It was perhaps inevitable that the Champions League final in Athens should have an unpleasant epilogue, with some Liverpool fans threatening legal action against Uefa and the governing body of European football firing back with a report today that is expected to catalogue no fewer than 25 serious incidents involving Liverpool supporters over the past four years.

In some ways, the report is a retaliatory strike against the negative press and threatened lawsuits in the wake of Athens that left Uefa feeling unfairly attacked. The choice of venue was criticised, not least by politicians such as Michael Howard, for its capacity, 63,000, and because it was not a football-specific stadium.

Both points left Uefa dumbfounded. It indicated that, if an 80,000-seat stadium were a prerequisite to host a European final, it would only ever rotate between the Nou Camp, the Bernabéu and Wembley, shutting out the rest of Europe. As for a “football-specific” venue, it had never been a prerequisite and with good reason: some of Europe’s finest grounds have running tracks. Even the old Wembley had a dog track.

Yet, whatever irritation Uefa may have felt at being singled out for criticism, the choice of words allegedly used to describe Liverpool fans — the “worst supporters in Europe” — was poor and sure to infuriate on this side of the Channel.

The most obvious problem is one of generalisation. In the same way that Spain fans were all tarred as racist after the abuse of Shaun Wright-Phillips when England played in Madrid in 2004, or all Catania ultras branded as hooligans in February after the death of a policeman in violence surrounding their match against Palermo, such language and oversimplification is understandably offensive to peaceful Liverpool fans.

Still, a clear-headed look reveals just why, from Uefa’s perspective, it may feel that Liverpool supporters present more of a problem than those of other clubs.

Uefa’s critics were quick to reel off a list of violent incidents across the Continent this season, all of them more egregious than those in Athens: from the death of the policeman in Catania to the killing of a Paris Saint-Germain supporter in the French capital after their Uefa Cup match with Hapoel Tel-Aviv; from the heavy-handed policing and stabbing of Manchester United supporters in Rome to the rampaging Feyenoord supporters in their Uefa Cup tie with Nancy in France. To the critics, these episodes are evidence of double standards and Liverpool being “singled out”.

Yet viewed through Uefa’s eyes, these incidents are less relevant, at least as far as its brief — organising and running European competitions — is concerned.

The death of the policeman in Catania occurred in a domestic league match, outside Uefa’s remit; the shooting of the PSG supporter by police and the stabbing of the United fans occurred away from the ground and Uefa has little control over how matches are policed. Feyenoord is a different matter, but Uefa feels its response was appropriately tough: the Dutch side were thrown out of the competition.

As for the hardcore miscreants in other countries, particularly Greece, Italy, Turkey and some Eastern European nations, most are organised into recognised groups and, crucially, few of them travel or cause trouble abroad.

And that is what sets Liverpool apart. Their supporters travel in huge numbers, which makes it relatively easy for troublemakers to hide among them, particularly because, unlike ultras in Italy, Greece and elsewhere, they are not a part of formal and readily identifiable groups. Plus, of course, many travel without tickets.

Unlike the traditional hooligan, the main priority of these ticketless fans is not to cause trouble, but simply to get in to watch the match. And, perversely, this is why Liverpool fans are seen by Uefa as more “at risk” than those of other clubs. Because, in most cases, continental hooligans are mostly preoccupied with fighting opposing hooligans (rather than rank-and-file fans) or, increasingly, the police, it is easier to isolate and control them.

Even at those clubs where there is a violent hooligan element, it is generally fairly straightforward for “normal” fans to avoid trouble. But when you are dealing with ticketless supporters, some of them hell-bent on breaking through police cordons, it affects everyone. Families get caught in the crush. Innocent bystanders get pushed, prodded and sprayed with teargas. And, as was the case in Athens, where several thousand ticket-holding Liverpool fans were shut out, law-abiding supporters pay the price.

These “law-abiding” fans are, commercially, Uefa’s bread-and-butter. They buy the travel packages, satisfy the sponsors and drive up the television ratings. Put another way, the kind of ABC1 consumers that Uefa’s sponsors and advertisers crave are the ones who are most affected by the nature of the trouble associated with Liverpool. And that is why the club’s supporters are singled out: it is an economic argument as much as a public-order issue.