The John Terry soap opera has thrown up a load of questions.

Should our top sportsmen be judged off the field as well as on it?

Should the England skipper always act whiter than white?

Should we be that fussed if Wayne Bridge, a B-lister left back if ever there was, refuses to put himself forward for international selection?

And should we really find something more interesting to read about than someone allegedly playing around with someone else’s ex?

But amid all the indignation, moral and otherwise, which has swirled since Terry’s super-gagging attempts (and that does sound dodgy) were thrown out by a judge, this whole sordid episode has exposed one myth for me.

Should we really be that bothered who is the captain of a football team?

The England position has been seen as a figurehead role ever since Bobby Moore was chaired round Wembley by a toothless Nobby Stiles. The statue of Moore outside the new stadium is the embodiment of 1966 and all that.

Every skipper since has been expected to follow in his footsteps. And one scan at the trophy cabinet will confirm that none have succeeded.

But what – if any – is the influence of a captain where it really matters on that field?

Not a lot, in my view.

Cricket captaincy is a totally different animal. Here he has direct command on every bowling change, fielding position and batting order. He is responsible for judging the pitch and weather conditions and deciding whether the advantage is in batting first or last.

The brilliant tacticians can make up for a lack of obvious input with bat and ball. Mike Brearley was the ultimate Test skipper, orchestrating his team superbly and earning his spot for nous alone, rather than by weight of runs.

On the other hand, a brilliantly- gifted all-rounder like Ian Botham was a complete flop in terms of leadership.

But that’s cricket. A captain’s command in other sports is nowhere near as complete.

Watch the Super Bowl tomorrow night and you will see six different players come out for the coin toss. All technically on-field captains for different positions.

An over-rated title? You can say the same about football.

Take away the honour of leading the team out of the tunnel and what exactly does the armband entail?

City have two different captains, Peter Thorne and Zesh Rehman, with one in a more ambassadorial 'club' role. Simon Ramsden has also skippered the last couple of games and Lee Bullock got the job for the final outing of last season.

But arguably the biggest presence at Valley Parade this afternoon will be Michael Flynn. A former captain of Gillingham, but not having the armband has not diminished his vocal output one jot – as his team-mates will testify.

So that’s five potential captains in one team. Just like American football.

England will now head to South Africa with Rio Ferdinand at the helm, Fabio Capello having opted to sack Terry.

The new skipper will have the likes of Steven Gerrard and Wayne Rooney to support him, while Terry will no doubt remain a major on-field influence. All of them are big-occasion players well capable of turning it on when it matters.

But do you really think any would have a greater influence and perform even better if they had the word ‘captain’ attached to their sleeve?

Nobody’s going to step back and think “it’s not my place” if something needs saying in the heat of a semi-final in Cape Town.

Personally, I’d love to see Rooney lift the trophy, purely to underline his position as the best player on the planet right now.

Terry’s acted appallingly but that’s hardly news. His list of previous was not the most glowing CV. Should that come into it when selecting your captain? That’s down to Capello and nobody else.

But let’s get some perspective. We’re not electing an emperor – or even a prime minister. The captain of a football team is not the be all and end all. If only that was the end of it.