Matt Maher: Compromise is the best course of action at Aston Villa

Yet rarely has it played out in quite such an acute fashion as the past week with the argument over whether players should be allowed to travel to red-list countries.

It has been felt particularly at Villa, where Emi Martinez and Emi Buendia had been sat down and told they would not be allowed to travel to Argentina for World Cup qualifiers against Venezuela, Brazil and Bolivia.

Just a few days later the position had changed and a compromise reached which saw the pair permitted to depart for the first two international fixtures, before returning ahead of the third.

For some this was seen as a victory for player power and the decision by Villa and Tottenham (who also had two players in the Argentina squad) to effectively renege on a Premier League agreement to block the release of players is thought to have upset some top flight counterparts.

Yet for Villa the solution made sense, even if they will be without both players for the trip to Chelsea immediately after the break. The alternative was to risk souring relations with two key members of the squad, who were both desperate to go and represent their country in important matches.

By far the worst-case scenario would have been for Martinez and Buendia to break rank, travel anyway and miss three matches on their return. Compared to that, reaching a compromise was the only sensible option.

There are some who will argue, with no little reason, it is the clubs who pay players their salary and provide the profile and it is their wishes which should matter most.

But then international football remains the pinnacle of the sport and it is also perfectly understandable why those players should feel such desire and duty to answer the call.

The reason the club-versus-country debate has existed for so long is because it is one which can never be decisively settled either way.