The growth of corporate influence in football has taken an unprecedented stride in Germany where a row over sponsors' jurisdiction is threatening to see players excluded from the national team for refusing to wear branded boots.

Adidas, the German sports equipment manufacturer, have an exclusive contract with the German FA (DFB) to supply the Nationalelf but this conflicts with players' personal deals for boots and accessories which are negotiated on an individual basis.

Germany coach Jurgen Klinsmann, who has also been employed as a spokesman by the firm, bowed to their greater influence on Wednesday by telling reporters that those players unwilling to heed the sponsors' demands will simply be excluded from consideration hitherto.

He said: "There will be nobody representing the national team without wearing adidas boots.

"If any player says that he must wear an alternative (brand), he can go home and watch the game on television."

The development is not totally unforeseen after lower-level disputes along similar lines but it would nevertheless represent a benchmark for corporate power if the likes of Dietmar Hamann, the veteran midfielder, and Philip Lahm, the outstanding young left-back, were to be excluded at the whim of a multi-national's marketing department.

Up to 12 squad regulars under Klinsmann's consideration may be affected under the ruling though he is at least helped by the fact that his players at champions Bayern Munich - with whom the former Bayern striker is already in dispute over other issues - are already on the adidas payroll.

The immediate priority is minimising the impact that the 'Schuh-Krieg' (`Boot War') will have on this summer's Confederations Cup but of greater concern is avoiding any adverse impact upon their 2006 World Cup campaign.

Germany will host both competitions but even with home advantage are not considered to be among the strongest contenders to claim the famous gold trophy in Berlin in 14 months.

Certainly they can ill-afford to lose half of Klinsmann's preferred squad but a compromise may not be easy in the stubborn, straight-talking world of German politics.

The DFB will expect few favours from adidas, who have been flexing their muscles for some time.

Arsenal goalkeeper Jens Lehmann faced censure in October after ignoring instructions and wearing his favoured Nike gloves in a 2-0 friendly win over Iran.

And Lehmann's Highbury colleague Robert Pires was fined EUR50.000 (£35,000) after wearing a t-shirt bearing the logo of his personal sponsor Puma to a France press conference.

Les Bleus are also sponsored by adidas and the firm demanded strong action by the DFB's French equivalent, FFF, to discourage others from diluting their brand supremacy among observers of the national team.

Pires, who has not played for Raymond Domenech since the transgression, was incandescent at the fine and sympathy was thin on the ground in some areas as Arsenal pay the winger this amount roughly every five days.

But he earned praise from anti-racism groups for highlighting the discrepancy between his own punishment and the £2,000 Spain coach Luis Aragones was fined for racist comments about Pires' team-mate Thierry Henry.

This latest dispute again serves to illustrate the contrasting priorities among those running the so-called `world's game' and will prompt further criticism of the sport's governing bodies on both a national and international basis.

There has previously been a reluctance to pursue these conflicts in public as unseemly shows of greed to do not tally with the goal of corporate involvement in football, namely reflected glory.

But if adidas are willing to pursue this aggressive strategy to its logical conclusion then an extraordinary and absurd series of battles awaits, and with unknown consequences for the future of football.