Has Ryan Giggs realised yet what a mistake he made?

As Sven Goran Eriksson makes his tour of the Premiership, assessing the country's finest, he will see few better players than the Manchester United winger.

Eriksson will surely be cursing his luck that Giggs is not English. The thing is, though, he was once. Giggs played for England Schoolboys before electing to play for Wales. In doing so, he elected never to play in the World Cup or European Championship finals.

I have no problem with Giggs showing pride in the country of his birth. To be proud of your country is admirable. However, Giggs is only proud enough to play for Wales in their important games. When did he last play a friendly for his country?

The "Ryan Giggs has withdrawn through injury" press release must be sent out automatically by the Welsh FA 24 hours after each national squad is announced.

If Giggs had chosen to play for England, the situation would surely have different. I am convinced Giggs would be available for internationals a bigger percentage of times than he is for Wales. And, of course, he could show off his supreme talents on the World Cup stage, which he is unlikely ever to do otherwise.

That might sound a bit presumptuous, considering England's current struggles in qualifying for the 2002 World Cup, but nobody can argue with the fact that England have competed in each of the last three major international championships.

Giggs would also have solved England's on-going left-sided problem.

As it is we will have to make do with the likes of Steve Guppy. It's that or issue a belated recall to Peter Barnes.

My thoughts on Giggs and his international career were sparked by the recent talk of entering a Great Britain team in the next Olympics. The old comment of a Great Britain side being "England plus Ryan Giggs" is not far off the mark.

Of course, the Olympics would be slightly different as the football competition involves under-23 sides plus three over age players.

But the truth is the idea will never get off the ground.

Firstly, there are the implications with the possibility of FIFA insisting on the four nations competing as a combined side at other international competitions, such as the World Cup. That would also mean losing voting rights on football's governing body.

Secondly, the Olympics should never be considered as a football stage, anyway. The Olympics is all about athletics, supplemented by the likes of gymnastics, rowing and equestrian events. Football has its own world stage, the World Cup, and that is the way it should stay.

David Beckham's reported wage demands got everyone talking recently.

There was talk that Beckham wanted £160,000 a week to stay at Manchester United which sickened many people who might not earn that amount in ten years of hard graft.

I was appalled when I first heard but after thinking about it I cannot see such a big problem. I am certainly not a United fan (despite the common theme in this column) but I am a Beckham fan.

Beckham is the best player in Britain and should be paid accordingly.

If he had demanded £160,000 a week, that works out at just over £8 million a year. But how much would United have to pay if they had to replace him? I would say at least £24 million would get an equivalent player in today's market.

So, it is a case of paying out £24 million in a transfer fee or get Beckham for the same amount for three years. When you whittle the figures to a weekly wage, it is an obscene amount, but football is dealing in silly figures these days.

Beckham is good at what he does, one of the best in fact, and it is fair enough to say "Pay me a figure to reflect my status or I leave".

Anyway, I'm off to see my boss about a pay rise. "£160,000 a week or I leave". See you down the job centre.