“The referee has indicated a minimum of three minutes added time.”
This is a familiar announcement to football fans up and down the country who have become accustomed to seeing the added time at the end of a match fail to adequately cover the time lost to stoppages.
Last season the average in play time in the Premier League was under 55 minutes. That number decreased at each step down the Football League and was just 48 minutes in League Two. There are various reasons for it but goal celebrations, more substitutions and – most frustratingly of all – deliberate time wasting, are amongst the chief culprits.
The issue is not unique to England and last year FIFA sought to tackle it at the men’s World Cup by directing officials to add on more stoppage time at the end of each half. It has now been introduced in domestic leagues to much debate.
The introduction of different rules and initiatives at the start of a season is nothing new. Some have been significant: the ‘pass back’ rule revolutionised the game and its effect is still being seen in the way goalkeeping is evolving. Others have been enforced initially before being quickly forgotten about: when was the last time you saw a goalkeeper penalised for holding the ball for longer than six seconds?
The most vocal objections have come from players and managers. Hugely respected figures such as Raphaël Varane and Pep Guardiola have already expressed concern at the extra physical and mental demands it will place on players, some of whom are playing 60 matches a season for club and country.
And therein lies the real problem.
The issue is not that players are now playing longer matches but that they are already playing too many.
This has been apparent for some time but it shows no sign of changing. In March, FIFA president Gianni Infantino spoke of the need for more football rather than less. The number of teams at the next men’s World Cup will increase by 50% from 32 to 48 and the proposed format includes 104 matches. In addition, a new 32-team Club World Cup will take place every four years from 2025.
UEFA followed a similar approach by increasing the men’s European Championships from 16 to 24 teams in 2016. Next season the Champions League will grow from 32 teams to 36. This might seem a modest increase but a new format will see teams playing eight matches in a single league and those finishing in the play-off places playing a further two to determine the last 16. It means all teams will play more than the current six group matches to reach the same stage.
More football may be welcomed by some fans but probably not by most match going supporters, especially those who follow their team home and away at significant cost. Those watching at home are also likely to see their television subscriptions increase given the greater number of matches available.
This will be of little concern to the governing bodies whose main priority is invariably making greater profits. More football means more money – whether it be ticket sales, broadcasting deals or sponsorships.
Of course, footballers are also well remunerated and there will be those who have little time for concerns about player welfare – as evidenced by some of the comments in response to Varane’s social media post. But the fact they earn vast sums playing a game loved by millions is largely irrelevant to this argument. A big salary does not prevent injuries or fatigue and there is surely a point at which the quality of the product on offer begins to suffer as the demands on players continue to grow.
It is in this context that concerns about longer matches have been raised. But given the current trajectory, what is the solution?
Both FIFA and UEFA should start by looking at the international calendar. This year may be unusual given the timing of the World Cup but ordinarily the season should not be extended into non-tournament summers by scheduling international matches in June. The Nations League was introduced to limit the number of friendlies but holding the semi-finals and final at the end of the club season is an unwelcome addition. Scrapping it and reserving international breaks for tournament qualifiers and the occasional friendly would reduce the number of international dates required.
Domestically, there is some merit in reducing the number of teams in the Premier League from 20 to 18. This would immediately remove four fixtures and bring England in line with countries such as Germany and France. However, it is difficult to see where the impetus or support for such a move would come from given the financial benefits of being in the top flight. The top clubs may be supportive but even they might think twice if it resulted in fewer European places.
It would also have repercussions further down the league pyramid. The Championship, League One and League Two already have 24 teams so the likely outcome of any change to the Premier League would be a reduction in the total number of clubs in the Football League. It is therefore difficult to imagine any club being in favour of this.
Alternatively, it may be time to consider the future of the League Cup. There is some force in the argument for scrapping it altogether – England is one of the few European countries to have two cup competitions – but this would reduce potential income for clubs at the lower end of the Football League.
A less radical approach would be to exclude Premier League sides or those competing in Europe. Both would risk denigrating the competition but the latter would at least help to ease the burden on the clubs at greatest risk of fixture congestion. While those clubs may be reluctant to give up the chance of a trophy, the fact that it represents their fourth priority would arguably make it a worthwhile sacrifice.
Clubs also need to look at the impact of their own decisions on player welfare. This summer 13 Premier League clubs embarked on pre-season tours to the United States, Asia or Australia. Few would claim they were undertaken for footballing reasons – Christian Eriksen highlighted the negative impact of the travel involved on Manchester United’s US tour – but their commercial value means they are an attractive venture for club executives.
All of this illustrates the challenges players and managers face in their desire for a reduced schedule. It remains to be seen whether the stoppage time initiative endures but Howard Webb and the PGMOL appear rightly determined to make sure it does.
This should be welcomed but it needs to be balanced by the authorities taking action to address the more fundamental concern that the number of matches played will lead to player burnout.
It will require a change in priorities but ultimately the game as whole will be poorer for it if they don’t.