UEFA’s Control and Disciplinary Body rendered its verdicts on the proceedings relating to the UEFA Champions League semi-final first leg between Real Madrid and Barcelona on April 27th.

Real Madrid coach José Mourinho, who was dismissed from the bench in the first leg and made an inappropriate statement during the post-match interview, has been suspended for the next five UEFA club competition matches for which he would be eligible. The suspension includes the one-match ban for the match following the coach’s dismissal, which was served for the return leg in Barcelona on Tuesday.

The ban for a fifth match is suspended for a probationary period of three years. Mourinho has also been fined 50,000 Euros.

Real Madrid defender Pepe, who was sent off  in the first leg match, has been suspended for one UEFA competition match. However, as he did not take part in the second leg in Barcelona, he is considered to have served this suspension. Real Madrid have also been fined 20,000 Euros for improper conduct of their supporters.

Barcelona goalkeeper José Pinto, who received a red card for a sideline altercation at half-time of the first leg match in Madrid, received a three-match suspension. He has already served a one-match ban for the return leg, so he will now also be suspended for the UEFA Champions League final on May 28th and the next UEFA club competition match for which he would be eligible.

Real released a statement on the club website which reads: “Real Madrid considers this resolution still suffers from the same defects found at the start of the disciplinary case, which made it impossible for our coach to use his right to defend himself, since the exact statements for which the disciplinary case was opened are still unknown. Real Madrid will appeal this decision before the UEFA appeals body.”

UEFA has confirmed that it plans to investigate 40 cases of suspected match-fixing in the Champions League and UEFA Cup. Most of the cases were from Eastern Europe and involved games in the early qualifying rounds of the tournaments, according to Peter Limacher, UEFA’s head of disciplinary services.

Last year, the number of games being investigated was 25, and UEFA set up a six-man special investigation unit to examine corruption in their competitions.

There are now 40 games where suspicious betting patterns have been identified, 15 of those in the last two years. UEFA has been running its Betting Fraud Detection System (BFDS) since the start of the current season in order to catch suspicious betting patterns earlier than in the past. The Betting Fraud Detection System (BFDS) is an elaborate database application that can quickly compile a report if a match is considered to be manipulated. The BFDS report forms the first step of the thorough investigation phase that follows.

Match-fixing on this scale is largely driven by attempts to make a quick dollar from the multi-billion dollar sports betting industry. In many of the cases now before UEFA, it is reported that bookmakers alerted UEFA to suspicious betting patterns, and it is thought that most of the cases involved sides where players did not earn high wages, and so were tempted by a large pay-off. There are not believed to be either English sides, or any major European clubs involved.

What sort of punishment could be meted out to clubs involved? In April of this year, UEFA banned Macedonian club FK Pobeda from European competitions for eight years after match-fixing against Armenian side FC Pyunik in 2004.

Three people have been killed and at least one more injured after a taxi blew up in St Petersburg. A spokesman for Russia’s emergencies ministry told the BBC that the taxi exploded during rush-hour just outside the Udelnaya underground station in the north of St Petersburg. That station is not far from Zenit’s training ground and it is not known who the blast was targeted at. Russian officials say the blast could have been caused by a hand grenade. A criminal investigation is now under way and I will bring you more coverage as it becomes available. Some reports are suggesting that the government may ask UEFA to postpone the game until it completes its investigation of the incident.

In what has to be considered a poor decision, the UEFA Appeals Body has reduced the initial three-match stadium closure to a two-match behind closed doors sentence, with one match deferred for two years. Consequently, Atlético must play their next home fixture in the Champions League, against PSV Eindhoven on Wednesday  November 26th, without any spectators in attendance. The initial fine of 150,000 Euros still stands.

Atlético were punished after crowd problems marred their Champions League home match with Olympique Marseille on Oct 1, when UEFA said failures in the club’s organisation of the event led to confrontations between visiting fans and Spanish police. Racist chants were reportedly aimed at the French club’s players, while the Marseille team bus was attacked after the match. Atlético were originally ordered to play their next two European fixtures at least 300km outside Madrid.

“Atletico will fight for their innocence until the very end. There has been a reduction (in the punishment) but we don’t agree with the manner in which the process has been conducted,” director Clemente Villaverde told the club’s website .

The ban for Atlético coach Javier Aguirre was not reversed, and he will be banned from the sidelines for the games against Liverpool FC away on Tuesday and the visit of PSV three weeks later. Aguirre was sent off in the match against Marseille and was told that he will have to sit in the stands for the two matches, but he will travel to UEFA headquarters to appeal the decision.

According to Aguirre he did not insult either the referee or any player and said that the referee did not include anything in his report about his actions. “They cannot punish me for telling a player not to do something. There was no insult on my part and no physical or verbal aggression,” he told Spanish newspaper AS.

Videos of the incidents between Marseille supporters and the police in the stadium can be seen via these YouTube links:

Video 1
Video 2

I think the reduction of this ban sends a very bad message to the UEFA community. Racism and violence in the stands is tolerated by the organizing body. How else can these continued weak sanctions be viewed ? I’m disappointed in the decision and I don’t think UEFA is truly interested in ridding the sport of this disgusting element once and for all. As important as standing up for the smaller federations might be, I hope Michel Platini turns some attention to racism and violence that continues to mar the beautiful game. These sorts of incidents have gone on for far too long.

It’s a pretty safe bet Madrid’s Vincente Calderon Stadium will be at capacity today when Liverpool visits for its Champions League Group D match against Atletico Madrid. Shame.
You never get a second chance to make a first impression, and UEFA will never get a second chance to make its first major stance against racism in Champions League football.

By now the chain of events leading up to today’s match is well chronicled: At Atletico’s last Champions League match against Marseille, police inside Calderon were accused of being “heavy-handed” with Marseille supporters in the stands; it was said the club failed to adequately secure the grounds, Marseille’s journey to the stadium or the press area. In the meantime, Atletico supporters are accused of levying monkey chants against toward the field, Marseille supporters and two black journalists.

Initially, Atletico was facing a two-match Champions League ban at its ground and a requirement to play those matches at least 300 kilometers from Madrid, but UEFA wasn’t punishing them for the racism charges. No, it was for the lax security and general unruliness at the ground and outside. Ultimately, UEFA conceded to pressure from Atletico and Liverpool and only fined Atletico. UEFA said it wouldn’t be fair to the Liverpool supporters who had made travel arrangements to Madrid to reschedule their itineraries.
UEFA cleverly tried to disguise the fine (punishment?) as a statement against racism, but don’t kid yourself. It’s kinda like the American Congress when it stuffs unrelated budget cuts, taxes and mandates into major laws as concessions to the other party in order to get the bigger initiative through the legislative process. It’s a joke, and accepted with a wink and a nod. UEFA punished Atletico, but it said nothing against racism here, even in the statement on its decision. It’s kinda like putting a rapist in jail on a parking violation, and justifying it by saying “Well, at least he’s off the street!”

What happens if today the monkey chants start again in force? Spain and England don’t have the best football relationship; for example, England won’t play an international friendly at the Barnebeau. What if the Spanish hooligans–an no we’re not indicting the whole population of Spanish fans; we understand it’s the actions of a few that sully the whole–use the spotlight of a major international competition and a worldwide TV audience to really spread their poison?
Well UEFA has an answer! It’s put it all on referee Claus Bo Larsen who has been told he can put a stop to the match if the racial taunts begin. Sad. Imagine a testy atmosphere, and the referee sends everyone home before the show is over? The consequences might be too horrid to imagine.

There is no right answer here, well not today any way. UEFA missed its opportunity two weeks ago to enforce the stadium ban, or at a minimum, play it in front of an empty house–granted that doesn’t look good on television.
One thing in favor of things being tranquil today is the heavy Spanish flavor to the Liverpool team, from manager Rafa Benitez to Fernando Torres, who unfortunately for him won’t play today due to injury. That could keep things in check. And hopefully, the club responds with heavy security and heavy marketing to fans, stressing that it’s a good idea they behave today.

Sad. We haven’t said a word yet about how interesting a matchup this is. Not only is there the Spanish connection at Liverpool, but Atletico has been a dangerous side so far. It started the LaLiga campaign strongly and is 2-0 in the Champions League with convincing wins over Marseille and PSV Eindhoven.
Sad. Football continues to be a political platform. Football has also become a stage for hate. Football is under seige, and when powerful organizations such as UEFA tacitly captitulate as it has in this case, problems are far from resolved.

I had a great conversation with Jonathan Starling of the Third Half podcast last week. We discussed the upcoming UEFA Cup group stage, UEFA’s stance on debt-laden clubs, the situation at Ajax and many other topics.

I’ve posted the Champions League Talk segment of the show here as a separate podcast file but if you’d like to hear the full show (which has segments with writers from Bundesliga Talk, La Liga Talk and Major League Soccer Talk), please download it from EPL Talk podcast distribution site or subscribe to the EPL Talk podcast feed via iTunes.

This may be a bit long-winded and rambling but I hope you stick with me as there are a number of important points to discuss.  UEFA recently released a publication entitled “Safeguarding The Heritage And Future Of Team Sport In Europe”, which outlines UEFA’s stance on principles of good governance, player agents and home-grown players. In addition to that, UEFA President Michel Platini and other officials from both UEFA and FIFA have been speaking out about the state of the sport.

The good governance topic has hit the headlines in the past few days as UEFA has stated that they may need to look at banning heavily indebted clubs such as Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United from competing in UEFA sanctioned competitions. UEFA has set up a working group, which will meet in Geneva on Monday, to discuss how to extend its licensing system and restrict the levels of debt that clubs are permitted to operate with. Currently the financial stipulations imposed by UEFA are limited to bans on clubs who have outstanding debts on transfer payments or ones that do not pay staff and players on time.

Gabriel Marcotti, writing for Sports Illustrated, hits on the key point. The problem with their message is that the intelligent, reasonable parts have been mixed in with alarmist and what some may consider a bit of xenophobic comments. I think the latter bits are what people are reacting to most. As we’ve seen over at other sites like EPL Talk, the reaction has been strong and at times a little irrational.

Let me say that I disagree with Platini that foreign owners should be limited but I do agree with his overall idea that clubs should work to retain some of their local flavour and heritage.

Related to home-grown talent and local heritage, one important topic that Platini continues to talk about is the issue of underage players moving away from home to go to foreign academies. In an attempt to tear a strip off Platini’s example of Chelsea signing a youth from Marseille , the Gaffer of EPL Talk writes that he “would have a tremendous opportunity to become a millionaire, make his dreams come true and help support his family and parents. If Chelsea didn’t sign the player at 11, some other club would snap him up so why blame Chelsea?”

First, let’s be clear. No one is blaming Chelsea specifically, Platini was merely using an example from the current headlines. The player in question is actually 12 and his name is Jeremy Boga. Chelsea signed him on September 30th for an undisclosed fee.

Outlandishly dubbed the new Zinedine Zidane simply because, like the two-time World Player of the Year, he plays in midfield, Boga already has the spotight on him for the wrong reasons. Let me sidetrack for a moment so I can get something off my mind.  I am only going to say this once — THERE IS NO NEW ZIDANE ! Zidane was a once in a generation sort of talent and it’s simply a lax comparison to label any French player with any sort of flair/advanced technical ability as the ‘new Zizou’.

Now back to the topic at hand, what benefit comes from signing a 12-year-old from Marseille? Europe’s top teams are trying to sign players earlier and control their development as a way to keep potential star players out of the hands of rival clubs. The guise is that it may aid the team in developing cheap talent for the future but I’m not fully convinced. The theory is sound as I’ve seen the cost of turning a 16-year-old into a first-team starter quoted at about 500,000 British pounds.

However, the reality is that very few players from academies break into the first team, perhaps 1 in 100 if the odds are that high. Will this 12-year-old become a millionaire? Maybe but doubtful. The bulk of academy players are either cut loose or sold to lower division clubs in order to have a chance to kick-start their career. There are many examples of players whose development stalled simply because they were stuck in the academy/reserve side of a ‘big club’ for too long.  ‘Big clubs’ like Manchester United, Real Madrid, Chelsea and others simply bid big dollars every summer for top players from other clubs. The fact that there is another club that would sign him does not make the practice correct or healthy for the sport.

The largest argument against home-grown talent is that football is a business and you shouldn’t dictate where the employees come from. Fair point. I don’t think Liverpool needs to field 11 Scousers but insuring that there are 4-5 places for local lads seems reasonable to me. Mind you, I am used to the Canadian Football League and its limits on foreign (i.e. US-born) players so perhaps it’s not as big a leap in logic for me as it might be for others. However, if you are going to allow freedom of employee recruitment then it’s not unreasonable to expect the businesses to recruit smartly and not find themselves severly in debt.

I maintain you can’t have it both ways. Arsenal were ridiculed for not spending money in the summer transfer market like their rivals but whatever happened to sound business management? The Premier League has learned from the example of the American (and global for that matter) banking system and many clubs are spending well beyond their means or are pushing their finances to the brink (examples: UEFA Cup contenders Portsmouth spending 90% of their income on player’s salaries or West Ham’s £142m debt funded from Iceland where the economy has reached meltdown). What is going to happen to these clubs if the TV dollars are cut or some of they see other revenue streams shrink? Already you can tell that attendance at EPL games is not as strong across the board as other domestic leagues. With all of these factors in mind, I applaud Arsenal and other clubs like them for their current approach — they are running their business properly and turning a tidy little profit in the meantime.

Now had Arsenal blown 30-50 million in the transfer window, these same folks that cry out against quotas would be moaning about the fact that Arsenal were not making money and were simply buying their accolades. Or, they simply would overlook it until the clubs reached the point of insolvency as happened with Leeds United just a few years ago. One of the articles I read this week, from the Guardian newspaper, quoted a football finance expert as estimating that interest payments on debt exceed the profit from the English Premier League. Perhaps I am overly prudent about financial matters but the current Premier League situation sounds like a recipe for diaster to me. The realy worrying part is that clubs in financially well-managed situations are looking at the Premier League model and thinking “Why can’t we do that?” It’s that sort of short term thinking that leads clubs to relying on bailouts from millionaires as with AC Milan in the 1980s or as in the case of Real Madrid, a controversial property deal that reportedly netted the club 480m Euros, which they promptly plowed a large chunk of into player transfers.

What sort of rules could UEFA put in place? This is where it is going to get extremely tricky. They could state that clubs would not receive UEFA sanctioning if their debt rose above a reasonable per cent of their income or if their wage bill ever amounted to more than a certain per cent of their turnover. The latter is unlikely to happen but the limit on debt seems reasonable and fair to me. Why should a club be allowed to spend its way into debt simply to hoarde players from other clubs? The former is also problematic as Arsenal, who also have a large debt they are servicing, are in debt for a “good” reason. They’ve borrowed money to build a new stadium, which has increased their revenue streams. This is good debt as it is tied to a tangible asset and not a player’s contract, which decreases in value over time

(Note: I believe there are ways to write a player’s depreciation off as a loss against the business but it’s debatable whether the cost of acquiring the player and paying their wages is returned in tax benefits).

Those are just basic ideas and I’m sure UEFA will need time to study the problem in more depth before proposing any licensing or regulation of clubs. The important part is to address what many see as a problem within the game and not simply buy into the hype that “All is well” or “The playing field has never been level”. I don’t agree with either viewpoint. Simply because a condition has always existed does not make it just or correct. Ultimately though, UEFA may not have much power to act and might need to rely on the domestic governing bodies to bring their own houses in order as has been done in Scotland and elsewhere.

The other ace-in-the-hole for the ‘big clubs’ is the threat of breaking away and forming a European Super League as has been rumoured in the past. That would be a dark day for many domestic leagues as they would all see their TV money dip and they would be relegated to the role of feeder clubs for the Super League. And don’t think for a second that there would be a way in for a smaller club….any such entity would be a closed shop for the elite.

Interesting days to be sure and we’ll follow the goings on as they develop. Thanks for sticking with me if you’ve read this far and I look forward to your comments and feedback!

As we reported on a number of weeks ago, the UEFA Executive Committee has finalized the change in name of the UEFA Cup to the UEFA Europa League starting in the 2009-10 season. Along with the new name come major changes to the competition, which will feature a 48-team group stage.

Changes to the name, logo and brand identity of the competition are seen by UEFA as the next logical step following the decision to alter the format of the UEFA Cup and create a true group stage, with both home and away matches. That decision was made back in December 2007 so this is not an overnight decision.

UEFA’s ambition in making all these changes is to rejuvenate the competition that has fallen into the shadows of the massive success of the Champions League. The UEFA Cup, which was introduced in 1971-72 season and replaced the Inter Cities Fairs Cup, has been the only European club competition other than the Champions League since the Cup Winners’ Cup was dropped in 1999. The fact that clubs who have failed to survive the group stage of the Champions League continue in the UEFA Cup has contributed to its perception as a second-rate event and the general perception is still that the ‘big clubs’ will be in the Champions League.

However, I think the UEFA Cup/Europa League is an important and often underrated competition. While perhaps not as prestigious as the Champions League, it does offer other clubs a vehicle to earn extra revenue and gain experience playing against clubs outside their domestic league. It seems to be mostly the mainstream media and a large number of bloggers that trash the UEFA Cup as meaningless but those same outlets are generally only focused on the so-called “glamour” clubs.

I think if you ask fans of the clubs involved in the UEFA Cup, they are happy to be there and competing for a trophy. There have been some great matches in the UEFA Cup including last season’s final and semi-final involving Zenit St Petersburg. That club is a prime example of what this competition can do for a ‘smaller’ club that is looking to advance itself.

This is a bit late but I did want to acknowledge that UEFA.com has re-launched with a new take on their familiar look. The layout is a bit cleaner though the page now contains more elements. The color scheme is basic white and black though the newly launched photo gallery adds plenty of color.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the new site. Do you find it easier to track down the information you are after? Are there features you think UEFA are missing the boat on?

After leading 1-0 from the first leg, Schalke had to have had some confidence going into Madrid for the second leg. A strong performance from Atletico saw them thump the German team 4-0 to advance to the group stage for the first time since 1996-97. I had picked Atletico as my ‘dark-horse’ team in the Champions League this season and I have to admit that my faith wavered a bit after their sub-par display in the first leg.

Sergio Aguero, just back from winning gold at the Olympics with Argentina, stepped up to get things rolling for Atletico scoring on 22 minutes and leveling the tie on aggregate. Second-half goals from Diego Forlan, Luis Garcia and Maxi Rodriguez pushed the Rojiblancos through on a 4-1 aggregate.

Atletico took their foot off the accelerator after Forlan scored and Schalke did have chances to grab an away goal but failed to do so. Atletico were content to hit Schalke on counter-attacks and Garcia’s goal on 82 minutes put the game to rest. Christian Pander was sent off late for a professional foul on Simao. Maxi Rodriguez stepped up to fire home the ensuing penalty kick to make the final 4-0. A little deceiving but an all-around strong performance for the Rojiblancos that should give them confidence going into the domestic season. They face off against Málaga in the season opener at home this weekend.

The club announced the loan signing of Ever Banega from Valencia. The 20-year-old midfielder was a teammate of Aguero’s at the Beijing Olympics where Argentina won the gold. Banega will reportedly cost the Madrid outfit £1 million which could increase depending on appearances.

As for Schalke, their boss Fred Rutten conceded that his side simply did not play well enough to win. He told reporters: “We had more of the ball in the second half and even had one or to opportunities.  But we were punished and it all happened so quickly. We began the game well, but then had a period where we made too many errors.”

One of the best stories this season is that three teams are making their Champions League group stage debut after surviving the qualifying rounds. Danish champions Aalborg, Cypriots Anorthosis Famagusta and Belarus surprise package BATE Borisov will add some new flavour to the fixtures this season.

Elsewhere, after struggling to get going in the first match, Arsenal romped to a 6-0 overall rout of Dutch side Twente Enschede, coached by former England manager Steve McClaren. Goals from Samir Nasri, William Gallas, Theo Walcott and Nicklas Bendtner pushed the fixture beyond any doubt. Twente were always going to be hard-pressed to progress against a side of such quality but had probably hoped to keep the scoreline a tad more respectable.

One of Arsenal’s domestic league rivals, Liverpool, barely eeked into the group stage after surviving a difficult tie with Standard Liege. The Reds needed extra time and a goal from Dirk Kuyt, who marked his 100th appearance for the club, to see off the Belgian champs. Standard Liege will now enter the UEFA Cup first round.

The draw for the group stage will take place later today and I will update you on the results as soon as I have a chance to post.

The complete list of scorelines from the third round is listed below:
Fiorentina 2-0 Slavia
Sparta 1-3 Panathinaikos
Juventus 5-1 Artmedia
Barcelona 4-1 Wisla Krakow
Spartak Moscow 2-8 Dynamo Kyiv
Levski 1-2 BATE
Shakhtar 5-1 Dinamo Zagreb
Anorthosis 3-1 Olympiacos
AaB 4-0 Kaunas
Galatasaray 2-3 Steaua
Brann 1-3 Marseille
Schalke 1-4 Atlético
Twente 0-6 Arsenal
Partizan 3-4 Fenerbahce
Standard 0-1 Liverpool
Guimaraes 1-2 Basel

I was 10 of 15 in predictions in this round and had I picked with my head instead of being a fanboy, I would have gone 12 or 13 out of 15 instead. I was totally floored by how easily Dynamo Kyiv swept aside Spartak Moscow and I had thought that Galatasaray would advance other than that most of the fixtures ended up going the way I suspected they might.