Rio Ferdinand will almost certainly miss out on Euro 2004, and possibly much more, because of the missed drug test which has turned his life upside down. Although the English FA has opted against charging him with wilfully evading UK Sport's drug-testers, it still has the power to ban him for two years.

The FA's investigative team, led by its compliance officer Steve Barrow, was bemused to find that last night's indictment of Ferdinand under the FA's rule E26, with reference to regulation 1(c) of the Doping Control Regulations, was perceived by the Professional Footballers' Association as a victory for the Manchester United defender. On the contrary, the FA's stance seems to have hardened considerably, and Alex Ferguson may have to start planning for life without his most expensive player.

Ferdinand (24), has not, as had been anticipated, been charged under rule 1(e) - the offence of wilful obstruction - but well-placed sources at Soho Square confirmed his misconduct charge still incorporates the allegation that he deliberately refused to give a urine sample when it was required on September 23rd. He therefore remains in serious trouble.

With the legal dispute set to drag on well into the new year, if he were found guilty he could be prohibited from kicking a football competitively until 2006.

Mark Palios, the FA's chief executive, is determined to bring football's stance on drugs in line with other sports, and Ferdinand will have noted the punishments meted out to the 20 rugby players who, according to UK Sport figures, failed to comply with drug tests up to July this year. In 18 of those cases, the Rugby Football Union decided the offence was deliberate and handed the players 18-month bans.

Thirty-seven days after Ferdinand left UK Sport's representatives waiting at United's training ground, the FA finally reached the position last night to announce the next stage of its convoluted disciplinary process, having worked through a pile of evidence including statements from the club's doctor Mike Stone, Ferdinand's version of events and his mobile phone records.

The immediate perception was that Ferdinand was facing the lesser of two charges, with Gordon Taylor, the PFA's chief executive, describing it as "good news". However, the FA was at pains to highlight the wording of its statement. Regulation 1(c) refers to "the failure or refusal by a player to submit to drug testing". The FA says the key word is "refusal" and unless Ferdinand can prove this did not apply to him he may face the stiffest sanctions.

If that were to happen, it is difficult to overstate the effect it would have on his career. Already a millionaire, on a financial level the repercussions might not hurt him much, but losing such a large chunk of his career might cause irreparable damage. It would also have serious ramifications for Ferguson and England manager Sven-Goran Eriksson.

There is no guarantee either Manchester United's plc would sanction payment of Ferdinand's £80,000 weekly wage. United can generally be relied upon to look after their employees, but Ferguson would not have the final say in that event and Ferdinand could be suspended for being in breach of contract.

United hope it will not come to that but they, like the PFA, are concerned that in such a big-name case the FA may make an example of him.

"High-profile players deserve the same considerations as anybody else," said Taylor.

The world's richest club have the money, if necessary, to pursue civil action against the FA if they feel their player has been dealt with unjustly.

However, that would contravene article 63 of FIFA's statute: "Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited. Clubs and members are not permitted to take a dispute to the courts but should be required to submit any disagreement to the jurisdiction of the national association, their confederation or the Arbitration Tribunal for Football (the officially recognised international dispute arbitration panel)."

FIFA's president Sepp Blatter intervened in the case of the Paraguayan and South American champions Olimpia last year, threatening them with suspension from all international competitions after the club went to court over two of their players.

Olimpia were within a month of being banned from the Inter-Continental Cup final against Real Madrid and defending their Copa Libertadores crown when they backed down.