THERE was always a large element of futile macho posturing about the threat by Premiership Rugby Limited, the English clubs’ umbrella body, to ban its Scottish players from this month’s three Autumn Tests. There’s a large element of futile macho posturing about most disputes worldwide, of course, but we’ll let that pass; what made this case so peculiar was the fact that World Rugby’s regulations clearly stipulate that players must be released during recognised international windows.

In other words, short of physically restraining the likes of Greig Laidlaw and Sean Maitland from heading north to join up with Vern Cotter’s national squad three days ago, PRL knew they could do nothing to prevent their Scots contingent from travelling. Granted, there have been instances in the past when clubs in other countries have tried to persuade their stars to withdraw from international duty, not just as a one-off but for good; commercial inducements have been used, sometimes successfully. But PRL, arguably to their credit, chose to take a more public stance.

So why, knowing that World Rugby’s regulation nine insists they release their players, did they decide to go public? No doubt one reason was to draw attention to what they believe is the justice of their case, not only against the Scottish Rugby Union, but also against the other governing bodies who, they claimed, owed them money for medical costs.

A settlement was reached last week with the three other unions in question - Italy, Samoa and Tonga - but it was not disclosed whether the full amount claimed had been paid, or whether a compromise was reached. In the case of PRL versus the SRU, on the other hand, the dispute has not been settled, only referred back to World Rugby’s regulations committee, which will meet sometime this month.

If former Scotland prop Euan Murray, then a Worcester player, really was injured on international duty back in 2013, PRL and Worcester themselves would appear to have a case: the SRU should cough up the fee of around £50,000 and move on. Conversely, if the assessment by the SRU’s medical staff at the time was correct, and the Scotland camp were not responsible, you can understand the reluctance from within Murrayfield to pay up. It’s not so much the desire to hold on to a relatively negligible sum that motivates the SRU: it’s also the wish to uphold the reputation of their own medical staff.

In a statement issued on Monday, the SRU said it had twice offered to refer the matter to an independent arbitration panel, only to be turned down. That offer is still open, and it has agreed to pay whatever sum the panel deems fit.

It should be an open-and-shut case; one which can be resolved without either side resorting to public statements. But it hasn’t been treated like that, probably because of another reason which could lie behind the PRL’s attitude: namely, a desire to test the willingness of World Rugby to defend regulation nine as it currently exists and is implemented.

For the past 20 years, that is since rugby union went professionalism, some English clubs - or, more precisely, the businessmen who own them - have taken a similar stance, not primarily towards the SRU, but towards national bodies in general. They, the clubs, supply players to the national teams; therefore they should not be treated as merely part of the conveyor belt that leads towards the apex of the sport, the Test arena.

Accustomed as they often are in their original businesses to working in a free market with few restrictions, those entrepreneurs feel hemmed in by rugby union’s restrictive hierarchy. You can understand how they feel - anyone who puts millions into a business does not like having key assets denied them for part of each year. But you also suspect that they overestimate their own importance, and that of the club game.

There’s a useful comparison to be made with football. Even there, in the world’s most popular and lucrative sport, the international game retains primacy. True, the Champions League is a massive earner, but the most treasured prizes remain the principal international honours - the World Cup and the European Championship. Leading coaches may not be so keen as they once were to take charge of their own national sides, partly because club football tends to pay more, but even so, the international game remains the summit.

And that is all the more the case in rugby. The Champions Cup, both in its present state and under its previous guise as the Heineken, is an excellent competition. Even so, its ability to appeal to a wider audience pales into insignificance compared to international rugby.

Over the coming few weekends, the Autumn Tests will be attended by tens of thousands of spectators who would not normally go to PRO12 games or European fixtures. It is only on those weekends, and the Six Nations dates in the spring, and the World Cup when it comes round every four years, that rugby truly escapes from its minority niche and becomes a sport of wider social interest. Next time they feel like threatening to withhold some players, PRL should contemplate that reality before acting.