FIFA is exploring the possibility of reducing the time of a football match to 60 minutes

We analyze the pros and cons of the upcoming FIFA reform.
A year ago, when the Superleague project was still being seriously discussed around the world, Real Madrid president Florentino Perez spoke seriously about reducing playing time in matches.

“Young players complain about the long duration of matches. This is a new generation, we must make an effort to understand them. If young players think that the duration of the match is too long, we need to think about it,” Marca quoted the head of the “creamy” Marca.

But then it was about hour-long meetings under the previous format. Before the spectators had time to take their seats, a third of the meeting had already flown by. Football would become even more defensive, keeping a one-goal lead would be a breeze.

© / Anton Denisov / Go to photo bankReal Madrid players celebrate after scoring a goal in the Champions League final

Real Madrid players celebrate after scoring a goal in the Champions League final - 1920, 05/06/2022

"thumbnail": [

{ "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "", "image": "" } , { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "", "image": "" } , { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "", "image": "" }


"width": 640, "height": 427 }

Real Madrid players celebrate after scoring a goal in the Champions League final
And the fans would stop believing in miracles… It would take years, decades for a last-minute rescue or a victorious year not to cause dissatisfaction in the head: “But in the old days, the team would have another half an hour“.
The transience will kill the expectation of the climax of the meeting (the fan’s pizza will not have time to cool down yet, and the match will already cross the equator), the term “Fergie Time”, like many other beliefs about the last minutes of confrontation, will become a story that will not be repeated. Nor will Manchester United’s great performance in the 1999 Champions League final, Sergio Ramos’ brilliant 93rd-minute header in Lisbon, and the many other goals that have made so many fall in love with the #1 sport.
However, what the media is discussing today is strikingly different from Perez’s resonant proposal. Yes, we are talking about 60 minutes again. But pure match time. That is, the referee will stop the stopwatch when the ball goes out of bounds, the player is assisted, a scuffle starts, or the referee wants to talk to the offender/use video replay (VAR). Sounds interesting.

There are pluses

  1. one

    No more wasting time. Simulators will remain in the past, because there will be no more sense in “convulsions” at the Oscars.

  2. 2

    Eliminate stoppage time controversy. There are clean 60 minutes – fight! The scandals around the strange decisions of the judges to add 3, 7 or 10 minutes to the main time will become irrelevant.

  3. 3

    Basically, nothing will change.. As former referee Mark Clattenburg (who officiated the Champions League and EURO finals in 2016) wrote in a column for the Daily Mail, the average time the ball was in play this season in the English Premier League (EPL) was already about 55 minutes.

But what about the cons?

  1. one

    Breaking tradition. Supporters of the classic football format have entered the chat. What is the only fact that 90 minutes will cease to be associated with football, and 45 minutes – with one half!

  2. 2

    Unhappy stopwatch. The match can turn into a terrible drag with constant time stops. Do not confuse with hockey and basketball: there the dynamics are much higher.

  3. 3

    It is not clear what time the meeting will end.. If earlier the broadcast took plus or minus two hours, then with such an innovation it will be more difficult for TV companies to draw up a broadcast schedule. After all, with the clean time of the match, any force majeure on the football field can confuse the TV people’s cards.

What is your opinion on these changes?



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here