BUSINESS OF SPORT/Daire Whelan: While we wait (some with bated breath) for the introduction of the smoking ban, isn't it about time smoking was banned at sports grounds as well?

How many times have you sat/stood in Croke Park or Lansdowne Road and had the misfortune of someone's cigarette smoke blowing into your face? It may be outdoors but sports stadiums are still enclosed spaces for the fans and stewards. But, it seems many in Irish sports organisations feel that having a smoking ban in their grounds is a step too far. Likewise for the Department of Health, Fine Gael and Labour.

Only last October the Minister for Health, Michéal Martin, stated: "The primary purpose in introducing this important new health measure is to allow people to work and socialise in clean, healthy smoke-free environments. No one can be in any doubt that exposure to and inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of cancer, heart disease and respiratory disease."

Stewards must work in stadiums and fans go to matches to socialise as well as support their team, so why do sports grounds not come under the proposed ban as well? As it stands "the regulations on smoke-free workplaces will include indoor workplaces only" and furthermore the Department of Health says "there are no plans to extend the smoke-free workplace initiative to outdoor workplaces".

But surely then, people smoking in sports grounds constitutes a health risk to those sitting near them and to those working near them? To which the Department of Health says: "Tobacco smoke is the most significant form of indoor air pollution. In an outdoor setting tobacco smoke may be quickly dispersed and does not pose the same levels of exposure and risk as an indoor location, although it can be annoying if sitting beside a smoker during a game."

Annoying. You can say that again. So you can either put up or shut up. But no, there's more, the Department also has the following advice: "Smoke-free locations are always a more pleasant environment. Most people attending sports events don't smoke and many smokers if requested by those sitting around them will not smoke."

So while the Department of Health has delusions about the behavioural habits of sports fans, the reality for the rest of us is very different. Have you ever asked a supporter smoking nearby to desist? Wouldn't you be more fearful of consequences suffered from your request? Don't hold your breath for any changes to be introduced in the near future either. Asked as to whether there are any plans from the Minister, or has it ever been suggested to the Minister, to introduce a smoking ban at sports grounds, this column was told: "Sports and sports grounds and venues are associated with physical exercise, a healthy lifestyle and high fitness levels. Some people would consider it preferable if smoking, which is the unhealthiest thing a human can do, should not be allowed in such venues."

Some people? In this case does "some people" not include the Government and the Minister for Health, who reminds us "exposure to and inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of cancer, heart disease and respiratory disease?"

Maybe it's my old age, but is it just me or am I detecting the notion sports fans are getting the short end of the stick here?

Everyone else in sport, it seems, will only move when the Government does. An IRFU spokesman said there are no restrictions on smoking in the open-air areas of Lansdowne Road. However, it is banned in committee rooms and internal rooms around the stadium and has been in place for the last few years. The IRFU will be adhering to the Government recommendations when they are introduced and as for future developments they will be monitoring the evolution of and development of the smoking ban.

The eircom League has confirmed there are no regulations or guidelines in place for sports grounds regarding smoking. The ban will affect club bars while one option in the future could be the introduction of special family areas with no smoking sections.

The GAA and its county boards confirmed they too will be adhering to the Government recommendations. But, for Croke Park's hospitality boxes, there will be no smoking where drink is served. It is only the plebeians who must run the risk of cancer in the cheaper seats. However, there does still seem to be some confusion as to the application of the law when it comes into force, as the Dublin County Board told this column as Parnell Park is an enclosed space with kids and stewards present, non-smoking in the ground will be enforced.

So why such unwillingness from most quarters to ban smoking from sports stadiums across the country? Maybe, when you get past the language of "grey areas", "enforcement" and "rules and regulations" the primary reason could be a potential drop in attendances if any smoking ban were to be introduced? Is there a revenue factor that is being conveniently ignored? We may hide behind health reasons and open-air excuses but perhaps the battle with sporting organisations is one the Government is not ready for. After all, the publicans are proving to be stubborn enough as it is.

Next week, this column gets the views of opposition spokespersons on smoking at sports grounds, hears medical opinion on the dangers for fans, and examines why more and more Premiership clubs in England are banning smoking from their stadiums.

StockWatch

Philip Morris, $54.42. World's biggest cigarette

manufacturer has seen a six-month increase from an August 2003

low of $27.70.

GoFigure

£5,000. The prize money for Yeovil Town if they beat

Liverpool in tomorrow's FA Cup third round tie.

Listento Lombardi

"The harder you work, the harder it is to surrender."

Baseball player strikes it rich

Away from this column's soapbox on smoking in sports grounds, there has been the little matter of the January transfer window opening.

Struggling clubs have been dying for this moment as they hope new additions will bolster their chances for the remainder of the season while the likes of Manchester United, despite sitting pretty at the top of the Premiership, are still looking to add to their squad.

While, the transfer fees commanded may no longer be as in days gone by (the last three-four years, anyway), it is in their wage packets that players are truly earning their worth.

For clubs, it is the incentive of the weekly wage and bonuses that can keep or attract players.

Only since Manchester United scrapped their wage ceiling have they been attracting serious interest from the world's biggest players - don't forget it was their desire to keep Roy Keane and offer him £70,000 a week that saw them break with the tradition of paying conservative player wages.

But, as ever, it is always worth checking in on America to keep things in perspective. Consider then the case of baseball's Alex Rodriguez.

In 2000, Rodriguez signed the most expensive contract in sports with a 10-year $252 million deal from the Texas Rangers.

The Texas Rangers hoped they could do an Ambramovich and buy their way to a World Series but three last-placed seasons later and it is obvious that MVP Rodriguez is never going to win championships with the Rangers.

And so the saga of transferring Rodriguez to the Boston Red Sox began over three months at the tail-end of 2003 finishing acrimoniously only two days before Christmas.

The Red Sox were offering a deal that would see Rodriguez's pay packet reduced by $4 million a year for the remaining seven years - all of which the player was indeed willing to take.

But just before Christmas, the deal was declared dead when the players union rejected it saying the contract could only be restructured not reduced as it was in violation of their collective bargaining agreement.

However, none of the parties involved, the clubs, the MLB, the players union or Rodriguez himself were able to come to an agreement. When all was said and done, it was Red Sox owner John W Henry who summed it up.

"From my standpoint, as an American, I have a hard time understanding the reasons for killing this deal. I don't know how you value in dollars a person's happiness, a person's desire to live and work somewhere."

In the meantime, Rodriguez looks forward to 2004 with the Rangers and the $151.2 million to be earned over the last six years of his deal.

bizofsport@eircom.net