The Dictatorship
Video review has become the story of the World Cup for all the wrong reasons
ByRoey Hadar
The quarterfinals of the FIFA Men’s World Cup are underway. And the tournament’s most consequential actor has not been a star player, like Argentina’s Lionel Messi, or even President Donald Trump. No, the most important figure has been the post of video assistant referee, or VAR.
The premise is simple: Should the referee on the field make a “clear and obvious error,” or if there is a “serious missed incident,” another referee sitting off-site in a room with myriad camera feeds can help the in-stadium ref review and correct the mistake.
Nowadays, nearly every burst of joy from a goal is tempered for several minutes by a lengthy wait, either for referees to decide whether they will review it or by the review itself.
It’s a great idea on paper. But the perfect has become the enemy of the good. Instead, even as VAR has been increasingly used in soccer over the past decade, it has become a byword for long reviews and questionable officiating. And its use at this World Cup has felt arbitrary, at best a minimal improvement over human judgment.
At least three dramatic moments in this tournament were altered by VAR.
Croatia’s dramatic last-second equalizer in its round of 32 match against Portugal was called back after VAR used sound-wave technology inside the ball to decide that the goal scorer was offside due to a nearly invisible touch of the ball from a teammate.
The day before, in the round of 32 game between the U.S. and Bosnia and Herzegovina, VAR’s input led to the on-field referee showing U.S. player Folarin Balogun a red card, resulting in an automatic ban. The fallout was compounded when FIFA suspended the ban after Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
Remarkably, an even greater VAR-related controversy emerged in the round of 16. When Egypt took a 2-0 lead over Argentina, the goal was nullified after review for a foul committed at the other end of the field. Egypt would score again minutes later, only for Argentina to win 3-2 — with the go-ahead goal coming after what Egypt believed was a foul. Afterward, Egyptian soccer’s governing body released a statement criticizing the VAR process for raising “profound questions about the consistency and fairness of decisions.”
Soccer is a game that builds to just a handful of dramatic, emotionally explosive moments. But nowadays, nearly every burst of joy from a goal is tempered for several minutes by a lengthy wait, either for referees to decide whether they will review it or by the review itself.
The waits alter the momentum of the game, seemingly more sometimes than the goals themselves.
It’s one thing when VAR corrects a mistake, even a small one like Croatia’s goal. It is an annoying decision, but it is the correct one.
But was Balogun’s tackle a “clear and obvious” red card? That seems hard to argue, especially since the review process may have incorrectly used slow-motion replays to determine the forcefulness of Balogun’s foul.
In the NFL, replay reviews have left fans baffled, as players, broadcasters and officials seem to never be in agreement over what constitutes a catch.
And was Egypt’s would-be goal obviously given in error, when the supposed foul took place more than 15 seconds beforehand? I again would say no, particularly when VAR did not even ask the on-field referee to review a similar sequence of events in the run-up to Argentina’s winner.
Soccer isn’t the only sport struggling to implement video review technology. The final minutes of NBA games have always been exhausting, full of timeouts, fouls and other pauses. But the prospect of several multi-minute reviews can sap any remaining late-game drama. In the NFL, replay reviews have left fans baffled, as players, broadcasters and officials seem to never be in agreement over what constitutes a catch.
Sometimes these systems can be both effective and quick. Pro tennis has, for almost two decades, used technology to provide a near-immediate computerized review of whether a ball lands inside or outside the lines on the court. The NFL already adopted the same technology for first-down markers before the 2025 seasonand many soccer competitions (including the World Cup) use it to judge whether a ball crossed the goal line.
This year, Major League Baseball has also added similar technology to allow for quick, efficient challenges of an umpire’s initial call of a ball or strike. They have also put tight limits on the number of challenges and how long players have to initiate the process. It has created a system that fans and players alike have generally welcomed.
These systems increase the accuracy of calls without disrupting the game, and a better VAR system would reflect that. My proposal: The VAR process must conclude in a set short amount of time. From the first stoppage of play, the video referee gets 30 seconds to determine whether the on-field referee should look at the footage; the latter then gets another 30 seconds to make the final call. If the error is visible in that time, it meets the criteria of “clear and obvious.” If not, then it’s too inconclusive to change. Just keep the game moving.
When referees, officials and umpires have the technology to quickly review calls and correct obvious errors, that should always be welcome. VAR, however, has been arbitrary, inconsistent and anything but quick. Continuing with the current system is a clear and obvious error.
Roey Hadar
Roey Hadar is a TV news producer with experience at MS NOW, Scripps News, PBS, and ABC News, and author of “I’m Curious,” a newsletter on sports and more.