Football news – The Debate: Reduce matchday squads to 14 players

The concept of an in-match substitute was brought into English football during the 1965–66 season. Its introduction was to mitigate for injuries and was extended to allow for tactical changes during 1967-68 season. In 1988 the rules were relaxed once more to allow for two substitutes and in 1994 that became two outfield substitutes and a goalkeeper and then in 1995 it was extended to three of any kind. However, the biggest changes came in 1996 the number of named substitutes increased to five and then to seven for the 2008-09 season.

This article will argue that the move to seven has had a fairly substantial influence on the increasing imbalance within the game across Europe. While that might seem like an opaque argument it does hold some weight.

Financial imbalances, some organic, some artificial, have allowed certain teams to stockpile players. UEFA have tried to curtail those imbalances but as evidenced by PSG, Financial Fair Play does not represent that much of a deterrent.

Obviously, it goes without saying that the money in play at the elite clubs is the biggest factor in said clubs’ ability to stockpile players. However, the ability to field seven substitutes also represents a large - yet underestimated - factor in the process.

With seven subs - or a matchday squad of 18 - clubs are effectively able to offer players that are not a guaranteed start, but could be worth serious money, say £40m upwards, the guarantee of a spot in their matchday 18.

Take for example Bernardo Silva, he was bought for £40 plus million in 2017, yet was not guaranteed a start for City – in his first season he started just 15 games, playing the full 90 in just three, despite being fully fit for the whole season. He was guaranteed a spot in the 18-player squad mind - were that guarantee taken away, would he have signed for City? Perhaps not. Perhaps he would take his talents to a side not top of the table, or to a side where he was guaranteed a start.

Elite level footballers would not, to this observer's eye, risk the prime of their careers to be squad players in squads that were limited to 14 players. Silva made 20 further appearances for City in his debut season but how many of those 20 times would he have made a speculative 14-player City squad? Certainly not 20.

Thus, it would, in this opinion, distribute the talent pool across leagues and clubs more evenly, making domestic and European competition more competitive.

Further, it would additionally test the coaching acumen of those at elite clubs. Pep Guardiola is obviously a generational coach but restricting his options from the bench would provide a thorough test of his adaptability. It is all well and good addressing the in-match struggles of David Silva by introducing a player of Bernardo Silva's capabilities. But what if Guardiola, with fewer options on his bench, was not afforded the luxury of selecting like-for-like replacements for all his key players. The chances of 100-point seasons would lessen.

It would certainly level the playing field across Europe but not just in individual matches. A by-product of smaller matchday squad could - probably would - be smaller squads, thus a broader spread of talent across leagues, which, in turn, could make the Champions League less of a borefest until the knockout rounds.

Granted there are a lot of its and buts in the above argument but there is certainty in the fact that the concept of a substitute was brought in to address one issue but has created many others. Chief among them are a crystallisation of talent at a very specific pool of elite level clubs that has made a mockery of the central tenant of competitive sport: that it is competitive.