The Game-Changing Future of Football: Rule Changes You'll Love and Hate to Miss!

We requested your input on desired rule changes for football. Which ideas resonated with you... And which ones were disregarded?

Throughout the years, football has adapted to the evolving landscape, and the Laws of the Game have played a pivotal role in this evolution. Various changes, such as the back-pass rule, the incorporation of VAR, and the introduction of goal-line technology, as well as the inclusion of substitutes in the professional game since 1958, have all shaped the sport.

As part of our Future of Football series, we are focusing on the progress of rule changes in the coming decades. IFAB, the international governing body responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the game's laws, will oversee this process annually.

Earlier this year, we conducted a survey among nearly 7,000 individuals on We, seeking their opinions and ratings on various potential rule changes using a scale of 1-10. From their responses, we selected six new additions for an 11-vs-11 game, including a couple of our own suggestions, which are presented below for your viewing.

Here's what you thought of the initial suggestions, from the ones you loved to the ones you were, let's say, less keen on.

Datawrapper

Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this.

Open Privacy Options

For more information regarding the specific rules, they have been comprehensively outlined and elaborated upon at the conclusion of this article.

Retrospective punishment for diving emerged as the most significant aspect of the new rules proposed. This aspect already possesses certain precedents but continues to occur frequently, even with the implementation of VAR in the Premier League. A significant majority of almost 68 percent of individuals rated this addition as a perfect 10/10 for enhancing the game.

The idea soon followed that only team captains should be permitted to communicate with referees, a concept already embraced in rugby union, a sport that places greater emphasis on respecting match officials than football does. FIFA previously contemplated implementing this rule in 2016, but it did not come to fruition.

Another noteworthy proposal, which we've borrowed from rugby union once again, is a 10-minute sin-bin for dissent. This rule has gained significant support and has already been introduced in grassroots football.

At the opposing end of the spectrum, the concept of a 10-minute power play, in which each team selects an opposing player to be temporarily sidelined, was met with minimal enthusiasm. Similarly, ideas such as awarding an additional point for a victory and abolishing the offside rule altogether were deemed, perhaps predictably, to be excessively radical.

In today's era of football analytics, delving deeper than surface-level statistics uncovered how some of our proposals truly sparked a division within the public opinion, as illustrated in the chart below.

Datawrapper

Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this.

Open Privacy Options:

Only 40 percent of individuals prefer watching tennis over tuning into 60-minute matches where the clock stops whenever the ball goes out of play. Surprisingly, 29 percent of individuals view this as the best thing since sliced clearances. However, it should be noted that this new rule suggestion ranks fifth overall.

33 percent of respondents rated the idea of managers having three VAR challenges per game at the highest score of 10/10, while 40 percent gave it a score of five or lower. Additionally, 20 percent of respondents expressed strong opposition to this idea. The proposal to move the free-kick wall back to 12 yards, decrease the size of women's goals, and permit individuals to take free-kicks to themselves also generated significant divisions among the participants. These three proposals were among the top eight most controversial rules out of the 24 that were suggested.

Datawrapper

Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this.

Open Privacy Options

IFAB: We never dismiss an idea immediately

In your rankings, you were more than eager to inform us about a wide range of rule-change suggestions, ranging from the excellent to the absurd. However, it is important to note that what may appear promising on paper often differs in practice. Throughout the years, IFAB has experimented with numerous seemingly ordinary proposals that did not gain traction, as well as unconventional ideas that unexpectedly became successful.

Consider the ABBA penalty shoot-out, which aimed to eliminate the advantage of going first, but was swiftly discontinued in recent seasons. Lukas Brud, the IFAB secretary, highlighted the importance of not disregarding any proposed changes to the rules of the game. Instead, he emphasized the need to thoroughly analyze all suggestions and assess their potential impact on the current laws.

"We do receive ideas and thoroughly review the suggestions brought to our attention," he mentioned. "Take the ABBA penalty proposal, for instance. While it was believed that it could enhance the fairness of penalties, it resulted in substantial confusion. Eventually, we decided it was worth trialing but not something we are currently contemplating for the future.

Image:

The average male height has risen by 10cm since goal sizes were formalised in the 19th century... So is it time something changed?

There are other areas that we believe should be further explored and tested to determine if there is a viable solution to a problem at hand. The order of penalty kicks may not be the primary issue, but whenever there is a challenge that hinders the improvement of the game, whether it be in terms of fairness, attractiveness, or player health, it is imperative that we address it.

We do not immediately dismiss any idea. Instead, we thoroughly assess it against existing rules and regulations of the game to determine if there is potential for improvement in that particular area. This includes considering possible interpretations or additions to the existing rules that could accommodate the proposed idea.

Dermot's view: Power plays, throw-in rules and timekeepers

"The power play during the 11-a-side trial match caught my attention for its intriguing and intelligent implementation. One of the teams, having fallen behind by a goal, strategically utilized the power play to swiftly regain their scoring advantage within the designated 10-minute period while a player from the opposing team was temporarily off the field.

The winning team strategically kept their paper dry, waiting for a later point in the game to determine the best player and substitute them, resulting in improved performance. This approach allowed both teams to engage in different tactical thinking.

I ponder whether sin-bins will be implemented in professional games, considering the much faster pace compared to grassroots level. The question of how to keep a player in rhythm if they're off the pitch for 10 minutes arises. Perhaps having exercise bikes on the side of the pitch could address this concern.

"I constantly advocate for the consistent implementation of two rules: during throw-ins, it should be a simple affair where the closest player retrieves the ball and throws it. It truly perplexes me as to why a player is compelled to pass it to a second, and then a third player.

Image:

We applied six rules to an 11-vs-11 game refereed by former Premier League official Dermot Gallagher, to see what might and might not work in the football of the future

Since 1995, I have consistently advocated for the implementation of an independent timekeeper and suggested playing 35 minutes per half. However, if this duration seems excessive, 30 minutes per half would suffice. Having an impartial timekeeper would effectively address the issue of wasted time within games, even when referees add on additional minutes. The amount of time indicated by a referee is insignificant unless it directly leads to a momentous goal. If, for instance, I display six minutes of added time and a victorious goal is scored after five minutes and 50 seconds, I am subjected to criticism. The presence of an independent timekeeper would eliminate such objections.

What rules did we put forward?