THERE seems little possibility of an early solution to the argument between the Olympic Council of Ireland (OCI) and the Irish amateur athletics body, BLE. Both sides derive the legitimacy of their claims from the international bodies who govern them. As such, their differences serve as a battle- ground for a broader sporting and legal issue.

When athletes compete at an event, who owns the right to sell the advertising space on their backs? The athlete? The organiser of the competition? The federation of which the athlete is a member?

No written agreement exists between the OCI and BLE to confirm that they compromised pre Atlanta and agreed that athletes could wear the gear of their choice. With O'Sullivan keen to wear Reebok tomorrow night, no agreement seems likely.

Sonia O'Sullivan has had a personal deal with Reebok since she was a Villanova student in the late 1980s. The parameters and terms of that relationship have grown and developed in tandem with her career.

From a situation where the athlete was merely one of thousands receiving gifts of running gear from a shoe sponsor, she has become one of the key focal points in Reebok's ongoing marketing campaign.

O'Sullivan scheduled press conferences in Atlanta this summer and in Gothenburg last summer were held in Reebok premises. There are allegations this week, as yet unconfirmed, that a Reebok employee, Mr Guy, McCallum, has even been given a coach's accreditation pass by the OCI.

For Reebok, a firm which cut its teeth in the sports shoe business by selling running shoes to an untapped female market, an athlete of O'Sullivan's charisma, profile and success is an invaluable marketing tool.

It is interesting in the backdrop of this week's squabble to tune into another debate currently being held in the US as to the part race plays in the marketing of sports. There is a growing concern that apart from huge stand out successes like Michael Jordan, there is a corporate reluctance to take a risk on athletes from ethnic minorities.

Sonia O'Sullivan is a valuable property when set against that backdrop. Single. White. Female. English speaking. Indomitable on the track. Scandal free off it. Her career should run until she is in her early to mid 30s. There is almost nobody else in the athletics world who meets all those criteria.

So this week, and for almost 18 months, the bickering and squabbling has continued. Who will have the right to the huge publicity dividend which goes with the million shots of Sonia crossing the line for gold. Asics, by virtue of a deal with BLE, feel they have the right to scoop the jackpot.

Rule 12 (IA) of the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) rulebook 1996 states. "At the following international meetings, the rules and regs of the IAAF must apply Olympic Games, World Championships, World Cup." As such, BLE feel justified in having concluded a deal with Asics which includes these Olympic Games.

Rule 139 of the IAAF guide states "at all meetings under Rule 12 (IA), competitors shall participate in the uniform and clothing approved by their governing bodies. The victory ceremony and any lap of honour are considered part of the competition for this purpose.

This was agreed by the IAAF during the World Athletics Championships in Gothenburg last summer and has been the subject of almost continuous controversy ever since. Last September, a month after the rule was made, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) took an executive decision to contact the president of the IAAF, Dr Primo Nebiolo, to disabuse him of the notion that his organisation had any commercial clout within the Olympic movement.

That missive from Lausanne to Monte Carlo contained basically the same message as that from the OCI to BLE this week. It doesn't matter what the IAAF rules state. They don't apply at the Olympic Games.

The athletics competition is run in compliance with IAAF rules, as all other competitions are run in compliance with the rules of the relevant sporting federations. In the matter of commercial jurisdiction, however, the IAAF have no footing. Irish citizens might as well claim that Irish law gives them the right to drive on the right side of the road in the US.

Back last Autumn the move by the IAAF was largely interpreted in sports politics circles as being a play by Nebiolo to secure a bigger slice of Olympic TV revenue for athletics. In America, track and field comes down the list of most watched Olympic events, but in Europe and many other places track and field is the centre point.

Nebiolo, envious of how soccer has maximised revenue and marketing opportunities through the World Cup while still remaining within the Olympic family, has been squeezing for some time for more money. His brainchild, the World Athletics Championships, have become a biennial event. He has even threatened to withdraw athletics from the Games, while knowing that his basis for doing so was quite weak.

Eventually, as a compromise, last Christmas it was agreed that athletics would receive a $8.5 million slice of the TV revenue for these Games. For Nebiolo, it seemed as if the politics had worked.

Several of his national organisations, including Ireland, however, had in the meantime concluded contracts with sponsors on the basis of the Gothenburg agreement.

The OCI argue that the Gothenburg rule was made redundant when the executive board of the IOC met in Lausanne last September and point out that Rule 8.3 of the Olympic Charter states that the National Olympic committees (NOC) have the "sole and exclusive authority to prescribe and determine the clothing and uniforms to be worn on the occasion of the Olympic Games."

Until the week before the Games began this ruling did not encompass what was termed "specialist clothing". At the IOC session here in Atlanta, however, words were added to clear up that grey area and, significantly, Primo Nebiolo, also an IOC member, was among those voting when the decision was passed unanimously.

So, in the middle of an Olympic Games, with our finest athlete already trying to bounce back from an internal trauma, the tug of war continues.

It is easy to be wise and ask why they don't let Sonia O'Sullivan run in whatever they want her to run in. Her success has made her too valuable a commodity for that to happen, though. Had she not, on the advice of her agent Kim McDonald, brought a second set of gear with her to the track last Friday night, "just in case something happened to upset her", there is the distinct possibility that she would have been disqualified.