It's easy to understand the frustration and anger of many that the aftermath of last Sunday's hurling spectacular should be so dominated by a row over sponsorship payments to players by a bookmakers firm.

But this is the world that the GAA must learn to master if the commercial future - and by extension the overall future - of the association is going to be secured.

For some, the advent of sponsorship 12 years ago took the GAA across the Rubicon and what has happened since has been inevitable, from the accommodations with big business to the agitation of players for material recognition. But the question has always been: what else could the association have done? 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 sport.

Controlling this area for the greater good of the membership isn't just a matter of setting out a stall.

When former president Peter Quinn spoke last year about the administrative business model being no longer adequate for the GAA, this week's dilemma is presumably the sort of thing he had in mind. 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.

Many will sympathise with GAA president Seán Kelly's natural desire to take a lash at Paddy Power for their sponsorship of players' hurls in the All-Ireland championship semi-finals. But even he seemed to feel the idea of turfing the company out of their executive suite was legally suspect.

We wait to see what the Games Administration Committee will do with this tomorrow evening, but not alone would a six-month suspension be politically disastrous, it would also be on extremely shaky grounds were a legal challenge to be launched.

This is what the relevant rule says:

"Rule 14 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."

It's all very well to argue that a hurl has always been taken to be included in any definition of gear, but Rule 14 is not ambiguous on the point. The above provision specifies what constitutes playing gear and omits both hurls and boots.

This rule would seem to create at best an anomaly and one that has been exploited by the company in question - although from the comments of its spokesman, it is open to question whether Paddy Power the firm were aware that such ambiguity existed.

Asked on RTÉ Radio's Five Seven Live about the propriety of paying players to break GAA rules, he replied: "Everything else (in the GAA) in sponsorable . . ." Which suggests the possibilities of the Official Guide had not been studied for very long.

Unquestionably players were exploited, not so much by the amount paid per match, but because of the appalling pressure the situation created. As it happens all three played well, but had one played badly and his team lost things might have been different.

Remember, the Wexford players involved were the goalkeeper and free-taker, so we can imagine the resentment that would have greeted what could have been represented as the sacrifice of match focus for a selective payment.

The adroit withdrawal of the sponsorship obligation yesterday perhaps reflects nervousness about the public mood. Paddy Power's normal publicity stunts involve novelty bets, which are harmless diversions. Embroiling elite players in controversy as the season climaxes crosses the line.

Cork's belief - reiterated by Seán Ó hAilpín, one of the players involved - that the sponsorship differs little from the Puma boot deal announced earlier this summer would also appear to be well founded. Neither hurls nor boots are mentioned in the rule.

Seán Kelly differentiated between the two by saying that a manufacturers' logo was acceptable whereas an unrelated advertisement was not. This may make sense, but it's not in the rule - although ironically Central Council had decided some time ago not to accept advertisements from bookmakers. But again, that hasn't been codified.

Given that suspensions are not going to happen, the backing off by Powers gives the GAA some time and space to think about this matter. Already some work has been done on consolidating all the rules and match regulations that impinge on the commercial area.

By way of illustration, the AFL in Australia publish an operations manual that runs to 70 pages, detailing every conceivable situation in relation to the playing of their matches and what provisions govern it.

Aspects of this affair have been undeniably distasteful, but if it prompts the GAA to get its commercial house in order, it will have been useful. So everyone's a winner - and it's not often a bookies is associated with that scenario.