It's time to abolish the offside

A complicated and "defensive" rule (its time has passed, its sacrifice is in vain): offside has always been a litmus test between those who understand football and those who do not. Not everyone who understands the rule knows how to explain it. There is no doubt that it is one of the foundations of the game. Offside is called whenever any part of an attacker's head, body, or feet is closer to the goal line than the ball and the second-to-last defender. In the 2022 World Cup, offside was enforced for the first time using semi-automated offside technology, designed to bring about a faster and more accurate decision. The public debate sharpened in 2026: on one hand, a goal record was broken in the USA (308 goals in 104 matches), and on the other hand, it was demonstrated how many goals are disallowed due to a distance of millimeters.

Historically, policymakers chose to soften the offside rule rather than abolish it. In the 1921–1922 laws of the game, three defenders were still required between the attacker and the goal line. The rule was changed in 1925–1926 and the number of defenders was reduced to two, and only in 1990–1991 was it explicitly enacted that an attacker who is in line with the second-to-last defender is not offside. Although it is clear that offside is a defensive rule that slows down the game and causes goals to be disallowed in a way that sometimes seems absurd, even today policymakers are considering easing, not abolishing, the rule.

In 2026, FIFA approved an experiment in the Canadian league that was supposedly intended to improve the situation, but in fact will likely create similar problems. The experiment promotes calling offside only where the attacker has passed the second-to-last defender with their entire body (i.e., there is "daylight" between them – hence it is called the Daylight Offside Rule). It is clear that there will still be disputes if the attacker has completely passed the defender, and a few millimeters of "contact" will disallow goals.

Everyone who loves football wants more goals. It seems there is no dispute about that. But until today, policymakers have shied away from abolishing offside, both out of fear of strikers "parking" near the opponent's goal and out of fear of endless through balls and breaking the traditional balance between defense and attack. But mainly — out of conservatism.

Abolishing offside will lead to more goals being scored and an increase in the audience: a cross-sectional examination of the demand for football matches presents a non-one-dimensional picture. The amount of audience at matches in certain places will be influenced by price, the local team's position in the table, the level of rivalry in certain areas, the day and time of the match, and the club's tradition. But basic intuition supports the conclusion that more goals mean a more attractive product. Studies in England and Wales have shown that in the short term, the demand for football is influenced by performance, ticket price, and also by scoring goals. There is also evidence that demand for stadiums grows with the increase in the number of goals, which is perceived as a variable that increases excitement (and appears again and again in attendance models), and also that the number of goals is perceived as a significant factor in explaining attendance at stadiums, even if it is not the most influential factor. It is clear, therefore, that goals are important to the audience and add consumer value, even if they are not the only variable. More goals will not reduce the audience. What is clear is that the enjoyment of the game will increase.

Abolishing offside will not turn the game into a different game, but it will change it: it is impossible to predict in advance, with mathematical certainty, what football will look like without offside. But one can conclude quite a bit from existing tactical research. A scientific review on the use of the offside rule in training games found that offside affects the depth of the players' positioning, the ratio between the length and width of the formation, and the players' exploration of space. It is clear that offside shrinks the game and limits tactical behavior. At the same time, simulations have shown that softening the offside rule increases the attacking advantage monotonically. Even under a full abolition of offside, the scenario of strikers "parking" near the goal did not become a dominant strategy, and the fear of "direct" football only (crosses) did not take over the game. And it should be remembered: in England, the game was based for years on crosses, when the offside rule was in effect.

Therefore, it is reasonable that if offside is abolished, strikers will indeed be able to stay higher, but the logical counter-reaction of the defense will be to place a personal marker deeper, a defender who will retreat earlier, or a more aggressive sweeper-keeper. A reasonable result is not anarchy, but a different deployment on the field: less density in certain centers, more space for forward passes, more importance for through balls and long accurate passes, and less ability for the defensive line to rise high and erase an attack by blowing the whistle. Attackers who remain in the opponent's half with the defenders might disrupt the counter-attack, but will free up passing zones, and the amount of dangerous situations near the goal will increase — without a dense offside line that creates many attacks that "choke" even before the shot on goal.

Futsal is played without offside, with many more goals: in futsal there is no offside. It cannot be argued with certainty that this is the only, or main, reason that there are more goals in it. It is played five-on-five, with unlimited substitutions, the game is much shorter (two halves of 20 minutes each), and the field is much smaller. All these fundamentally change the pace, the density, the amount of transitions, and the frequency of shots. Statistically, the 2024 Futsal World Cup yielded 6.96 goals per game, while in the 2026 World Cup a total of 308 goals were scored in 104 matches (2.96 goals per game). First, one can learn from this that a world without offside can certainly be goal-rich. Second, it is impossible to isolate from the comparison only the "effect of the absence of offside," because the entire format is different. Therefore, futsal does not provide conclusive proof, but it does dismantle the horror argument that without offside the game will collapse or lose interest. It will be a much more attacking and faster game.

Summary: not only is it tiring to disallow goals over a hair's breadth (something that was expressed especially in the match between Portugal and Croatia, but not only). Three factors support the abolition of offside: historically, policymakers have admitted again and again that the rule is strict and have softened it three times; from an economic-marketing perspective, it is clear that a more attractive product will be created; and from a tactical perspective, an attacking advantage will develop and space will open up, without turning the game into a circus. If the goal of football is to promote an initiative-taking, dangerous game rich in decisive moments, one must stop treating the problem with patches. It is time to abolish offside, or at least to conduct a full pilot at the adult level, to return more goals, more dangerous situations, and intuitive justice in the eyes of the audience to the game.