Premier League fixtures: Authorities are taking fans for fools over neutral venues

The first was on February 19, when Atalanta 'hosted' Valencia at their temporary home of the San Siro in the Champions League. It is believed that some 40,000 Bergamo residents travelled to Milan to watch their team record a famous win. It was a bittersweet night, with the mayor of Bergamo Giorgio Gori later saying "it’s clear that evening was a situation in which the virus was widely spread... The match was a biological bomb."

Within weeks Italy was paralysed by the novel coronavirus, its health system overwhelmed and its dead going unburied. Only now is the country taking baby steps out of a stringent, draconian lockdown.

On March 11, two further Champions League games took place. Liverpool hosted Atletico Madrid, with the Spanish capital set to go into lockdown within days. Britain at this point was far less affected by the pandemic than Spain and yet Atleti fans were allowed to travel in their droves to Merseyside to watch Diego Simeone's side beat the European champions, who were gunning to reach their third straight final in the competition. Just over two months on and Liverpool is one of the worst-affected parts of the UK, with Professor Tim Spector of King's College London saying the match caused "increased suffering and death that wouldn't otherwise have occurred".

On the very same night, before France was forced into lockdown, Paris Saint-Germain took the cautious route and played their Champions League clash against Borussia Dortmund behind closed doors. The very thing they wished to avoid became reality. Hoards of fans gathered outside the Parc des Princes to salute their team after a brilliant comeback.

While Atalanta's win over Valencia and Atletico's Anfield triumph have gone down as tragic events which have hastened the collapse of an entire continent, it is the PSG game which has played a key role in devising policy as football gets up and running again. With fans barred from attending games, the British authorities are uniquely keen on matches (at least some matches) taking place at neutral venues to stop supporters from amassing outside stadia.

This was confirmed during Saturday's Downing Street briefing by Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Jonathan Van-Tam, England's Deputy Chief Medical Officer, who said: "There has to be enough understanding that the venue can cope with the segregation and the organisation and the social distancing right up from the kick-off until the final whistle to make that the safest possible experience for everybody there. And that's going to be a crucial factor in choosing these venues."

The games in question are reported to be derbies, where local pride as well as points are at stake, and matches involving Liverpool's title tilt previously due to take place at Anfield. But in itself, the plan is self-defeating. The replacement venue for the north London derby is mooted to be West Ham's London Stadium, which happens to be six and nine stops on the London Overground from Highbury and Islington and White Hart Lane respectively, so easily reachable by both Arsenal and Tottenham fans. When Liverpool won the Champions League last year, the match was in Madrid, yet the streets surrounding Anfield were packed with revelling fans. The presence of the team inside the stadium had no impact on that.

It also misjudges the behaviour of football fans in this country. While there has been an alarming spike in racism in the stands in recent years, we are hardly in the midst of a return to the 1980s. The culture of blind tribalism, where football was secondary to the social elements that came with firm membership, is long gone. Flares are a rarity, and while the noise levels from the stands undeniably varies from club to club, matches rarely descend into punch-ups, with mindless thuggery all but eradicated from the modern game. The attendance of women and children is way up on 30 years ago and the Premier League is truly a family affair. Meanwhile, the suggestion that Liverpool fans would risk each other's safety is ignorant of the club's history.

The evidence that this policy is misplaced and demeaning lies in Germany. Borussia Dortmund have the loudest fans in the Bundesliga and pack out the 81,000-capacity Westfalenstadion as a matter of routine. Their first two home games after the resumption of German football were against Schalke, their biggest local rivals, and Bayern Munich, in a match that had huge ramifications in the title race. Neither match produced a throng of fans, who obediently watched at home and in Germany's reopened bars. There is no reason to believe that English fans would act any differently from their German counterparts, not least with every match televised and a third of them free-to-air for the first time in Premier League history.

It is a stance which belies the attitude of the government with regard to football fans and in keeping with Britain's complicated relationship with its national sport. The prevailing belief seems to be that while Brits are free to love football and it defines aspects of our national character, those who attend matches are irresponsible and cannot be trusted to do the right thing in this complicated situation. It's a post-Victorian mindset, where frivolity is met with po-faced sneers. We can have our sports, but enjoying them excessively yields disapproving glances.

I am a season ticket holder for a Premier League club and have been since 1998. I rarely miss matches if ever and would love to be able to watch my team play out their season. It would hardly be a gruelling commute as I live a 15-minute walk from their stadium. But stripped of that option, I would much prefer to watch at home on television, rather than miss the match in the hope of soaking up some 'atmosphere' and following the action through Chinese whispers and social media refreshes.

In March, when Anfield and San Siro played host to tragic super-spreading events, not much was known about this virus and the devastating impact it would have on our society. No-one can be under any illusions as to its impact now. That extends to football fans. While there is a significant part of Britain suffering from lockdown fatigue, it is the question of reuniting families and friends and reopening the retail and hospitality industries that grip the country, not a debate about whether fans should be able to attend large sporting and music events. There is also a significant part of the country which believes that the government has moved too quickly in lifting restrictions. There is simply a prevailing attitude that attending football matches is unsafe and it is way down the public's list of priorities.

The government should recognise that and stop patronising people. An increased police presence and fines would deter the minority still determined to flout the rules.