One of the most important aspects of soccer is fitness. Players can easily cover several miles of running over the course of 90 minutes. Soccer’s rulemakers have been frugal about allowing substitutes; the current standard of three was adopted only 25 years ago. Substitutes were allowed in the World Cup finals only in 1970 (and that probably was a concession to World Cup matches played in midday heat in Mexico).
When professional soccer leagues restarted in May and June following COVID-19 lockdown, a significant change to the substitution rule came into play. The maximum of three substitutes per match was increased to five. The rationale behind this change was related to player health and safety, due to players having been idle for many months and the remainder of league seasons having been compressed into a small calendar window. The International Football Association Board (IFAB) allowed for a temporary amendment to Law 3 of the FIFA Laws of the Game. The amendment also stipulated that each team had to make their player switches during three substitution windows, so as not to excessively slow games down.
For the post-COVID-19 landscape, the rule change seemed like a good idea. Spain’s La Liga returned to action on June 11 and had just 35 days to complete the final 11 rounds of the season. Other leagues in Europe similarly scrambled to get their seasons completed by the end of July. Players appeared to be far from full match fitness in the early games played after the re-start, so the amendment to Law 3 benefitted the players and benefitted the sport itself.
The IFAB, however, made it clear the five-substitutes rule could stay in effect beyond July 2020, and acknowledged that the effect of the pandemic could impact the 2020-21 season. As a result, leagues were left to decide individually whether to continue with the amended rule. It seems likely that the five-substitute maximum will be here to stay through July 2021.
But does this extension make sense? It certainly did at a time when players might not have been fully fit and lots of matches were squeezed into a narrow timeframe. Even with many European leagues delaying the start of the 2020-21 season until mid-September, the league schedules will only be slightly more compressed than normal. Player fitness certainly cannot be a good reason for extending the amended rule; which players won’t be fully fit by the time their competitions start up again?
The biggest negative of the extension is the advantage it gives to bigger clubs, who routinely stockpile talent. When the English Premier League voted to approve the five-substitutes rule, four clubs voted against it. In most competitive environments, the talent gap between the top teams and the bottom teams is typically pretty wide. When a bottom team lines up their first XI against that of a top team, that bottom team has to work hard to remain competitive on the field. The talent gap between the starters of the teams may not be huge, but the gap is really evident once coaches start bringing players in off of the bench. Bringing five players into a match versus three exposes this wide gap.
In order to maintain the current level of competitive balance, teams should rely more on squad rotation than on having two extra substitutes. The top sides will still be a step head of the competition when they rotate their lineups. But squad rotation provides bottom teams the opportunity to save their best players for the days when they square off against top teams.
Be First to Comment