Nothing riles up the football community quite like a rule change.
With five substitutes available instead of the traditional three, there’s considerable debate about the potential effects of the relief measure. The International Football Associated Board amended the rule to keep players fresh during the pandemic, but who’s to say it won’t become a permanent addition to the so-called Laws of the Game?
Some believe the exemption encourages managers to rotate their squads, while others insist it only extends the gap from the elite and encourages the world’s richest clubs to stockpile talent.
Here, theScore’s Anthony Lopopolo and Daniel Rouse make the case for both sides of the discussion.
Keep it, it’s good for the game
Lopopolo: Anything that supports players’ welfare is good for the sport. We have to remember how often these guys play. Some of them reach upwards of 60 matches per season, and that’s not even including international friendlies and fixtures, which seem to increase by the year. It’s a ridiculous workload, and, quite frankly, the reason why so many games descend into unwatchable dross.
Managers can now ease the load on these players and give chances to those who’d otherwise rot on the bench. They can even fill out their squad with youngsters from the academy and offer a legitimate route into the first team. Pep Guardiola, for example, has lamented on several occasions that he couldn’t give Phil Foden enough playing time. That’s possible with an additional two substitutes in the offing.
Victoria Haydn / Manchester City FC / Getty
It’s not only the biggest clubs that benefit, either. Teams that sit lower in the table could change tactics midgame and replace players in high-energy positions more frequently. We could see more comebacks this way. No lead would be safe.
The rule would also embolden managers to swap out any concussed player. Coaches wouldn’t have to worry about losing a substitution. They could put health first for a change and make a sub they would’ve thought twice about in the past.
Ditch it, it’s another tweak that helps the elite
Rouse: The issue with overworked players lies primarily with football authorities shoehorning in as many fixtures as possible, rather than whether someone can be subbed off after 76 minutes. FIFA & Co. will be tempted to cram in more matches if the game’s biggest stars are getting more rest.
“There was not one day where FIFA, UEFA, the Premier League, (and) the Football League sit at a table and think about the players and not about their wallet,” Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp said of fixture congestion in November.
CARL RECINE / AFP / Getty
One of the main problems is that it threatens to make the gap between the best and the rest even greater. Manchester City called Gabriel Jesus, Kevin De Bruyne, Aymeric Laporte, and Leroy Sane off the bench last month against Burnley – and had the luxury of leaving Raheem Sterling, Benjamin Mendy, Kyle Walker, and Ilkay Gundogan unused – while the Clarets could fill only seven of their allotted nine substitutes, two of whom were goalkeepers. That’s hardly an even playing field. City won 5-0.
Clubs with greater resources can also make in-game changes to prepare for their next fixture. Ole Gunnar Solskjaer took off Paul Pogba, Bruno Fernandes, Anthony Martial, Marcus Rashford, and Mason Greenwood all at once when his side was 3-0 up against Sheffield United a few weeks ago. Free-scoring Manchester United can do that, but when do the Blades have the luxury of resting that many players at the end of matches?
I’ve left the most serious issue to last: extra substitutes reduces the likelihood of an outfield player going in goal, and we all enjoy that.
The NFL responded Tuesday night to the NFLPA’s counterproposal on coronavirus-related reopening protocols, but a source told ESPN that some major issues remain unresolved, including a dispute over whether COVID-19 should be classified as a “non-football injury.”
According to sources, the NFLPA has made several requests of the league, including daily COVID-19 testing, the elimination of all preseason games, financial and other compensation for players who opt out of playing for COVID-related reasons and a provision that would keep the 2021 salary cap from going down due to lost 2020 revenue.
Teams in all competitions will have the option of bringing on five substitutes through the 2020-21 season, the International Football Association Board confirmed Wednesday.
IFAB said it extended the measure because of the “impact on player welfare of competitions being played in a condensed period and in different weather conditions.”
The organization amended the rule – which previously limited substitutions to three per match – as European leagues prepared to resume play in May. Most domestic competitions were suspended for three months due to the coronavirus pandemic.
It’s unclear if the rule will apply to national teams competing in the European Championship and Copa America, which were postponed until the summer of 2021. Both tournaments are expected to begin June 11, 2021. IFAB said it will extend the option to international competitions taking place in July and August 2021.
Managers will only have three opportunities to make changes during a match. Changes at halftime won’t count toward that limit of three.
IFAB, which determines the laws of the game and is independent from FIFA, said most leagues will continue to cram in matches in order to complete the 2020-21 season. Leagues like the Italian Serie A, which is expected to play into August, will also have a shorter turnaround between the current season and the next.
The exemption has drawn criticism from several leading figures in the football industry, including Sky Sports pundits and former Premier League players Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher.
“This is nonsense!” Carragher wrote on Twitter.
Some believe the ruling benefits richer clubs with deeper squads, while others see it as an opportunity to give academy graduates and youngsters more playing time.
The road to a new nickname, one that has existed for 87 years for Washington’s football team, was decades in the making for some.
But for Washington owner Dan Snyder, it was almost an overnight decision.
While the battle over opponents of the franchise’s name had gone on since the early 1970s, it wasn’t until the past month and a half that the pace changed from a light jog to a Usain Bolt sprint.
Here’s a look at what has transpired, ending with Snyder’s monumental decision to retire the name.
May 25: George Floyd’s death
ESPN NFL reporter John Keim explains why this time the Washington franchise decided to move on from the nickname and what it might mean for other teams with Native American nicknames. Listen
Floyd’s death while in police custody in Minneapolis spurred protests, riots and a social movement in the United States and across the globe. It led to statues being toppled and taken down, Confederate flags being banned from NASCAR tracks and the Mississippi state flag being retired. The coronavirus pandemic had left the country with time to think, which resulted in louder and louder shouts for change.
And it eventually led to more pressure being applied to Washington’s franchise to change its name. Whenever the team’s Twitter account tweeted, many replies included #changethename.
June 1-5: Companies voice support for social justice movement
The fact that multiple companies, including sponsors of the team and the NFL, spoke out in support of social justice reforms became more important three weeks later. It laid the groundwork for a letter that was sent to multiple sponsors by advocacy investment groups. On June 1, Nike dropped an advertisement that played off their “Just Do It” slogan saying, “For once, Don’t Do It” in regards to police brutality.
Four days later, Nike releases another statement that read in part, “Systemic racism and the events that have unfolded across America over the past few weeks serve as an urgent reminder of the continued change needed in our society.”
Meanwhile, Bank of America pledged $1 billion over four years to invest in “communities of color and minority-owned businesses.” The company released a statement that read: “The events of the past week have created a sense of true urgency that has arisen across our nation, particularly in view of the racial injustices we have seen in the communities where we work and live. We all need to do more.”
When advocacy investor groups saw those words, their eyes got wide. It opened a door for an argument to separate them from the NFL franchise’s nickname.
play
1:11
Former CB Darrell Green is grateful for Dan Snyder’s decision to change Washington’s mascot and logo, and adds that he’s ready to throw away his old jerseys and helmets for new ones.
Mid-June: Advocacy groups mobilize
Jonas Kron, the senior vice president and director of shareholder advocacy for Trillium Asset Management, couldn’t recall exactly when things got started, but it was around the middle of June. That’s when 11 years of groundwork on pushing for a name change turned into overnight success.
Kron said they had been working on the investment community since 2009 about advocacy investing. Had they waited until now to begin discussions on this topic, he said, they would not have had success.
“If we had come to them for the first time in June, they would have had a lot of homework to do,” he said. “It would have taken time to create that education. We had over a decade of work in the investor community on this.”
Kron said companies don’t move fast until it’s necessary. Hence, 11 years of groundwork resulting in seismic change in a short period.
“My experience is companies like FedEx, Nike, Pepsi and Bank of America rarely change what they’re doing because of one thing,” Kron said. “It’s always a constellation of events that comes to bear to get a company to make those changes. The constellation had not come together, yet.
2 Related
“The thing we had been warning them about was the risk to their reputation and being on the wrong side of history. We had just not made that clear enough for them and had not been persuasive enough, then eventually we were. Eventually the risk really did manifest itself.”
But during this same period, the Washington team was on a parallel track to considering change. As protests over racial injustice and police brutality reached many cities, team owner Dan Snyder initiated a dialogue with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell about changing the name, according to a source. Whether he knew riding out the storm wouldn’t work as it had in the past, or if he had a change of heart remains uncertain. Snyder hasn’t addressed his motives for a change in thinking.
Snyder also donated $250,000 for initiatives for an organizational town hall program for players and staff to discuss racism.
June 26: Letter sent to sponsors
A letter signed by 87 shareholders and investors worth a combined $620 billion was sent to three companies that are NFL and/or sponsors of Washington’s team: FedEx, PepsiCo and Nike. They asked these companies to sever ties with the team unless it changed the name. Six days later, Adweek wrote a story on this topic, at which point multiple people, some of whom know Snyder well and some who work for the team, had the same opinion: It’s over. This, said one person who used to work for the franchise, was different than other attempts to get them to change the name in the past.
Carla Fredericks, who is the director of the American Indian Law Clinic and director of First Peoples Worldwide, said over the years she has seen how companies wake up “a little too late” and face negative consequences for shareholders. She said advocacy by institutional investors had been going on since the early 1990s. It’s a dilemma sometimes for companies: Their primary role is to make money for investors. If there are problematic issues, but the company isn’t suffering financially, there’s little reason to change. “In this case, their own statements moved the needle,” she said. “It was straightforward, that commitments on racial justice should have commitments to native people.”
June 30-July 1: At first unsure, Rivera embraces change
On June 30, Washington coach Ron Rivera appeared on Chicago radio station 670 The Score and, when asked about the name, said, “That’s a discussion for another time. I feel a guy that’s my age, my era, you know, that was always part of football, the name of the Washington Redskins.”
Rivera then elaborated: “It’s all about the moment and the timing. But I’m just somebody that’s from a different era, when football wasn’t such a big part of the political scene. That’s one of the tough things for me, too, is I’ve always wanted to try to keep that separate. People have wanted me to get involved in politics while I was coaching, and I kept telling them, ‘It’s not for me to get up there and influence people.’ I have my beliefs. I know what I think. I support the movements, support the players. I believe in what they’re doing. Again, I think there are certain elements to certain things that’s all about the timing and the best time to discuss those things.”
Snyder had been talking to Goodell for nearly two weeks when he approached Rivera and asked him what he thought. They agreed now was as good a time as any to initiate a change. By then, a source said, Snyder had already made up his mind about what he wanted to do and had people looking into potential names. He just sought feedback from his new coach.
It was an awkward spot for someone who has yet to coach a game in Washington. But Snyder wanted a coach-centric approach after play
While Snyder was already reviewing the name, others viewed this as a pivotal day in the fight to get it changed. FedEx, which owns the naming rights to the stadium, issued a statement saying it wanted Washington to change its name. To those who wanted the name changed, not knowing Snyder’s path, they viewed this as a seismic shift.
“When FedEx came out with their statement, I knew that was the end of it,” Fredericks said.
It wasn’t just about FedEx now applying pressure on Snyder; it was also about seeing where the movement was headed and the fact that major corporations would be on board with forcing change.
“When we saw FedEx move that was, from our point of view, that the dam was starting to break,” Kron said.
Sources said FedEx CEO Fred Smith had discussed a name change with Snyder in the past. Around six years ago, there was a proposal filed by shareholders of FedEx to vote on whether the company should continue sponsoring Washington’s stadium. While it was voted down, it did lead to a conversation between Smith and Susan White, a former director of the Oneida Trust Enrollment Department. She died in 2018, but Kron wondered whether she had a lasting impact on Smith.
“She told him, as a Native American and as an investor, as a human being, these are my problems with the name,” Kron said. “Did that plant a seed in his head? I don’t know. But I know the conversation happened. And I know Susan was a compelling combination of a Native American woman, and an investor of a very large trust. She could speak with a profound authority that very few people could.”
Kron said White was also clear about this: “Sponsors had a critical role to play in this process. That’s why we focused on them.”
