When Video Assistant Referees (VAR) were first introduced, the manifesto was clear: “minimum interference, maximum benefit.” The goal was to eliminate the howlers – the missed handballs and egregious offsides that altered the course of history. However, as we navigate the closing stages of the 2025/26 domestic season, the technology feels less like a safety net and more like a source of constant friction.
That tension has become a defining feature of the modern game, and the wider debate around whether VAR is truly improving football continues to grow. As recent analysis on Time Soccer shows, the issue is no longer whether VAR should exist, but whether the game has found the right way to use it.
With the 2026 World Cup set to feature 48 teams and 104 matches, the stakes for officiating have never been higher. If the world’s most elite domestic leagues are still struggling with basic consistency, the fear is that the North American showpiece will be remembered more for its lengthy delays than its goals.
A Season of Stagnation?
Despite years of refinement, the 2025/26 campaign has proven that technology alone cannot fix subjective disagreements. In fact, the implementation gap appears to be widening. In the Premier League, one of the most significant pain points remains the sheer length of time required to reach a decision. The average review delay has climbed to 4 minutes and 12 seconds this season, a figure that saps the emotional energy from the stadium and leaves broadcast audiences in a state of confused limbo.
The frustration is not merely about the clock; it is about the lack of a coherent standard across matches. We are seeing a trend where the “clear and obvious” threshold set out in the IFAB VAR protocol is interpreted differently from one stadium to the next. What is deemed a supporting arm in one handball shout is often judged as an unnatural extension in another. This inconsistency has led to a season where verified errors — incidents where independent panels confirm a wrong call was made or a correction was missed – have already surpassed the total count for the entire 2024/25 season.
Tracking the Net Impact of Errors
While fan bases often feel like the universe is conspiring against them, objective analysis suggests that certain clubs truly are bearing the brunt of officiating inconsistencies. Research based on BT4Y’s proprietary VAR index highlights how recurring officiating flashpoints can be tracked more systematically, rather than judged purely through post-match outrage.
According to the latest data through Gameweek 31, a clear justice discrepancy has emerged:
- Liverpool and Manchester United have been the most disadvantaged, with seven verified errors going against each club so far this season.
- Bournemouth has emerged as the primary beneficiary of the system, boasting a +6 net balance of favourable errors.
- Chelsea currently holds the record for the most errors in their favour (7), though a net balance of +3 suggests they are involved in more high-frequency VAR drama than most.
These numbers move the conversation away from luck and toward a measurable problem with standardisation. When clubs see a penalty denied for one level of contact, only to watch a similar incident punished later in another match, the narrative of VAR bias becomes difficult to suppress. The data suggests that the issue is not simply more VAR, but more inconsistent VAR.
The World Cup as a Catalyst for Change
FIFA has historically used the World Cup to pioneer officiating shifts, but 2026 requires more than a new gadget. It requires a cultural reset. If the domestic game is struggling with a clear-and-obvious threshold that feels increasingly muddy, FIFA must use the upcoming tournament to enforce a stricter, faster and more transparent protocol.
1. Faster review thresholds
The four-minute delays seen in domestic leagues are unsustainable for a global tournament. FIFA must empower VARs to make snap decisions on objective calls such as offsides and ball-out-of-play, while significantly raising the bar for intervening in subjective foul play. If a referee needs to watch a replay thirty times, the error is, by definition, not obvious.
2. Direct communication
The 2026 World Cup should be the moment where live audio or real-time stadium explanations become the mandatory standard. Much of the frustration stems from the black-box nature of the VAR booth. If the crowd and the viewers at home understand why a handball was deemed a supporting-arm incident, the level of vitriol would likely decrease.
3. Standardising the subjective
We currently see a marked difference between domestic and continental officiating. UEFA matches often operate under one threshold for physical contact, while domestic leagues can lean toward another. For a 48-team World Cup involving referees from every confederation, this lack of global standardisation is a ticking time bomb.
Restoring the Human Element
Ultimately, VAR should be a tool that supports the referee, not a committee that replaces them. The goal for 2026 should not be 100% accuracy – an impossible target in a game built on subjective contact – but rather the elimination of the indefensible error.
As we look toward the summer of 2026, the footballing world should not still be arguing about whether VAR should exist. It is here to stay. Instead, the focus must be on building a system that respects the flow of the game, values the time of the match-going fan, and provides a level playing field where a club’s net balance of errors is not a deciding factor in its season.
VAR was designed to solve problems, but in 2026 it risks becoming the biggest problem of all. FIFA has a major opportunity to ensure that when the first whistle blows in North America, the technology is ready to serve the game rather than dominate the headlines.
