Football is being spoiled by time-wasting – what can be done ahead of the World Cup?

Football fans, broadcasters and even head coaches have been complaining this season about excessive time-wasting spoiling the flow of the men’s game.

In the Premier League, the proportion of a match where the ball is in play is at a near-record low. Football’s world governing body Fifa has a target of 60 minutes of ball-in-play per game. Yet two Premier League matches this season had only just above 45 minutes of action – less than half the total match time.

There are numerous factors explaining this decrease. One is the length of time players are taking over each corner, throw-in and free-kick. Repeated injury stoppages (including some that are allegedly faked by players seeking to delay a game) are also blamed – along with lengthy decision-making by each game’s video assistant referee (VAR).

Video reviews have increased the number and length of stoppages, particularly for penalties, red cards and goals. There is now a benefit to staying down after contact in the penalty area while officials check for possible infringements. What might once have been a marginal appeal can trigger a lengthy interruption that, according to our research, is not always fully accounted for in the time added by the referee at the end of each half.

With concerns mounting about how time-wasting could turn off viewers of the men’s World Cup in North America this summer, new rules are being introduced allowing referees to start five-second countdowns at throw-ins and goal-kicks. Teams may also face sanction if their substituted players take longer than ten seconds to leave the field of play.

So, will this make a difference to the amount of action fans see this summer?

Our research, published in the Journal of Sports Economics, suggests no amount of rule-tightening will solve football’s issue with time-wasters until referees are properly supported to withstand the psychological pressure placed on them by players, team officials and fans during each game.

We found that the time taken up by stoppages is often added inaccurately, depending on unconscious biases of referees who alone decide how much time is added. This can especially benefit home teams with stronger support in the stadium.

The “natural experiment” of playing football without fans during the COVID pandemic showed that referees are susceptible to the social pressure exerted by stadium crowds, especially for more subjective or marginal calls like awarding yellow cards and added time.

Football’s early history

Football has always been played in continuous rather than active time. Unlike sports where the clock stops, football absorbs interruptions rather than isolating them. This design goes back to the sport’s early history.

When the match length was standardised in the 19th century, a simple running clock was practical. One interpretation is that 90 minutes became the standard because it reliably produced 60 minutes of ball-in-play action. By the 1890s, this length of match was ingrained in the official rules by the International Football Association Board (Ifab).

The concept of added time was formally adopted in 1891 and applied at the referee’s discretion. It was – and still is – supposed to correct the most obvious losses of time during the 45 minutes of each half.

But added time is not measured mechanically. It is estimated by humans who often apply rules of thumb under pressure from players, managers and spectators.

At the last World Cup in 2022, Fifa extended the amount of added time referees could add at the end of each half in an attempt to discourage players from time wasting. It came close to delivering Fifa’s 60-minute target for ball-in-play. But it came at the expense of games that seemed to go on forever.

Decisions were not the same

We analysed the 2022 World Cup and 2024 European Championship for differences in how referees added time on at the end of the first and second halves. According to Fifa and Ifab, added time should be applied consistently across both halves, since the rules governing stoppage time are identical.

In practice, these decisions were not the same. Referees added on substantially more time in the second half than the first – in part because of the rising stakes of each game as it nears a conclusion. These patterns were stronger at the World Cup, which probably related to Fifa’s edict to increase ball-in-play time.

In particular, we found that referees allowed substantially more stoppage time in tight second halves, while first halves in close (low-scoring) contests were sometimes cut short. This can advantage the trailing team in second halves, giving them a greater chance of getting back to parity since the rate of goal-scoring generally increases as football matches near their conclusion.

Added time is often framed as a technical adjustment. But it is truly where football’s human element is exposed.

Should football introduce a stop-clock?

Does this mean football should follow the path of sports like basketball, American football and rugby and adopt a stop-clock, ending each half when the official time expires (with stopped-clock pauses along the way)? The appeal might seem obvious. But it would also change the nature of football.

We believe matches would grow even longer, interruptions would multiply and lengthen, and the continuous flow that gives the game its rhythm and tension would be under even greater threat.

The temptation to factor in television commercial windows might also grow. This summer’s World Cup will already include three-minute hydration breaks in the middle of every half to mitigate high temperatures in games.

Ultimately, added time is a reminder of what football is: a sport played in running time that cannot be perfectly measured. Referees will never be fully consistent, because the moments they arbitrate are charged with uncertainty – despite VAR’s best (and worst) efforts.

But the game’s authorities are still right to be addressing the issue of time wasting ahead of this summer’s World Cup. One of football’s great attractions is the pace at which it is played. Lose this and the game becomes a lot less beautiful.

Carl Singleton receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (UKRI). He is affiliated with the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research through the IZA@LISER network.

David Butler and Robert Butler do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.