A Reasonable Recompense.

NZ Truth, Issue 143, 14 March 1908, Page 3

A Reasonable Recompense.

"Quidnunc," the "Canterbury Times' " football critic, has admitted' pn a former occasion thas he and a prominent delegate of the Canterbury Rugby Union to the N.Z.R.U. are one and the same persons. That being sq, "Pakeha" cannot be held to be guilty of a breach of journalistic etiquette when he expresses a hope that at the annual meeting of the Dominionist Union m May, the southern writer and legislator will have the courage to defend the principles he has enumerated m a series of articles from his pen on the subject of amateur v. professional football, and not persist m his attitude of last year, when, after getting safely back to Christchurch, he had the colossal cheek to sermonise delegates for their action m setting up an Appeal Council, he, miindyou, having had his own jaws tightly closed during the whole of the discussion arising out of this proposal. The "please everybody and offend nobody" racket pays for a time, but m the long run the person who plays the role generally comes a.cropper, and a bad one at that. "Pakeha' ' has always advocated payment to playors for loss of time, and he is pleased to note that 'Quidnunc" and a Dunedin writer agree with him m that respect. Says "Quidnunc" m his latest article .•—"The whole aspect of football—and of some other sports— has changed since the days when the Eng lish Rugby Union laid clown the rules of its old, inexorable, absolutely pure policy." We have to recognise nowadays that the strictures of those rules must tend to restrict the popularity of the game, inasmuch as football is a game not for the few but for many. It is played, and we want it to be played, by men and

boys in' every walk of life, and among them are numbers of those to whom the time spent at football is a distinct loss. A reasonable recompense for that loss is as much as any New' Zealander asks, and, 1 believe, as much as he is entitled to obtain. Is it of any use to shut our eyes, as Mr Stuart . and scores of other critics have shut -theirs, to the fact that men j \vi l-l .refuse to be out of pocket through • playing . football ?' Surely the closed eye policy is of no value to one who would tackle this question of professionalism." The Dunedin writer is more outspoken. '"Uj) to the present," he says, "I have not heard of any of our local crack footballers sticking out for . payment for loss of wages, but no doubt it will come, m time. It only requires a few more cases like ."tha t of Dwyer, of Vincent County, who, owing to country work ancl representative football, lost four weeks' wages, to influence others m the call for payment for loss of time. Personally, I am m favor of this payment lor loss of wages, and I cannot see why our players should lose their amateur status by accepting money for such a loss. It will come to this, that on tour players will have to be paid for lost time or the best teams, will be unable to travel.". As a straw indicates which way the wind is blowing, so the utterances of ■my southern Mends go to show that thc feeling m favor of the payment of players for loss oftime.is steadily bulging to the front. The position will have to be faced before long, -and the .sooner the N.Z.R.U. reconciles the inevitable the better it .will be for amateur Rugby m the Dominion. The spurious three-foob-a-dav amateur wants wiping clean out of existence, for his presence can only be said to be a menace to the game which finds such «rreat favor with people of Maoriland.