I’m not a Liverpool fan and I’ve never been to Hillsborough but, like many others, I’ve found this past week incredibly painful. I was four when that dark day in April 1989 came to pass, and though I wasn’t really old enough to fully understand what had happened, I recall the harrowing reaction of the people around me as those shocking images from Sheffield were broadcast into our home. I remember the confusion of seeing the terror unfold at an event I had previously only understood as a game.

Please don’t interpret this as me trying to hijack the suffering of the families of the ninety-six individuals who so tragically lost their lives. Though David Cameron, in his eloquent speech in the House of Commons, called Hillsborough a “national tragedy” I am conscious of the deeply personal nature of the suffering of those far more closely associated with the disaster than myself. I can not begin to fathom the depths of hurt these people have endured for the last twenty-three years, and can not stress enough how inspiring their bravery and stoicism has been.

Nevertheless the Prime Minister struck a chord. Hillsborough was – is – a national tragedy. After all, such was the state of football in Britain at the time that Hillsborough could have happened more or less anywhere, to more or less anyone. Crumbling stadiums, inefficient or overlooked safety procedures and poor policing were prevailing conditions that existed up and down the land, threatening tragedy with alarming regularity. The Bradford City stadium fire in 1985 in which 56 fans lost their lives was yet another black cloud in the gloomy skyline of 1980s Britain. But Hillsborough would cut the collective consciousness of the nation like nothing before.

The revelations this week of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report into the tragedy show why. Though long suspected, the full and repulsive extent of the cover up orchestrated by South Yorkshire Police makes it, not just the biggest scandal in the history of British sport, but arguably in the history of the country.

Standing out from the report are a set of conclusions and figures so shocking they are hard to digest: 164 statements altered to push blame onto fans, the confirmation that police carried out checks on the deceased with the sole intention of “impugning their reputations”, that similar near-disaster incidents in 1981, 1987 and 1988 made the tragedy entirely foreseeable and, ultimately, that forty-one of the victims had “the the potential to be saved” beyond the 15.15 time of death originally given by the coroner. The report certainly yields sadness and anger in abundance, but must now also bring justice in equal measure.

The HIP will now be dissolved, its report complete, but it has set the wheels of justice in motion. There are those who must now answer difficult questions, chief amongst them Sir Norman Bettison, who has so far hidden behind his title and position of power, and whose comments since the Hillsborough report was made public have shown not guilt or regret, but contempt for the families of the dead. Others have analysed the panel’s findings far better than I can, but it is clear even to me that there are villains out there that must be brought to account.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, and though I don’t share in his politics, the heartfelt apology offered by Cameron greatly moved me. Although the HIP’s report found no evidence of a government effort to help conceal evidence, in creating an atmosphere in 1980s Britain in which football supporters were regarded as sub-human the Thatcher administration allowed the narrative perpetuated by the police to grow, nurtured it even. Cameron’s words seemed like an acknowledgement of that injustice too, something which the families of the ninety-six, and football supporters as a community, needed to hear.

But Hillsborough has become so much more than a footballing tragedy. In pedalling outrageous lies, in besmirching the names of the dead in a vile attempt to disguise their own failings, and in attempting to block the truth at every turn the police force have reminded us all just how easily justice can be subverted. Britain must learn from this scandal. This is why Hillsborough matters to us all.

At the heart of the of Wednesday’s proceedings were a group of fans who, in refusing to accept their persecution at the hands of the authorities and the media, have shown us all that right can still triumph over might. We all owe a gratitude to the Liverpool supporters who for twenty-three painful years have campaigned relentlessly for their cause. They’ve challenged at every turn the opinion, until Wednesday still held by many, that the Hillsborough disaster was caused by hooligans, and that their loved ones were such monsters. This is why Hillsborough matters to Liverpool and to football.

Hopefully, buried amongst the now exposed myriad of evil and deceit, there is at last some crumb of comfort, some semblance of closure that has been uncovered by the work of the HIP. If we wish for nothing else, let us all pray that the families of the ninety-six may now sleep a little easier.

But we should not rejoice in any of this, for there is nothing to celebrate. There is no light to be found, only darkness.

May the families of the ninety-six never have to walk alone through that darkness again.

For one, the reputation of the of the event as a fund-raising operation can seem somewhat laughable. According to the Football Association themselves, the Community Shield raises less than a million pounds each year for charities and community based initiatives up and down the country. Though the system of dividing up funds between the 124 teams that compete in the F.A. Cup from the first round onwards each year and allowing them to donate to their chosen causes is laudable, the sense of well-doing is somewhat tainted by the parade of wealth that takes place for ninety minutes in the name of the Community Shield. Take events today; the amount raised for good causes will equate to less than Yaya Toure’s monthly salary.

It’s perhaps hard then to view the Community Shield with anything but an air of scepticism, and though the tournament has a long and rich history, and the element of raising funds for good causes is as old as the event itself, a look through the history books reveals that the competition has not had an unblemished past. The Community Shield itself has it’s origins in the Sheriff of London’s Charity Shield that was introduced by distiller and politician Thomas Dewar in 1898 as a competition played between the best professional and amateur sides in England to raise funds for local hospitals and charities. The very first final, played between Corinthians and league leaders Sheffield United, attracted a fair amount of controversy however.

After the first final played at the Crystal Palace in front of a crowd of somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 – depending on which report you consult – finished as a goalless draw, a replay was arranged. This second fixture ended 1-1, with Corinthians scoring from a retaken free-kick after their opponents didn’t retreat the required distance. Sheffield United were apoplectic, and refused to return to the field for extra time unless the referee was replaced. Their demands were not met, and the press were damning in their assessment of Sheffield United’s actions. After Corinthians rejected a request for a third game, an agreement was reached for the Shield to be shared.

The following year the committee of the Sheriff of London’s Charity Shield elected to invite Queen’s Park to take part as the amateur game’s representative as Corinthians had struggled for form. Aston Villa were chosen as the professional side, but reports at the time suggest they weren’t keen on accepting the offer, fearing a loss of revenue as a result of having to re-arrange their league fixture with local rivals West Bromwich Albion. After much negotiating the event finally went ahead, ending with a goalless draw, and the Shield again being shared.

Dewar’s invention was short-lived, with the final Sheriff of London’s Charity Shield being played in 1907 after a dispute between several amateur sides and the Football League that led to the foundation of the Amateur Football Association. Dewar too was a busy fellow. Having already travelled the world with the goal of developing his family’s whiskey brand, he turned to politics, and was heavily involved in establishing the controversial Aliens Act of 1905, which introduced strict immigration controls and legislation, and led to some coming to regard Dewar as an anti-Semite. Dubbed the ‘the man who taught the world how to drink’, Dewar had also established the Dewar Trophy in the United States of America, and become heavily involved in horse training and racing.

In 1908 the Charity Shield was relaunched by the F.A. as a competition between the Football League’s First Division Champions and the Southern League Champions. The inaugural match pitted Manchester United against Queens Park Rangers, with the First Division Champions – Manchester United – emerging victorious in a replay played at Stamford Bridge. It was the first, and last, F.A. Charity Shield final to go to a replay.

Over the years that followed the format of the competition varied greatly season to season, with the old amateurs versus professionals format of Dewar’s Sheriff of London’s Charity Shield featuring regularly throughout the 1910s and 1920s. The current F.A. Cup winners against the Football League winners setup was first used in 1921, and from the 1930s onwards this became the standard, with only occasional alternatives between 1930 and the present day. Two key exceptions were the 1950 final which pitted the England World Cup team against an F.A. side that had toured Canada that summer, and the 1972 final for which both league champions Derby County and F.A. Cup holders Leeds United declined their invitation to take part, resulting in Manchester City, who had finished fourth in the First Division, and Third Division champions Aston Villa contesting a makeshift Charity Shield, with Manchester City claiming a 1-0 win.

Curiously that was Manchester City’s last triumph in the Charity Shield before yesterday’s game. Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s wealth may well dictate that his team’s name is engraved on the Charity Shield with alarming regularity over the coming seasons, but the sometimes controversial history of the competition may continue to elude many watching.

When Robben arrived at Stamford Bridge at the age of just twenty he carried on his shoulders a huge weight of expectation. Fresh from a trailblazing four year spell with Groningen and PSV Eindhoven in his native country, the winger had already been marked as one destined for greatness. By the time he left London he had become one of football’s biggest names, and perhaps the defining ‘inside-out’ winger of his generation.

The origins of Robben’s unique quick-footed, skilful and pacey attacking play can be traced back to his early training as a youngster in his home town of Bedum under the guidance of a forgotten hero of Dutch football: Wiel Coerver. Coerver’s innovative coaching techniques have since spread around the world, and influenced the game at all levels, from the top professional leagues all the way down to the school yard. Yet Robben perhaps remains his most famous graduate.

Wiel Coerver was born in Kerkrade in Limburg, the southernmost province of the Netherlands, on December 3rd 1924, and went on to play for VV Bleijerheide and Rapid JC – now known as Roda JC – with whom he won the Dutch championship in 1956. It was as a coach however that Coerver distinguished himself, winning the Eredivisie and the UEFA Cup with Feyenoord in 1974, before going on to manage the Indonesian national team, and the Go Ahead Eagles, as well as serving as a technical adviser to the Swedish and English national federations, amongst others.

It was during the 1970s that Coerver developed his revolutionary Coerver Method, a detailed coaching program that underpinned the ornate attacking football he pioneered at Feyenoord. The Coerver Method focuses on individual skill progression, and the development of tactical awareness through drills carried out in small groups. Its commanding philosophy is one of control over the ball, and it was developed through Coerver analysing hour upon hour of footage of some of the game’s greatest ever players. Pele was known to be a particular inspiration, and through immersing himself in his project, Coerver came to believe that incredible skill was not simply innate, but could be taught.

In the decades that have followed the Coerver Method has grown and grown, thanks in part to Alfred Galustian and former Chelsea player Charles Cook who, in 1984, founded Coerver Coaching, an organisation that has refined the original teachings of Coerver to form a strict training program which they have since exported around the globe. Books, DVDs and TV shows have been produced and sold in multiple languages, with particular success in developing football nations such as the United States of America, China and Japan. Today it is one of the most widely adopted training programs in world sport, with Manchester United’s René Meulensteen and FC Red Bull Salzburg’s Ricardo Moniz being two of the most famous exponents of the Coerver Method.

Sadly Coerver himself never reached the same dizzying heights. Despite the impact the man has had on the game, he appears in relatively few histories of the sport. Yet there is no doubt he belongs amongst fellow Dutch greats as Rinus Michels, Kees Rivjers, Johan Cruyff, Guus Hiddink, Frank Rijkaard, Leo Beenhakker and Bayern Munich legend Louis Van Gaal, such is the magnitude of his legacy. Curiously he is particularly overlooked in his native country, where stories of his dedication to football that made him notoriously difficult to work with are often cited as the most likely cause for Coerver never having made it to the very top of the Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB), a role in which he would of no doubt excelled.

Tonight Robben will pit his Coerver nurtured ability against a Chelsea side who, though not quite the antithesis of Coerver’s principles, offer a hard working, counter attacking alternative that is based on a minimum amount of touches, and as such offers a vastly different approach to the game. That Chelsea look likely to double up on Robben, with young defender Ryan Bertrand widely expected to start on the left side of midfield, in front of Ashley Cole as Roberto Di Matteo looks to stifle Robben’s creativity and incisive attacking play, speaks volumes of the threat the Dutchman carries.

It is one of the battles of ideology that underlines tonight’s Champions League final, but it is far from the only contrast between the two sides. Indeed the off the pitch differences, such as Bayern Munich’s widely envied fan ownership model versus Chelsea’s Russian oligarch funded excesses, offer us just as many points of interest as the on-field action. Yet it is through Robben, his partner in crime Franck Ribéry, and Chelsea’s handling of the explosive duo that the show-piece final is likely to be won or lost.

Tragically Coerver passed away last year, and so was denied the opportunity of seeing one his greatest disciples contest what promises to be an enthralling encounter. Nevertheless the real success of the man once dubbed “the Albert Einstein of football” extends far beyond tonight’s activities at the Allianz Arena. Given that Coerver was one of the first managers to treat football as a science rather than art, it is perhaps reassuring to think that he would have been more delighted with the wide reaching spread of his beliefs than by the glitzy careers of just one or two of his students. But wouldn’t it be nice to see Robben win it for such a great man?

With six games of the Premier League season to go Roberto Mancini’s side found themselves eight points adrift of Manchester United. It appeared for all the world that the title would again elude Sheikh Mansour’s team, and was no doubt a low moment in his tenure as Manchester City owner. Whether or not Mansour or Mancini had the the dulcet tones of Terrence Mann cooing encouragements in their ears we can leave up to the imagination, but one thing is certain; they didn’t have Ray Kinsella’s money worries.

In fact, the swing of the title back to Manchester City was powered by eighteen goals scored by nine different players signed in the last four years for a combined total of over £193 million. In comparison, Manchester United’s run over their decisive final six games saw them register just eleven goals, scored by five different players, signed in the last eight years for a total of just over £61 million. For the red half of Manchester therein lies the problem: they are no longer the dominant force in the transfer market that they once were.

But financially out-muscling Manchester United is no guarantee of being able to usurp them in the league, as the post-Jose Mourinho Chelsea – bar the 2010 title under the stewardship of the criminally sacked Carlo Ancelotti – have so dramatically shown us. There will be many who claim Manchester City have simply bought the title but, whilst the vastness of Sheikh Mansour’s wealth and his predisposition for spending have naturally been a contributing factor, winning the league requires something more than simple resources.

Take the example of President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov of Turkmenistan who, in a moment of sheer demented whimsy that is all too common for the central Asian country, announced last month that his arid desert nation would be launching a new ice hockey league. Though temperatures in Turkmenistan can reach 50C, hugely expensive new ice arenas capable of hosting such fixtures have been erected by state enterprises and departments. President Berdymukhanov has called on Turkmenistan to become an international force in the sport, though few are genuinely convinced that they can topple the might of the Americans, Russians and Canadians on the rink.

You see the might of the squad of Manchester City could only achieve greatness in the right hands, and this season has shown us all – in case anyone had any doubts – that Mancini is really a very good manager indeed. His decision to move Yaya Toure into a more attacking role when his side were being held by Newcastle United was widely heralded after the game as the decision that would win Manchester City the title. Those that have watched City regularly this season will know that its a trick Mancini regularly deploys, but nevertheless introducing a defensive midfielder when many others would thrown more strikers into the fold shows the man’s insight into the game.

Yet the departure of Carlos Tevez following his spat with Mancini during the Champions League fixture against Bayern Munich last September could have derailed Manchester City’s title challenge before it had even truly begun. But Mancini stood firm, and made it be known that he was in charge. His real master-stroke however has been the way he has handled Tevez’s reintroduction into the side. Mancini seems to have known exactly the right moment to start the striker, such as the ravaging of Norwich City in which Tevez scored a hat-trick, and when to deploy him from the bench, as he did to such devastating effect in the last ditch win over Chelsea. Mancini has handled the entire Tevez affair with aplomb, firm enough to take action, wise and humble enough to know when to back down, and strong enough to prevent any ill feeling from proving detrimental to the title challenge.

Mancini has shown similar acumen in the case of Mario Balotelli, from whom he has harvested thirteen league goals this season despite Balotelli constantly threatening to explode at any given second. Indeed he often did. As Balotelli’s already notorious Football Focus interview with Noel Gallagher earlier in the season revealed though, the young Italian striker looks up to his manager and countryman with an affection reserved normally only for a patriarch. Mancini has been exactly that this season.

But what about spirit? You can’t win anything without it. Ray Kinsella had it, and time and time again this season Manchester City have shown it in abundance. The professional performance that sent Manchester United home empty handed. The resilience they showed in – just about – vanquishing Tottenham Hotspur when Harry Redknapp’s side were at their peak. The swagger with which they demolished Manchester United at Old Trafford. The determination to rescue the title when they were just seconds away from losing it. Manchester City have looked like champions all season, and deserved the miracle that Aguero conjured up on Sunday afternoon. To quote John Kinsella “It’s like a dream come true… Is this heaven?” No, it’s the Etihad. But, for Manchester City fans, it sure felt like heaven. It was the place where dreams come true.

As apologies go, it wasn’t the best. Just a single day after Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriages, the Washington Post broke the story that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had orchestrated the homophobic bullying of John Lauber, a fellow pupil at Cranbrook School, when the two were students at the private academy in the early 1960s. The revelation has caused widespread outrage, and was seized upon by the Democrats who branded Romney’s behaviour as “vicious”. For his part, Romney told the press that he had no recollection of the offences, and offered his meagre apology in a radio interview last week.

Romney’s uneasy and awkward apology could not help but make me think of John Terry, and his own poor handling of his dismissal for his needless and violent attack on Alexis Sanchez at the Nou Camp three weeks ago. Initially Terry alleged “Sanchez was darting in behind me” and “I was trying to protect myself”, before video evidence exposed his comments as utter fabrication. The Chelsea defender later apologised for his actions, but with the impending court case over Terry’s alleged racial abuse of Queens Park Rangers defender Anton Ferdinand looming large in the public eye, the incident did little for his reputation. Though Terry will remain innocent until proven guilty, he has so far defended himself with an authenticity every bit as feeble as Romney’s.

Into this dreadful situation Roy Hodgson now wades, tasked with choosing between Terry and Rio Ferdinand, brother of Anton and, as much of the sporting press have been quick to point out, no saint himself, for a place in England’s twenty-three man squad for this summer’s European Championships. Ferdinand’s own misdemeanours extend to driving and drink-driving offences, an infamous Radio One interview in 2006 that saw him accused of making homophobic comments, and the eight month ban he received for missing a drugs test in 2003. Hodgson is not so much caught between a rock and a hard place, as he is between the red devil and the deep blue Chelsea.

As the dust settles on Hodgson’s appointment it has become clear that this decision is perhaps the biggest test he will face in the role. Yet to speak to either player, whether Hodgson elects to bring Terry, Ferdinand or both could well be the pivot on which his entire tenure is judged. The choice between their respective playing styles could well give us an indication of the direction Hodgson plans to try and steer England in. The selection could also reveal Hodgson’s and even the Football Association’s own insight into the severity of Terry’s legal situation.

There is, of course, a strong case to be made for the inclusion of neither, both ethically and for purely footballing reasons. With Ferdinand’s on going injury concerns, and Terry’s own form nose diving since his expulsion in the Champions League semi-final, neither of the established defensive pair have had a year as impressive as that of Joleon Lescott, who could – and should – complete a title winning campaign tomorrow afternoon. Lescott currently ranks as the second best defender this season in the Premier League’s official Player Performance Index, behind only Patrice Evra. Lescott’s defensive partner Vincent Kompany, who was yesterday chosen as the Premier League Player of Year, ranks one place below the Englishman.

Amongst the likely candidates for a place in the squad, Joleon Lescott also has the highest tackle success percentage in the league, and impressed when he last started for England in the 1-0 win over reigning World and European champions Spain last November. Lescott’s partner in the heart of the defence that day was Everton’s Phil Jagielka, who performed equally well and has had another solid season at Everton. Jagielka’s ability on the ball might make him the stand-out choice to partner the more physical Lescott, whilst Gary Cahill possess similar qualities to Terry, and performed admirably since being introduced into the Chelsea side by caretaker manager Roberto Di Matteo. The versatility of Phil Jones and Micah Richards also makes them attractive options, whilst injury or fitness concerns will see Chris Smalling, Michael Dawson and Ledley King all miss out.

Should Hodgson elect to leave both Terry and Ferdinand at home then it could signal the end of their international careers. Whilst both have, at times, distinguished themselves on the international stage, they both appear to be in decline, and the ill feeling between the two threatens to overshadow England’s preparations for Euro 2012. Hodgson has the experience to know that he is unlikely to gain anything should he try and force the two to reconcile, and will perhaps want to avoid any such distraction, knowing that the likelihood is that things could well descend into a Chisora/Haye-esque PR catastrophe, such is the size of the egos involved.

It is only sensible to reserve judgement of Terry until after the resolution of legal proceedings, and Ferdinand should not be criticised for defending his brother. But the situation is one that benefits nobody involved. The ludicrous decision to move Terry’s trial back to July has not helped. The matter should already have been resolved. Either Terry is guilty and therefore clearly should not be representing his country, or he is acquitted and free to be selected should Hodgson deem him up to scratch. Then the onus would be on Ferdinand to decide whether or not he wants to be involved, with his injury record offering him, or Hodgson, the option of an excuse for leaving him out. Not an ideal scenario sure, but far more palatable than the situation we are in now.

With the squad set to be announced on Wednesday we don’t have long to wait for Hodgson’s decision. Whatever choice he makes, there is no hiding from the fact that this is a dramatically tumultuous time for England. Hodgson, with his decades of experience and no nonsense attitude, may well be the right man to steady the ship, but he still has decide who to cast overboard.