The criticism of 1990 has never really faded. Eduardo Galeano called it “entediante”, a brutal summary of a tournament remembered for caution, stoppages and a shortage of invention. The report also says viewed the final between Argentina and West Germany as “uma propaganda terrível para o jogo de futebol”.
That matters because the complaints were not only aesthetic. They were about anti-football: professional fouls, simulation, time-wasting and teams protecting space rather than attacking it.
The fix was not one grand revolution, but a package of nudges aimed at making ambition worthwhile again. The report says the key changes included:
Those shifts helped change the rhythm of matches. Defenders had fewer easy escape routes, goalkeepers could no longer kill momentum so comfortably, and coaches had a bigger incentive to chase victories rather than settle.
The report says later concluded “USA '94 foi muito melhor do que Italia '90” - not perfection, but progress.
No rulebook can eliminate dark arts completely. Football will always have gamesmanship, tactical fouling and nervous knockout football. But the broader point is persuasive: when rule-makers reward bravery and speed up the game, World Cups usually feel healthier.
That is why the road to 2026 carries real optimism. The next storyline to watch is whether the tournament in the United States can recapture that same sense of renewal - and deliver another summer that pushes the game forward rather than back.