Issuu

Centre for Sports Business, University of Liverpool Management School Professional Game: Technical Area Review 25/26 Final Report May 2026

Executive summary In the autumn of 2025, the League Managers Association (LMA) and the League Coaches Association (LCA) coordinated a Technical Area Review Working Group consisting of key stakeholders from the Professional Game including the Football Association (FA), the Premier League (EPL), the Football League (EFL), the Women’s Superleague (WSL), the Professional Footballers Association (PFA), and the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL). The review takes place two years following the launch of the Participant Behaviour Charter ahead of season 2023-24 and focuses on the following two objectives: •

To investigate and identify the nature and the extent of the current challenges provided by, and experienced in, the Technical Area during matchdays.

•

To set out a series of recommendations that would support a more professional and safe working environment in the Technical Area for all colleagues

The Centre for Sports Business at the University of Liverpool was chosen to undertake a review of the Technical Area. It began by analysing disciplinary data that showed that since the launch of the Participant Behaviour Charter, the number of disciplinary offences has risen significantly. Following a survey and focus groups that provided further data and insight from a range of key stakeholders within the game, the review of the Technical Area makes 16 recommendations across four clusters relating to the rules and regulations; culture and conduct; fourth official support; and physical and structural conditions. We make an additional recommendation that there needs to be a joint working group established between the LMA/LCA, the PGMOL and the football authorities to consider the implementation of the recommendations. Many of the recommendations across the four clusters are linked and therefore the implementation of many of the recommendations would need to be thought through in combination with other recommendations. There are also some recommendations that if implemented, would negate the need for other recommendations. Therefore we do not see this as a list of recommendations that need implementing in their entirety; it is for the Technical Area Review Working Group to discuss which of these they believe are most pressing and also more feasible in terms of implementation.

The Recommendations Cluster 1: Rules and regulations R1

There is a need for a greater degree of standardisation and consistency in regard to the rules relating to the Technical Area

There is a need to set out with more clarity which specific roles are able to occupy the Technical Area during a match day

Restrict access to the tunnel and pitch pre-match and post-match to those designated to occupying the Technical Area only

The current rule that only allows one person in the Technical Area should be amended to allow two designated people into the Technical Area during a match day

A new rule should be introduced that only allows for two designated individuals to have the ability to interact with the fourth official

Cluster 2: Culture and conduct R1

Enhance awareness of the Participant Behaviour Charter

Introduce structured pre-season briefings for all Technical Area occupants

Ensure there are trained stewards placed around the Technical Area

Implement a designated ‘safe’ zone in the stands directly behind the dugouts

Cluster 3: Fourth Official Support R1

Delegate match specific tasks to the club staff designated to communicate with the Fourth Official

Commission a dedicated training programme for fourth officials in Technical Area management

Develop a standardised conduct management protocol for fourth officials

Introduce regular peer review and performance audit for fourth officials in relation to Technical Area management

Cluster 4: Physical and structural conditions R1

Clubs should commit to introducing greater physical distances between the Technical Areas

Clubs should look at introducing a designated “off-pitch” technical area for both home and away teams to include all listed technical staff

Procedural support R1

Establish a joint working group between the LMA/LCA, the PGMOL and the football authorities to implement recommendations 4

Contents 1. Introduction

2. The Technical Area

3. Methods

3.1. Technical Area rules and regulations 3.2. Technical Area disciplinary data 3.3. Survey 3.4. Focus groups

4. The rules and regulations in relation to the Technical Area 4.1. Technical dimensions 4.2. Number of occupants in the Technical Area (team benches) 4.3. Who is allowed in the Technical Area (team benches) 4.4. Occupants allowed in the Technical Area during a match 4.5. Equipment 4.6. Commercial/broadcasting

5. Disciplinary data analysis 5.1 Technical Area disciplinary offences 5.2. Technical Area disciplinary offences by league competition 5.3. The type of Technical Area offence 5.4. Technical Area offences by month

6. Survey and focus groups: data analysis 6.1. Safety and security 6.2. Rules and regulations 6.3. The use of technology 6.4. Stadium infrastructure 6.5. Roles and responsibilities 6.6. Behaviour 6.7. The role of the fourth official

7. Recommendations

9 10 10 11

12 12 12 13 13 13 13

15 15 16 17 18

20 20 25 27 28 31 32 36

1. Introduction In 2025, the League Managers Association (LMA) and the League Coaches Association (LCA) set up a Technical Area Review Working Group consisting of key stakeholders from the Professional Game including the Football Association (FA), the Premier League (EPL), the Football League (EFL), the Women’s Superleague (WSL), the Professional Footballers Association (PFA), and the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL). The Working Group commissioned a review of the Technical Area. This is defined in the International Football Association Board rules (IFAB) as “the area that relates to matches played in stadiums with a designated sitting area for team officials, substitutes and substituted players”1: This review builds on the original review of the Technical Area that was undertaken in 2010 and the follow up to this in 2014. Since these reviews, there have been considerable changes surrounding the Technical Area. In light of these changes, this review was asked to consider whether the Technical Area is fit for purpose and to make recommendations for improvements where necessary. The review had two objectives: •

To investigate and identify the nature and the extent of the current challenges provided by, and experienced in, the Technical Area during matchdays.

•

To set out a series of recommendations that would support a more professional and safe working environment in the Technical Area for all colleagues.

This report addresses these two objectives. It provides an analysis of the current rules and regulations relating to the Technical Area from across the Football Authorities and also analyses five seasons of disciplinary data relating to offences committed in the Technical Area. It presents the analysis of survey data which includes 300 respondents from across four specific groups – referees, manager/coaches, players, and club officials/stewards. The survey data analysis is supported by the analysis of the data from two focus groups that were also undertaken. The recommendations for the Working Group are presented at the end of this report.

https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2025-26-single-pages?l=en: page 45

2. The Technical Area The Technical Area within the football stadium is an area that is located outside of the pitch that is occupied by non-playing staff during a match. It is the location where managers, the wider coaching team, and other non-playing staff such as physiotherapists perform their matchday duties. In professional football, each team will have a Technical Area which includes a designated seating area for non-playing staff. The Technical Area plays an important strategic role in professional football: it is the area where managers and other non-playing staff are responsible for overseeing what happens on the pitch and where they are expected to undertake their matchday role. Therefore, it should be an environment that is safe and one that is conducive to good working practices. The Technical Area is also an area of high pressure and emotion. There are a range of factors that can influence the emotions of non-playing staff during a match day and emotions in turn influence behaviours within the Technical Area. Conduct and behaviour within the Technical Area has been the subject of a previous review commissioned by the LMA which, in 2014, recommended the introduction of a Technical Area code of conduct as the review found that both managers and match officials were unclear on what constituted acceptable behaviour. A Technical Area code of conduct was introduced by the FA in 2015 that set out expected standards of behaviour of non-playing staff within the Technical Area2. Further changes occurred at the beginning of the 2018-19 season where match officials were given the authority to issue yellow and red cards to nonplaying staff for instances of misconduct committed in the Technical Area3. This trial was followed by the IFAB implementing this change in 2019-20 as part of their commitment to improving behaviour within the game4. These changes led to greater focus on the behaviour of non-playing staff within the Technical Area. More recently, professional game stakeholders in England worked together to launch the Participant Charter in the 2023-24 season5. This Charter was part of a broader focus on improving the behaviour of players, managers and coaches across the game and it included a new Technical Area code of conduct that required managers, coaches and other non-playing staff to behave in a responsible manner6. The Technical Area Code of Conduct, aimed at managers, coaches and Technical Area occupants, outlined expected standards of behaviour in relation to pre-match briefings, conduct in the Technical Area, coaching (in addition to guidelines for captain and players). It also empowered match officials to take action (i.e. to issue yellow and red cards) against Technical Area https://www.thefa.com/news/2015/aug/05/new-code-of-conduct-to-address-onfield-behaviour https://www.thefa.com/news/2018/jul/31/red-yellow-cards-technical-area-2018-19 4 https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/changes-to-the-laws-of-the-game-2019-20_en?l=en 5 https://www.efl.com/supporters/love-football-protect-the-game/participant-behaviour/ 6 https://www.thefa.com/-/media/thefacom-new/files/about-the-fa/2023/participant-charter.ashx?la=en 2 3

occupants when behaviour and conduct fell below expected standards. There has been concern however within the game that the new disciplinary sanctions have contributed to increased friction and tensions within the Technical area. The Review will investigate and identify the nature and the extent of the current challenges provided by, and experienced in, the Technical Area during matchdays. It will look at current rules and regulations across the football authorities, analyse disciplinary data, and draw on key stakeholder voices to feed into a series of recommendations that would support a more professional and safe working environment in the Technical Area for all colleagues.

3. Methods This report is based on four stages of data collection and analysis. The first two stages involved analysing secondary data including the current rules and regulations relating to the Technical Area and the disciplinary data relating to the Technical Area over a five-year period. The third and fourth stage involved the collection of primary data through a survey and focus groups to get more insight from key stakeholders. 3.1. Technical Area rules and regulations The analysis of the rules and regulations relating to the Technical Sarea involved looking at the different handbooks produced by the relevant football authorities including IFAB, EPL, EFL, WSL and UEFA. We looked at the rules in relation to a number of different dimensions and analysed the extent to which the rules are consistent across the different governing bodies (appendix 1). The following dimensions were considered: • • • • • •

Technical dimensions The number of occupants allowed in the Technical Area (including the team bench) Who is allowed in the Technical Area (including the team bench) The occupants allowed in the Technical Area during a match The rules relating to the use of equipment in the technical area The rules relating to the commercial advertising

3.2. Technical Area disciplinary data We received disciplinary data from the FA in relation to offences that have been applied to non-playing staff within the Technical Area. The data that we received was for five seasons spanning 2020-21 to 2024-25. We had to clean the data as there were a range of records in the dataset that did not relate to the professional game including some youth leagues, as well as random data from leagues such as the Northern Premier League. We have also removed data relating to friendlies, the Central League, the Premier League 2 – Division 1, and the Premier League Cup. The number of offences related to these leagues was very small but by removing these we were able to concentrate our analysis on the main league competitions in the professional game (Premier league, EFL, National League Premier, and the WSL and WSL2). This allowed for better comparisons across years. We also included the disciplinary data for the following cup competitions in the overall numbers of offences (FA Cup, EFL Cup, EFL Trophy, FA Trophy, National League Cup and the WSL FA Cup). However we have not looked at the number of offences per cup competition as there was data missing for some of these in some of the years in the dataset. There were also far fewer offences committed in cup games - a total of 134 over 9

five years - in the Technical Area than in league competitions – a total of 1751 offences over 5 years. This is due to the fact that are far fewer cup games played than league games. For this reason we have focused our analysis on the league competitions. 3.3. Survey The third stage of data collection involved an online survey of key stakeholders that covered five areas: safety and security; rules and regulations; roles and responsibilities; behaviour; and the role of the fourth official. The survey comprised both closed and open questions. This allowed for the collection of a large amount of data and also gave the participants the opportunity to provide more detail on particular issues. We received a total of 300 responses to the survey across four specific groups: referees; manager/coaches; players; and club officials/stewards (chart 3.1). This gave us a good overall number of responses that take into account the views of key stakeholders that are involved with the Technical Area. It also allowed us to look to see whether there were any significant differences between groups in their responses. Chart 3.1: breakdown of survey responses

Referees

Managers/coaches

Players

Club officials/stewards

100

Many of the survey questions were based on a four-point Likert scale (1 was strongly disagree; 2 – strongly agree; 3 – agree; 4 – strongly agree). We report the overall responses from across all respondents in section 6 of the report. However, we also analysed the responses to each question in relation to the four groups noted above in chart 3.1. In many cases, the response across these groups was similar. However, where there were differences between the mean score between groups we were able to see whether difference was statistically significant (at the 0.05% level) between the responses from each group. Where this was the case, we discuss these in relation to the particular question. 10

3.4. Focus Groups The fourth stage of the research involved undertaking focus groups to get more understanding of the perceptions of key stakeholders. We undertook three focus groups: the first was with a group of managers, the second was with a group of coaches, and the third was with a group of referees. These three focus groups allowed us to draw on issues that had been identified in the survey and to get more understanding on specific issues. We have used the focus groups data to supplement the analysis of the survey data where relevant and to feed into the recommendations at the end of the report.

4. The rules and regulations in relation to the Technical Area IFAB is the body responsible for creating the rules of the game and the rules relating to the Technical Area are set out in Law 1 (the field of play) with the specific rules relating to the Technical Area found in section 1.97. IFAB recognises the need for national Football Associations, confederations and FIFA to have a degree of flexibility to implement and adapt the rules if they are of benefit to the development of the game in that particular country/region. For this reason, there are slightly different rules relating to the Technical Area across the different football authorities in England and we have sought to contrast these in relation to a number of key issues. Table 1 in the appendices summarises the rules from the different football authorities in respect to the Technical Area. 4.1. Technical dimensions IFAB rules clearly sets out the technical dimensions of the Technical Area: it should only extend 1 m (1 yd) on either side of the designated seated area and up to a distance of 1 m (1 yd) from the touchline. There is clear alignment with this across the football authorities. Both the FA rules and the UEFA rules specifically refer to IFAB. The EPL sets out measurements that align with the IFAB rules whilst also providing greater detail on ensuring access to the pitch and ensuring the Technical Area benches are marked home and away. The EFL is similar to this also. The WSL rules do not mention the Technical Area dimensions but this is understandable given many WSL games are played in stadiums that are used in the EPL and EFL. Overall, there appears consistency in relation to the technical dimensions across the different sets of rules. 4.2. Number of occupants in the Technical Area (team benches) IFAB is not explicit on the number of occupants allowed in the Technical Area (and team benches). The IFAB rules state that “The number of persons permitted to occupy the technical area is defined by the competition rules”8. When comparing the different sets of rules (appendix 1) it is clear there are considerable differences. The FA states there should be no more than 11 players and officials seated on the team benches in the designated technical area unless the team bench facility provides more than 11 individual seats. The EPL rules allow for 16 seats but also state that an additional 10 seats should be provided for coaching and medical staff from the visiting team (a total of 26 within the team benches). The EFL allows for 14 seats with a further eight seats for coaching and medical staff only from the visiting clubs in the Championship (22 seats within the team benches). In Leagues One and Two, it is a further five seats (19 seats within the team benches) for the visiting club. The WSL rules state there must not be more than 13 unless the team bench facility provides more than 13 individual seats, while UEFA

7 8

https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2025-26-single-pages?l=en https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2025-26-single-pages?l=en: page 45

rules allow for a total of 27 - 15 team officials and 12 substitutes. Clearly there is considerable difference between leagues/competitions. 4.3. Who is allowed in the Technical Area (team benches) There is a degree of alignment between the football authorities in setting out who is allowed in the Technical Area and the team benches. While IFAB does not specify who can be in the Technical Area, the FA rules are much clearer and includes managers, coaches, physiotherapists, and doctors and any other person who takes up a position in the Technical Area at any time during a match. Similarly the EPL, EFL, WSL and UEFA rules are all clear that the Technical Area should only include substitutes and officials whose names appear on the team sheet and that only those listed on the official team sheet shall be permitted in the Technical Area. There is consistency here, which is good, however there is less clarity on which roles can be considered as necessary for inclusion in the Technical Area (i.e. who constitutes a team official?). Stating that only officials can be named on the team sheet does not specify who, or what roles, constitute an official role. 4.4. Occupants allowed in the Technical Area during a match The IFAB rules clearly state that only one person at a time is allowed to be in the Technical Area and to provide tactical instructions during the match. The FA rules align with this but go a little further stating that except for the team manager, the team coach and any substitutes who are warming up or warming down, all other personnel are to remain seated on the trainer’s bench. EPL rules vary slightly in that they state only substitutes and officials whose names appear on the team sheet can occupy the Technical Area during a league match and only officials in the Technical Area can provide tactical instructions during the match – the rules do not state that this should only be the team manager or a coach. WSL rules are more clear: they state that only the team manager or the team coach can occupy the Technical Area and only they have the authority to issue instructions to players during the match. Both the EFL and UEFA rules relating to the Technical Area do not give any guidance on this. 4.5. Equipment In regard to the use of equipment in the Technical Area, IFAB rules allow for Electronic performance and tracking systems (EPTS) but do not provide much detail on their use. FA rules define equipment as medical bags, kit bags, blankets, towels, bottles and any medical equipment worn by a player that may be used on the field of play and / or in the Technical Area. WSL rules state that information and data transmitted from the EPTS devices are not permitted to be received or used in the Technical Area during a Competition Match, whilst equipment is not mentioned in the EPL or EFL rules. 4.6. Commercial/broadcasting 13

IFAB and FA rules concentrate more on the commercial side of the game, with IFAB rules stating that no commercial advertising is permitted in the Technical Area and the FA stating that all occupants must wear corporate bench kit as directed by the Competition (with the manager being able to wear a suit and overcoat not displaying any sponsorship logos). EPL and UEFA rules are more focused on ensuring that clubs have installed cameras within the Technical Area for the use of the host broadcaster.

5. Disciplinary data analysis The analysis below looks at five years of disciplinary data from season 2020-21 to season 2024-25. We look at overall disciplinary offences before breaking the data down to identify offences by competition, by type of offence, and by the month in which the offence occurred. 5.1.

Technical Area disciplinary offences

Chart 5.1 shows the total number of disciplinary offences committed by non-playing staff in the Technical Area over the past five seasons. This includes both league competitions and cup competitions. There were a total of 1885 offences – 1768 were yellow card offences and 117 were red card offences. There was no red card data however for seasons 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23. This is a slight anomaly and should be noted when looking at the data analysis.

Chart 5.1: Number of disciplinary offences: 2020-21 to 2024-25 800 683

700

630

626 562

600 500

400 279

300 200

200 100 0

279

200

97 0

2020-21

2021-22

2022-23

Yellow cards

Red cards

2023-24

2024-25

Total

*There was no data on red cards for seasons 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23

What is evident is that following the updated launch of the Participant Behaviour Charter ahead of season 2023-24, the number of disciplinary offences has risen significantly. Whilst the number of yellow cards was clearly on the rise between 2020-21 and 2022-23, there was a significant increase from 279 in 2022-23 to 630 in 2023-24. Although the number of yellow cards dropped to 562 in 2024-25, this is still significantly higher than in 2022-23. Whilst this appears to suggest that behaviours in the Technical Area have 15

deteriorated significantly, it is also likely due, in part, to the fact that the Participant Behaviour Charter has empowered match officials to issue sanctions against Technical Area occupants when behaviour and conduct fell below expected standards. The data on the number of red cards was only available from 2023-24 and shows that the number issued has grown from 53 to 64 between 2023-24 and 2024-25. 5.2.

Technical Area disciplinary offences by league competition

Chart 5.2 shows the breakdown of the total number of disciplinary offences by league competition. It is evident that there are significantly more offences committed in the Technical Area at clubs in League One and League Two relative to the Championship. The overall number of offences for the National League Premier for the last three seasons (there is not data available for 2020-21 and 2021-22) is also similar to League One and League Two. Whilst there are fewer offences in total committed in the Premier League (97 in 2024-25), the WSL (11 in 2024-25) and the WSL2 (13 in 2024-25), this is partly due to the fact that there are fewer games played in these league competitions.

Chart 5.2: Number of disciplinary offences: league competition 170

180 160

142

140

117

120

115

10297

100

76 63

80 60

37 22

40 20

146

136

4036

6061 40

66 54

0 0

2020-21

2021-22

2022-23

2023-24

2 3 6

1011

2 1 1

1613

2024-25

*Date only available for the National League Premier from 2022-23 onwards

As mentioned above, there are a different number of games played across the leagues in the dataset. There are a total of 380 games played in one season in the Premier League; 552 games played across the three leagues in the EFL as well as the National League 16

Premier (excluding play-off games); and there are 132 games played in the WSL and WSL2. Table 1 shows the average number of offences per game over the past three seasons in each of the leagues in the dataset. It therefore takes into account the number of offences as a proportion of the total number of games played in each competition. This allows for more robust comparisons of offences committed between leagues.

Table 5.1: Offences per game: league competition 2022-23

Offences per game

2023-24

Offences per game

2024-25

Offences per game 0.26

Total 236

Offences per game 0.21

Premier League

0.10

102

0.27

Championship

0.07

0.14

0.11

175

0.11 0.23

League 1

0.11

170

0.31

142

0.26

373

League 2 National League Premier

0.12

117

0.21

136

0.25

319

0.19

326

0.20

0.12

146

1.11

115

0.21

WSL

0.05

0.08

0.07

WSL2

0.01

0.00

0.10

0.08

As expected, Table 5.1 shows that the average number of offences per game has grown from season 2022-23 in line with the significant rise in offences (chart 5.1). When you look at individual leagues however, we can see that the average number of offences per game is similar over the last three seasons across the Premier League, League One, League Two, and the National League Premier. This is consistent when you look at the individual seasons for these leagues also. What table 5.1 also shows is that there is a significant difference between these leagues when compared to the Championship, the WSL and the WSL2 where there is a much lower proportion of offences committed per game. 5.3.

The type of Technical Area offence

Table 5.2 shows the type of offence committed in relation to yellow card offences. The most common, by an overwhelming margin, was SOW4 (Dissent by word or action - see appendix for the list of codes) with just over 64 per cent of all yellow card offences. This is similar to the findings of the 2014 review where the most common offence was verbal abuse. In addition to dissent by word or action, almost 10 per cent of offences were SOW09 (Gesturing or acting in a provocative manner or inflammatory manner); 6.69 per cent were for SOW01 (Clearly/persistently not respecting the confines of the technical area) and 6.52 per cent were for SOW010 (Persistent or unacceptable behaviour (including repeated warnings). Most other offences were relatively rare (fewer than 2 per cent of offences) with no instances over the five-year period of any yellow cards for SOW05 (Entering the referee review area). 17

Table 5.2: Sideline Offence Warning (yellow cards) 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total Percentage 3 1 24 56 34 118 6.69 2 1 4 7 1 15 0.85 0 6 5 4 6 21 1.19 62 116 149 415 388 1130 64.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.11 0 1 1 16 13 31 1.76 1 12 12 8 10 43 2.44 6 24 33 52 54 169 9.59 12 17 20 36 30 115 6.52 0 2 9 11 5 27 1.53 3 4 10 6 5 28 1.59 7 15 11 18 13 64 3.63

SOW01 SOW02 SOW03 SOW04 SOW05 SOW06 SOW07 SOW08 SOW09 SOW10 SOW11 SOW12 SOW13

Table 5.3 looks at the 117 instances of red card offences over the two most recent seasons in which the data was available. Four offences made up just over 70 per cent of offences: TAD011; TAD01; TAD010; and TAD06.

Table 5.3: Technical Area Disciplinary (red cards) 2023-24 TAD01 TAD02 TAD03 TAD04 TAD06 TAD07 TAD09 TAD010 TAD011 TAD012 TAD014

2024-25 10 2 0 4 5 1 3 12 14 1 1

Total 11 5 3 4 8 0 8 5 17 0 3

Percentage 21 7 3 8 13 1 11 17 31 1 4

17.95 5.98 2.56 6.84 11.11 0.85 9.40 14.53 26.50 0.85 3.42

* For the TAD codes, we have not been able to find out what these codes mean

5.4.

Technical Area offences by month

We have also looked at when the disciplinary offences occurred by month. Chart 5.3 shows that over the five-year period, the month of October (252), August (244), 18

September (206) and February (206) had the highest number of total offences. However, the overall number was not significantly different to other months in which there are a large number of games in both league and cup competition. At first glance therefore, there does not appear to be any specific months in which disciplinary offences are more likely to occur: they are relatively evenly spread over the months in which football matches take place. What is needed here to be able to confirm this is further data on the precise number of games played in each month to be able to compare months more rigorously. Clearly there are fewer offences committed in May, June and July when relatively little football takes place.

Chart 5.3: Disciplinary offences by month 300 250 206

200 150

252

244 206 188 167

196

201

171

100 50

48 1

2020-21

2021-22

2022-23

2023-24

2024-25

Total

6. Survey and focus groups: data analysis The following section of the report presents the results of the survey analysis. Where relevant, we also draw on our analysis of the discussions that took place in the focus groups to give more detailed understanding to some of the issues that were identified from the analysis of the survey data. We break our analysis down into the following sections: safety and security; rules and regulations; roles and responsibilities; stadium infrastructure; behaviour; and the role of the fourth official. 6.1. Safety and security We asked the survey participants the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements that relate to the safety and security of the Technical Area during a matchday. Chart 6.1 shows that 82 per cent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the Technical Area was a safe workplace during matchdays with 16 per cent disagreeing and only three per cent strongly disagreeing. The results also showed that when comparing the mean score across all groups, there was a statistically significant difference between referees and the other three groups in the survey. 56 per cent of referees agreed that the Technical Area was a safe workplace with 11 per cent strongly agreeing. 25 per cent disagreed and 4 per cent strongly disagreed. Whilst the results show that referees are more likely to agree or strongly agree that the Technical Area is a safe workplace, almost one in three feel that the Technical Area is not a safe workplace during matchdays. This is a cause for concern and one that needs to be addressed.

Chart 6.1: Percentage of respondents that agreed that the Technical Area is a safe place during matchdays 70 62 60 50 40 30 20 10

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

*Numbers may not total 100 due to rounding

We were able to explore the issue of security in more detail through the open-ended questions in the survey and also in the focus groups where it was felt that safety within the Technical Area can be compromised by poor behaviours that lead to confrontation between benches. This puts a strain on the role of the fourth official and it is understandable why almost one in three feel that the Technical Area is not a safe workplace during matchdays. It was also revealed that safety of Technical Area occupants is also compromised due to abuse from supporters. Related to this, we asked survey participants the extent to which they agreed that there is sufficient security in place around the Technical Area. Chart 6.2 reveals that 70 per cent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that there is sufficient security around the Technical Area with 27 per cent disagreeing and four per cent strongly disagreeing. The mean response was similar across all groups in the survey, meaning there was not significant difference between groups. The open-ended questions in the survey provided more depth here as it was clear that many felt that the levels of security around are inadequate and that this leaves members of the Technical Area open to abuse from supporters (see below). This is an issue that needs addressing. What was also clear however, was that it was very much dependent on individual stadiums with newer stadiums recognised as providing a greater level of security.

Chart 6.2: Percentage of respondents that agreed that there is sufficient security around the Technical Area 60

50 40 27

30 20 10

14 4

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

*Numbers may not total 100 due to rounding

We asked survey respondents whether they felt there was adequate distance between the two Technical Areas. Chart 6.3 shows that results here were more evenly split with 58 21

per cent of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with this and 42 per cent believing there is not adequate distance. However, we also found a clear difference between groups: players were more likely to agree that there was adequate distance between the Technical Areas whilst only 26 per cent of referees agreed with this: 74 per cent of referees either disagreed or strongly disagreed. This difference was statistically significant when compared to the other groups and also perhaps helps to explain why one in three referees feel that the Technical Area is not a safe workplace during a matchday. The distance between the Technical Areas was also acknowledged to be a source of tension within the open-ended survey questions and the focus groups with a key theme being that the closer they are, the more challenging this is for the fourth official to manage the Technical Area and the increasing likelihood of confrontation happening between benches. The challenge here, as acknowledged above, was that distances between the Technical Area vary between stadiums and there are constraints on what is possible at older stadiums. Nevertheless, this should be looked at.

Chart 6.3: Percentage of respondents that agreed there is adequate distance between the two Technical Areas 60 49

50 40 33 30 20 10

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

We also asked survey respondents whether they agreed that occupants in the Technical Area are subject to abuse from supporters. There was overwhelming agreement for this across all groups with chart 6.4 showing that 87 per cent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. The mean response was similar across all groups in the survey although there was a slight difference in regard to managers who were more likely to agree or strongly agree with this. There is a paradox here in that whilst the majority of respondents feel that the Technical Area is a safe workspace, the majority also acknowledge abuse from supporters. This also came through in the analysis of the focus 22

group data also. There was recognition that, to some extent, this was part of the emotion and nature of the game but there was also a strong feeling that abuse from supporters should not be accepted and that more could be done to protect members of the Technical Area.

Chart 6.4: Percentage of respondents that agree that occupants in the Technical Area are subject to abuse from supporters 60 52 50 40

30 20 12 10 1

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

We followed up this question by asking survey participants the extent to which they agreed that there is adequate distance between the Technical Area and the supporters. 46 per cent disagreed with this, with a further 7 per cent strongly disagreeing. This demonstrates that over half the respondents believe that supporters are too close to the Technical Area and helps to explain the previous results around supporter abuse. This was also something that came out clearly in the open-ended questions in the survey.

Chart 6.5: Percentage of respondents that agree that there is adequate distance between the Technical Area and the supporters

40 35 30 25 20 15 10

5 0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

*Numbers may not total 100 due to rounding

Given the above results, it was understandable that the majority of respondents agreed that more should be done to ensure that the Technical Area occupants do not come into contact with supporters. Chart 6.6 shows that 22 per cent strongly agreed and 47 per cent agreed with this statement. The only group to differ in their response was the players who they were less likely than the other groups to agree with this statement.

Chart 6.6: Percentage of respondents that agree more should be done to ensure that the Technical Area occupants do not come into contact with supporters

45 40 35 29

30 25

20 15 10 5

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

*Numbers may not total 100 due to rounding

In relation to the issue around safety of the Technical Area, we asked an open-ended question on what should be done to improve this. Key themes to come from this, which were further explored in the focus groups, included enhanced security, better stewarding of supporters including more effective punishments for abusive language and behaviour, ensuring that the Technical Areas are enclosed with adequate cover, having greater physical distances between the Technical Areas, and having more control over who sits behind the Technical Areas. These feed into our recommendations. 6.2. Rules and regulations The survey included a series of questions that focused on the current rules and regulations relating to the Technical Area. This allowed us to build on the analysis of the rules seen in section 4 earlier in this report. Chart 6.7 shows that 80 per cent of respondents believe that the rules relating to unacceptable behaviour are clear. For those that indicated the rules are not clear, we also asked why. An analysis of the open-ended question revealed two main themes. The first theme was the inconsistent application of the rules by the fourth officials – something we later expand on in section 6.7 and the role of the fourth official. The second theme was the lack of awareness of the rules. Despite 80 per cent of respondents saying the rules are clear, there is clearly a significant minority that feel this is not the case.

Chart 6.7: Percentage of respondents that answered yes or no to questions relating to Technical Area rules and regulations

Want to see a standardised set or rules relating to the Technical Area

Aware of the Participant Behaviour Charter

The rules relating to unacceptable behaviour are clear

Yes

100

120

The earlier section in this report demonstrated that there are some differences in relation to the Technical Area rules across the different governing bodies (i.e. the FA, the leagues, UEFA). We asked survey participants whether they would want to see the rules 25

standardised with an overwhelming majority (89 per cent) indicating they would. Chart 6.7 also shows that 65 per cent were aware of the Participant Behaviour Charter although there was a clear difference here between groups with only 23 per cent of players being aware of the Charter compared to 65 per cent of managers/coaches, 74 per cent of club officials/stewards, and 98 per cent of the referees. There is scope here to ensure that awareness of the Charter becomes understood across clubs more widely. Of the respondents that were aware of the Participant Behaviour Charter, 25 per cent said that behaviour has improved since the introduction of the Charter while 72 per cent felt that it has stayed the same and 3 per cent said that behaviour has deteriorated. We asked survey participants whether they felt that the rules allowed too many people into the Technical Area during games. Chart 6.8 showed that overall there was a relatively even split with 47 per cent either agreeing or strongly agreeing and 53 per cent either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The focus groups revealed there is nuance to this: stadium facilities have an impact on this. Where there is enough space in the Technical Area (which tends to be at newer stadiums) then this can, to some extent, alleviate the issue of there being too many people in the Technical Area. Where space is limited, this was argued to be challenging.

Chart 6.8: Percentage of respondents that agreed there are too many people allowed into the Technical Area during games 60 48

50 40 30

agree

strongly agree

20 10

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

Related to this, chart 6.14 in this report identifies that there are a number of roles that the majority of respondents do not feel are necessary in the Technical Area. These results suggest there is scope for being more explicit on who can occupy the Technical area during a match which might also reduce the number of people in the Technical Area. This 26

also came out in the focus groups also with a clear feeling that certain roles are not necessary and can be a source of tension. There was also a clear statistically significant difference here between the referees and the three other groups with 86 per cent of referees agreeing or strongly agreeing there are too many people allowed into the Technical Area during games. This could explain why one on three referees feel that the Technical Area is not a safe workplace given they have to manage what the majority clearly feel is an overcrowded space. While the analysis of the relevant open-ended survey question revealed that there was little concern about the number of Technical Area occupants, what was more of a concern was issues such as the behaviours demonstrated by members of the Technical Area (which are explored in more detail in section 6.6). 6.3. The use of technology The use of technology in Technical Areas is common with a range of technologies used including laptops, tablets, headsets allowing for two-way communication, video and data analysis software, GPS tracking, and medical monitoring devices. The survey included a series of questions that focused on the use of technology in the Technical Area. Chart 6.9 shows that 76 per cent of respondents agreed that the rules relating to the use of technology in the Technical Area are clear and sufficient, with 66 per cent agreeing and 10 per cent strongly agreeing. In line with this response chart 6.9 also shows that 69 per cent of survey respondents agreed that the use of technology in the Technical Area is managed consistently with 62 per cent agreeing and 7 per cent strongly agreeing. The results were similar across all four groups in regard to this question.

Chart 6.9: Percentage of respondents that agreed or strongly agreed with the use of technology in the Technical Area

The use of technology in the Technical Area is managed consistently

the rules relating to the use of technology in the Technical Area are clear and sufficient

0 agree

strongly agree

However, this also means that almost one in three respondents feel that technology is not managed consistently and that one in four do not feel that the rules relating to the use of technology are clear. We asked a series of open-ended questions relating to the use of technology that gave us more insight into some of the issues and concerns that individuals have. The analysis reveals that there is uncertainty over who manages and monitors the use of technology. There was also strong concerns amongst a relatively large number of respondents that the use of technology is seen as a source of tension in that it was used to question the decisions made by the match officials. Whilst there was support for the use of technology, particularly as it was seen to support coaching, there was also support for removing technology from the Technical Area as it was felt to be used inappropriately to put pressure on match officials and that this is a cause for confrontation and tension. Some felt that there is too much use of technology, which is leading individuals in the Technical Area to feel empowered to confront the fourth official. In this respect, there is scope here for making changes that could improve behaviours and also protect the match officials. 6.4. Stadium infrastructure The survey asked participants a series of questions that related to the stadium infrastructure surrounding the Technical Area. The survey results revealed that there was almost an even split when asked whether the Technical Area was large enough for all staff with 48 per cent saying no. Of these, 49 per cent also said that there were too many people allowed in the Technical Area. 47 per cent of respondents said that they felt the Technical Area was large enough for all staff (there were some missing answers). Of these, 39 per cent felt that too many people are allowed in the Technical Area. However, one issue that came through clearly in the open ended questions as well as the focus groups was that the Technical Area varies depending on the stadium, with newer stadiums felt to be a lot better than older stadiums. As noted in section 6.1, having a greater physical distance between the Technical Areas was seen as important to reduce the potential for tension and confrontation. However, this is clearly more of a challenge at older stadiums where there are constraints on what can be achieved. There was also clear concerns about the abuse from supporters (section 6.1) which also relate to the issue of stadium infrastructure. The survey also asked whether it would be beneficial to have a designated “off-pitch” technical area for both home and away teams, to include all listed technical staff. Chart 6.10 shows that there was overwhelming support for this with 86 per cent of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing with this. When breaking down into groups, responses were similar across all groups except for the players who were less likely than the other groups to agree with this statement. 28

Chart 6.10: Percentage of respondents that agreed it would be beneficial to have a designated “off-pitch” technical area 60 49

40 30 20

11 10 3 0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

The survey also asked a little more about the specifics for an ‘off-pitch’ Technical Area. Chart 6.11 illustrates that 43 per cent of respondents agreed and 24 per cent strongly agreed that it would be beneficial for a designated “off-pitch” technical area to be a minimum of 20+ seated rows behind the relevant bench. This would create a clear distance between the bench and the ‘off-pitch’ Technical Area. Responses across all groups were similar except for the referees who were more likely to agree or strongly agree with this. Chart 6.11: Percentage of respondents that agreed it would be beneficial for a designated “off-pitch” technical area to be a minimum of 20+ seated rows behind the relevant bench

50 43

45 40 35

25 20 15 10 5

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

*Numbers may not total 100 due to rounding

We also asked whether the ‘off-pitch’ Technical Area should be directly behind the relevant team bench. 81 per cent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this (chart 6.12). The Manager/coaches and the club officials/stewards were more likely to agree with this than the players and referees.

Chart 6.12: Percentage of respondents that agreed it would be beneficial for a designated “off-pitch” technical area to be directly behind the relevant bench? 60

50 40 30

20 10

15 4

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

We also asked whether it would be beneficial to restrict access to the tunnel and pitch pre-match and post-match to those designated to occupying the Technical Area only. Chart 6.13 shows that 75 per agreed with this, with 30 per cent strongly agreeing and 45 30

per cent agreeing. When we compared this across the different groups, we could see that the referees were more likely to agree or strongly agree with this.

Chart 6.13: Percentage of respondents agreeing that it would be beneficial to restrict access to the tunnel and pitch pre-match and post-match to those designated to occupy the technical area 50

45 40 35

30 25

20 15 10

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

6.5. Roles and Responsibilities The survey asked participants a series of questions that related to roles and responsibilities of those that occupy the Technical Area. This directly relates to the issues above about the number of occupants in the Technical Area. Whilst the survey results on this were split when asked whether there were too many people allowed in the Technical Area, we also asked the survey participants to indicate which roles they felt were essential, necessary and unnecessary within the Technical Area. Chart 6.14 reveals a range of different roles and the percentage of respondents that indicated they were either essential, necessary or unnecessary. As can be expected, there are three roles that the large majority of respondents across all groups surveyed consider to be essential occupants of the Technical Area. These include the manager/head coach; the assistant manager/head coach; and the head of medical/physiotherapist. After these, there are a number of other roles that the majority of respondents consider to be either essential or necessary. These are the various coaching roles (e.g. coach; goalkeeping coach; set piece coach). There was some difference between groups here with the referees less likely than the other groups to consider these as essential or necessary. 31

There are also a range of roles that the majority of respondents consider to be unnecessary within the Technical Area. These include having multiple coaches in the Technical Area, sports psychologists, or sports nutritionists for example. The focus groups also revealed a feeling that the number of support staff (and thus the number of roles) is only going to get larger as off-pitch support grows. With 47 per cent of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing that there are too many people allowed into the Technical Area (chart 6.8) there is scope to look at whether there could be more explicit rules that set out which individual roles are allowed in the Technical Area during the match. This was also an issue that came out in the focus groups, with the referees in particular stating that managing the number of people in the Technical Area was a very challenging aspect of their role. Chart 6.14: Percentage of respondents that indicated which roles are essential, necessary or unnecessary Multiple Performance Analysts 1 12 87 Multiple Strength & Conditioning / Performance Coaches 2 9 89 Multiple Goalkeeping Coaches 2 10 88 Sport Psychologist 4 12 83 Individual Development Coach 4 10 86 Sport Nutritionist 6 17 77 Performance Analyst 16 33 50 Multiple Coaches (outfield) 18 36 46 Sport Scientist 21 27 52 Strength & Conditioning / Performance Coach 24 31 45 Set Piece Coach 36 47 Goalkeeping Coach 50 32 Assistant Medical / Physiotherapist 51 38 Coach 66 27 Head of Medical / Lead Physiotherapist 87 Assistant Manager / Assistant Head Coach 88 Manager / Head Coach 96 0 Essential

Necessary

17 18 11 7 10 3 11 3 90

100

Unecessary

*Numbers may not total 100 due to rounding

6.6. Behaviour We asked survey participants a series of questions relating to behaviour within the Technical Area. This helped to give more detail on issues that had been picked up in the analysis of the disciplinary data which has shown that since the launch of the Participant Behaviour Charter ahead of season 2023-24, the number of disciplinary offences has risen significantly. It was also noted above that 25 per cent of respondents that were 32

aware of the Participant Behaviour Charter said that behaviour has improved since the introduction of the Charter while 72 per cent felt that it has stayed the same and 3 per cent said that behaviour has deteriorated. The survey data in this section examines two interrelated dimensions: the prevalence of inappropriate behaviour in the Technical Area, and the attitudes and actions of those most likely to engage in it. The findings are unambiguous: inappropriate conduct in the Technical Area is not an occasional or isolated problem but rather it is a systemic feature of professional matchday environments in England. The survey asked whether inappropriate behaviour in the Technical Area is common. Chart 6.15 shows that 74 per cent agreed or strongly agreed with only 1 per cent in strong disagreement. When comparing across groups, referees were more likely to agree or strongly agree with this statement than the other three groups. This finding alone carries significant weight for the Working Group: there is no meaningful constituency within the professional game that views the current situation as acceptable or unusual. This is a significant step-change from the baseline established by the 2010 and 2014 reviews. The intervening decade has introduced structural changes to the matchday environment, among them the introduction of VAR, the expansion of Technical Area occupancy, and changes in media intensity around sideline activity that appear to have created new conditions for behavioural escalation. The survey data reflects these changes.

Chart 6.15: Percentage of respondents that agreed that inappropriate behaviour in the Technical Area is common 50

40 35 29

25 20 15 10 5

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

When asked whether managers and coaches are more likely to behave in irresponsible ways than others in the Technical Area, 61 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, against only 2 per cent who strongly disagreed (chart 6.16). The mean response places this item firmly in agreement territory and this signals broad consensus rather than polarised opinion. This is a finding that should be read with care - it does not suggest that managers and coaches are uniquely culpable individuals, but rather that the structural conditions of their role, including the pressure to perform, the visibility of their reactions, and the proximity to officials create heightened risk of behavioural escalation. Chart 6.16: Percentage of respondents that agreed that managers and coaches are more likely to behave in irresponsible ways than others in the Technical Area 50

45 40

35 30 25 20

10 5

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

Appendix two sets out the range of disciplinary offences that lead to a sideline offence warning (i.e. a yellow card). Respondents were presented with 22 specific behaviours and asked whether each represents a persistent type of poor conduct that leads to disciplinary offences. The results reveal a clear hierarchy, with the most commonly identified behaviours clustering around the relationship between Technical Area occupants and match officials, rather than around physical or procedural infractions. Chart 6.17 sets out the five behaviours attracting the highest levels of agreement. The combined agreement score for failing to respect match officials — the top-ranked behaviour — stands at 92 per cent. This is the highest figure recorded across all 22 items and across both sections of the survey. It is analytically significant that the items ranked lowest (excessively showing the VAR signal, 50 per cent; entering the opposing Technical Area non-confrontationally, 53 per cent) are characterised by their procedural or symbolic nature, whereas those ranked highest are characterised by the directness of their challenge to officiating authority. 34

This distribution suggests that the professional game has arrived at an uncomfortable equilibrium: technical and procedural infractions are accepted as relatively routine, while the most serious disciplinary concern, the erosion of respect for match officials, has become the dominant mode of problem behaviour. The top five persistent behaviours all share a common characteristic: they represent direct challenges to the authority or judgment of match officials, rather than physical or structural violations. This pattern implies that reducing Technical Area misconduct is, in significant part, a problem of relational culture rather than rule enforcement alone. Chart 6.17. Percentage of respondents that indicated the following five behaviours are the most persistent

Failing to respect the match official(s)

Failing to cooperate with a match official

Persistent unacceptable behaviour (including repeated warning offences)

Using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s)

Acting in a provocative or inflammatory manner

0 agree

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

strongly agree

We followed up by asking respondents to identify the factors most likely to lead to inappropriate behaviour in the Technical Area. Seven trigger factors were tested and chart 6.18 sets out the ranked findings. The most significant result in this section is that frustration with decisions by match officials achieves 100 per cent agreement, making it the only trigger to receive universal endorsement across the respondent sample. This should be read not as an indictment of match officials, but as a clear signal that the mechanism by which officiating decisions are communicated to, and processed by, Technical Area occupants is a critical leverage point for any reform agenda. The second-highest item — frustration with the 4th official's approach and attitude (88 per cent) — reinforces this framing. Together, these two items suggest that the Technical Area's behavioural climate is substantially shaped by the quality, consistency, and

communication style of officiating, and specifically of the 4th official as the primary interface between the dugout and the match official team. It is notable that frustration with on-pitch factors (player performance, team performance) generates moderate agreement, while frustration with officiating generates near-universal agreement. This distinction matters for recommendations: interventions aimed at emotional regulation or self-management alone are unlikely to be sufficient if the underlying triggers, particularly the quality and style of the officiating relationship, are not also addressed.

Chart 6.18: The factors that lead to inappropriate behaviour Frustration with decisions by the match officials

Frustration with the opposition technical area occupants

Frustration with Team performance

Frustration with the 4th Official’s approach/attitude

Frustration with individual player performance

47 56

Frustration with managerial or staff decisions

Frustration with the behaviour of the crowd

0 Agree

100

120

Strongly agree

6.7. The role of the fourth official The results above were notable in that they have identified that the behavioural climate within the Technical Area is substantially shaped by the role of the fourth official. The survey looked at this role in a little more detail. Respondents were asked whether the fourth official should deal more strongly with unacceptable behaviour in the Technical Area. Chart 6.19 reveals that 79 per cent agreed or strongly agreed with only 3 per cent in strong disagreement. This is a clear and confident majority position. The demand for firmer intervention is not the view of a vocal minority — it represents the dominant professional consensus. The result also suggests however, that a meaningful minority hold a more nuanced position, perhaps reflecting uncertainty about the systemic conditions under which the fourth official operates, or scepticism about whether stronger enforcement, in isolation, would be effective. This finding should not, therefore, 36

be read as a simple call for more red cards or dismissals. It is more likely an expression of a desire for the fourth official role to be exercised with greater authority and confidence. This came through in the focus groups also with the clear feeling that the introduction of the Participant Behaviour Charter had also empowered the fourth officials to deal with poor behaviours. It therefore provides more understanding as to the rise in disciplinary offences related to the Technical Area; it is not necessarily due to an increase in poor behaviour but more the fact that the fourth officials have the ability to deal with poor behaviours more effectively. Chart 6.19: The fourth official should deal more strongly with unacceptable behaviour 45 40

agree

strongly agree

35 30 25 18

20 15 10 5

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

The survey item generating the strongest and most consistent agreement across both sections 6.6 and 6.7 is the training question: whether the fourth official needs more training to manage the Technical Area. Chart 6.20 reveals that 83 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed when asked this question. Whilst referees were more likely to disagree with this, the high percentage of respondents agreeing with this, alongside the high mean, are analytically significant: it indicates both strong agreement and high consistency of opinion. This is not a contested position in the professional game. There is broad consensus across managers, coaches, referees, and other stakeholders represented in the sample that the current training provision for fourth officials in relation to Technical Area management is insufficient. This finding has direct implications for PGMOL's development frameworks and for the wider match officials' preparation pathway. It also raises a structural question: if the fourth official is widely regarded as insufficiently trained for the specific demands of Technical Area management, then the current expectations placed on the role may exceed the preparation that underpins it. The evidence base therefore, for a dedicated, 37

standardised training programme for fourth officials specifically addressing Technical Area conduct management is strong and should be treated as the highest-priority recommendation arising from this section. Chart 6.20: Fourth official needs more training to manage the Technical Area 50

45 40

35 30 25 20 14

15 10 5

0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

The third survey question in this section asked whether fourth officials manage the Technical Area in a consistent manner. Chart 6.21 reveals that 59 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed with this. This represents the lowest-rated item in this section and one of the most analytically telling. Chart 6.21: Fourth officials manage the Technical Area in a consistent manner 45

40 35 30 24

25 20

15 10 5 0 Strongly disagree

disagree

agree

strongly agree

*Numbers may not total 100 due to rounding

The standard deviation for this response indicates that opinions are not simply mildly negative but span a wide range: some respondents report experiencing consistent and 38

effective fourth official management, while others report the opposite. This dispersion most likely reflects genuine variation in how the role is performed across competitions, leagues, and individual officials, rather than uncertainty or ambivalence among respondents. Understood in this way, the consistency finding is not simply a vote of no confidence in fourth officials collectively — it is a diagnostic signal pointing toward structural unevenness in how the role is resourced, trained, and supervised. The variation in experience is itself the problem. It suggests that the experience of fourth official management in the Technical Area is highly variable across contexts. Some officials are managing the Technical Area effectively; others are not. This points to a need for standardisation, audit, and shared protocols rather than blanket performance improvement. The focus groups also confirmed the challenges in relation to the role of the fourth official. There was recognition that the role is a very difficult and challenging one, and often not made easy by the behaviour of those in the Technical Area, including managers. There were four overarching themes that emerged from our analysis of the focus groups. First, it was acknowledged that the expectations around the role of the fourth official have grown and that the role involves performing multiple duties. This is confirmed when looking at the guidance provided by the Football Association on the role of the fourth official before, during and after the match. This also confirms what was discussed in the focus groups – that the role is too complicated and overwhelming. The second theme, that relates to this, was in relation to a lack of experience. There was a strong feeling that the fourth officials often lack experience in managing the Technical Area and that often, particularly in Leagues One and Two, that more junior referees are given the role of the fourth official. This was a real cause for concern given the complexity and challenging nature of the role. It also linked to the third theme: there was a feeling that whilst it is clear in terms of expected behaviours, there are too many prescriptive rules and that the application of these can be both inconsistent and also a source of tension that results in poor behaviours. The example given is the rule that only one person can stand in the Technical Area. It was acknowledged that when clubs break this rule, the fourth official constantly having to ask people to sit down detracts from their ability to watch the game (and support the referee), leads them to spend a disproportionate amount of time managing the Technical Area, and also can cause behavioural situations to escalate. This links to the fourth theme which was one of confrontation. Whilst it was acknowledged that there is poor behaviour demonstrated by individuals in the Technical Area, there was a strong feeling that the ability to challenge and to question the fourth official can be a source of tension and that some clubs will take advantage of this.

7. Recommendations This review of the Technical Area has been undertaken for the Technical Area Review Working Group and has focused on two objectives: •

To investigate and identify the nature and the extent of the current challenges provided by, and experienced in, the Technical Area during matchdays

•

To set out a series of recommendations that would support a more professional and safe working environment in the Technical Area for all colleagues.

The following 16 recommendations are based on our analysis of the survey data supported by the analysis of the focus groups. They are organised into four clusters reflecting the principal areas of concern identified by the data: rules and regulations; the culture of conduct in the Technical Area; fourth official support; and the physical and structural conditions that enable or inhibit better outcomes. We also provide a recommendation relating to ongoing procedural support that will be required to implement changes. Many of the recommendations across the four clusters are linked and therefore the implementation of many of the recommendations would need to be thought through in combination with other recommendations. There are also some recommendations that if implemented, would negate the need for other recommendations. Therefore we do not see this as a list of recommendations that need implementing in their entirety; it is for the Technical Area Review Working Group to discuss which of these they believe are most pressing and also more feasible in terms of implementation.

Cluster 1: Rules and regulations There is a need for a greater degree of standardisation and consistency in regard to the rules relating to the Technical Area R1

There are different rules relating to the Technical Area from the various stakeholders (the leagues and associations). Whilst there is a degree of similarity, 89 per cent of respondents to the survey indicated they want more standardisation and consistency in relation to the rules demonstrating overwhelming support for this.

There is a need to set out with more clarity which specific roles are able to occupy the Technical Area during a match day 40

There is consistency across the current rules that state that only team officials (and those listed on the team sheet) are allowed to occupy the team bench. However, the survey results reveal that many feel some roles are not necessary for the Technical Area. The Football Authorities should provide more clarity as to which roles constitute being a team official and why this individual/role is necessary to be in the Technical Area. At the same time, consideration should also be given to whether there is the potential to reduce the number of occupants in the Technical Area that was also felt to be a source of tension.

Restrict access to the tunnel and pitch pre-match and post-match to those designated to occupying the Technical Area only R3

In line with the recommendation above, we also recommend that access to the tunnel and to the pitch prior to the match and after the match should be restricted to those designated to occupying the Technical Area. This was supported by the majority of respondents in the survey. It will also support the fourth official in terms of managing the Technical Area.

The current rule that only allows one person in the Technical Area should be amended to allow two designated people into the Technical Area during a match day R4

The current rules allow only for one person to be in the Technical Area at any one point in time. This should be changed to allow for two designated individuals who would be the only ones allowed in the Technical Area. One of these would most likely be the manager and the effect of this rule change would be to ensure that managers feel supported during the time when they are at their most vulnerable.

A new rule should be introduced that only allows for two designated individuals to have the ability to interact with the fourth official R5

There is concern about members of the Technical Area approaching the fourth official and this being a source of tension and confrontation. This rule would mean that only two designated individuals would be allowed to speak to the 41

fourth official and could reduce the potential for conflict. It should also be the case that of the two designated to speak with the Fourth Official, this does not include the medical staff to ensure that the safety of players remains at the forefront of the minds of all Technical Area staff and there is no confusion or hesitation in medical situations.

Cluster 2: Culture and conduct Enhance awareness of the Participant Behaviour Charter

The survey established that inappropriate behaviour is common and that specific conduct categories, particularly those involving disrespect toward officials, are the most persistent. The Participant Behaviour Charter has been in place for two years, and pre-season meetings take place in regard to setting expectations of behaviour. However, there is scope to do more to raise awareness of the Charter within clubs.

Introduce structured pre-season briefings for all Technical Area occupants

Linked to the point above and given that 74 per cent of respondents consider managers and coaches more likely to behave irresponsibly than other Technical Area occupants, enhancing awareness of the Participant Behaviour Charter should involve improved targeted briefings at the start of each season covering conduct expectations, disciplinary thresholds, and the rationale for regulations. This will help to normalise standards and reduce the frequency of avoidable incidents.

Ensure there are trained stewards placed around the Technical Area

The survey revealed that 87 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that members of the Technical Area are subject to abuse from supporters. Putting in place stewards to deal more effectively with abuse from supporters including the removal of abusive supporters by the stewarding teams is important to address this. This will require further training to deal with the specific nature of the issues associated with the Technical Area.

Implement a designated ‘safe’ zone in the stands directly behind the dugouts

To address the issue of abuse from supporters (as indicated by 87 per cent of survey respondents), clubs should implement a ‘safe’ zone in the stands directly behind the dugouts. This would mean clubs taking responsibility for ensuring that those that sit behind the dugout are not going to project abuse towards members of the Technical Area. Ways to do this could mean designating the area behind the dugout as a family zone or only allowing employee seats to be located here.

Cluster 3: Fourth Official Support Delegate match specific tasks to the club staff designated to communicate with the Fourth Official

The role of the fourth official has clearly become overwhelming with an increased level of administrative tasks that detract from their ability to support the referee. In line with the recommendation that only two designated individuals should have the ability to interact with the fourth official, we also recommend that these two also are given administrative responsibilities to support the Fourth Official, such as substitution cards, mandatory attendance at the pre-match meeting and necessary completion of pre-match tasks such as required via the App and written requirements. This will provide further support for the fourth official in performing some of the match day duties.

Commission a dedicated training programme for fourth officials in Technical Area management R2

With 83 per cent agreement, the demand for improved training is both clear and consistent. The programme should address communication skills, deescalation techniques, enforcement protocols, and situational judgment. It should be mandatory and assessed, not elective.

Develop a standardised conduct management protocol for fourth officials

The finding that 59 per cent of respondents experience inconsistent management combined with the highest standard deviation in the dataset indicates that the problem is one of variable practice rather than uniform failure. A standardised protocol, consistently applied across competitions, would reduce this variability and improve the predictability and fairness of Technical Area management from the perspective of all occupants.

Introduce regular peer review and performance audit for fourth officials in relation to Technical Area management R4

Training alone cannot address the consistency problem. A structured review mechanism drawing on match footage, post-match reporting, and peer observation would allow PGMOL to identify where the greatest variation in practice exists and to intervene accordingly. This should be developed in collaboration with the LMA and LCA to ensure it is experienced as developmental rather than punitive.

Cluster 4: Physical and structural conditions Clubs should commit to introducing greater physical distances between the Technical Areas

The behavioural data strengthens the case for also examining whether the physical proximity of the Technical Area at individual stadiums creates or exacerbate the conditions in which inappropriate behaviour occurs. Clubs should commit to looking at ways to introduce greater physical distances between the Technical Areas. We recognise this is not easy, and that there is no one-size fits all solution, particularly due to the constraints in older stadiums, but this must be considered. We also recommend that there should be an agreed and standardised distance introduced between the Technical Areas in any future new stadia developments.

Clubs should look at introducing a designated “off-pitch” technical area for both home and away teams to include all listed technical staff

A large majority of survey respondents supported the implementation of a designated “off-pitch” technical area. This could be located a minimum of 20+ seated rows behind the relevant bench. This would create a clear distance between the bench and the ‘off-pitch’ Technical Area but it would also address the issues regarding abuse from supporters. As the issue of space was noted in the research, this would also provide for this. The designated off-pitch technical area is to be treated as an equitable workspace for staff of both clubs, providing the technology capabilities and pitch viewpoints that are not beneficial or compromised to either the home or away club. Appropriate access and safety measures are to be provided by the home club, again at an equitable level.

Procedural support Establish a joint working group between the LMA/LCA, the PGMOL and the football authorities to implement recommendations

The recommendations arising from this review span multiple stakeholders. Effective implementation requires a dedicated cross-organisational mechanism with clear ownership, timelines, and accountability. The Working Group should recommend that a joint implementation body be established with representation from all Football Authorities, with a mandate to discuss the recommendations of this review and to decide on which they would like to take forward. The Working Group should report on progress to the Steering Group on an annual basis.

Appendices Appendix 1: Rules and regulations relating to the Technical Area

IFAB

Technical dimensions

Number of occupants

Who is allowed in the Technical Area

Occupants allowed in the Technical Area during a match

Equipment

Commercial/broadcasting

The technical area should only extend 1 m (1 yd) on either side of the designated seated area and up to a distance of 1 m (1 yd) from the touchline

The number of persons permitted to occupy the technical area is defined by the competition rules

Doesn’t specify

Only one person at a time is authorised to convey tactical instructions from the technical area

Electronic performance and tracking systems (EPTS)

No form of commercial advertising, whether real or virtual, is permitted in the technical area

The number of players and officials seated on the team benches in the designated technical area must not exceed 11 unless the team bench facility provides more than 11 individual seats.

“Club Officials” in these Regulations includes any Club Official as defined in the Rules who has team duties such as managers, coaches, physiotherapists, and doctors and includes any person who takes up a position in the Technical Area at any time during a Match

Only one person at a time has the authority to convey tactical instructions to the Players during the match from within the technical area

Other Equipment” means medical bags, kit bags, blankets, towels, bottles and any medical equipment worn by a Player (including head protection, face masks, casts, kneepads or knee braces, elbow pads) that may be used on the field of play and / or in the Technical Area

Equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images

Markings should be used to define the area

Refers to Law 1.9 of the IFAB rules (“Technical Area” shall have the meaning given to it in the Laws of the Game).

Additional seating near or around the team benches in the designated technical area is not permitted

Only those persons listed on the official Team Sheet shall be permitted in the technical area

With the exception of the team manager, the team coach and any substitutes who are warming up or warming down, all other personnel are to remain seated on the trainer’s bench. The team manager or team coach is allowed to move to the edge of the technical area to issue instructions to his team

All occupants of the technical area must wear corporate bench kit as directed by the Competition. The only exception would be the Team manager who will be allowed to wear suits and overcoats not displaying any sponsorship logos

EPL

The technical areas shall include the trainers’ benches required by Rule K.31 and shall extend one metre either side of each and to within one metre of the touchline Such trainers’ benches shall be clearly marked ‘Home’ and ‘Away’, shall have direct access onto the pitch, shall be located equidistant from the halfway line, shall be under cover

EFL

Trainers' Benches/boxes to be provided (and clearly separated) marked HOME and AWAY in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 35.1. The technical area, as defined in Law 3 of the Laws of the Game must be clearly marked.

Trainers benches shall each contain 16 seats In addition to the 16 positions situated in the Visiting Club’s trainers’ bench, each Club shall provide at each League Match played at its Stadium 10 or more positions for the sole use of coaching and medical staff of the Visiting Club

Clubs must provide separate areas adjacent to the pitch for the exclusive use of team officials and substitute Players (and any substituted Players) for both the Home and Visiting Club.

Only Club Officials and those included on the Club’s Team Sheet for a given League match are permitted to use the allocation on the Visiting Club’s trainer’s bench and additional self-contained area.

The technical area shall be occupied during a League Match only by substitute Players and Officials whose names appear on the team sheet. Only Officials whose names appear on the team sheet and who are situated in the technical area may communicate instructions to Players during a League Match Each Club shall provide one position at each League Match played at its Stadium for the use of the Match Manager, which must be situated sufficiently close to the position of the fourth official to enable the Match Manager to easily communicate with the fourth official during the League Match without needing to enter either technical area to do so Doesn’t specify

Doesn’t specify

Each Club shall provide at its Stadium, and make available to the League’s Appointed Production Partner and the Host Broadcaster upon request, a camera position in each technical area for remotely operated cameras

Doesn’t specify

These areas shall have direct access to the pitch, shall be under cover and shall contain only fourteen

seats (subject to any dispensations granted by the Board). The layout, facilities and viewing positions for the Visiting Club bench shall be the same as for the Home Club In addition to the fourteen positions situated in the Visiting Club’s trainers’ bench, each Championship Club shall provide at each League match played at its Stadium eight positions for the sole use of coaching and medical staff of the Visiting Club. These positions must be in one selfcontained area with access to the Visiting Club’s trainers’ bench. In addition to the fourteen positions situated in the Visiting Club’s trainers’ bench, each League One and League Two Club shall provide at each League match played at its Stadium five positions for the sole use of coaching and medical staff of the

Visiting Club. These positions must be as close as is reasonably possible to the Visiting Club’s trainers’ bench.

WSL

Doesn’t specify

In all Matches, and unless otherwise directed by the Executive Operational Committee, the number of Players and Club Officials seated on the team benches, in the designated technical area, must not exceed 13 unless the team bench facility provides more than 13 individual seats

In all Matches, and unless otherwise directed by the Executive Operational Committee, the home Club shall provide a seat in the technical area for its doctor and its physiotherapist or sports therapist, and the away Club shall provide a seat in the technical area for its physiotherapist or sports therapist, as well as its doctor should the away Club’s doctor be in attendance at the Match Only those persons listed on the official Team Sheet shall be permitted in the technical area.

UEFA

The technical areas as defined in the IFAB Laws of the Game Each technical area and its markings

The 15 team officials and 12 substitute players indicated on the match sheet, i.e. a total of 27 persons, are allowed to sit on the team bench. If the

All areas that are primarily used by players and the referee team as well as the officials and venue team members during the match, plus the fourth official's position, any

Only one person from a Club at a time (who shall be the team manager or the team coach) has the authority to issue instructions to its Players during the Match from within the technical area.

Information and data transmitted from the EPTS devices are not permitted to be received or used in the technical area during a Competition Match.

Doesn’t specify

Up to two portable cameras, located outside the technical areas and in fixed positions unless agreed otherwise, may be installed to film the team benches

The person at each Club who is in charge of the team on the day (for example, the team manager or team coach) is the only person who has the authority to move to the edge of the technical area to issue instructions to the team. All other personnel are to remain seated in the technical area, save for: (a) a second member of the Club’s coaching personnel, who may stand but must remain next to the team’s bench at all times; and (b) any substitutes who are warming up or warming down Doesn’t specify

must comply with the IFAB Laws of the Game

team bench provides fewer than 27 seats, the remaining number of seats must be accommodated to the side of each team bench (or behind if the team benches are in the stands), with access to the dressing rooms. They must be segregated from the general public and, ideally, covered. The set-up must be the same for both teams. All the substitutes and the team doctor indicated on the match sheet must be seated on the team bench during the match

seats in the stands used by either team's sporting delegation, the referee review area (RRA) if VAR is used, the players' tunnel, the team and referee dressing rooms, the medical room and the doping control station

Appendix 2: Disciplinary codes: Sideline Offence Warning (yellow cards) Code SOW01 SOW02 SOW03 SOW04 SOW05 SOW06 SOW07 SOW08 SOW09 SOW10 SOW11 SOW12 SOW13

Sideline Offence Warning Clearly/persistently not respecting the confines of the technical area Delaying the restart of play Deliberately entering the technical area of the opposing team Dissent by word or action Entering the referee review area Excessively showing the TV signal for a ‘VAR’ review Excessively/persistently gesturing for a red/yellow card Gestures which show clear lack of respect for Match Officials (e.g. sarcastic clapping) Gesturing or acting in a provocative manner or inflammatory manner Persistent or unacceptable behaviour (including repeated warnings) Showing a lack of respect for the game Throwing/kicking drinks bottles or other objects Other

The Centre for Sports Business is a world leading research centre that delivers impactful research in partnership with the sports industry. Our policy briefings are short, impactfocused papers aimed at promoting and disseminating policy-focused research contributions from academics, policymakers and practitioners on a range of challenges facing the sports industry. About the authors Professor Geoff Walters is Professor of Sport Business and Director of the Centre for Sports Business in the Management School at the University of Liverpool. Dr David Cockayne is an Associate Professor in Marketing and Associate Dean (External Engagement in the Management School at the University of Liverpool. Dr Ben Homes is Lecturer in Sports Analytics in the Management School at the University of Liverpool.

Centre for Sports Business, University of Liverpool Management School, Liverpool https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/management/research/centres/sports-business/