It may not suprise those that know me to hear that last night I went down the pub. Far more of a surprise to me was that also down the Old Fire Station were two colleagues of mine while their teams were playing in the UEFA Cup. Andrew, a long standing Spurs fan, told me he had no interest in their game whatsoever while Ross, our resident die-hard Aston Villa fan, seemed unduly concerned by his team's plight in Moscow as he chatted to every bit of skirt he could.

It has to be said that the manager of their respective teams placed similar importance on second leg ties that looked eminently conquerable. Martin O'Neill angered those Villa fans who had paid upwards of £1,000 to head to the Russian capital by fielding the likes of Marc Albrighton, Moustapha Salifou and the mighty Barry Bannan.

Over at White Hart Lane, in a game untelevised in the UK, Harry "Most 'umble" Redknapp, selected a second-stringers' line-up which featured plenty of top-level experience yet included a ridiculously youthful strike force of Frazier Campbell and Jonathan Obika, whose wearing of the number "80" on his shirt shows his place in the pecking order. And check out the bench: Oscar Jansson, Calum Butcher, Adam Smith, John Bostock, Dean Parrett, Ryan Mason and Andros Townsend. I have to confess I have only heard of Bostock and I don't think this Adam Smith is the same one who authored "The Wealth of Nations".

Does anyone get the feeling that neither Redknapp or O'Neill wanted to go through and that domestic concerns have taken priority over what should be the hunt for a prestigious trophy?

Spurs have relegation concerns and a trip to Wembley to consider while O'Neill, whose reputation was heightened by Celtic's run to the 2003 UEFA Cup Final, has designs on competing in the tournament's big brother. UEFA might begin to question why teams are treating it with a lack of ambition and could even consider lowering England's allotment of teams if they fail to grant it more gravitas.

Yet there are mitigating excuses for the actions of both bosses. To go far in the UEFA Cup can almost ransack the rest of a season due to its labyrinthine and ludicrously lengthy format. Is it any wonder Zenit St Petersburg, two months into the Russian season, looked so much stronger than the rest of the teams they faced in the knock-out rounds. Rangers looked knackered during the pre-match anthems in Manchester last May. It is simply no longer an attractive competition to attempt to win because narrow failure can halt other ambitions, as shown by the collapse of Rangers' hunt for a quadruple.

Nine years ago, my esteemed former colleague and good friend Andy Hooper wrote a feature on these very pages titled Is it over for the Useless Cup? (sadly lost in the ether of cyberspace to you readers) in which he stated that the "Little Brother" of European competition was "playing on borrowed time". The death rattle may have taken longer than Andy predicted but many of his themes ring true now. Change has now finally been effected by next season's raising of the curtain on the all-singing, all-dancing Europa League. Recently on this site, Phil Holland quite rightly castigated UEFA for its bloating to a 48-team group stage when UEFA announced its grand plan to make it "Champions League lite", surely an own-goal that will make it even less beguiling. Simple formula: knock-outs good, group stage dull.

Yet it is not just the UEFA Cup that has lost its attraction. We in England have been spoiled by our bigger teams' progress in the Champions League and many are getting bored of what looks like serene progress for the "big four".

European football has lost its lustre when your teams beat all-comers and can only be beaten by your usual rivals. While Manchester United's penalty shoot-out win over Chelsea had drama writ large over it it was essentially a domestic dispute. The Champions League is in danger of being dominated by English clubs. This is not the first time this has happened of course - the old European Cup had English winners every year from 1977 to 1982 - yet the overbearing hegenomy of four clubs rather than the one or two English participants under that old format seems far less healthy.

European nights have always been those most celebrated and best remembered by fans. Yet a sense of the exotic and innocence has been lost. I only just remember Manchester United being knocked out of the UEFA Cup on penalties by Hungary's wonderfully named Videoton in 1985 yet United's return to Europe after English clubs' ban in 1990 rings out clearly. Who could forget Pecsi Munkas and their be-mulleted goalkeeper? I never will. What of Clayton Blackmore's thunderbolt in Montpelier and his match-winning clearance in that season Cup Winners' Cup Final in Rotterdam.

Back then, Euro competitions, even when my team and those from England were not competing in them, seemed equally beguiling. I clearly remember videoing the highlights of Werder Bremen's Cup Winners' Cup demolition of a Monaco side coached by none other than Arsene Wenger and was overwhelmed by that great Milan team of 1989 and 1990. In 1996 it was a real treat to see a young United team take on a European champion Juventus team featuring Zidane and Del Piero. Such encounters almost seem ten-a-penny due to the Champions League's protection of the chosen few. It is the same names again and again, every season and it's getting tedious. This season's group stage was a turgid display of expected outcomes and the second round already seems to contain few shocks in store.

The golden goose's feathers look ragged and its beak is flaking. Michel Platini's attempts to make it harder for big teams to qualify for the group stages are a step in the right direction yet not nearly enough. Wealth - or indeed ability to borrow big - have kept certain clubs as fixtures in the competition. Perhaps economic circumstances will return us to a level playing field though that looks a long shot.

The European game certainly needs something to change if it is to regain lost glamour and attraction.