In English, this is perfectly fine as is. Maybe a translation issue?
Hmmm, I don't think so. With no context, that message would make me think the opposite had occurred.
Edit: Thought about this some more. I think the problem is that in can be taken both ways, depending on your frame of reference. I'm a native speaker of (Canadian) English, btw.
In this recipe, margarine is substituted for butter.That one's pretty hard to misunderstand. You should use margarine, not butter.
David Beckham is substituted.Now it's 100% clear that the subject (Beckham) is the one being replaced.
David Beckham is substituted for Joe Cole.A little less clear who's going where, but I think my first reading would that Beckham is out, Cole is in. The role of the two nouns are reversed from the recipe example. This is also the opposite of what it means in the match reports right now, according to the report above.
So, my conclusion would be not to use the phrase "B is substituted for A" in the match reports. It's unclear. Stick with things like "B enters/comes in for A". I'd dump "substitute" as a verb altogether.
Edited 10/15/2007 1:43:52 PM by oeuftete