On Rugby: We live in an era in sport where money, and the clamour for it, prevails over principles for so long deemed sacrosanct; commercialism over long-established tradition. Rugby is a classic example of that as we have seen in so many instances.

Rugby legislators, and those in other sports, must bend to the will of sponsors and television companies. Fixtures and kick-off times are decreed by the demands of those who pay the money; what is suitable for supporters is very often of secondary consideration.

Sponsors and television companies pay large sums of money to sport and obviously want a payback. That is understandable. The bigger the event, the higher the profile. And international and representative rugby has a very high profile. In that regard the World Cup stands at the top of the list.

That event takes place next year, originally scheduled for Australia and New Zealand. But look at what has taken place in relation to it because of advertising at New Zealand venues. Long gone are the days when every stadium was "clean", to use advertising terminology.

Once rugby went professional, the greater the need for money to run the game. When money comes in the window principles and tradition very often go out the door. We had a telling lesson in that respect in the recent past with regard to the television contract for what was then the Five Nations Championship.

The English Rugby Union (RFU) did their own television deal with Sky. The Irish, Welsh and Scottish rugby unions were subsequently offered deals with Sky and declined such overtures. The end product of England's deal was that they were expelled from the Five Nations Championship. England were eventually readmitted after agreeing to put some of their money into a communal pot.

Following the unfortunate and unedifying actions of the RFU, England signed an accord that meant they could not, in the future, do any more individual deals. But there was a price paid, and I believe a very high price for what happened five years ago. Those who did not subscribe to Sky, and that embraced the vast majority of rugby enthusiasts here and across the channel, were deprived of seeing the live transmission of England's home matches.

The TV deal for the Six Nations is now due for renewal. The Six Nations TV committee, is chaired by Ireland's Syd Millar. A subcommittee embracing representatives from all six nations, under Millar's chairmanship, has been busy of late discussing the new deal with the various interested parties. Some little snippets have been appearing about those negotiations such as the suggestion Sky is no longer in the equation.

Once rugby went professional, the greater the need for money to run the game. When money comes in the window principles and tradition very often go out the door.

Understandably, it is the business of the rugby legislators to maximise income. But as Millar said, "the issue goes beyond that. We must try to maximise income but also seek the widest possible audience for the games."

That is a worthy precept. To their credit the TV committee with the exception, of course, of England, did that in the last negotiations. England's arrangement with Sky could not be changed.

The last television deal done by the TV committee also meant some matches being played on Sundays, with staggered kick-off times. There is little enthusiasm for the matches being played on Sundays as it makes life difficult for travelling supporters. But that is just a side issue. What is important is that rugby should be available to the widest possible audience. Rugby legislators have an obligation to propagate the game.

Furthermore the expectation of income is not always matched by realisation as many have found to their cost. Witness the current problem in English soccer's lower divisions over a television deal that appears to be in crisis. By all means let sport reap the benefits of income from television, sponsorship and other commercial interests - that is the climate in which most sports now operate - but sports legislators, rugby and others, should not mortgage their sports to outside influences.

TELEVISION apart, the controversy about the forthcoming World Cup has scarcely enhanced the image of the game with the wrangle as to whether Australia and New Zealand would act as sub-hosts for the game's major competition.

It is truly staggering that it was only yesterday that the decision was made that Australia would be the sole hosts of the 2003 World Cup finals. The game's ruling body, the International Rugby Board, slammed New Zealand, originally named as sub-hosts, for their "wholly inappropriate behaviour" over the tournament's staging.

World Cup organisers withdrew their invitation to New Zealand last month after officials refused to sign the sub-host agreement because they could not comply with key conditions.

Then came the issue of "clean" stadiums in New Zealand, grounds free of advertising, but the New Zealanders had their own advertising deals already in place at their grounds. They would not yield on that issue and subsequently Rugby World Cup (RWC) asked Australia to make a presentation to act as sole hosts.

Originally New Zealand would have had 23 of the 48 matches. Now think of the revenue that would have generated for the country. Arrogance and intransigence has not prevailed for the New Zealanders. Obviously there were those in New Zealand who did indeed think about all the consequences and attempts were made to get back on board. What a shame they did not do so earlier and thus avoid the unedifying wrangling we have witnessed.

But that is international rugby today and sport today. In too many instances money and self-interest stand above principles. New Zealand is a great rugby nation, but the New Zealand Rugby Union does not emerge with credit from what has happened.