THE older you get, the more ridiculous other grown men look when they take professional sport seriously.
As the parody of the SAS motto puts it: who cares who wins?
I remember my grandfather's epiphany at around my age, after attending Portadown matches religiously all his life.
"Why am I wasting my time with this?" he asked one Saturday, and never went again.
Last weekend's anthem row at an Irish Cup soccerball event should be seen first and foremost in this light - and certainly will be, by the far larger chunk of the population that attends the theatre, for example.
How pathetic for adults to be arguing over what tune to play at the start of a child's game. Perhaps the Benny Hill theme should be played throughout until all involved realise how immature they look.
Unfortunately, the anthem row raises a question that must be seriously addressed - the same question raised by the 2012 flag protests, which were also too daft to seem worth a considered response.
That question relates to sovereignty, as unmistakeably represented by flags and anthems.
Where symbols of sovereignty are used, the republican position has evolved to 'both or neither' - a term various Sinn Féin representatives have deployed since last weekend.
This sounds superficially in line with requirements for equality and neutrality enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, as well as being no more than good manners in a divided society.
Yet sovereignty is the one thing specifically not granted equality under the Agreement.
Instead, British sovereignty is full and inviolate until a majority votes to end it, whereupon Irish sovereignty becomes full and inviolate.
Before, during and after this occurs, the Agreement grants both national aspirations not equality but "parity of esteem" - in other words, equal respect.
The distinction is subtle but vital to managing what is essentially a process of victory and defeat. Transfer of sovereignty is envisaged as one-directional and permanent, from British to Irish.
Finding a grown-up way to continue respecting each other's national identities within that context was arguably the key task the Agreement set us 20 years ago.
Allowing debate to be dominated by flag protestors and football fans has left those in the theatre with nothing to be smug about.
Unionists are conforming to short-term type by panicking over dilutions of British sovereignty. Nationalists have more to lose in the long-term by compromising the vision of a neat and total handover, as they are to be its ultimate beneficiaries.
The Agreement does not expire in the event of a united Ireland - it is meant to remain in force. If a concept of 'both or neither' on sovereign symbols is made acceptable now, that concept would not expire either.
Of course, it would be the responsibility of unionists to demand an equal place for the British flag and anthem in a united Ireland - but nationalists would have no consistent grounds to refuse, having demanded the same for Ireland's flag and anthem in the United Kingdom.
Since the collapse of Stormont this argument has progressed beyond symbolism to sovereignty itself, with republicans speaking of "a form of joint authority" or, regarding Brexit, "special status for the north".
While no doubt intended to quicken the pace towards unity, these ideas look much more like a durable settlement falling short of a united Ireland, which is precisely what republicans have never wanted the Agreement to become.
Whatever direction we should be heading, we cannot drift along thinking 'who cares who wins'.
An Irish Cup final is hardly a state occasion and can be ignored up to a point but there are endless opportunities for the same row to recur in an official setting.
Handling this requires a better understanding of the basic concepts at stake – that sovereignty is not equal, but sovereign aspirations should be equally respected, and any tinkering with this formula undermines the foundations of the Agreement.
It is a pity the policy of designated days became a punchline as the flag protests turned into a joke. Flying flags from official buildings on only a few state occasions is by far the most sensible way to observe sovereignty within the terms of the Agreement - not both or neither, but rather one as little as possible.
To be genuinely respectful, however, this must be offered instead of forced - good manners still have a crucial role.
So there is no point suggesting compromises to the sporting partisans. They must sort it out among themselves.
newton@irishnews.com
