Calls to abolish VAR are gaining momentum after a string of high-profile mistakes — from contentious handball decisions involving Celtic and Hearts to an allowed Manchester United goal — that have altered matches and title races, undermining referees’ authority and fan trust and forcing clubs, PGMOL and broadcasters to confront whether the technology is doing more harm than good.
VAR under fire after decisive errors reshape matches and titles
VAR’s recent interventions have escalated from controversy to crisis. Contentious handball rulings in Scottish Premiership games — notably incidents involving Celtic, Hearts and Motherwell — and a baffling non-call on Manchester United’s second goal have not just sparked debate; they have altered results and, arguably, title races. The technology meant to protect the integrity of football is increasingly seen as distorting it.
Examples that crystallised the backlash
A Hearts player conceded a penalty after being struck by a Celtic shot that deflected off another defender’s hand while he was attempting a tackle — a decision many viewed as unjust. Celtic were also at the centre of a controversial handball against Motherwell. In England, an allowed Manchester United goal that involved a handball on the build-up left players, managers and fans bewildered. These are not isolated incidents but high-visibility moments that shape perceptions.
Why the problem goes beyond isolated errors
VAR’s issues are structural. The handball law was altered to make decisions more binary so they are ostensibly easier to adjudicate with video review, yet intention — the original key criterion — remains unknowable on replay. That mismatch between law and technology produces verdicts that satisfy no one. Offside minutiae, such as decisions hinging on millimetres or a toe, further erode common-sense outcomes and fan engagement.
Referee authority and the “same people in a box” critique
Critics argue VAR hasn’t elevated officiating; it has hollowed it out. Many of the officials sitting in replay booths are the same referees who struggle on the pitch, leading to the perception that a flawed human group is merely watching replays instead of improving decisions. The result is weakened on-field authority, with referees appearing indecisive and over-reliant on a system that cannot resolve subjective elements like intent.
The wider consequences: match flow, fan trust and broadcasting pressure
VAR has introduced stoppages that disrupt the rhythm of matches — the Premier League reportedly records over 1,100 minutes of VAR-related stoppages per season, more than LaLiga, Serie A or the Bundesliga. Broadcasters, who bankroll much of top-flight football, worry about unpredictable match lengths and the dilution of live drama. Meanwhile, fans feel repeatedly disenfranchised when technology overturns what was seen in stadiums as a fair outcome.
Precedents and political pressure
Sweden has already abolished VAR, providing a precedent for rollback. In Scotland there are growing calls for abolition as clubs and supporters question whether the system delivers net benefits. Clubs that once voted to retain VAR now face mounting fan unrest and the political reality that continuity may no longer be tenable if the perception of systemic unfairness persists.
Options on the table: reform, restrictions or removal
The debate is narrowing to three realistic paths. One, significant reform: simplify the laws (especially handball and offside), limit VAR to clear and obvious errors, and improve transparency about decision-making. Two, restrict VAR’s scope — for example, remove it from considerations like marginal offside calls or routine handball adjudications. Three, full abolition, a move backed by some national associations and fans where the technology is judged to be doing more harm than good.
What would each option mean?
Reform could restore some faith while keeping technological benefits for match-defining situations. Restriction recognises the limits of video review and protects match flow. Abolition would be radical: it would return subjective judgment wholly to on-field officials and require an acceptance of human error as part of the sport. Each path carries trade-offs between accuracy, authority and the spectator experience.
What happens next
The immediate battlegrounds are club votes, PGMOL policy discussions and broadcaster influence. If clubs face sustained pressure from supporters and commercial partners express concern about viewer experience, the balance could shift away from the status quo. Changes to the laws of the game would also require cooperation from governing bodies and competition organizers, making swift resolution unlikely but raising the prospect of reform or rollback over the medium term.
Why this matters for football
At stake is public confidence in competitive integrity. Football’s emotional currency is built on clear, accepted outcomes; when technology repeatedly produces results perceived as arbitrary or unjust, that currency devalues.
Whether through targeted reform or more radical measures, the sport must decide whether VAR protects the game’s fairness — or, increasingly, undermines it.
Football365
