Premier League push for trial of major substitution rule change | OneFootball

The Premier League have joined a letter to the International Football Association Board calling for trials of temporary concussion substitutions.

Photo by Ion Alcoba Beitia/Getty Images

Tom Morgan and Jeremy Wilson report for The Telegraph on Monday that the Premier League are among 28 competitions pressuring IFAB to approve trials of temporary concussion substitutions, with the EFL also in favour of the change.

The 28 competitions involved have written a letter to IFAB requesting a trial, and it is hoped the letter will be discussed at IFAB’s annual business meeting on Tuesday.

IFAB could then progress the discussion at their annual general meeting next month and potentially approve further planning for the system’s implementation this year.

Photo by Marco Luzzani/Getty Images

Yet The Telegraph point out that IFAB have already opposed temporary substitutes as recently as 2023, so there are no guarantees things will be different this time around.

The current system allows Premier League clubs to make one permanent concussion substitution per match, in addition to their usual changes.

The argument is that club medics are forced to make quick decisions. They obviously don’t want to leave their team a player down, and they don’t want to commit to a substitution that turns out to be unnecessary.

A temporary substitution would remove that issue, allowing time for proper assessment and getting another player out there in the meantime.

Photo by MIGUEL MEDINA/AFP via Getty Images

The official line is that temporary substitutions aren’t permitted because IFAB and FIFA don’t want any risks taken with a player with a possible concussion by bringing them back on. But the reality is that the risk is actually increased by putting pressure on medics to give the all-clear.

The truth is probably that IFAB don’t want to create a substitution system that could be exploited by a team who want to bring on a player temporarily for tactical reasons.

But it’s bad PR for IFAB or FIFA to admit that they’re putting tactical considerations over player health, so they have to act like this is the best option health-wise. Even if pretty much everybody on the medical side agrees that it isn’t.