On Gaelic Games: How seamlessly the issues blend into each other. Hardly had the embers of the recent bush fire on the subject of amateurism and pay-for-play died when a new and apparently unrelated outbreak lights up the skies.

There is little new about the concept of "ambush marketing". Two years ago we had the bookies' hurls, and it's only a few weeks since the right to consume certain drinks on air was at the centre of standoff and controversy.

This week's episode of boot sponsorship is further evidence of the difficulties confronting the GAA in its relatively new world of commerce and sponsorship.

It also illustrates the difficulty of operating in the twilight world between amateurism and professionalism.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the open embrace of commercialism has created a chain reaction that the association is now having difficulty keeping under control.

The incremental relaxation of various rules involving what players may and may not take from endorsement and advertising money has led to the point where there is a sense of the Wild West frontier about the manner in which commercial interests are eyeing up promotional opportunities within the games.

This is the price of mixing it in a cut-throat world without putting in place the safeguards to protect your interests.

In competition with professional sports, Gaelic games needs all the resources it can get, and sponsorship, merchandising, broadcast rights and all other commercial applications are among the revenue opportunities for any modern sports association.

Controlling this area for the greater good of the membership isn't just a matter of setting out a stall. For the association's commercial function to be fully in order, the whole structure has to be right, and that includes rules and regulations. It's hard to imagine, say, English Premiership soccer players conducting solo runs in relation to on-pitch sponsorship.

This is equally about protecting players from the sort of carry-on we have witnessed this week. It's impossible to establish cause and effect in these situations, but players have enough to worry about on big days without counting down to their starring roles in a controversy contrived by an ambush marketeer.

If the opportunity to earn money from endorsements is there, well and good; but it should be as part of a structured procedure. In the absence of nailed-down rules, the way is clear for approaches such as this week's from companies whose primary interest certainly isn't that of the player involved.

A spokesperson for the beer company involved told yesterday's Irish Examiner: "I don't think it is the GAA's right to decide what players can and cannot do."

Aside from that striking interpretation of any association's right to have rules, there are further reasons to take issue with some of the PR emanating from the same source. "As far as we know we have not breached any rules," was another line in the interview.

Was this checked with any official source? Had that happened, the position would have been spelled out: boots are playing gear and not up for promotional grabs and you're not allowed cut across a national sponsorship.

Then again, it's hard to imagine even an ad man brazen enough to slip into Frank Murphy's office with a couple of beer-branded boots just to see what he thought. Like.

But taking issue with business interests for exploiting these sorts of opportunities is to overlook the main problem. The gap in the hedge through which this matter slipped in the past few days is entirely due to the negligence of the GAA in allowing ambiguity to remain.

It beggars belief that something as notorious as the sponsored hurls from two years ago could provoke such a dilatory reaction from Croke Park that we have the same thing happening again 23 months later.

Here is the problem: Rule 14 covers playing gear, but is anomalous in that it doesn't include boots or hurls. The text of the rule reads: "Playing Gear: The following regulations shall apply to playing gear, specifically jerseys, shorts, stockings, tracksuits and kit-bags worn/used for games, training, interviews and photographs . . . "(c) Other than in connection with an officially approved sponsorship agreement, a manufacturer or supplier's brand name(s) distinctive marks or logo may not openly be displayed and no logo of any nature shall be displayed on stockings.

"(f) Acceptance of payment or other material reward by an individual is strictly prohibited. Penalty: Any unit which breaches the rule shall be liable to disqualification and or loss of expenses and an individual(s) to a suspension of not less than six months or to expulsion."

Seán Kelly issued a presidential ruling to tidy up the anomaly that arose back then. But that has not been incorporated into the Official Guide at either of the two congresses held since 2003.

As things stand, the two Cork hurlers have broken Rule 14 of the guide - if the ruling is taken into account - but there is no mention in the rule book of the presidential ruling under which Niall McCarthy and Kieran Murphy could be suspended for six months. In other words, it's hard to see how the GAA could uphold such a suspension were it to be challenged either at the Disputes Resolution Authority or in court.

The GAA appointed a marketing committee over two years ago and so far, according to the Gaelic Players' Association's Donal O'Neill, it has yet to talk to the GPA.

Whether Croke Park likes it or not, the GPA have acquired a level of expertise in this area and were surely worthy of consultation. And as Kelly acknowledged at this year's congress, "While they (GPA) may or may not represent all players, players do not want anyone else to represent them either".

It's high time the rules were changed to remove ambiguity and that a comprehensive set of guidelines was drawn up and adopted.

As has been mentioned here before, the AFL in Australia publish an operations manual detailing every conceivable situation in relation to the playing of their matches and what provisions govern it.

An equivalent GAA manual has to be devised and circulated among players so everyone is crystal clear about what can and can't be done in terms of endorsement deals.

In the meantime, presumably the beer company will gracefully withdraw from its deal in Cork once it has become aware that the arrangement is against the rules - even if the Official Guide is deficient in spelling that out.

Won't it?