THE criticism of the SFA contained in a report into the disciplinary action taken against Ajax following a Champions League match against Celtic two years ago is, on first glance at least, downright bizarre.

UEFA condemned Scottish football’s governing body for informing the Dutch club that words like Fenian and Orange were “part of the game” in this country.

“This argument, which is clearly unfounded and even reckless, does not merit a more detailed assessment,” the findings into the punishment concluded.

That, on the face of it, seems fair enough. To dismiss the use of such language would be wrong. There is, however, just one little problem. There was no official communication between Ajax and the SFA. None whatsoever.

Ajax, whose supporters had unveiled a banner which read “Fenian b******s” during a game in the Amsterdam ArenA back in 2013, had certainly asked the SFA to provide them with a statement on the case. But nothing was forthcoming.

That, though, did not stop the Eredivisie club, who were fined £25,000 and forced to close a section of their stadium in a European match, from alleging that a senior Hampden official had downplayed the significance of the term to them when presenting their defence.

For UEFA to issue such a censure on the back of unsubstantiated evidence provided by a club which was facing a serious reprimand without, at the very least, requesting an explanation from the other party is, quite frankly, staggering. Unsurprisingly, the SFA has reacted furiously and sought further clarification on the matter.

Yet is, you have to wonder, an unhappiness in Nyon at the ineffectiveness of the regulations which are in place to combat racism and sectarianism at football matches in this country behind this peculiar episode? Is there political pressure being applied here in order to bring about a long overdue change?

Scotland’s senior clubs voted against adopting the strict liability rules which are in place in the Champions League and Europa League as well as in many other nations across Europe by an overwhelming majority at their general meeting over two years ago.

They felt the resolution, which was put forward by the SFA board, was “too onerous”. In their defence, they immediately vowed to examine implementing a more robust set of disciplinary measures. A working group, comprising representatives from the SFA and SPFL, came up with new guidelines which were approved last year. Alas, nothing has changed as a consequence.

Under the current regulations, no action is taken against a club whose fans engage in unacceptable conduct at games if they can display they have taken "reasonably practicable" steps to avoid such behaviour. It is a flawed system which is clearly failing.

After an outbreak of sectarian singing at a Rangers match against Raith Rovers at Stark’s Park in March – a Championship game which was screened live across the United Kingdom – the SFA and SPFL once again pledged to work together to address the problem after no penalty was forthcoming. We await their conclusions with bated breath. But nothing short of strict liability will suffice going forward.

The English FA embraced it last year after being aggressively targeted by anti-racism campaigners and MPs in the wake of a series of unpleasant and high-profile incidents. Now its member clubs face severe sanctions – including being forced to play games behind closed doors, being fined and having points deducted – if their followers engage in racist, homophobic or anti-semitic behaviour regardless of what initiatives are in place. We must follow their lead.

There are those who wrongly claim that such political correctness has contributed significantly to a gradual sanitisation of football. Down south, where the working man is being steadily priced out of what was traditionally his preserve, the lack of atmosphere is a problem. Artificial crowd noise is even piped out of public address systems at grounds which are particularly badly afflicted.

But there is, mercifully, no prospect of that happening in Scotland. Goading opposition players and teams, revelling in a rival club’s misfortunes, castigating a match official for a decision and wallowing in your club’s successes – all practices which have long been part of a match day experience – will be unaffected. Indefensible sectarian chanting will not be.

If it is evident to supporters that their club is suffering, either financially or in a sporting sense, as a result of their conduct they will think twice about their actions. That would aid those endeavouring to bring in much-needed revenue through advertising and sponsorship in these austere times.

There is an appetite among those who work on the sixth floor of Hampden for strict liability to be embraced in Scotland; Campbell Ogilvie, the former SFA president, described the failure of the strict liability resolution two years ago as “disappointing”.

It is now incumbent on Scotland’s leading clubs to put the greater good of our national game ahead of their personal concerns and haul it kicking and screaming out of the dark ages and into the 21st century.

It looks highly likely that Celtic and Rangers will do battle for the Premiership title next season. It would be a real shame if what promises to be a compelling contest was overshadowed by unsavoury behaviour which went unpunished.