Did the new rules deliver?

Ahead of the World Cup, IFAB and FIFA implemented new rules and guidelines to speed up the game and boost effective playing time in matches. From a footballing standpoint, the tournament’s expanded format may also have increased attackers’ efficiency.

FIFA wanted fewer whistles and more football during the 2026 World Cup — and it got it. Ahead of the tournament, the body led by Gianni Infantino and IFAB, the organization in charge of the Laws of the Game, announced around ten new rules and directives designed to “strip the game down as much as possible”, in the words of Pierluigi Collina, FIFA’s director of refereeing.

According to a batch of statistics compiled by Opta, the instructions given appear to have paid off. The 2022 World Cup had already begun this trend, but the gain in effective playing time is very real. On average, the ball was in play for 59'54'' in matches at the 2026 edition.

Between 2018 and 2022, effective playing time rose. However, since 2006 the percentage of time the ball is in play has remained stable, hovering around 57%. This jump is therefore explained more by longer stoppage time, driven by the World Cup in Qatar. The number of stoppages per match, meanwhile, is in free fall, and the gap between the 2022 and 2026 vintages is, this time, crystal clear. A decrease somewhat offset by the arrival of VAR in 2018: indeed, the length of these pauses has climbed to 25'' since the introduction of video assistance. It was closer to 20'' in 2006 and 2010.

read also

The 2026 World Cup team of the tournament according to readers

Despite some interminable video interventions, such as the penalty awarded to France against Paraguay (1-0), the visual impression of a more fluid game is backed up by the numbers. The number of fouls called is steadily falling. Fewer whistles, but also fewer consequences. Referees held off before showing yellow cards. Only 2.5 cautions were handed out per 90 minutes in North America, nearly one fewer than in 2022.

Fewer penalties, fewer xG, more goals

This permissiveness also extended into the penalty areas. The number of penalties awarded per 90 minutes fell back to pre-VAR values (0.21 in 2026), after having doubled between 2014 (0.2) and 2018 (0.44). And the rarity of spot-kicks did not stop attackers from scoring.

Since 2002, goalscorers had never stood out this much. This year, they scored 0.26 more goals per 90 minutes than in 2022, even though they did not take many more shots at goal (24.1 versus 22.2). Over the period studied, shot volume has tended to decline — especially long-range attempts, which have a low chance of going in and do not weigh much in terms of expected goals.

read also

Should the 2026 World Cup innovations be kept? L'Équipe reporters share their view

However, this search for higher-quality chances does not, on its own, explain players’ attacking efficiency. In 2022, shots from outside the box were even less frequent (8.1) than four years later (9.2). While referees mechanically favor defenses by allowing them more physicality in their challenges, attacks still found a way through with unprecedented regularity at a 21st-century World Cup. Attackers even overperformed. The total number of goals far exceeded the sum of xG (+ 36.7). It was almost balanced in Qatar (+ 1.2). With fewer bullets than in previous editions, the shooters at this World Cup managed to do more.

How can it be explained? The argument of expanding the World Cup to 48 teams has often been put forward: against weaker opponents than usual, the best attackers on the planet faced defenders — and especially goalkeepers — who were less effective than they are accustomed to. In any case, the stars were regularly supplied in excellent conditions: Kylian Mbappé (10 goals), Lionel Messi (8 goals), Jude Bellingham, Erling Haaland (7 goals) and their counterparts can attest to that.

read also

Fewer chances but more goals: the reasons behind a record-breaking start to the World Cup