Ivan OrekhovSport correspondentAll materialsWe analyze the pros and cons of the upcoming FIFA reform. A year ago, when the Super League project was still being seriously discussed, Real Madrid president Florentino Perez spoke seriously about reducing the playing time of matches.
"Young players complain about long 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 high, you need to think about it" Marca.
But then it was about hour-long meetings with the previous format. Before the spectators had time to take their seats, a third of the match had already flown by. Football would be even more defensive, keeping a one-goal lead would be a breeze.
Real Madrid players rejoice 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 winning year not to cause dissatisfaction in the head: “But in the old days, the team would have had more 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. Pros are