PROBABLY the prickliest subject in local sport is the payment of amateur cricketers.

That sentence alone is probably enough to have got your attention.

Why it should is a mystery because the issue has been discussed outside the media and, I suspect, league committee meetings for decades.

Is it right or wrong? Well, the topic is not wrong enough for anyone to get too het up over and it’s not right enough for anyone who may do it to openly admit it.

The reason I am broaching the issue is because last weekend Farnworth Social Circle won the Bolton League and I took a telephone call from a proud supporter who told me they had done it without paying any amateurs.

He is not the first. Over the years many people have made the point that some clubs have achieved success despite not paying anybody except the professional and possibly an overseas player, which is allowed in the rules.

To be clear, it is not allowed to pay any other players in either the Bolton League or Bolton Association, but it has been widely understood that some do get paid.

Tales of local businessmen slipping a few pound notes into the shoes of ‘ringers’ in the old days are part of local cricket folklore.

And, as with Premier League football, those clubs who are said to pay the most money are generally the same ones who have the most success.

So, what do people think about it?

Well, not an awful lot, I suspect, as talk of such ‘shamateurism’ has been rife for a long time and nothing has been done about it.

So, is it right or wrong?

Well, on the one hand you could say if it goes against the rules then it’s wrong. But it would be a little closed minded not to look at whether it has a positive or negative effect on the game and individual clubs.

And that’s where the debate starts.

If it was just about putting a shiny trophy on the clubhouse wall then it would be wrong. And let’s not kid ourselves, any clubs who may pay amateurs probably do so to in the main to try to make their team the best.

But you could argue there is also a wider issue.

Paying top amateurs could make a club stronger. It could boost the junior membership with youngsters attracted by playing for a top club.

It could result in better cricket which attracts more spectators. That could increase income for those who charge for entry as well as over the bar and could attract further investment.

So, better facilities, more players, a stronger junior section, higher-quality cricket and more spectators. Isn’t that what the clubs are there to provide?

The other option is that all clubs agree not to pay any players except those allowed by the rules.

I don’t think that will ever happen.