Since its introduction, VAR (Video Assistant Referee) has been one of the most debated technologies in football. While it was meant to bring clarity and fairness, many fans, players, and coaches now question whether it’s doing more harm than good. So, the big question remains — should VAR be scrapped?
VAR was brought in to reduce “clear and obvious” errors in key decisions — goals, penalties, red cards, and mistaken identity. But instead of ending controversy, it has arguably created more. Marginal offside calls measured by a toe or an armpit, and delayed goal celebrations that suck the life out of the game, have left many feeling frustrated. Football, at its core, is a fast-paced, emotional sport — not a science experiment.
One of the biggest issues is inconsistency. What is considered a "clear and obvious" error still comes down to human interpretation, just now with more angles and slow motion. VAR was supposed to eliminate bad decisions, but instead, it has shifted the blame from on-field referees to those sitting in front of screens.
Another major criticism is the loss of spontaneity. Fans are now hesitant to celebrate goals immediately, fearing a long review might cancel out the joy. The passion and raw emotion that make football so special are being dulled. Even players have admitted they’re confused and anxious about VAR’s unpredictable decisions.
Supporters of VAR argue that it has corrected many errors that could have cost teams titles, relegation, or Champions League spots. And yes, technology does have a place in modern sports. But should it come at the cost of the game’s soul?
Rather than scrapping VAR entirely, perhaps a reform is needed. Quicker decisions, clearer communication with fans in the stadium (like in rugby or cricket), and limiting its use to the most blatant errors could restore some balance.
So, should VAR be scrapped? Maybe not completely. But in its current form, it’s doing more damage than good. Football needs its rhythm, its rawness, and its unpredictability — not stop-start chaos and robotic rulings.
VAR was brought in to reduce “clear and obvious” errors in key decisions — goals, penalties, red cards, and mistaken identity. But instead of ending controversy, it has arguably created more. Marginal offside calls measured by a toe or an armpit, and delayed goal celebrations that suck the life out of the game, have left many feeling frustrated. Football, at its core, is a fast-paced, emotional sport — not a science experiment.
One of the biggest issues is inconsistency. What is considered a "clear and obvious" error still comes down to human interpretation, just now with more angles and slow motion. VAR was supposed to eliminate bad decisions, but instead, it has shifted the blame from on-field referees to those sitting in front of screens.
Another major criticism is the loss of spontaneity. Fans are now hesitant to celebrate goals immediately, fearing a long review might cancel out the joy. The passion and raw emotion that make football so special are being dulled. Even players have admitted they’re confused and anxious about VAR’s unpredictable decisions.
Supporters of VAR argue that it has corrected many errors that could have cost teams titles, relegation, or Champions League spots. And yes, technology does have a place in modern sports. But should it come at the cost of the game’s soul?
Rather than scrapping VAR entirely, perhaps a reform is needed. Quicker decisions, clearer communication with fans in the stadium (like in rugby or cricket), and limiting its use to the most blatant errors could restore some balance.
So, should VAR be scrapped? Maybe not completely. But in its current form, it’s doing more damage than good. Football needs its rhythm, its rawness, and its unpredictability — not stop-start chaos and robotic rulings.