'NOW that's not very politically correct," a friend said to me this week when he learnt of George Reynolds' latest wheeze of telling the fans exactly what each of his Darlington footballers earned.

A peculiar turn of phrase, I thought, to describe a peculiar event. In its broadest sense, political correctness means being well-mannered and sensitive to other people's feelings. It means diplomacy.

But even though the public knows the take home pay of many public figures - including the Prime Minister, company chief executives, even suspended detective superintendents - it is still regarded as insensitive and undiplomatic to reveal the pay of private people.

Mr Reynolds does not strike me as a man who cares a jot about political correctness, and the reaction from the players' union to his lack of diplomacy was entirely predictable. "It is certainly not a conducive way of trying to get the loyalty of his players," said Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballers' Association.

I can understand why a Third Division footballer who is in his mid-twenties wants to squeeze as much out of his club as possible. Not for him the gradual fall down the leagues (or a move to Everton) as age catches up with his legs. His short career means he must earn as much as possible while he has the chance.

I understand that - but that doesn't mean it is right. In fact, I was shocked to learn that one player - remember we are talking about Third Division players - earned £139,251. That is £26,300 more than the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Football is an industry, as I have said before, where greed is endemic. Football clubs exploit their monopoly position. Unlike a high street retailer, which has to give value for money to attract its customers, football clubs rely on the loyalty of their fans. No matter what Darlington charges for its replica shirts, a Quakers fan will never wear a Hartlepool shirt just because it is cheaper. And players have a moral duty not to rip off their fans.

Mr Reynolds seems to agree. "All I am asking is to take away the greed so the fans can benefit for a change," he said.

However, I'm not sure Mr Reynolds was motivated by such high-minded ideals. He has lost four of the 11 players who started the play-off at Wembley last season, and has come in for criticism for not replacing them. Mr Reynolds' opening of the books was as much to counter the criticism as it was about principles.

But I think he has done football a favour. Now it is to be hoped that the players who come to Darlington do so because of a desire to play for the club, not simply to make as much money as possible.

TIGER Woods has been saying some politically correct things this week ahead of the Open. He wants the great game of golf to be available to everyone.

Much the same things were said after the Williams sisters' triumphs at Wimbledon. As they hailed from a poor background, it was claimed that Venus and Serena would encourage other working class people to pick up a racquet.

Indeed, I had my first game of tennis for a long while this week. I'm not particularly good - my partner told me: "You're not supposed to hit the net, this isn't football." However, I was disappointed that we had to pay over a fiver to hire the court.

So how are working-class children expected to take up tennis, or golf when the cheapest round is a tenner - and that's without a set of clubs.

These words about opportunity for all are perfectly politically correct. But until golf and tennis become affordable to all we aren't going to produce many players who can beat opponents from Ecuador.