Can anyone provide a good reason for limiting substitutions in international and professional soccer matches?

Is the main purpose to limit disruptions in the flow of the match?

I've never much liked the rule myself. I'd prefer to see teams be allowed to make more changes.

Thoughts?

Well in reading the history getting substitutions approved in the first place was like pulling teeth. Given the British attitude of "10 men should carry on like men" while a player hobbled around on the field, change was slow in coming. This in large part to the 4 permanent seats the Brits had on the FIFA board.

Mathguy64 said:

---

Imagine the disparity if City could regularly bring in 5 fresh bodies. Their second 11 is better than some squads first 11. Depth would really make it a game of haves and have nots.

---

It's already that way.

After thinking on my own comments on depth, it dawned on me that the opposite could also be true in terms of talent gap. That is - if the teams at the top have more top players who can play at their best for a full 90, then it's an advantage to them to force everyone else to play the full 90 even if they can't hang for a full 90. As far as fitness is concerned, you could argue that teams that have more talent outside their starting 11 could just as well rotate starters between games (and absolutely rotate starters for early Cup games without risking a loss) whereas lesser clubs can't.

I could make a case that allowing more subs could mean that a lower-tier club could frustrate better clubs more... fore example, put scrappy pressing forwards/mids in the game at the beginning and then bring on your more skilled attacking players late in the game to try and steal a win (or steal back a draw). It would allow good coaches an opportunity to exploit matchups that could perhaps neutralize the talent gap. In the Bundesliga and Leipzig in particular who I follow... I see lots more teams this year implementing a high press early and then using the extra 2 subs to rotate in fresh legs. It's certainly making games more entertaining, and it's yielded some surprising results.

And from a competitive standpoint, I'd say 5 subs hasn't made things more unfair at all in the Bundesliga, in fact, the opposite could be true.

Yeah, no limit on subs would most likely result in additional rules about time wasting or limitations on when in the half subs could be made.

I think the way UEFA did it was very sensible: 5 subs but you're only allowed 3 stoppages during the course of the game for making the subs (halftime is then a 4th time you could make changes).

Maybe allow subs at halftime not count against your three.

I'm in the "its about right as is" camp. I think changing from 2+GK change to 3 was a good idea and I think adding the 4th for extra time was a good idea but that's about it.

I'm actually also finally at peace with how extra time is handled. If you watch a total of 11 guys + 4 subs go 120 minutes, they're all dead gassed by the time the final whistle blows and penalties though a bit random are the best way to settle it. I used to advocate for endless 15 minute silver goal periods but after watching so many matches go all the way to 120, its apparent that after that point, the players are basically out of energy and its more of a luck of the draw situation than penalties after that.