In European Union politics, much of the discourse centres on where member states end and Brussels begins. Football is no different, to judge from the reaction to the plan laid out by Nicolas Sarkozy and the French presidency of the EU, particularly its proposed super-national body, modelled on La Direction Nationale du Contrôle de Gestion (DNCG).

The fear, as expressed by the Premier League and other top European leagues, is that it will too closely resemble the DNCG, a body that has wide-ranging regulatory powers. Indeed, the licensing system of the DNCG is among the toughest in Europe, with strict requirements on such things as debt-to-turnover ratios and accounting transparency. It has the power to enforce its own rules via fines, transfer freezes, the docking of points and mandatory relegation.

If Europe adopted a DNCG-style regulatory body tomorrow, it is likely that many, if not most, top clubs in England, Spain and Italy would fall foul of the minimum requirements. This is particularly true when it comes to debt - clubs such as Manchester United and Liverpool have debts that are several times their annual turnover - but also accounting oversight because some clubs list players as assets, whereas others do not.

It is not surprising that Europe's big boys are concerned, but the real worry goes beyond that. The problem with Sarkozy's proposal is that it is based on a one-size-fits-all model when the footballing landscape varies radically across Europe.

English clubs receive almost no state subsidies. They own their grounds and must finance capital investment by accumulating debt. Italian clubs do not own their grounds and many of the bigger ones rely on wealthy patrons to guarantee their debts and annual losses. Many Spanish clubs are set up as not-for-profit entities with members electing their leadership; indeed, they are quasi-public trusts and, as such, easily accumulate large debts. French clubs often do not own their grounds but receive public subsidies from local and national government entities.

Harmonising all this is a headache and one that goes beyond football into the political and legislative fields. Sarkozy feels that it is worthwhile so that sport can one day reach a “level playing field” across the Continent. However, until different parts of Europe have different policies on immigration, state subsidies and taxation, there will be no such thing.

Sarkozy's office at the EU presidency calls the fears of the individual leagues “alarmist and catastrophist”. It maintains that it does not want to impose anything, but simply start a movement that will lead to better governance via “more regulation, more transparency and more sporting fairness”.

And in those words lies the heart of the debate. It is not just about whether greater regulation equals better governance, a basic free market versus command economy issue. It is about how much independence a nation should have in governing its own sport and how much power it should cede to an external pan-European body. Much like the old Euro-myth about the crooked bananas, some nations see this as the classic European power-grab.