New Zealand Football, rightly, points out the exposure gained by selected players from competing in such high profile international events - along with the technical improvement gained throughout campaigns, elite coaching, and playing 'best-with-best' on a regular basis - has helped them move into professional environments or made them a much more marketable commodity domestically.
This is the new price of admission to elite ranks. You pay to play in the hope that further down the track you can play for pay.
But it raises a host of questions and dilemmas. Firstly there is the philosophical issue of how the financial burden of national teams should be spread.
Should a portion of the costs incurred be borne by those un/fortunate enough to gain national selection? Or should the costs be totally socialised throughout the wider game as a "prior charge" upon the code at large? ie, playing for NZ should be seen as being part of the overall cost of being part of the Kiwi family of football, just as covering the CEO's salary is.
To answer these questions you probably need to ask yourself a further question: Are national age group teams competing at World Cups as essential part of our Kiwi football experience - or are they a disposable trifle? Your answer to that one will steer your views in all related philosophical matters.
But there are other issues. What is the message we are sending to the game at large about the fundamental notion of national selection?
Is this to be a temporary stop-gap measure or a permanent part of our football ideology: that we should always measure benefits against costs and extract a tax?
Should there similarly be a fee rebate when an individual player generates disproportionate money/sponsorship/publicity?
Should the same "beneficiary pays" philosophy should be extended to apply in other facets of football?
Should we be applying a nominal charge in other areas where there is a perceived net benefit to the individual? For instance, the "personal benefits" argument could conceivably be extended to the national league, given it lists player development among its key objectives.
And for the sake of argument please note the host of coaches who have picked up very nice gigs within the game over the years after cutting their teeth at national league level.
If we accept the general proposition of personal benefits being derived from a role in the game, should we be retrospectively be tapping coaches up for a few grand? And should the current crop be tithed or bonded as well to capitalise on their personal benefits?
Should northern league clubs be charged a token fee for having players "developed" in the cauldron of national league competition? For that matter, should national league players themselves be billed for participating in a competition which - to follow the NZF ideology - will make them intrinsically better players?
Should there be token fees levied upon referees who use the national league to fine tune their skills and as a stepping stone to international appointments?
Further, should administrators who have honed their life skills from working through the Gordian knot of football politics be asked to contribute? For instance, would Lotto magnate Rex Dawkins have been such a successful sportswear manufacturer without the contacts he garnered from years as a football administrator?
Similarly, should the media be levied? Writing about football has made some of them marginally better journalists - and some of them wouldn't even have had quite the same job opportunity if not for having football to report upon.
Of course drilling down into cost-benefit relationships would also have its complications.
Should it also apply in reverse? I'm thinking of clubs charging their federation when formerly tidy players return from Futsall tournaments (where it matters not if a pass goes astray or a shot is butchered because, hey, another opportunity will be along in a few seconds) as relative bozos needing to be almost totally retrained in the basics of the 11-a-side game.
And in this new fringe benefit environment do the players need to unionise, to get a better collective deal on their fees, and insist upon good faith bargaining? Or should they join the New Zealand Contractors Federation in search of producing outcomes that deliver value for money for all parties?
Curiously enough, back in 1982, when New Zealand qualified for the World Cup finals for the first time, money was too tight to mention then as well.
Over $100,000 needed to be raised through a massive public appeal by radio, TV and the press for the critical play-off match against China in Singapore. And ahead of the Spain tournament there were no fewer than 45 different merchandising ventures pushing memorabilia and souvenirs, which raised a further $45,000.
That was an era of national raffles, $10 a ticket, while at regional team level, pizzas, pies and cake stalls were the order of the day.
We've lost our way a little bit on the fundraising front, in the modern era. But funnily enough, fundraising helps to foster self-reliance, entrepreneurship, assertiveness, which can be almost as important as some aspects of teamwork at a regional/local level.
Though by the time you get to national level I'm inclined to side with those who argue the game at large has an obligation to pick up the tab - and then the national body then sets its levies accordingly.
