Is reinventing football a good idea? The BBC had pundits and experts give their ideas and here’s our analysis of it.
Football fans love a debate — especially when it comes to the rules. But what if we could go further? What if we could start reinventing football altogether?
The aim? To make it a fairer, faster and more exciting for the billions of fans around the world.
That’s exactly the thought experiment the BBC recently explored, asking players, pundits, and referees how they’d redesign key aspects of the game from the ground up. From penalties and VAR to offside and timekeeping, it’s a manifesto for a modern, more intuitive version of football.
Famous names and their ideas were involved in the experiment including Alan Shearer, Gabby Logan, Danny Murphy, Ashley Williams, Arsene Wenger, Pierluigi Collina, Stephen Warnock, Sepp Blatter, Gerard Pique, Nedum Onouoha, Anthony Taylor and Jordan Pickford.
Below, we summarise the key ideas from that post — and consider how these innovations could reshape the game we love to bet on, watch, and debate week after week.
Then we give you our opinion on the outlined change or changes, together with our view of what we feel would improve the game.
Bet365 Review » Min Deposit: £5 » Expiry: 30 days » Min Odds: 1/5 (1.20)
← CLICK TO COPY
The article starts with one of football’s biggest flashpoints — the penalty kick. At present, even minor fouls in the box can hand a team a near-guaranteed scoring chance. But what if only clear scoring opportunities resulted in a penalty, while lesser infringements brought a free-kick instead?
Supporters say this would make punishment more proportionate.
Another proposal would change the way penalties unfold entirely — ending the chance of rebounds. Once a penalty is taken, play would stop whether the shot is scored or saved. It would eliminate scrappy follow-ups but simplify decision-making for referees and players alike.
The first idea about minor fouls in the box being rewarded with a free-kick is problematic. What is a minor foul? How do you define a clear goalscoring opportunity? That option seems to be fraught with more problems than it solves.
Similarly, once a penalty is struck, the ball is in play. It seems an unfair advantage to the defending team if the goalkeeper saves the ball, or it hits the woodwork, and comes back into play – only for play to be stopped automatically.
For us, the issue of penalties has been around since the start of the game and it is probably the rule that we would most likely keep in its current form.
No modern rule change discussion would be complete without VAR. The BBC feature suggested a radical rethink — a challenge system similar to cricket or tennis, where each coach gets two reviews per match.
Others argued for a strict 90-second time limit on VAR checks to keep the game flowing, while some pundits believe VAR should be scrapped altogether.
Whether you love or loathe it, VAR is here to stay — but ideas like these could restore clarity, speed and fan confidence.
For us, VAR has its positives, but also significant negatives that seem to outweigh the positives. We agree with Stephen Warnock that fans inability to celebrate a goal now, without worrying if a VAR check will be signalled, is taking a huge amount of enjoyment from the game.
For VAR to work correctly, in our opinion, it needs other rules to be simplified (such as the offside rule, handball rule etc) which would then allow VAR operators to make the right decisions more quickly.
Min Deposit: €5 – Expiry: 30 days – Min Odds: 1/5 (1.20)
Offside rulings have grown increasingly technical, with lines drawn to measure margins of millimetres. The BBC’s contributors suggested simplifying things by adopting a “clear and obvious” threshold — like Major League Soccer, where decisions rely more on visible judgement than digital precision.
One referee even proposed scrapping offside altogether, encouraging attacking play and more goals. While that might be extreme, the idea captures the mood: fans want less forensic decision-making and more football.
The offside rule needs a radical overhaul, especially in line with how it is being used with VAR currently. To simplify matters, we suggest that an attacking player should only be marked as offside if every part of their body is beyond the last defender and clear daylight between the player and defender is visible.
This would mean goals that are disallowed because a players foot is 2cm further forward than the defenders, would now stand. It would give attackers more advantage and likely lead to more goals and attacking play.
Furthermore, if VAR cannot immediately see daylight between the attacking player and the last defender behind him, with the naked eye (and not using any visual enhancements), then the goal should stand.
Alan Shearer summed up a sentiment shared by many: “Is it deliberate or not?”
Since a major rewrite of the handball law in 2019, the rule has become more complicated than ever. The BBC piece argued for a return to instinctive decision-making — letting referees use their natural sense of intent rather than consulting a long list of criteria.
That simplicity could restore consistency and cut down on the endless debates over what constitutes a “natural position.”
We think Alan Shearer has this almost right. Is the handball deliberate or not should be the major factor deciding whether an example of a ball hitting a hand should end up in penalising the player who handled the ball.
However, we can see an argument where even an accidental handball should be punished somehow. For example, if a player accidentally handles the ball when it is going to result in the attacking team scoring a goal.
For handballs judged to be on purpose, a penalty (if inside the penalty box) or direct free kick (if outside the box) should be awarded with a yellow card awarded to the offending player.
However for accidental handballs, outside the box the game should play on, but inside the box, if the accidental handball results in a clear goalscoring opportunity being denied, then the attacking team should be awarded a penalty. But if the accidental handball would not have seen a goalscoring opportunity, the game should play on.
One recurring frustration for fans is time-wasting. The proposal here is bold: 30-minute halves with a stopped clock whenever the ball goes out of play.
This would guarantee 60 minutes of effective football — and eliminate much of the incentive for teams to run the clock down. The only question is how long such a game would take in real time.
In our opinion, this could be worth a trial. Time wasting is a horrible tactic. We would go further and say that teams that indulge in obvious time wasting tactics while the clock is running (such as when they try and shield the ball in the corner and try to win corners and throw-ins) should result in a corner for the opposition team and a booking for the player or players involved in the time wasting.
Former Wales captain Ashley Williams suggested formalising something teams already do unofficially — tactical breaks. Each team could have one timeout per half, giving managers a legal way to reset or relay instructions without relying on “injury delays.”
It’s a simple change that could bring more transparency to a part of the game often criticised for gamesmanship.
Considering in warm weather games we now have ‘hydration breaks’ in each half, this is not such a radical idea. I think a manager having one time out in each half (and perhaps one more to be used in extra time if plated) would be easy to adopt.
Our issue is that we don’t see it reducing the instances of ‘non-timeout’ timeouts, when goalkeepers go down with an injury and the outfield players congregate around the manager for instructions. As such, we think bringing in a rule which stops players from congregating around the manager when a goalkeeper or other player is injured would be a workable solution.
Could football become more entertaining with incentives for attacking play? Arsène Wenger once floated the idea of bonus points for goals, and the BBC piece revived it.
Teams might earn an extra point for every two goals scored, or conversely, receive no points for a 0-0 draw. The result? More excitement, fewer deadlocks — and a shift towards high-tempo, attack-minded football.
Firstly, we are not fans of not awarding something to teams that earn a 0-0 draw. They have not been beaten, so should achieve a point from that game.
But we do think attacking play should be rewarded. I think if a team scores three goals at home, they should earn an extra point for every three goals they score (so one bonus point for three goals, two for six, three for nine etc). We should also award teams that score goals away from home too, at a better rate so awarding them a bonus point for every two goals scored away from home (one point for two goals, two for four goals, three for six goals).
These points could be earned regardless of a final result (so for example if a team draws 3-3 at home, they would pick up one point from the draw and one bonus point for three goals, while the away team would get one point for the draw and one point for their three away goals too).
To maintain flow, former England midfielder Danny Murphy proposed allowing players to take free-kicks, throw-ins or corners to themselves — removing the need for a second touch and speeding up transitions.
Meanwhile, others suggested revisiting the size of the goals themselves. The dimensions haven’t changed in 150 years, even though modern goalkeepers are far taller and more athletic. Slightly larger goals could redress that balance — and increase scoring potential.
No. Do not change the size of the goals. The moment you do that you then create a new era for the game, one when it was more difficult to score goals, and one when it was easier. Football needs one history, not two.
However, there is nothing wrong with Danny Murphy’s suggestion for an attacking player who wins a free kick, should be able to take it quickly and to keep possession themselves. There is no advantage gained in forcing the attacking team to delay the free kick and pass it to a team mate, if they want to take it quickly, such as on a quick counter attack.
The BBC’s thought experiment isn’t a call for immediate revolution. Instead, it’s a reminder that football’s laws were built for a different era — and may need to evolve to match the pace, technology, and scrutiny of today’s game.
From simplifying VAR to redefining penalties, these ideas aim to preserve the sport’s fairness and excitement while trimming away the confusion that has crept in.
Whatever changes come next, one thing remains certain — football’s endless capacity for reinvention is part of what makes it so compelling.
18+ | T&Cs Apply | BeGambleAware.org
All odds and offers subject to change. Please gamble responsibly
18+ Always remember to gamble responsibly. Check out bet365’s Safer Gambling page for more details or go to GambleAware.org for advice, tools and support.
All contents are ©
Bet365 Bonus Code, Sports, Casino and Poker Sign up offers and News
18+ Worried about your gambling? Gamcare - When the fun stops – STOP!