IN this increasingly litigious age there is a strong case for sport being left to police itself.

The most outrageous recent example of legal boffins undermining a sporting governing body came with Hansie Cronje's challenge to his life ban from cricket.

What a nerve the man must have. And to think everyone believed he was such a nice, god-fearing chap.

Anything but the briefest of suspensions these days seems to bring out the cry of "restraint of trade".

Then there's this freedom of movement nonsense, which is persuading those nit-picking bureaucrats at the European Commission to interfere with the football transfer system.

What we really need is a system which limits English clubs to two overseas players per game so that the likes of Chelsea might start to offer a little assistance to the England cause.

What sense is there in paying a dreadlocked defender from across the channel £30,000 a week to strut around to little effect when there must be young local lads who would play with real pride?

There is a danger that too much freedom of movement will allow players to leave the smaller clubs all too easily, without adequate compensation for those who have nurtured them.

Most of those clubs would go to the wall without the money that transfers bring in, and protecting them should be the main priority of the shake-up in the system.

County cricket clubs also need more protection in that respect. With two divisions and increasing use of agents - a largely parasitic breed - there is bound to be more player movement.

No-one wants a transfer market in cricket, but it seems wrong that Durham, having invested time and money in raising Melvyn Betts from Sacriston to England A standard, should lose him to Warwickshire without compensation.

Which brings us back to cricket, a sport which the South African authorities believe has been dragged through the mud by their former captain's acceptance of large sums from bookmakers.

While we await developments on the Alec Stewart front with interest, cricket fans ask what is the value of international competition if it does not involve both teams giving their utmost in an effort to win?

Cronje has made a mockery of that basic requirement out of sheer lust for personal wealth, and if the South African board judge him unfit to grace the game then so be it.

Someone should pass a law to prevent lawyers from getting their snouts in the trough of such affairs.

YET more reminders this week that sport is now phenomenally big business.

After winning five yachting medals at the Olympics - three gold, two silver - Britain's first challenge for the America's Cup since 1986 is likely to become a reality.

Assuming, that is, that £15m worth of backing can be found to mount a challenge to the billionaire-backed syndicates from the United States, Italy and Switzerland.

Then there's the £44m bid to bring the Ryder Cup to Slaley Hall in Northumberland in 2009. As John McEnroe would have said: "You cannot be serious."

What a pity Slaley was in receivership when the less-deserving Belfry was awarded next year's event, which will mean since 1973 England has hosted every Ryder Cup this side of the Atlantic bar one.

The 2005 event is going to the K Club in Ireland, and it's a safe bet that if Scotland doesn't get it in 2009 it will go to Wales, where billionaire Terry Matthews is apparently willing to spend whatever it takes to bring the event to Celtic Manor.

Slaley has two wonderful golf courses in a beautiful setting and its hotel should be quite good enough for those glamorous American wives.

It would be absolutely brilliant for the region if the bid were successful. But I suspect the timing is wrong, so let's hope a large slice of the £44m does not go on the sort of junketing the International Olympic Committee members are so fond of in these situations.

HAVING said that, they certainly seemed to get it right in Sydney, where life must suddenly seem rather dull.

The abiding memory of a marvellous six weeks will be Matthew Pinsent hugging Steve Redgrave before falling into the water, but some of the Paralympians pushed it close.

Those who dismiss the Paralympics as some kind of freak show are heartless and cruel. The competitors deserve far more admiration than the Linford Christies of this world for their battle against adversity.

That is also partly why Redgrave, with his diabetes and other ailments, deserves all the plaudits going. If he isn't voted the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year then I'm joining the Flat Earth Society.

COMPARED with Sydney, the Rugby League World Cup seems rather tame. Kicking off at a half-empty Twickenham didn't help and the event doesn't look like being a huge success.

But the sport needs a boost because it is being endangered by increasing encroachments from Rugby Union.

Not that the 15-a-side fraternity have their own house in order, as underlined when Rob Andrew resigned from Club England this week.

Andrew admitted he was next to useless at Newcastle last season as he concentrated on his blueprint for the future of the game. But seven months after it appeared to have been accepted it has not been implemented.

It's enough to make you believe in dictatorship. Clear out the archaic structures, the dead wood and the obstacles to progress, put the admirable Andrew in sole charge and things could only improve.

Still, while Bobby Robson has been obliged to concentrate his efforts on Newcastle, Andrew has chosen to do so. And that can't be bad for the Geordie Nation