be a match without opposition. What about the sentiments expressed about the reason for starting a World Cup, about the propagation of the game and sending it across the world to all the emerging nations and giving them a chance to see and, play with the big boys. We have seen what the big boys in the southern heisphere did to Fiji, Tonga and Western Samoa in relation to Super 12 series. There is, too, an arrogance implicit in England's attitude. They obviously believe they will always be the biggest drawing card and most powerful side.

The full depth of the activity that has gone on in recent times may never be fully revealed. Louis Luyt, the president of the South African board, was in London on Friday and Dublin on Saturdays. There are some members of the Four Home Unions who would like to know who he had discussions with. The southern hemisphere nations must be rubbing their hands with glee as the game in these islands tears itself apart.

We await with interest the ongoing developments, but I do not expect any revelations within the next day or two on what took place at the Five Nations meeting in Dublin last Sunday. The other members of the Five Nations do not as yet want to back England into a corner from which there is no escape. However, they feel that the RFU should think long and hard, about, the possible consequences of their stated intentions on television rights.

The game is in crisis in many respects and a championship that has graced the scene for over 120 years may lose a founder member. The Lions tours are now in greater jeopardy than ever, Is that the price they are prepared to pay in Twickenham?