Evaluation of FIFA's changes to the World Cup: what worked and what
According to Espn.
Context
The innovations discussed are especially relevant for the 2026 World Cup, which will be held in three countries: the United States, Mexico and Canada. The way these changes are implemented can directly influence the dynamics of the tournament, affecting both the teams' performance and the fans' experience. FIFA will be responsible for ensuring that technological improvements are well integrated and understood by all involved.
Why this matters
Evaluating the changes implemented by FIFA in the last World Cup is crucial to understanding how these innovations can impact the next edition of the 2026 World Cup. The introduction of technologies such as semi-automatic offside promises to increase precision in decisions, which can raise the competitive level of the competition. Furthermore, game time management and the use of VAR are aspects that can influence the experience of players and fans.
Main conclusions
- Assessment of FIFA's changes to the World Cup: what worked and what.
- Critical assessment of the main innovations that FIFA debuted at the last World Cup and what they could mean for the expanded tournament in 2026.
- Grading FIFA's changes to the World Cup, from expa...
With the World Cup over, it is time to take stock of the main changes that FIFA introduced to the competition. Between technology, arbitration and game management, there were new developments that raised the competitive level and others that left doubts. We look at what worked, what needs adjustments and what could directly influence the 2026 World Cup, which will be played in the United States, Mexico and Canada.
Semi-automatic offside: victory for precision and speed. The tool combined sensors on the ball and dedicated cameras to map points on the players' bodies, allowing for faster and more reliable decisions on millimetric moves. Reduced discussions and shortened wait times on complex checks. Clearly positive note, with room for better visual communication to the public in broadcasts.
VAR more present, communication still at half speed. The video assistant referee has established himself as a central player in correcting clear and obvious errors. However, the feeling of opacity in decisions remains: it is not always clear, for those in the stadium or at home, what was reviewed and why. The next step should be to increase the transparency of explanations, without removing authority from the main referee.
Longer discounts: more game played, more wear. The orientation to make up for all lost time (goals, substitutions, celebrations, injuries) pushed many games beyond 100 minutes. The result was an increase in useful time and final drama, but also greater physical demands and more complex management on the part of the teams. Overall, a positive measure for the integrity of the competition, lacking uniformity in application between referee teams.
Five substitutions and expanded squads: intelligent management in a compressed calendar. The possibility of making five changes — a rule that is now universal — helped to mitigate wear and tear and increase the average intensity. The authorization of expanded squads in this edition proved to be useful in the face of injuries and competitive overload. Clear benefits for the show and for the protection of the players.
Historical inclusion in arbitration: step forward. The presence of referees and assistants at World Cup games represented a milestone of representation and competence, without any surprises in terms of authority or quality. An important precedent that must be continued.
Calendar and logistics: pros and cons. The compressed schedule and geographic concentration reduced extensive travel and facilitated recoveries, but also tightened the preparation window. There was a feeling that the balance between spectacle, rest and peak form is fragile and deserves careful planning in the next editions.
And now, 2026: the big test. The next World Cup will have 48 teams, 104 games and will be spread across 16 cities in the USA, Mexico and Canada, in an already approved format with 12 groups of four teams and a knockout phase extended to 32. Recent experience offers clear lessons: rapid decision technology is essential; transparent VAR communication must evolve; clearing times must maintain coherence and credibility; and the physical management of the players, with five substitutions, will continue to be decisive.
Verdict. Between technological advances and refereeing adjustments, FIFA got it right above all in terms of precision (semi-automatic offside) and game protection (discounts and five substitutions). The communication of decisions and the uniformity of criteria remain to be fine-tuned. If 2022 was a successful laboratory, 2026 will be the final exam: more teams, more games and greater logistical demands will test everything that worked — and quickly expose what still needs to be fixed.
What happens next
With lessons learned, FIFA should focus on improving communication around VAR decisions, increasing transparency for spectators. Teams are also expected to adapt to the new reality of longer games, which will require more refined physical and strategic management. As we approach the 2026 World Cup, federations and clubs will need to consider these changes in their planning and preparation.
Frequently asked questions
What happened to FIFA's changes to the World Cup?
The changes introduced by FIFA at the World Cup were evaluated after the end of the competition, highlighting both innovations that worked well and those that left doubts.
Who confirmed the changes to FIFA for the World Cup?
The evaluation of the changes was carried out by FIFA, which analyzed the new technologies, refereeing and game management implemented during the competition.
Why is it now important to evaluate the
FIFA changes?
Evaluating the changes is important now to understand the impact they will have on the next 2026 World Cup, which will be played in the United States, Mexico and Canada.
What changes were considered positive in the evaluation?
The introduction of semi-automatic offside and the possibility of five substitutions were considered positive changes, contributing to team precision and management.
What changes need adjustments according to the assessment?
VAR communication and the uniform application of time-outs have been identified as areas requiring adjustment to improve transparency and game management.