Four changes I'd make if I was running FIFA...

Thought it might be interesting to start a thread to discuss what changes YOU would make if you were sitting in Sepp Blatter's chair....

Here are the changes I would make:

1) Reduce the voting power of small nations within FIFA on World Cup matters. It's not just coincidence that the recent bribery/corruption scandal has primarily involved FIFA vice-presidents from Trinidad & Tobago (qualified once) and Qatar (never qualified). It's just my opinion, but I think that FIFA representatives from small countries which have little to no chance of qualifying for the WC are much more likely to view their role within FIFA as a path to personal enrichment and therefore behave corruptly. My solution would be to limit voting on WC matters only to countries which have qualified for the WC in the past 20 years, which I think would currently be approximately 55-60 out of FIFA's 208 members.

2) Take steps to reduce the wear and tear on players (and the risk of injury) by placing limits on the number of matches a player can play in a given 12-month period (How many people realize that Lionel Messi played 60 matches from 6/1/10 to 6/1/11). As a step towards that goal, I would limit the top divisions of domestic leagues to 18 teams, only allow countries to have one domestic cup competition, limit continental championships (i.e. Africa Cup of Nations, Gold Cup, Asian Cup, etc.) to once every four years, and mandate that each federation's WC qualifying process encompass no more than twelve matches per team (Africa and UEFA already do this).

3) End all the arguing about how many WC spots each federation deserves by simply expanding the intercontinental playoffs at the end of the qualifying process. Twenty-two teams would qualify automatically...10 from UEFA, and three each from the other four federations. The final ten spots would be from the playoffs, which would have 8 teams from UEFA and three teams each from the other four federations (Oceania would have to first win a playoff with Asia team #6). Only stipulation for playoff matchups would be that no teams from the same federation could be paired against each other. UEFA would then have a potential range of 10-18 teams at the WC, with the other four federations each having a potential range of 3-6 teams.

4) Reduce the pressure on referees, especially with regards to PK decisions and yellow/red cards. First, shrink the size of the penalty box from it's current size of 18x40 (720 sq yards) to 12x24 (288 sq yards), thus reducing by 60% the area in which defensive fouls result in PK's. Second, give referees the option of awarding a direct free kick for fouls inside the box (such as shirt-pulling, pushing on set pieces, etc.) which do not directly deny a scoring opportunity. Together, those two changes should reduce the number of controversial PK decisions significantly, thus reducing some of the pressure on referees. Third, mandate that a given player's 2nd foul of a match is an automatic yellow and 3rd foul an automatic red. This should not only reduce the number of petty fouls overall, but also reduce some of the pressure on refs with regard to decisions whether or not do give a player a yellow/red card by taking away the responsibility for judging a foul's severity.

Thoughts?

Other ideas for potential changes?

I'll comment on #4, from the perspective of a ref:

- if you want to reduce the pressure on refs, make the PA BIGGER, not smaller. Many fewer penalties happen inside than outside the PA, defenders know the price they will pay so they are much more careful. If you made it smaller, it would actually reduce offensive chances because now defenders would take down attackers closer to the net.

- Option of a DFK inside, I don't agree, especially if the PA is smaller, what you've done is made them PK anyway in most cases. Since defenders must be 10 yds from the ball, the only time the DFK would allow a wall by defense is on the edge of the PA.

- Second foul = caution, third = send off I don't think so. Refs already have the power to basiclly do this with a Persistent infringement card, though rarely on 2nd foul. If you mandate this it introduces one logistical problem in the ref having to record each fouler, thus slowing down the game, and would probably add hesistancy to call the 3rd foul on a "normal" foul. I'd say let the refs use the powers they already have, but remove the whining that is shoved on them when they send off players or caution players.

If we're going to go down that route, then the battle for World Cup allocations becomes so much more heated. Rather base it off the FIFA rankings, or keep it as one FA, one vote.

1st part will never happen unless the reduction is in International games. The clubs develop and pay the players - if FIFA starts dictating how many games a player can play then the ECA will be up for a fight.
2nd part will never happen as clubs would lose too much revenue from matchday and TV.
3rd part, agree entirely.

I'm in favour of more international play-offs, but I would prefer to see greater possible opportunities for the non-UEFA countries. CAF, for example currently has 5 places - with a maximum of 6 under your proposal the risk of sending fewer teams is greater than the potential to send 6.

I can't disagree with anything NHRef said on this point.

Don't agree with the last bit (bolded). CONMEBOL has the best WC qualifying format, who would want to mess with that? Sure its long, but there is no qualifying for Copa America. Maybe just change that last part to "no more than 24 qualifying matches per 4-year cycle." Though I think the ridiculous # of friendlies is more the problem. So I'd also add "no more than 2 int'l friendlies per year, not counting the month before a World Cup."

Many fewer penalties happen inside because the game is called differently inside the box (advantages always given to the defending team inside, while outside the game is called "fairly"). This suggests that refs are hesitant to make big decisions. The bigger the box, the more big decisions will need to be made. Hence, more pressure on the ref.

Yes SOME penalties that would be called outside the PA are not called inside the PA. But watch defenders, they are MUCH more likely to grab, hold, trip etc outside the PA. Look at how many fouls are committed just outside. Defenders know that the "price" for a foul outside is nothing more than a free kick, which they can then defend with a wall, while the "price" inside the PA is basically a goal. So yes, some refs will have a different tolerance, or definition of "trifling", but the majority is the defenders simply don't do the same level of physical defending that they do outside the PA. Attackers also are not angels in this, they are more likely to dive inside the PA.

By shrinking the PA, you move this line closer to the goal. Now rather than limiting contact 18 yards and closer, you limit it 12 yards and closer. The result will be more fouls to stop shots from 12-18 yards. Given that a large percentage of goals are scored in this window of space, you will, I believe, lower the goal scoring chances.

This is why I also suggested that players automatically receive a yellow card for their second foul of a match and a red card for their third foul...so that they will lose the ability to foul incessantly and have to think a lot more carefully about whether or not to commit tactical fouls. To me, part of the problem with the current rules is that players know that if they are not violent or dangerous, they can often commit four or five fouls before receving their first card. Under my proposal, players would be forced to commit a lot fewer fouls of all types, thereby increasing attacking chances.

Also, one thing I did not mentioned in my OP was that these ideas arise from my belief that much of the problem surrounding PK decisions is the fact that the punishment often does not fit the crime...i.e. a foul in the box which denies a 10-20% scoring chance results in the awarding of a PK which is a 70-80% scoring chance. Maybe my proposed solutions are not the best, but I do think that this disparity between crime and punishment needs to be addressed somehow.

I agree. And I don't think for a second that the PA should be made smaller. But just from the refs POV, it would reduce pressure on him because its much easier to award a free-kick 17 yards out than to award a PK.

Your proposal to card the first, and red card the second foul, I think will have a negative effect. If you think refs are hesitant to call a PK, what do you think will happen if they send off a player for 2-3 "light" fouls? We already see teams, players, coaches, media, leagues etc. all say "clamp down on dangerous fouls", when the ref does and sends someone off, it suddenly turns to "effecting the game" or "enjoyment of fans is decreased" and the ref gets crap for it.

Refs already have the tools to yellow card people for persistent fouls, and for tactical fouls.

I do agree with you on punishment vs crime, statistically I believe a PK is around 80% successfull. that's a huge price for a foul that possibly didn't have a good scoring chance denied. I just don't think your suggestion will have the desired effect.

How about twisting it around, don't change the PA or the fouls, but change the punishment? You went here iwth the DFK vs PK option, but that I don't thikn will work either, what about changing the dynamics of a PK? Make it less likely to score? Two thoughts:

- back the shot up, right now it's done from 12 yards, back them up to 18?
- allow the keeper to come off the line, add another mark on the field that is say 3 yards out from the goal line, keeper can start there?

Oh ya, and tell the keepers to stop guessing and just react! Sure they can't stop a shot to the corner, but at least make the shooter put it in the corner.

Halfway through reading this post, I thought you stole my idea which is...

Move the penalty spot back.

The problem is that the PK is "worth too much." Moving the spot back will devalue the penalty kick.

Right now, the conversion rate of PK's is (guessing) somewhere around 90%. As that percentage declines, refs will be more willing to call fouls in the box (and diving will be less profitable).

I don't know for sure what the "right" conversion rate is (66%, 50%?) to strike a balance between refs calling fouls at the same standard everywhere and not opening the floodgates to reckless fouling in the box.

If it's possible to determine the PK conversion rate that existed when the rules were formalized, it might point the way towards an answer. Games were (I think) higher scoring so a PK might have been "worth less" even if conversion rates were the same.

I also don't know how far back one would move the spot to achieve a conversion rate reduction to 66% or 50%. Any ideas?

Do you even play this sport man? A yellow for a second foul? Do you not realize how easy it is to accidentally commit a foul just by going for the ball? If you are going to set a number on fouls, it has to be at least 4-5 before an AUTOMATIC card comes out. With your suggestion, I doubt there will be a single game that ends with both teams having 11 players on the field. Especially for ticky-tack fouls in the midfield, which happen all the time and are NOT malicious, just the result of playing hard and trying to win the ball. But under your system, these guys going for the ball in the midfield would be sent off all the time, just for playing hard.



Also I disagree on lowering the number of qualifying games. The point of qualifying is to get the best teams on to the next round, not to just get it over with as quickly as possible and get ANY teams on to the next round. The fewer qualifying games, the bigger impact an upset is going to be, and that means there will be a lot more "big names" missing tournaments, like Holland missing the World Cup in 2002 and England missing Euro 2008.

More games = better chance that the best teams actually end up on top. That's why South America is always so strong at the World Cup, because they DO send their best teams. It's never a fluke that someone gets through, because they play so many games to make sure that fluke results (like Bolivia 6 - 1 Argentina) are ironed out in the grand scheme (such as Argentina still qualifying, and Bolivia not). Maybe UEFA and CAF should step back and look at that, to understand that maybe their "success" of having cut the schedule down to so few games is actually hurting them in the World Cup because we have teams like Angola qualifying ahead of Nigeria (2006) and both Turkey and Croatia (two of the top teams from Euro 2008) not even making the playoffs for World Cup 2010 qualifying, etc. But hey, let's send Slovenia and Algeria to the World Cup, instead of Euro semifinalists Russia and 3-time defending African Champion Egypt... as long as we didn't have to play as many games!

I'll respond to both your points in turn.

Yes, I've played the sport for over thirty years, coached it for half as long, and reffed it as well. My attitude is that I want to reduce fouls, period. Fouls slow down the game, disrupt it's flow, and often result in players getting unnecessarily injured. So if my suggestion results in fewer ticky-tack fouls in the midfield by payers challenging for the ball, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. For me, the fact that players today know that they can fly into a reckless tackle with few consequences is not a good thing. I've seen far too many players injured by people who either don't know how to tackle properly or don't care.

Yes, as with all rules changes, it would take a while for players to adjust, and during that period you probably would have a rash of sendings off, but once players do adjust, I think you would have a lot cleaner and free-flowing game with fewer players getting injured. And by making the limits clear right from the start, instead of having them depend on the whims/competence of the ref (in terms of forcing them to judge the severity of fouls), I think players would also end up being happier as well. If refs only have to decide foul/no foul instead of foul/no foul and bad foul/not so bad foul, I think they end up doing a better job as well.

As to your comments on the length of the qualifying process, I will say only that while your logic is sound (i.e. the bigger the statistical sample the more accurate the results will be), your examples are not. Holland (WC 2002), England (Euro 2008), Croatia and Turkey (WC 2010) didn't fail to qualify because they didn't play enough qualifying matches (they all played in group stages with at least ten matches), they failed to qualify because they didn't play well enough to finish higher than third in their groups. Algeria and Egypt played three times (twice in a group stage + plus the one-game playoff), and the better team at that point in time won. DIdn't have anything to do with the number of qualifiers they played.

My problem is the bloated qualifying campaigns in CONCACAF and Asia which both feature completely unneccesary group stages that exist only to line the pockets of the smaller FA's which benefit from having more matches. It's doesn't take a genius to figure out that Mexico and the USA are among the top six teams in CONCACAF. Yet they are forced to play an uneccessary 6 match group stage in order to qualify for the final six team Hex. Likewise with Japan, S. Korea, and Australia, who also have to play unnecessary 6 match group stages just to prove that they are among the best ten teams in Asia. The travel is a huge hassle for the players involved, and the extra matches lead to more injuries.

My suggestion was yellow for the second foul (not the first) and red for the third (not the second). As to the refs getting crap for sending someone off for "2-3 light fouls", I do not think that will be a problem if the rule is clear to everyone beforehand. The reason refs get flack now is because they are asked to JUDGE THE SEVERITY of a foul (something which is very hard to do and which results in much disagreement given that there are no firm standards for doing so) in order to determine whether or not it is cardworthy. Take this responsibility away from them by treating all fouls equally, and I think they receive a lot less flak.

Agree with you on the idea of moving the penalty spot back and/or allowing keepers to move as a means of decreasing the conversion rate on PK's.

Only one change needed. Deliver the brown envelopes to my address.

actually, the rules are pretty clear. you fly in with a reckless challenge and you are off. the problem is the inconsistency in calling these fouls correctly, which, I think, comes mainly from the ref not having a replay and/or a good angle. changing the rules won't make much of a difference, what we need is a consistent reviewing of fouls and dishing out of harsh post-match penalties. adopting a 3-strikes-and-you-are-out policy in soccer will only result in many players getting banned for life for stealing a chocolate bar, and effective defences disappearing from the sport.

In line with making the WC site voting more representative of the actual players, I would include for voters a mix of -

All qualifiers to the last WC finals
All those who advanced out of pool play in the last few years (20?)
One vote for each confederation
Some small number of votes for representatives selected by all those countries not already on the list

In addition, I would allow as candidates only those countries whose proposals have met minimum technical standards, using facilites and technology already demonstrated. A country might propose building new stadiums, but must show how they could conduct the complete tournament using only existing facilities.

As for rules changes, just get rid of offside altogether (after a couple of years of adjustment, we will wonder what all the fuss was about) and fix the horrible passback rule.

It'd be a cheat's charter that would only encourage more diving, but now all over the field, not just in the box. It would be so easy to get players sent off.

1) There will be corruption with this group of leaders no matter what.

2) That won't happen. Someone in another thread said Chuck Blazer was asked about the Gold Cup the other week in a press conference and he said it stays in the USA and is held every 2 years because it makes enough money to fund all other CONCACAF tournaments for 2 years since the rest lose money. This is why none of the other CONCACAF nations even try to host. They want it held in the USA every 2 years.

Didn't FIFA try to force leagues to be no more than 18 teams a few years ago? THe 12 match idea wouldn't work well. That would probably result in a lot of 2 leg playoffs between better teams. I think all of the confederations have qualifying set up pretty good.

Just a quick correction to point #4. The PA is 18 x 44 yds, not 40.
Are you sure you played this game?

Mahalo

The allocation proposed was really a sneaky way of increasing CONCACAF's allocation at the expense of Africa. If you just used the current allocation coverting the last full spot to two playoffs for each confederation (and the last 3 of UEFA's to six spots) it makes more sense to me. CONCACAF will still get to send 5 teams if they are good enough under that system.

These are always fun.

Mine:

1 - Reduce the World Cup cycle from four years to three. The year immediately after a World Cup is the continental championship (which are easier to qualify for, so only need the year), then two years to qualify for the World Cup. I think three years is still long enough not to devalue the tournament.

2 - A DOGSO foul becomes a yellow card, but is a penalty kick no matter where it occurs.

3 - International breaks become two weeks long with three games each (Saturday, Tuesday/Wednesday, Saturday). The midweek friendlies get eliminated.

Thing is, none of the things you mention is actually organized by FIFA. International matches at least touch FIFAs responsibilities, and I would lobby for a reduction there as well - more or less along the lines of what you said - but FIFA simply has no say in domestic or continental club competitions, that is the responsibility of FAs and/or continental associations. Plus, just limiting the size of domestic leagues is worthless anyway, with multiple cup competitions, friendlies and other tournaments, continental tournaments or weird formats (like the division thingy in American sports leagues, or multiple round robins in smaller leagues) to consider... again, it's really not FIFAs place to organize that in a matter that's not overtaxing for the players.

As an alternative, I'd try to go for mandatory leave - require players to have at least 3 or 4 weeks off per season.

Your idea for improving FIFA is to make it less democratic? Corruption is rampant in the sport it is not just Qatar (who might be small, but have BIG money) and T&T but big name agents in some of the most profitable leagues in the world as well.

I would mandate that UEFA co-title their Champions League Final as a Club World Cup Quarterfinal. And add signage to all games indicating that it is part of a bigger CWC system.

This may come as a shock but the Champions League is much bigger than the CWC.

I agree with the bolded but not with the rest. What you propose here are very drastic changes to the game. My views on reducing the referees' pressure (and mistakes) are:

1) Give the assistant referees the freedom to run inside the pitch as necessary and thus be closer to where the action is

2) Give the assistant referees and 4th official the ability to override the central referee when he blows a call; if possible, give the 4th official access to video replay -- I know this has been discussed extensively and there are concerns about the continuity of play, etc. but I feel that referees making the right call is more important than continuity and flow of play.

3) Simply add two more referees, one at each penalty area. More eyes are needed on the action. Think of sports like high level basketball or tennis, where the area of the playing field is approximately 5% of that of a football pitch. They have plenty of judges (and they still blow calls). There is way too much happening in a football match for just one guy to be expected to control everything. To me it is only logical to have more officiating eyes on the match.

Give the referees a fighting chance. Give them every resource they can have to make the right call. No more beautiful goals like Lampard's not being awarded because one guy didn't see it.