Let's imagine that fans of Sunderland (and I use the example purely because that is who I support), tiring of the constant churn of the transfer market, decide that enough is enough and they want their team to do things differently. They get together and hammer out a manifesto which they then post as an open letter to the club hierarchy. Among a number of points about the need for absolute commitment and an abhorrence of cheating, they suggest they would rather the club focused on local players.

How would the world regard that? Some might argue that is not the most efficient way to run a club in the modern game but most would surely accept that, if nothing else, a strong local identity can help foster a sense of common purpose. Athletic Bilbao select only Basque players while Barcelona are proud of their Catalan core; why shouldn't Sunderland fans dream of a team built around half a dozen Wearsiders?

That is not quite what the Zenit fans group Landscrona did this week – and it would be wrong to suggest there is nothing unacceptable about their manifesto – but the open letter they sent to the club is a much more nuanced and interesting document than anybody reading only the British press would have realised. The reaction here has been to regard the manifesto fitting the familiar narrative of eastern European racism; so kneejerk and predictable was the fury that you wonder where the true prejudice lies.

The entire document is posted here. Before we get into the detail, let's start with an obvious point. The line that fans do not want the club to field "any representatives of sexual minorities" is deplorable and football as a whole appearing to have a problem with the notion of homosexual players (or indeed players of other "sexual minorities") does not excuse it.

The people's game

The manifesto begins with a complaint with which most fans would probably sympathise: "Modern football," it states, "has gradually ceased to be the people's game … football clubs are developing on the basis of companies and corporations whose main measure of success is profit." Many clubs, it says, are producing "football projects" that are the equivalent of Hollywood pap. "From the last nineties," it goes on, "Zenit has made a huge step forward in the football hierarchy."

It speaks of the base of "its own graduates, Russian players and foreign players with a similar mentality. Zenit today is a flagship of Russian football and the way we have reached this stage makes us proud of our team … Now we fear that the club is turning from this road and following the paths of Manchester City, Arsenal, Anzhi and others who buy packs of players from around the world who do not represent the city or region they represent. For us it's important that Zenit preserves its identity. We don't want to be another beautiful and perhaps even profitable football project. Zenit has a special meaning for residents of St Petersburg and the region ... We want to prevent the transformation of Zenit from unique auteur cinema into a Hollywood blockbuster."

And this is where the issues start to become complicated. Celtic and Ajax fans – rightly — take great pride in the fact that their European Cup-winning teams of 1967 and 1971-73 were locally produced. Would there not be something to be said for a world in which Liverpool were mainly scouse, West Ham mainly cockneys or PSG mainly Parisian? As a Sunderland fan – and I realise how hopelessly nostalgic this sounds – I would love to be able to point to players and reminisce about the chippy his dad owned in Fulwell, or remark on the fact that his sister works in the pharmacy in Silksworth or joke about how he learned to play behind the crematorium on Chester Road. That is not racist; that is local pride. And how often do pundits and journalists speak unchallenged of the desirability of a Premier League team having an English core?

And that, essentially, is what Landscrona claim they were talking about. They released a second statement on Tuesday that has gone largely unreported – largely because it was relatively sensible (relatively – it references both Mein Kampf and Anders Breivik) and less clumsily phrased than the manifesto. It complained of being misrepresented, of phrases taken out of context.

"Instead of constructive discussion the media decided to only focus on the negative, and in such conditions dialogue is impossible," it said. "Once again, we strongly reject any accusations of racism."

The second statement

We will come back to that, for there are sections of the original manifesto that are impossible to justify, but the second statement goes on: "It is not mentioned anywhere that representatives of some countries or religions do not have the right, in our opinion, to play for Zenit. Any other continents except Europe, in our opinion, should not be the priority for Zenit. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS A TABOO. For example it makes sense that we honestly and professionally take every opportunity to find a player from the region of Russia and Europe.

"In St Petersburg and the football club we absolutely accept tourists from all over the world, and foreign players who come to play for the club: Hulk, Danny, Nicolas Lombaerts, Alejandro Domínguez, Bruno Alves, Martin Skrtel, Axel Witsel and many others. Is it the case that any of the legionaries [the Russian term for players from abroad] had problems of adaptation, caused by the fact that they were poorly treated by the fans? On the contrary, they are given an exceptionally warm reception by his fans and residents of St Petersburg. So it was, is and will continue to be."

Given a fake bomb was found near the training ground with a photograph of Hulk taped to it, that is a slightly unconvincing statement, but what is significant is that Zenit's largest fan group is apparently desperate not to be perceived as racist. Zenit is a club that has historically been racist. Luciano Spalletti, the coach, has spoken in the past of not daring to sign black players because of the reaction of fans. Horrific as it sounds, the very fact that Landscrona recognise racism as a bad thing that they do not want to be seen to be is a major step forward.

It is easy from a distance to condemn Spalletti, to ask how he can countenance staying at a club where he works under such restrictions, but in the summer he signed Hulk, a Brazilian, and Axel Witsel, a Belgian of French Caribbean descent. It caused ructions in the dressing room that were more complex than disputes over pay (although giving a new signing a salary three times that of the club captain is never a recipe for harmony). But both are playing regularly – Hulk pretty poorly, Witsel pretty well – and fans, by and large, have accepted that.

I have no idea what Spalletti's personal views are, although it seems significant that the club was so quick to deny the suggestion it made signings based on ethnicity. I have no idea whether he has a long-term goal of making Zenit a more multi-cultural club. But the fact is that Zenit are more multi-cultural now than they were even two or three years ago. This is an ongoing process.

The spectrum of acceptability

Aside from the overt homophobia, the most disturbing aspect of the Landscrona manifesto was the sliding scale of where players should be signed from: 1) St Petersburg and the Leningrad region; 2) North-west region and central Russia; 3) the rest of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, the Slavic countries, the Baltic states and Scandinavia; 4) the rest of Europe (Although again, if Sunderland wanted to sign players from 1) Wearside; 2) the north-east; 3) Scotland and northern England, would that be such a bad thing?) There are uncomfortable references to "fraternal republics" and "brotherly Slavs". "With Belarus and Ukraine, we are bound by a centuries-old history … the proximity of mindsets, attitudes and behaviours, both on the football field and beyond. We are also close in spirit to the Scandinavians, with the thirst for combat and self-sacrifice in their blood. With the Baltic countries, we have a long history of cross-cultural and business relationships … it is the mentality most suitable for us in a nation: quiet, responsible, professional, with no inclination to posturing and simulation, etc."

Whether conscious or not, there are echoes of the notion of Kyivan Rus, the ideal espoused by various right-wing groups of a vast Slavic state with its capital in Kyiv that would encompass Scandinavia (one of the theories for the origin of the term "Russia", in fact, is that it means "land of rowers" and refers to the Northmen who rowed from Sweden along the Dniepr and the Volga in the late seventh century). As soon as there is talk of characteristics borne by blood, denials of racism become far harder to sustain.

The real test of whether Landscrona are genuinely racist or whether they simply want to retain a sense of local identity, of course, would be in their reaction to a black player born in St Petersburg. In that regard the second heading "Zenit and black players" makes for uncomfortable reading: "We are not racists, and for us, the lack of black players at Zenit is only an important tradition, which emphasises the identity of the club and nothing more. By preserving that tradition, Zenit has its own identity in the world of football, along with counts the number of football clubs have retained their identity."

There is no glossing over that: if that means, as it appears to, that Zenit's identity is as a club with no black players, then it is racist. "Why is the approach of Athletic from Bilbao widely admired, when it is based on its own children from the region?" the manifesto goes on. "Why are the leadership of the club and its fans not constantly under pressure and accused of being racist?" That is pretty easy: Athletic's Basque-only policy does cause unease, but when in 2009 the club fielded its first mixed-race player in Jonás Ramalho, the son of an Angolan father and a Basque mother, it was made clear that Basqueness was not related to skin colour.

"We, as the most northern club of major European cities, never mentally were associated with Africa or to South America or Australia and Oceania," the manifesto states. "We have absolutely nothing against the people of these and any other continents, but we want primarily at Zenit to have players who are close to us in spirit and mentality. Now at Zenit, black players are being imposed almost by force." That also is disturbing for it suggests a fundamental and irrevocable divide between those who are black and those who are from St Petersburg. Yet the lines that follow merely reiterate common platitudes about players from warm climates struggling in cold temperatures – the Messi on a Tuesday night in Stoke paradigm.

The bigger picture

It is the more recent statement, though, that is the more significant. The manifesto itself makes several good points about commitment, about the need to play in a certain spirit and about the desire for fans not to feel "shame" at the actions of their players. It raises issues about the corporate nature of modern football that the vast majority of fans would rally behind. It also makes some very confused statements about race and identity, justifiable points about regional pride mingling with base prejudice.

But the most significant aspect is surely the backtracking of the second statement, playing down the racist aspects and emphasising the fact that hoping for a local core does not mean not welcoming outsiders, no matter their background. The general reaction has been horror at the unpleasantness of elements of the manifesto. That is not unjustified but there should be a recognition that the manifesto represents an attempt by a group of fans to work out complex issues of identity in a changing world. There are elements that are unpalatable, and they should of course be condemned, but this actually probably represents a step in the right direction.

It is disingenuous and/or naive of Landscrona to protest that so much has been made of the elements of the manifesto that deal with race but it says much for both their embarrassment and their recognition of the need for tolerance that they now insist the most important aspect of their open letter was that "related to the behaviour of players outside of the football field and the huge salaries and the corruption of football."

It is a long and difficult road away from prejudice but it does at least feel that Zenit have taken their first steps along it.