When VAR arrived in the Premier League in 2019, the objective was straightforward: reduce refereeing mistakes and make football fairer. Seven years later, the technology remains controversial, despite improving certain decisions.
This raises an important question. If football now has more technology to support referees, why are so many fans still unhappy with the decisions being made?
VAR: Another Example of Our Search for Safer and Better Alternatives
Throughout history, people have developed new methods and technologies to improve existing systems. Whether in healthcare, transport or entertainment, the aim has often been to reduce mistakes, improve safety and create more reliable experiences.
Artificial intelligence is one example. Its rapid development has been driven in part by demand for faster analysis, better predictions, and fewer human errors. Today, AI supports medical research, financial security and many everyday services.
Similar thinking appears in more specialized industries, where changing consumer needs and regulations have encouraged alternative business models.
Casino gaming offers an interesting example. In the United States, gambling laws differ considerably between states, limiting access to traditional online casinos in many areas.
This has fuelled the growth of sweepstakes casinos, which use promotional gaming models and often offer free ways to participate. These platforms provide another way to access casino-style games.
The broader principle is that new systems often emerge to address limitations within existing ones.
VAR followed a similar logic. Football needed better ways to identify important refereeing mistakes, particularly those affecting goals, penalties and dismissals.
However, introducing a new system does not guarantee public acceptance. Unlike improvements that deliver clear, widely accepted benefits, VAR often involves incidents that remain open to interpretation.
That distinction helps explain why its technical usefulness has not increased supporters’ confidence.
Why Better Refereeing Technology Has Not Won Over Fans
The strongest criticism of VAR concerns the viewing experience.
According to YouGov’s May 2026 findings, 72% of regular Premier League viewers believe video reviews have made matches less enjoyable. More than a third (35%) say the experience has become considerably worse.
These figures suggest the debate is about more than whether decisions are correct.
The Problem With Interrupted Celebrations
Consider a late winning goal. Supporters celebrate, players react, and the atmosphere changes immediately. However, a subsequent review can leave everyone uncertain whether the goal will stand.
Even when officials reach the correct decision, the interruption affects the experience.
Three issues are particularly important:
- Delayed decisions: Extended checks can interrupt the pace of matches and frustrate spectators.
- Uncertainty: Supporters may hesitate to celebrate goals when they expect another review.
- Limited explanations: Fans sometimes struggle to understand why officials reached a particular conclusion.
These concerns are not necessarily arguments against technology. They suggest that the way VAR operates matters almost as much as its final decisions.
Supporters value both a fair result and an enjoyable match.
Why VAR Works Better for Some Decisions Than Others
One of the most revealing aspects of the YouGov research is the difference between supporters’ opinions on individual types of decisions.
Around 83% believe VAR has performed well when referees identify the wrong player for a disciplinary decision. Another 80% are satisfied with the technology used to determine whether the ball has crossed the goal line.
Offside reviews also receive relatively positive assessments, with 58% believing VAR performs well in this area.
However, opinions change considerably when subjective decisions are involved.
Penalties and Red Cards Remain the Biggest Problems
The survey found that:
- 58% believe VAR has performed badly when reviewing penalty decisions.
- 52% are dissatisfied with its performance on straight red-card incidents.
- 37% believe it has handled offside decisions poorly.
This difference is reasonably explained.
Measurements can generally establish whether a player was in an offside position, although judging involvement in active play may still require interpretation.
Determining whether contact deserves a penalty is more complicated.
Two referees can watch the same footage and still disagree about the seriousness of a challenge. Slow-motion replays may clarify contact without necessarily explaining its intensity.
VAR can provide more evidence, but it cannot eliminate every disagreement over football’s rules.
The Difference Between Correct Decisions and Consistent Decisions
Another important issue is the expectation that similar incidents should produce similar outcomes.
Under VAR’s operating principles, officials generally intervene when an on-field decision involves a clear and obvious error.
This means a referee’s original decision may stand even when another official would have chosen differently.
Why the Intervention Threshold Causes Confusion
Imagine two matches involving similar challenges inside the penalty area.
In one match, the referee awards a penalty. In another, play continues. If neither decision meets the threshold for intervention, both original calls may remain unchanged.
That does not automatically mean the technology has failed. It reflects a system designed to correct clear mistakes rather than reassess every judgment.
However, from a spectator’s perspective, the outcomes may appear inconsistent.
The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel has illustrated this distinction by identifying situations where an on-field decision was considered incorrect, but VAR was judged right not to intervene.
This reveals a central difficulty: a review system can follow its rules correctly without producing the decision that most observers consider preferable. Explaining that distinction more clearly would help supporters understand why certain incidents are reviewed while others are left unchanged.
Why Premier League Fans Prefer Reform Over Abolition
Despite widespread dissatisfaction, little evidence suggests strong public support for returning to football without video reviews. This suggests supporters are not opposed to technological assistance itself.
Instead, they want a system that provides greater consistency without regularly disrupting matches.
What Could Improve the Experience?
Several practical changes deserve attention:
- Clearer communication: Brief explanations of important decisions could reduce confusion.
- Faster reviews: More efficient procedures could limit unnecessary interruptions.
- Consistent standards: Applying the same interpretation of fouls and misconduct across fixtures could strengthen confidence.
- Greater transparency: Publishing assessments of controversial decisions could help explain officials’ reasoning.
Some developments are already underway.
For the 2026/27 season, the Premier League introduced weekly publication of its independent Key Match Incidents Panel findings. It has also expanded referee communications to explain selected decisions.
Can VAR Ever Fully Satisfy Football Supporters?
The main lesson from seven years of Premier League VAR is that greater accuracy and greater satisfaction are not the same thing.
Technology can reliably identify certain mistakes, but football still involves decisions that depend on human judgment.
The research also suggests supporters understand this distinction better than the wider debate sometimes acknowledges. They recognise the value of video assistance while questioning whether its current operation justifies the disruption.
That leaves the Premier League with a more specific challenge than simply defending or removing VAR.
It must improve how decisions are reached, explained and experienced.
The real measure of progress should not be how frequently technology intervenes, but whether those interventions make decisions clearer, more consistent and more widely understood.
VAR does not need to eliminate every disagreement to become more effective. It needs to demonstrate that its benefits justify its impact on the match.
Until that happens, even improved refereeing accuracy may struggle to change supporters’ opinions.
