When Riyad Mahrez scored and Raheem Sterling failed to in the English Premier League table top clash last weekend as little Leicester won at big-spending Manchester City to lend real credibility to their title aspirations, it was something of a parable for our times.

Can any one individual be deemed to be worth 147 times as much as another in their chosen sphere of specialisation? You are invited to do your own sums on this but that’s what a price tag of 450,000 Euros (£330,000) for Mahrez compared with £49 million for Sterling indicates.

There are those who think Manchester City’s investment was worthwhile right enough. On Googling to double check the price tag the first line that came up was an English national newspaper proclaiming: “Raheem Sterling is good value at £49 million – and here is why.” I did not read on.

To offer some perspective on that, though, consider the good causes supported in the name of sport from hour upon hour of fund-raising by the general public when ‘Sports Relief’ comes around. When the telethon came off air last time around the sums generated had just about passed the £51 million mark.

We live in a world in which it has recently been reported that one per cent of the population owns more than 50 per cent of its wealth. Our attitude as to what represents value for money in footballers goes a long way towards explaining why, but such disgusting largesse is by no means confined to those who try to kick a modified version of a pig’s bladder through an arrangement of sticks.

In recent years we have been persuaded (we must have because the people most enthusiastically telling us so have been running the UK since 2010) that in spite of the damage that they have done to the world’s economy, we cannot afford to punish our bankers in the manner we should because to do so would be to drive talent out of this country and into the hands of others.

In a particularly Scottish context it is worth noting that until the crash happened one of those considered to be amongst the most talented seemed, by general acclaim, to be a chap by the name of Fred Goodwin. Reverting to that Mahrez/Sterling comparison the words ‘free transfer’ spring to mind.

Similar threats are issued by the executive classes whenever there is the slightest suggestion of any sort of tax rise, particularly in the higher brackets, but are those high earners really so indispensable?

For my money the people who really should be offered high salaries are any head-hunters who, instead of going round and round the same lists of the tried, tested and, in many cases, failed, can prove themselves capable of identifying the executive equivalent of a Riyad Mahrez.

They are there because they all have to start somewhere and where better to let them cut their teeth than in organisations like those running Scottish sport which are, for the most part, are currently run by people devoid of imagination and dynamism.

In saying so it is worth noting that there are people involved in administrative jobs across Scotland who are earning more than the prime minister, in some cases thought to be more than twice as much.

The argument we always hear in relation to that is that it is a competitive market place and those are the sorts of salaries that are required in order to entice the best people.

However as the executives are keen to remind us when hiring and firing coaches and managers these are results based businesses and can anyone really say that Scottish sport is in better condition than the days before these tiers upon tiers of men in blazers were taking a huge cut of the monies generated by the organisations that employ them?

Increasingly it is the same throughout the world, of course, but that in itself represents a major opportunity in a this part of it whose politicians are seeking to make a virtue of being a smaller country that can make things happen quickly.

What better way for the sports minister to demonstrate that than by scrutinising the wage bills of all those bodies in receipt of public funding and asking them to justify their spending?

It would seem a pretty straightforward matter to begin with our most popular sports, look at the number of senior administrative personnel employed now as compared with 20 or 30 years ago and then set that against comparative Scottish performances in those sports at elite level, in terms of the numbers genuinely taking part, as opposed to being exposed to taster sessions and in terms of the numbers spectating.

The spend may not be 147 times as much as it was in the eighties or nineties when Scottish teams and individuals were so much more successful when it came, most obviously, to performances in international football, rugby and golf competitions, but the executive outlay has unquestionably soared at rates way beyond that of inflation.

It is time we properly examined that over-used phrase that you get what you pay for.