It’s ‘Time’ To Change The Game- Opinion

Arsene Wenger has been concerned with making changes to the offside laws for a few years now, and his latest proposals are reportedly under consideration. However, as Wenger looks to change one rule I believe it is time we took another opportunity for change seriously.

At the Qatar World Cup last year, the average game length at the end of the tournament was over 100 minutes as officials looked to follow FIFA instructions to crack down on deliberate time-wasting. But surely, rather than adding on all these minutes, we have the technology available to introduce a stopwatch to proceedings. The clock would stop every time the ball went dead and restart when play did. 

The following data and ticket price information is based on the Premier League and not the Football League but the problem of lost game time is one that is not only seen in the top divisions.

Value for money for fans

It seems rarely the case but fans have to be at the forefront of any changes to the game. Football seems to have moved away from entertainment and is very much business these days, with the astronomical sums we see involved in the top levels of the game. Let’s be honest, and I haven’t delved into the figures, football at the top level could live without fans. Yes, there may need to be some adjustments but the ticket-buying fan doesn’t seem essential anymore. 

Drop down the pyramid and the match-going fan is still vital to their team’s survival and success. However, are fans being short-changed by the ‘product’ that their money is receiving? Looking at the average cheapest season ticket prices in the Premier League and the time the ball is in play you would have to say yes. Based on 2022-23 figures, the average price of the 20 Premier League club’s cheapest season ticket stood at over £500, which is almost £27 a game.  

With the ever-increasing price of football, the following statistics from Opta Analyst help to prove the average fan is not getting their money’s worth. Statistics for the 2022-23 season show that the ball was in play for an average of 54 minutes and 49 seconds, meaning over 35 minutes of play was lost. Or, to put it another way, pay £30 for a ticket and get less than £20 worth of that back in action. 

Aside from the monetary aspect, any attempt to cut out deliberate and extensive time-wasting is surely providing better value for the paying fans who won’t have to sit through feigned injuries and general slow play.

How long would a match last?

The main issue here would be the length of the match. Do we stick with 90 minutes or do we make changes to the length of a football match? Would 60-minute matches be a better alternative? That would already add around 5 minutes to the amount of action fans are currently witnessing. 

The length of the match would perhaps be determined by how strict the stoppages would be. Would the clock be stopped for every stoppage in play? For example, every time the ball goes out for a throw-in or would it be restricted to the lengthier stoppages such as goals, substitutions and the blatant time wasting at goal kicks? 

If every stoppage would bring a pause in the clock, then perhaps the shortened period of 60 minutes would be a better choice and would still guarantee more time in play and hopefully, eventually, eradicate time wasting.

Impact on the fans

Sports such as rugby and American football use the top clock system. Matches in the NFL are known to last for hours but this wouldn’t be the case in football due to the different nature of the sport. Offence and defence wouldn’t be forever alternating and the game wouldn’t have the scrimmage stoppages either. 

It may take some time for fans to get used to the potentially extended time a match will take and this will need to be taken into consideration when kick-off times are arranged to minimise impact for those fans travelling, for example, by train. 

To minimise the impact on fans, the argument of a 60-minute match raises its head again. A rough estimate would be that a match would last slightly over two hours should we stick with 90 minutes. However, should we drop to 60 minutes, the total time would remain around the 90 to 100-minute mark. 

Ticket prices

If the timings of the game were to be adjusted, how would that impact the price for the match-going fan? We are currently asked to pay a price that is judged suitable for a 90-minute spectacle so should the time of a match come down, shouldn’t the price of a ticket do the same?

I doubt anyone truly believes that would be the case and you might even see some clubs claiming that prices should increase as the fans are now getting more minutes of action. 

Would it improve the game?

In terms of wasting time, introducing a stop clock would, in theory at least, eventually bring an end to time-wasting in an attempt to waste valuable seconds and hope they are not added back on at the end of the half. 

Speaking on the Undr The Cosh podcast, recent York City signing and then Sheffield Wednesday goalkeeper David Stockdale briefly discussed his time-wasting exploits and how the minutes that he wasted were then not added back on. “Must’ve wasted about seven minutes but what was worse was the ref added about three minutes. Their manager was going spare!” was his explanation of an incident involving a water bottle as Wednesday were beating Charlton Athletic. 

However, will it eradicate the stoppages to the game where players take an age to be substituted or stay down on the turf for a little longer than needed? Stockdale goes on to explain how momentum is a reason behind slowing the game down. Reminiscing about his time at Wycombe, the stopper discusses a study that shows momentum changes even after a simple stoppage like a player receiving treatment. 

The York keeper used his experience to stop play when the opposition was on top by doing things such as taking his gloves off and tying his laces or just staying down and requiring treatment. Any stopwatch won’t put an end to antics like this to disrupt the flow of a game. 

To summarise

Would introducing a stop clock to football eradicate the slowing of play? No, probably not. However, would it provide the fans with a better value for money than they currently receive? I would argue that it would. 

With the cost of football rising and disposable income falling for many, providing a better return for the hundreds of pounds that it costs to watch your team has to be seen as a positive. 

What it will do is rid football of the huge amounts of match time that is lost to the different stoppages throughout the match. For the ball to be in play for less than 55 minutes of the 90 is poor and does need looking at.

The difficulty would arise the lower you went down the football pyramid due to the potential need for extra officials to keep time and the lack of technology that would be available in the professional game.