Join my campaign for justice for Revie's Leeds heroes

You might have noticed that on Monday I launched a petition to get UEFA to investigate the 1973 European Cup Winners' Cup final, which Leeds United lost 1-0 to AC Milan. Decision after decision went against Leeds on that day and it has long been suspected that the match was fixed and Leeds were swindled out of the trophy. In fact the game's referee Christos Michas was banned from officiating in European fixtures ever again but Leeds' complaints were ignored.

Staggeringly, with the petition not yet two days old almost 5000 people have already joined the campaign, which just goes to show the strength of feeling about this match and the sense of injustice that still surrounds it.

This is not a matter of being a Leeds United supporter, but is a question of the integrity of football. I would urge all football fans to sign the petition.

Match fixing of course continues to this day, and Leeds were by no means the only victims but the 1973 match has always stuck in my mind as one that clearly finished with a grossly unjust result. If UEFA is to successfully crackdown on bribery and match fixing then they have a duty to show their commitment to the integrity of football and investigate matches strongly suspected of being fixed. If there is any evidence the Leeds-Milan game was fixed then the trophy should be awarded to Leeds.

The petition will be presented to UEFA on May 16th, to coincide with the 36th anniversary of the game.

If you'd like to sign the petition please click here.

You can also show your support by joining the Facebook group here.

Football League set to introduce its own 'home grown player' rule

There have been several interesting recent developments in football policy including a potentially very positive step by the Football League to encourage clubs to invest in developing young players.

The Football League, taking the lead from UEFA's successful 'home grown players' rule which is now used in the Champions League and UEFA Cup, is hoping to establish its own version of the rule, which would take effect from next season, and be binding on the 72 clubs in the Championship, League One and League Two.

This idea, which has been put forward by the Football League's board of directors, would require at least four players in a team's 16-man match-day squad to have been playing domestically for at least three years before their 21st birthday. However, to conform with European law, they would not have to be English.

It is significant that the Football League, whose Chairman Brian Mawhinney was a Conservative Cabinet minister in John Major's government, has chosen to follow the UEFA model rather than the approach favoured by FIFA's Sepp Blatter, whose 'six plus five' idea would impose more onerous burdens on clubs and contravene European law on employment and non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

The Football League rule would be both proportionate and also an important step in encouraging clubs to invest in developing their youth programmes though it would bestill better if it were to require clubs to have four (or even just two) of their 16 from the clubs own youth scheme instead of just generally 'domestic'. Football league clubs, lacking the financial muscle to be able to compose a squad of bought players, usually have to rely on a combination of youth-team graduates, players signed on free transfers, and the occasional cash or loan signing. As Lord Mawhinney has pointed out, "fourteen of the 23-man England squad that beat Germany in Berlin, last week, were developed by youth development programmes at Football League clubs".

The proposal will be discussed at an extraordinary meeting of the Football League clubs on December 18th. I for one hope it is adopted. The Football League is developing into a hot-bed of extremely talented young footballers and a 'home grown players' rule will only serve to further encourage this.

FIFA will have to start listening to UEFA

Following their meeting in Sydney in the early hours of the morning it has been confirmed that FIFA will pursue Sepp Blatter's "6+5" idea, which seeks to limit the number of foreign players a football club can field.

Crucially the European countries have only agreed to this if it is within the limits of the law, and as I have mentioned on here before, Blatter's plan as it stands would be illegal in Europe, as it discriminates on ground of nationality.

Of course Blatter being Blatter, is quoted on the BBC website as saying, "If there is a law, a law can be amended" - an attitude many football fans will recognise all too well.

Fortunately, Blatter has had to pledge to work alongside Michel Platini on the issue and hopefully the UEFA President will be able to point out the benefiits of UEFA's much more sensible (and legal!) "home-grown players" rule. Under this UEFA rules, a third of a club's squad will have to have come from their youth academy and junior teams. Like 6+5, it wants clubs to rely less on buying in talent, but it does not discriminate gainst people because of their nationality. It will be an incentive for clubs to invest in youth training in their local community, but without discriminating against foreign kids.

In short, much more sensible! Which is why I back UEFA, not FIFA, on this one..

Some interesting links

I took part in this week's Record Europe in which we discuss the relationship between sport and the European law. You can catch in on the BBC Parliament's channel or watch it on the internet here. The debate starts just under five minutes into the programme.

Another link well worth taking a look at is Nosemonkey's EUtopia post on the media and why he thinks that he was shortlisted for UACES-Reuters Reporting Europe Award for his blog on the EU. Far from being chuffed with being up for the award Nosemonkey worries he was shortlisted because of the distinct lack of any journalism from the major papers on the EU. It's a thoughtful piece that all too easily highlights the UK media's weakness of reporting the EU and the ignorence this then leads to.

Two other bloggers, Jon Worth and Jan Seifert, have set up a website which is campaigning for just one president of the EU, called Who Do I Call, in tribute to Henry Kissinger's infamous question "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?". It's online at www.whodoicall.eu and argues that appointing the same person to be President of the Commission and President of the European Council would offer greater democracy and efficiency while obviously offering one clear figurehead of the EU to the rest of the world.

Working to build a bright future for sport

The Mavrommatis report, which is Parliament's response to the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport, was debated and voted through in the European Parliament today.

It’s a relatively tame report, in response to an equally tame White Paper but following the May Day rubbish some of the more excitable tabloids printed about a couple of transnational maps being an EU plot to abolish Britain, the likes of Chris Heaton Harris and Tom Wise lined up to accuse the EU of trying to hijack the governance of sport and describe it as “another Brussels power grab” courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty.

What the Lisbon Treaty does is precisely the opposite as it recognises the specificity of sport, i.e. that existing laws on employment, copyright, media rights and so on, which unavoidably affect professional sport, should be interpreted and applied in a way which takes account of the needs of sport. The most obvious example of this is the collective sale of television rights could be thought to contradict EU competition policy, but is clearly in the interest of fair sporting competition.

Indeed, the collective sale of television rights is one measure that the report does recommend. As this football season has once again proved leagues across Europe are dominated by one, two or maybe three teams and the problem will only get worse without the collective sale of television rights. The next few years should prove interesting (or a lot less so as the case will probably be) as the consequences of Barcelona and Real Madrid securing their own massive television deal becomes clear. Compared to the Premier League, Spain has been relatively exciting over the last 15 years, with Atletico Madrid, Deportivo and Valencia all winning a title while a host of others competed strongly against the dominance of Barca and Real Madrid. Whether it will continue to be so remains to be seen but, with the balance now so heavily weighted in favour of the two wealthiest clubs, it seems highly unlikely.

Staying on the subject of television, the report also calls on EU countries to draw together a list of sporting events which should be shown on free-to-air television. In Britain events like the World Cup, European Championship (in football) and the Olympics are protected but other events like Test matches and the Ryder Cup are only available on subscription television.

While the money that is paid for these events is important to the respective sports, there is a bigger issue of making them available to all. Viewing figures hit an extraordinary 8million during the last Ashes series in England and no matter how exciting they are in 2009 there is simply no chance that the same number of people will be able to enjoy the next series.

Finally, the report endorses UEFA's rules on home-grown players which will require clubs competing in the Champions League and UEFA cup next season to have at least eight home-grown players (trained either by the club or in the same league) in their 25-man squads. This is a realistic measure that will force clubs to invest in and develop talent in youth academies rather than just outspending their rivals in the transfer market, whilst also respecting EU employment law (unlike FIFA's six plus five proposals).

In short, getting away from the usual hyperbole spouted by Eurosceptics, the Mavrommatis report is a useful contribution to the debate on the future of sport and the way that we as MEPs can interpret and frame EU law in a way that safeguards the future of sport.

The return of Berlusconi

I was very disappointed to see the election (for a third time) of Silvio Berlusconi, this time with a sizeable majority in both Italian houses of parliament. In contrast to last month's successful re-election of Jose Zapatero's PSOE party in Spain, this is a serious setback, not just for the left, but for democrats in general.

Berlusconi uniquely combines economic power (reportedly Italy's richest man), media power (owning the main private national TV channels and several newspapers) and political power. He has unashamedly used the latter to help the former, adopting laws during his previous stint as Prime Minister to help his media, insurance and construction interests and to give himself immunity from some of the corruption charges he faced in the courts.

He even owns one of Italy's most successful football clubs, AC Milan, currently European Champions having been allowed in last year's Champions League against the wishes of UEFA who were powerless to ban them despite the fact that they had been found guilty of bribing referees - something Leeds United fans will have something to say about given the referee's role in AC Milan's victory over them in the 73 European Cup Winners' Cup final - as will Liverpool fans given the way the referee whistled an early end to last year's Champions League final when Liverpool were on the verge of equalising.

Berlusconi is often portrayed in the UK media as an almost lovable gaffe-prone buffoon, but his election does have serious consequences that could reverberate around Europe. Berlusconi's main allies include members of the xenophobic Northern League, which campaigns on an anti-immigration ticket and for independence for "Padania" (a name they coined for Northern Italy). Having gained 8% of the vote, the League is in a strong bargaining position and will have seats in government.

At EU level, Berlusconi also has form, notoriously comparing Socialist group leader Martin Schultz to a Nazi commandant during a debate in the European Parliament. In 2004, he attempted to impose Rocco Buttiglione as Italy's nominee for the Commission, where he was envisaged as Commissioner for Justice despite his views on the role of women and on homophobia, causing a major political row and his rejection by the European Parliament. He was replaced by Franco Frattini, who is now likely to return to Rome as foreign minister and the nomination of his successor will be highly politically sensitive, especially if Berlusconi expects him or her to succeed to Frattini's Justice and Home Affairs portfolio. Any nomination must be agreed by Commission President Barroso and must appear before the European Parliament for a confirmation hearing, so watch this space if there is a controversial nominee.

Six + five will = legal chaos in football

With his customary lack of regard for political reality, FIFA president Sepp Blatter is apparently intent on pushing through his ill-conceived proposals to force football clubs to have quotas on foreign players. The proposals, commonly referred to as the 'six plus five' rule would force clubs to field at least six players from their own country, and will be voted on at FIFA's annual congress in Sydney next month.

Notwithstanding the fight that Blatter faces to get national football associations to agree (he needs 75% support of the 208 national associations eligible to vote), this idea would fall foul of EU employment law, in particular, rules on the free movement of workers. Indeed, if the 'six plus five' is adopted, it is anticipated that it would lead to a plethora of legal disputes, on the grounds that it would see discrimination against players on the grounds of their nationality.

FIFA's 'bull in a china shop' tactics are in marked contrast to the approach taken by UEFA on the same issue. UEFA continues to work alongside the European Parliament and the Commission to get backing for its 'home grown players' rule, which requires clubs competing in European competitions to have a quota of players who have spent at least three years in a team's youth development set-up. Next season, clubs must have at least eight home-grown players in their 25-man squads, a realistic measure that forces clubs to develop their talent in youth academies rather than relying on being able to outspend their rivals in the transfer market, but also respects EU law.

In contrast, Blatter's misguided strategy seems to be an exercise in confrontation rather than a constructive attempt to safeguard the future of football.

UK Sports Minister Richard Caborn was in Parliament today to meet MEPs to discuss the Commission's forthcoming white paper on the future of sport in the EU.

There was a general fear that the Commission white paper will not adequately address three major issues: the number of "home-grown" members of a team; the collective sale of TV rights; and placing spending caps on teams.

Qualified football referee (and Conservative MEP in his spare time) Chris Heaton-Harris was alone in taking a different view on TV rights. While he believed that selling TV rights collectively is better for the game, he stuck to his guns about the rights of some clubs to sell TV rights individually, such as Barcelona and Real Madrid in Spain. This is not a view widely held as not only does this give these two clubs an unfair advantage in their own leagues, it also gives them an unfair advantage when competing in European competition. Chris also argued against spending caps (which have proved successful in the Rugby and Football leagues), saying they contravened the free market.

An area everyone agreed on, and an area Richard was extremely keen to see at the fore of the discussion was the issue over "home-grown" players. How could we implement this objective, that sport's governing bodies (such as UEFA), national governments and the European Parliament all support, without falling foul of EU employment laws? "Leave it to the Courts" is the Commission's recommendation but unfortunately the Courts might declare the practice illegal under current legislation regarding the free movement of labour. It would be better to have clarification that the Commission considers the UEFA 'home-grown player' rules to be acceptable.

After the meeting, I had lunch with UEFA President Michel Platini and Press Officer William Gaillard who agree with the above. However, I couldn't resist the opportunity to upbraid them on their comments on Liverpool supporters at the European Cup Final in Athens, and implicitly, all English club supporters for travelling to matches without tickets. They are not the only ones to do that and there is little that can be done about it. What UEFA should do is focus on what it CAN do, namely have a proper system of checking tickets at the stadium. I know people who walked straight in without tickets, which is ludicrous and will only encourage ticketless supporters to try it on in the future. There was also a problem of forged tickets being sold to supporters.

On the last point the University of Leeds is setting up a new Anti-Forgery Research Centre (ARC) which is at the forefront of developing technologies such as invisible barcodes that could help prevent this problem in the future. I am putting them in touch with UEFA.

The football season may have ended, but the debate on the governance of football is hotting up, not just with the Sheffield United’s legal challenge to the West Ham decision, but also with the preparation of the European Commission’s White Paper on sport. The latter is in response to the Independent Review of European Football, on which I served last year, and will be an indication of whether the Commission accepts the view that European law must be interpreted in a way which gives leeway to sporting authorities to organise their game appropriately, without falling foul of rules, such as those on economic competition policy, drawn up for other purposes.

UEFA’s home-grown player scheme, and the idea that all leagues should sell TV rights centrally with revenue distributed among all participating clubs, are two litmus test issues. The former could fall foul of a rigid interpretation of the EU’s principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, while the latter could fall foul of EU competition law. Yet both are important if we want to avoid football being monopolised by just two or three clubs in each country.

UEFA’s new President, Michel Platini, is in Brussels this week and I am due to meet him. UEFA’s Briefing on the White Paper quotes a speech of mine to the Council of Europe Conference on Sports Governance last September in which I said, on the subject of home-grown players, that: “We have won this debate. The Independent Review endorsed UEFA's rules regarding the limitations of squad sizes and the requirement for a proportion of the players to be home-grown. We do not consider that these requirements are in violation of European competition law or the rule of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality. They are a proportionate response.”

But those opposed to some of these measures are also quoting me: Real Madrid’s consultant and lobbyist, Florian Muller, quotes my blog in the paper he has submitted to the Commission and the Parliament. Unfortunately, he is seeking to preserve the rights enjoyed by Real Madrid to sell its own TV rights individually, and thereby, with Barcelona, pocket most of the TV revenue engendered by the Spanish League.

He argues that there is no dominance of football at European level, as illustrated by the fact that no club has successfully defended the Champions League for the last two decades. True, but my point is that dominance is at national level, making more and more national leagues go the way of Scotland, with only two clubs ever winning it. The reasons are multiple (including the “jackpot” effect of qualifying for the Champions League, which gives the top clubs in each country revenues well above those of their competitors), but the individual selling of TV rights certainly accentuates the problem in Spain and Italy.

Leaked drafts of the Commission White Paper seem to show that they are being very cautious about taking on board all the ideas of the Independent Review. However, they do seem to recognize that the collective sale of TV rights is important, saying that “While in general, collective selling is incompatible with EU competition policy, it has been accepted by the Commission in certain cases in the area of sport. Collective selling is important for the redistribution of income and is thus a tool for achieving greater solidarity within sports.”

Let’s hope this remains there view when the final paper is published.

Ahead of the Champions League final, it’s interesting to read Richard Williams’s article in the Guardian which repeats a point made to UEFA last year, about Milan’s participation in this season’s UEFA Cup.

Last August, I wrote to Lars-Christer Olsson (then Chief Executive of UEFA) asking why a team found guilty of trying to illegally influence referees was allowed to compete in the Champions League. Bizarrely, he admitted UEFA agreed with me but revealed there was little they could do as they did not have the power to over-rule the decision of a national association. In this case the Italian Football Association was happy to enter Milan in the competition, which is why Liverpool will face the Italian side in Athens.

In the article, UEFA’s Head of Communications, William Galliard, confirms this problem has now been addressed, meaning UEFA now have the power to exclude teams from European competition should an offence be deemed serious enough.

I would imagine that they, like I, will be hoping for a Liverpool win on Wednesday so they can avoid the embarrassment of the Champions League being won by a team they didn’t want in the competition in the first place.

The same article mentions the plight of Sheffield United, who have suffered risibly at the hands of another strange decision by the footballing authorities.

The Premierships's decision not to deduct points from West Ham for lying about the contract with a third party company in order to sign Carlos Tevez (the man who single-handedly kept them in the Premiership) meant that the Yorkshire club found themselves relegated to the Championship.

West Ham were fined £5.5million, a punishment their wealthy chairman was happy to accept. Yet, the points deduction many expected was rejected because it was deemed too late in the season for such a punishment to be given (despite the Premiership discovering this in January).

Consequently, Sheffield United are now heading for court.

In his Digger column, Paul Kelso, points out the whole affair gives further credence to the Independent Review of European Football, which called for stronger governing bodies, who would be able to cope with situations like this, rather than see contentious issues end up in court.

The unsatisfactory punishments of both Milan and West Ham demonstrate that wealthier clubs are now capable of riding roughshod over smaller teams in order to succeed, an issue the independent review made clear football’s governing bodies could not afford to do.

As expected the European Parliament overwhelmingly adopted Ivo Belet’s report on the Future of Professional Football in Europe today.

The background to this was the report of the “Independent Review” of European football set up by the UK Presidency last year, on which I sat, which the European Commission is due to follow up with a White Paper on sport later this summer. The Belet Report is Parliament’s attempt to respond to the Independent Review and have its own early input into the White Paper.

Some quarters had been attempting to portray this as the "EU attempting to takeover football in Europe". In fact it is the exact opposite.

The report recognises that football is affected by existing European legislation, such as competition law, which was adopted for other purposes, and if anything, the football authorities need, if not derogations, then at least interpretations of EU law that will enable them to deal with the many problems facing football.

One of these is the linkage of wealth and sporting success and the concentration of both in the hands of a smaller and smaller number of clubs in almost every league across the whole of Europe. However, measures to counter this trend taken by the football authorities – such as the home-grown players scheme or the obligation to sell TV rights collectively with redistribution to all clubs – could risk being found to be incompatible with European law.

Sport is different from other economic activity and, where necessary, should be treated differently. For instance, the collective sale of television rights by leagues rather than individual clubs could be held to be in breach of free market rules, but as it is crucial to avoid the big clubs walking away with almost all the TV money, it is essential that leagues be allowed to organise collective marketing without being found to be in breach of the law.

The report also strongly supported the positive steps UEFA has taken to help restore competitive balance to the game, such as the home-grown player rule, limits on squad sizes and UEFA’s club licensing system.

It went on to outline steps to improve co-operation between clubs, fans and the police, measures which could help avoid future repetitions of the ugly scenes of police brutality that marred the Champions League match between Manchester United and Lille last month.

UEFA declared themselves very happy with the report.

One down point was an amendment tabled by Tory MEP Chris Heaton-Harris at the request of a lobbyist from Real Madrid. This deleted a paragraph outlining the damage the individual sale of television rights does to football. To read more about that, click here.

I also made a couple of speeches on the report, which you can read here and here

The Europe XI ended up losing 4-3 in last night’s match Old Trafford which celebrated the 50th anniversaries of the Treaty of Rome and Manchester United’s first foray into European competition.

With all the proceeds going to charity and 74,343 in attendance the scoreline was never the point but, even as a Liverpool fan, I’m happy to admit that the choice of Manchester United for the match was an appropriate one.

The European Cup actually started in 1955 with then champions Chelsea supposed to be England’s inaugural entrants but, with the draw already made, the Football Association and Football League pressured them into pulling out.

It wasn’t until the 1956-1957 season that an English club played in the competition, with Manchester United ignoring all pleas to the contrary, and by doing so blazed a trail for English clubs to follow them very successfully.

The early attitude of the English authorities, who were decidedly uneasy with competitions abroad (also demonstrated by England’s refusal to enter the World Cup until 1950), mirrors Britain’s general apprehension towards the continent, which is why Manchester United’s determination to embrace Europe should be acknowledged; in their own way they have made a very real contribution to European integration in Britain.

Though they still get far too many penalties at Old Trafford!

I had dinner last night with Michel Platini, football legend and the newly elected president of Uefa. He was elected just last week to this post in a hotly fought contest in which he ousted Lennart Johansson, seemingly winning thanks to a pledge to reduce the maximum number of clubs from any given country that can compete in the Champions League.

Other than on this point, his policy line shows continuity with the previous Uefa leadership: concern about the governance of the game, corruption, doping, racism, funny money coming into certain clubs, and the dominance of a ever smaller number of rich clubs in each country – except that he seems willing to pursue the necessary reforms with more vigour.

Much of this requires cooperation from public authorities at national and European level. If Uefa is to oblige leagues to sell TV rights collectively (and redistribute the income) it requires a sympathetic interpretation of competition law. The Uefa rule limiting squad sizes and requiring a certain number of “home-grown” players also requires a sympathetic interpretation of EU employment laws and its principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality. That is where the“Friends of Football” all-party group in the European Parliament can help.

(In this context, it was interesting to see Tory Eurosceptic Heaton-Harris extol the merits of EU legislation – in this case the money laundering directive – as a help to the football authorities.)

All this will help shape the debate on the forthcoming Commission white paper on sport in Europe which follows on from the Independent Review of Football, on which I served, which reported last year. Most of the ideas being evolved will be popular – except with some of the “big clubs” that currently dominate.

Platini’s own suggestion to cut the maximum number of Champions League places per country will not go down well in the Premier League but, as Platini said, if you look at the problems facing football (not least this week with the suspension of all football in Italy), the issue of whether the team coming fourth in England from 2009 onwards qualifies for the Champions League does not exactly seem to be the biggest issue.

Interesting to see the widespread enthusiasm behind the European team in the Ryder Cup, with much waving of the European flag.

It's a good illustration of our multiple identities. There is no contradiction between supporting England in the football World Cup, Britain in the Olympics and Europe in golf (and, come to that, Yorkshire in cricket and a local club in league football) - they are different dimensions, not conflicting loyalties.

For most of us, that is. I was amused - but not surprised - to overhear a conversation between two Tory Eurosceptics where one said he was supporting the American team in the Ryder Cup because he could not bring himself to support the (largely British!) European team!

I was interviewed this morning by John Humphries on the Radio 4 "Today" programme about the football bung scandal revealed by BBC TV last night. As it happens, I had dinner last night with the Secretary General of UEFA, Lars-Christer Olsen who has long been concerned about the role of agents and about the amount of unaccounted money, sometimes of dubious origin, floating around in football.

Football needs to clean up its act if it is to avoid losing credibility and going into a spiral of decline. UEFA's intention to tightly regulate agents deserves support, as do the measures proposed by the Independent Review of European Football (click here for report) on which I served.

If the BBC's revelations help to create momentum behind the necessary reforms, then so much the better.

One silver lining: at least there are no allegations of match fixing. If ever it were to come to that, the credibility of Engish football would be shattered overnight.

Last night, I pressed Mr Olsson further on the leniency with which AC Milan has been treated (for more click here and here). Interestingly, UEFA seems to agree, claiming that they would have wished to take firm action but their lawyers warned them that their own rules are insufficient to enable that without losing a subsequent court case. Case law and the creation of the International Court for Arbitration in Sport have changed the situation since the days when UEFA took radical measures against English clubs in the 1980s. So, to strengthen the capacity of UEFA to actually do something in cases such as the Italian one, a change to its own statutes is necessary, and Olssen is proposing precisely that to the forthcoming UEFA Congress. I hope he succeeds.

Meanwhile, for all those Leeds Utd supporters who would like to see the result of the European Cup Winners' Cup Final of 1973 overturned, UEFA's statute of limitations on re-opening cases is 20 years. It would need new and extraordinary clear evidence to persuade them to make an exception. If there is anyone out there who has such evidence, please come forward.

My letter to UEFA has caused quite a stir in the local media. Within five minutes of a press release being sent out, Radio Leeds were on the phone asking for an interview. As I was was on holiday I ended up speaking to them live on air from a remote beach on a nuture reserve in Sicily.

More radio interviews followed with the BBC website, teletext and the YEP devoting space (and pictures) to the story. Plenty of unofficial Leeds United websites also covered it, including one in the Czech Republic!

I have also received a variety of letters, many offering me support and thanking me, while a couple accused me of wasting tax-payers money by focussing on an insignifcant issue.

In the wider scale of things the issue is clearly insignificant but I wrote the letter on the beach (Blackberrys can be very useful) on my holiday. So, the real cost to the taxpayer was the price of a postage stamp. I think that most people would agree that 44p spent opposing corruption in sport is hardly excessive!

Equally irritating and illuminating, is the fact that this story earned such news coverage. Even a quick peak at my website illustrates the different subjects I have spent far more time working on over the past year. Yet, whether it is helping to make the EU more efficient, consumer protection, the environment, education or a myriad of other matters none are given anywhere near the media coverage a minor story about football receives!

I have written to UEFA’s Chief Executive, Lars-Christer Olsson, to protest against the decision to allow A.C.Milan to play in this season’s European Champions League.

Milan, along with Juventus, Lazio and Fiorentina were found guilty by the Italian Football Federation (IFF) of fixing or attempting to fix the outcome of games during the past two seasons. All were banned from competing in Europe but on appeal the IFF allowed Milan entry to compete in the Champions League, despite finding their actions severe enough to warrant a Serie A points deduction.

Milan will start the 2006/2007 Serie A season with minus eight points but with UEFA refusing to ban them from Europe because of an "insufficient legal basis in the regulations", they will effectively escape any punishment. (And, with Fiorentina and Lazio deducted 19 and 11 points respectively and Juventus relegated, Milan’s path to the next season's Champions League as well, has in fact been made easier).

The Italian Football Federation have also rightly stripped Juventus of their past two Serie A titles and this is something I have urged UEFA to take great heed of. UEFA should ensure that at European level too, if a club is found guilty of match fixing, then they should lose any honours they won during the corrupt period.

This is not the first occasion Italian clubs have been involved in match fixing (indeed, A.C. Milan were relegated in 1980 for their part in a bribery scandal) and it instantly brought back memories of some deeply suspicious results English teams have suffered. The one which sticks in my mind most is Leeds’ defeat to A.C. Milan in the 1973 Cup Winners’ Cup final, where the referee, Christos Michas, performed so dubiously he was suspended for life!

UEFA can show they take any form of corruption in the game seriously by stripping clubs of trophies won thanks to match fixing. Such action would dramatically demonstrate a commitment to fair play and help restore faith in UEFA as a strong but fair governing body. And it is never too late to correct an injustice: if Milan did indeed bribe the referee in that match, then the winners medals should belatedly be given to Peter Lorimer and his Leeds team-mates.

I also think that the lenient treatment of the Italian clubs is in striking contrast with the five-year long ban UEFA imposed on all English clubs following the Heysel disaster in 1985. There was no talk then of an “insufficient legal basis in the regulations” impeding vigorous UEFA action! Furthermore, the ban was imposed because of the actions of hooligans that took place despite the efforts of the clubs involved, not because of them as is the case now where the clubs themselves have been found guilty. And the ban on English clubs included those who had no history of hooliganism.

It’s certainly an issue that has brought up a lot of questions and I will let you know if UEFA provide me with any answers.

You can read the letter I sent to UEFA by clicking here.

One of the Independent European Review of Football’s main objectives was to find ways to help restore competitive balance in domestic leagues and UEFA competitions.

Pleasingly the back pages are carrying stories which show that some of the review’s recommendations and the initiatives it supported are being taken on board.

The review was strongly in favour of UEFA’s limits on squads sizes, which is behind Chelsea’s sale of Damien Duff to Newcastle for just £5million.

In order to stop clubs like Chelsea hoarding players in their squad (Winston Bogarde, who earned £40,000 a week and made 12 appearances in four years, springs to mind!), teams playing in the UEFA Cup or Champions League must, from this year, name a squad of 25 players at the start of the competition.

With Duff unlikely to make the cut he decided there was very little point in staying at Stamford Bridge and was allowed to move on for a cut-down price.

Believe it or not more good news emanates from Italy. With World Cup glory running parallel to a corruption scandal, it’s been a rollercoaster of a summer for Italian football but it looks to be ending on a high after the Prodi government decided to reintroduce the collective sale of television rights in Serie A.

Previously, clubs were left to sell their own TV rights which left Juventus, AC Milan, Internazionale, Roma and Lazio to scoop 80 per cent of the 500million euros the rights earned. The smaller clubs were left with the scraps and little hope of realistically challenging the big five.

The English Premier League led the way with the collective sale of TV rights, and it is something the review wanted to see implemented across all European and domestic competitions.

The desire to restore competitive balance in Italy is to be applauded and, if you can take a positive from a corruption scandal, the relegation of Juventus and points deductions from Milan, Lazio and Fiorentina will give Serie A’s smaller clubs a real opportunity to challenge for honours in the forthcoming season.

A good example of how the BBC is centred on the Westminster village and avoids giving coverage to MEPs was my treatment yesterday by BBC Newsnight.

The allegations about dubious payments by Arsenal FC to the Belgian Club Beveren was revealed on Newsnight yesterday and I, as a member of the Independent Review of Football (and knowing a thing or two about UEFA rules, Belgian football clubs and such like) had been invited to appear live on Newsnight. I duly cancelled my appearance at a meeting planned that evening as well as a dinner appointment, studied the detailed papers the BBC sent me on the case and prepared to go to their studio.

They were due to call me back to confirm which studio (Leeds or Bradford) I was to go to, but having not heard from them I rang them myself beforehand to check this final detail - only to be told that they had decided instead to take an MP rather than me as an MEP (but had not bothered to tell me about this change)!

So, despite this being a European issue, involving different EU countries, and despite it concerning UEFA rules and also despite me having served on the recent Independent Review of European Football, they preferred to stick to the Westminster village and scrap all the arrangements that they had agreed for me to comment on this matter.

Just two years ago, the BBC had an internal review of its coverage of European Affairs and decided that, although it was not biased for or against the European Union, it was insufficient in its depth and in the scope of its coverage. They pledged to improve their coverage of European matters and to increase their engagement with MEPs from all parties.

It did not take long for the Westminster village mentality to resume control! And, come the next European elections, they will be the first to say that nobody knows who the MEPs are!

Click here for more on Arsenal's links with Beveren.

The Independent Review of European Football, on which I sat, presented its findings to Tony Blair yesterday but it is already having to fight off some ludicrous claims from the right-wing press.

The Sunday Telegraph published an article practically accusing the European Union of attempting a coup on football, claiming Brussels would “sieze” control of the game and “direct” it through the European Commission.

As euromyths go this one is rivalling the Sun’s “EU bans barmaids’ cleavage” for absurdity.

I have appeared on Five Live to counter the Sunday Telegraph’s article and written to several newspapers, but now, perhaps predictably, the Sun has joined in saying "English football taken over by barmpots of Brussels".

A common misapprehension appears to be that, despite having independent in its title, the Independent Review is the work of the EU. The Independent Review was set up by governments under Britain’s Presidency of the EU and is backed by UEFA. However, out of the 13 people who sat on it there were just two MEPs, including myself. Others were academics, finance professionals, civil servants and judges in the world Court of Arbitration in Sport - all with a high level of expertise in the field.

It was created to evaluate the state of the game and with its findings, make reccomendations to UEFA, leagues, the EU and national authorities, but it has no power over them.

The bulk of the recommendations are directed at the footballing authorities. Some address governments and some are directed at the EU, mainly to request it to interpret its existing laws in a way that recognises the specific needs of sport and leaves sporting authorities maximum leeway. Where EU legislation is suggested, it is mainly to allow derogations from existing EU law.

The vast majority of clubs, fans and football authorities hold concerns for the game, with the concentration of wealth and success in the hands of just a few clubs being a major worry.

The financial management of clubs is also an issue of major importance. The huge debts incurred by the likes of Leeds and Borussia Dortmund (from chasing a Champions League place) and the implosion of ITV Digital all demonstrate just how close football has been to financial disaster.

Many of the Independent Review’s recommendations centre around these issues. Several of them amount to spreading best pracice from England to other countrties. But, as I have said, whether or not they are implemented will be mainly down to UEFA and the respective football authorities.

With the World Cup around the corner it was nice to see world leaders gathering for a multinational kickabout ahead of the upcoming EU Summit. The match, played between various EU Prime Ministers (plus the Peruvian President) and EU Commissioners, was a lively affair which managed to raised 100,000 Euros for charity.

There may have been a distinct lack of Boris Johnson moments (see the now famous rugby tackle here) but there was plenty of action nontheless. Fourteen goals and not a single metatarsal injury - now there is a rarity!

See the full match report here.

The consultation period of the Independent Review of Football is in full swing, and this week has been particularly hectic.

As you may know, I chair the political working group of the Review and I am delighted that over 300,000 ordinary football fans have taken part in the consultation through the website (www.independentfootballreview.com) and I continue to urge you all to offer your opinions. Having such a wide consultation not only shows how many people care about “the beautiful game”, but it is of tremendous benefit to the future of the sport.

The purpose of the review is to look at the whole constellation of problems facing football, not least the growing concentration of wealth and succes among an ever-shrinking numbr of clubs.

This is a sore point in Yorkshire, which currently doesn't even have a single Premiership club (compared to 7 in the neighbouring North-West and 6 in London), let alone any likely to qualify for Europe, though at least that must please the Eurosceptics!

Take a look at the site for more information and to offer your own thoughts.

This week, UEFA were in town, mainly for an event in the European Parliament in support of the Kick Racism out of Football campaign. After discussions with MEPs, UEFA have agreed to take a more vigorous line with clubs where racist incidents arise on or off the pitch, such as the recent racist abuse directed at black England players in Spain or the anti-Roma banners displayed at some recent games in Romania.

I also had meetings with UEFA about their worries about football being used for money-laundering, including money of Russian origin, and also the issue of whether their 'home-grown player rule' for clubs for next year might fall foul of European law. I advised them on how to avoid that. The home-grown player idea is well worthy of support; as is the new idea (over which I claim paternity rights!) of limiting the size of squads that any club can use in a season, which aims to stop "hoarding" of players by top clubs.

Watching Tony Blair appear on BBC's Football Focus was interesting (direct link to BBC online video here). Will the press pick up on his tongue-in-cheek references the fact that Alan Shearer announced his retirement at the end of last season but has since persuaded to stay on, which he has done to great acclaim? Or will the newspaper’s lobby correspondents consider football programmes to be beneath them, thereby missing this potentially telling analogy?

They will also have missed the BBC digging out of their archives the full original interview with Blair, from ten years or so ago, following which he was pilloried for having claimed to remember watching Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle when he was a kid. The press claimed this was an outrageous example of spin, as Blair was too young to remember that - only four when Milburn retired. Well, it now turns out that what Blair actually said was that he started watching Newcastle play as a kid after the Milburn era. He had never made the claims quoted in the press at all! So, far from this being a casebook example of political spin, it was in fact a casebook example of media distortion…

After Liverpool FC’s 3–0 win against Anderlecht in the European Champion’s League, I couldn’t help notice the discrepancy between their domestic and their European performances. In Europe this season (Champion’s League and Supercup) they have won 9 out of 11 matches (82%). Domestically (Premier League and Carling Cup) they have won only 4 out of 10 (40%). They've also lost three times as many matches domestically (3) than in European competitions (1).

But then, I suppose we’re all better off in Europe…!

Football is the theme today in Brussels. First, MEPs join with disabled players in a mini-tournament next to Parliament to promote the Special Olympics.

Second, the FA Premier League are out to discuss the question of whether the way they sell their TV rights is in conflict with competition law. I have been involved with this issue despite the fact that Yorkshire & Humber has, sadly, no Premiership teams any more! The Premier League is having difficulty in convincing the European Commission that it's now in compliance with the law, having split its package into several bite-sized chunks for which different broadcasters can bid separately. I agree to help them.

Above all, it is crucial that TV rights remain a collectively marketed item - if each club were able to sell its own matches independently and keep all the revenue to itself, the domination of a few rich clubs would become even more acute than it is already.

Hearty congratulations to Liverpool FC on their victory against AC Milan in the European Cup Final! And how they performed. With a Finnish centre-back, a German midfielder and a wondrous Polish goalkeeper, they thrilled an entire continent with one of the most astonishing comebacks of all time.

There is surely no greater symbol of what can be achieved when Europeans work together than the sight of Steven Gerrard and Rafa Benitez holding the Cup aloft as they stepped off the plane in Liverpool.

However, there is now some controversy over Liverpool's future in the tournament. UEFA's rules don't currently allow the winning team to defend its title in the following year unless that team has qualified for the tournament via its own domestic league. This has never been a problem before, but it generates an awkward situation with Liverpool, who finished fifth in the English Premiership, just outside of the qualification zone.

The signs are that UEFA will consider changing their rules to correct this anomaly. I've tabled a written declaration in the European Parliament encouraging them to do so. Obviously, this is an area in which the EU has no influence, but there seems to be a groundswell of opinion and every little helps…