Football matches shorter than 90 mins - Thoughts?

[Fox92]

9 hours ago, filbertway said:

Well the idea is that the clock stops every time the ball isn't in play, I actually quite lik the idea because refs never seen to play a fair amount of stoppage time.

 

 

I do agree with that, even more so now with the introduction of VAR.

[twoleftfeet]

Football should be a max 60 mins long with three breaks that last long enough so they can flog you a sugary drink, a car than the average person can afford, a pint of lager, and suggest you have a flutter with a bookie that wont pay out if they don't feel like it. The new format should also have snazzy new name with teams like the Rovers return with Gail Platt playing up front against The Queen Vic of London Town with The late Arthur Fowler brought from the grave to play in goal. Now that is what real football fans sitting at home want to see.

[Plastik Man]

On 21/04/2021 at 11:08, davieG said:

A more pertinent question is why would anybody take any notice of what Florentino Perez is saying.

Agreed.

 

His suggestion to shorten the length of matches was to countenance his claim that young people are watching less football.

 

If that claim is true I think it's more likely to be due high ticket prices and affordability of watching football.

 

But if he's so keen on making football easier to digest then here's my Viz style Top Tip:

 

 Why not shorten the length of football pitches so that the whole pitch can be viewed on the TV screen from the standard side-on camera angle. 

 

The benefits would be two-fold. 

 

It would mean viewers would never miss any of the action, and what's more, Perez and other club owners could then fit in more seats at each end of their stadiums, thus allowing for increased attendance and cheaper ticket prices for young people!