ANALYSIS: Talk of anti-English bias in Chelsea case is wide of mark

London - Talk to Chelsea fans, or take a glance at their posts to message boards, and their reactions to Thursday's news that they are to be banned from registering players in the next two transfer windows fall into two basic categories. There are those who ask why they are being punished for offering inducements when most in football would agree that the practice is widespread. And there are others who insist that this is just another part of a supposed global conspiracy against either Chelsea or English football in general, by authorities concerned that English clubs have grown too powerful. As such, it taps into the paranoia demonstrated by Chelsea fans after their Champions League semi-final against Barcelona last season, when they conceded a late winner to Andres Iniesta having been denied, as they see it, four clear penalties. Referee Tom Henning Ovrebo was pilloried for his performance, yet a neutral might observe that of the four offences, one demonstrably happened outside the box, two were borderline, and only one was a clear error. Given Barcelona striker Thierry Henry was denied an equally clear penalty in the first leg, that doesn't sound like much of a conspiracy. Similarly in this case, Chelsea have not been singled out. Other clubs, including Roma, have been punished under the same legislation. And if FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which laid down the penalty has some boas against Chelsea, why would they order Adrian Mutu to pay the club compensation, later set at 17 million Euros (24.2 million dollars) by the Court of Arbitration for Sport? That offering inducements is widespread may be true, but it does not represent a defence. Many people speed, many people even disagree with speed limits, and yet speeding remains an offence. Indeed, if this represents the beginning of a crackdown, it is probably to be welcomed. Over the past couple of years, numerous former clubs of talented young players have protested at the rapaciousness of English clubs who have 'poached' their stars. Lazio's president, Claudio Lotito, described the environment as 'a proper cattle market' after Manchester United signed striker Federico Macheda at the age of 16. Lazio, though, were powerless, because Italian law prevents players from signing a full-contract until he was 18. The difference in this case is that Gael Kakuta, the player to whom Chelsea offered inducements to sign from Lens, had already signed a pre-contract agreement with Lens, and it is that that Chelsea have been found to have breached. Fifa has spoke publicly of being dedicated to 'defending contractual stability in football', and this seems to be another step in that battle. Chelsea are the highest profile club yet to fall foul of the rules, but if the practice is as widespread as most seem to think, they may find themselves merely the tip of the iceberg.