Few topics divide football fans quite like VAR. Introduced to eliminate refereeing errors, the Video Assistant Referee has instead become one of the most argued-about features of the modern game. And at the 2026 World Cup in the United States, the debate has exploded back into life — louder than ever.
Here at GameDay, we break down the real arguments on both sides, using actual incidents from this summer’s tournament to show exactly why VAR continues to split the football world right down the middle.
What VAR Was Designed to Do
VAR was introduced to review four specific types of decisions: goals, penalty incidents, direct red cards, and cases of mistaken identity. The idea was straightforward. A team of officials would watch from a video hub and step in only when there was a clear and obvious error.
In theory, this would fix the kind of mistakes that once decided matches, titles, and World Cups — without disrupting the natural flow of the game. In practice, however, the 2026 World Cup has shown that the gap between theory and reality remains as wide as ever.
World Cup 2026: When VAR Got It Right
The Iran vs Egypt moment
One of the most dramatic VAR moments of the entire tournament came on June 26 in Seattle. Iran substitute Shoja Khalilzadeh poked home a 93rd-minute goal against Egypt — a goal that would have sent Iran into the knockouts for the first time in their history. Wild celebrations broke out immediately. Then VAR intervened.
After a lengthy check, the goal was ruled out for offside in the build-up. Replays showed Khalilzadeh had strayed beyond the defensive line by what appeared to be barely a millimetre. Iran’s World Cup dream was over. Their fans were devastated.
Nevertheless, under the laws of the game, the call was correct. Semi-automated offside technology measured the exact position of every player at the precise frame the ball was played. The system does not lie — even when the margin is heartbreaking.
Furthermore, VAR also got the right result in the US vs Paraguay match on June 13. Referee Danny Makkelie initially gave USA captain Tim Ream a yellow card for what appeared to be a foul on Paraguay’s Miguel Almirón. After a VAR check for mistaken identity, it was quickly established that Ream had made no contact with the attacker whatsoever. Consequently, the yellow card was transferred to Almirón — a textbook example of VAR doing exactly what it was built to do.
GameDay verdict on these incidents: VAR worked. The decisions were painful, but they were correct.
World Cup 2026: When VAR Got It Wrong
Colombia’s Stoppage-Time Winner — Ruled Out for a Toe
Colombia’s Davinson Sánchez thought he had secured a dramatic stoppage-time winner against Portugal in Miami, heading home a Juan Quintero cross at the far post. Before he could even turn to celebrate, the linesman’s flag went up for offside — later confirmed by VAR. Replays suggested Sánchez had strayed offside by the tiniest fraction — reportedly just a toe.
The decision cost Colombia a perfect group record and left their fans furious. As one Colombian supporter put it online: “I am genuinely tired of being told to ignore what my own eyes are seeing.”
Ghana Denied a Clear Penalty Against England
During Ghana’s spirited 0-0 draw with England in Boston, England defender Ezri Konsa appeared to bring down Ghana forward Prince Kwabena Adu with a lunging tackle inside the box. Konsa made no contact with the ball. Despite the incident looking like a clear penalty to most viewers, the referee waved it away — and VAR chose not to intervene.
Ghana coach Carlo Queiroz was scathing after the match. “VAR went for a coffee,”he said — a line that immediately went viral across social media.
Germany’s Disallowed Goal vs Paraguay — A Poor Call
Germany thought they had scored a crucial extra-time goal against Paraguay, only for VAR to recommend a review of what it deemed a block foul by Germany’s Waldemar Anton. The referee agreed and disallowed the goal. However, analysts and commentators were almost unanimous: Anton was entitled to hold his ground, and it was actually the Paraguay goalkeeper who had moved into the German — not the other way around.
ESPN’s verdict was unambiguous: “This was not a foul block by Germany’s Anton, and this goal should have stood. It was both a poor intervention by the VAR and an equally disappointing decision from the on-field referee.”
Belgium’s Seven-Minute Penalty Against Senegal
Perhaps the most controversial single VAR incident of the group stage came on July 1, when Belgium were awarded a penalty against Senegal after a review that lasted over seven minutes. Senegal’s Camara had made contact with a Belgian player — but the touch was minimal, and the foul seemed soft by any reasonable standard.
The penalty was scored. Senegal were eliminated. African fans across the world were furious — and the debate around VAR consistency raged all over again.
The Technical Problem No One Talks About
One of the most embarrassing VAR moments of the tournament had nothing to do with a wrong decision. During the Qatar vs Switzerland match, Switzerland were awarded a penalty after a VAR review — but the semi-automated offside graphics that usually explain the decision to fans simply failed to appear on screen. A technical outage had knocked out the visualisation system entirely.
FIFA later confirmed a technical outage had stopped the graphics from being shown, and stated the original decision was correct — but the damage was done.Fans had no way of understanding why the decision had been made. Trust in the system took another hit — not because of a wrong call, but because of a broken screen.
The Broader VAR Debate: For and Against
The Case For VAR
Beyond the World Cup, the argument for VAR rests on one undeniable truth: referees make mistakes, and some of those mistakes change the course of history. In May 2026, Arsenal’s Premier League title win was influenced by a VAR review that correctly disallowed a West Ham stoppage-time equaliser after spotting contact on goalkeeper David Raya. Without VAR, that contact goes unpunished.
Moreover, cases of mistaken identity — where a referee books the wrong player — are now essentially eliminated. Every contentious decision is reviewed, recorded, and increasingly explained. That transparency matters.
The Case Against VAR
The 2026 World Cup has reinforced every criticism VAR has accumulated over the years. Decisions are inconsistent from match to match. Celebrations are held back by fans waiting nervously for the screen to confirm a goal. Matches are interrupted for minutes at a time. And when the technology itself fails, as it did in Qatar vs Switzerland, the confusion is even worse than no technology at all.
According to surveys tracked by Statista’s European Football Benchmark, fan sentiment toward VAR remains sharply divided — with a significant share of supporters preferring the system scrapped entirely, while others would rather see it reformed than removed.
Is the Problem VAR, or Is It Football’s Rules?
Every VAR argument at the 2026 World Cup traces back to one key distinction: factual decisions versus subjective ones. Offside is factual — a player is either beyond the line or not. A penalty or a foul is subjective, and reasonable officials can disagree.
This is the core issue. When VAR measures an offside, it is applying science to a factual question. When VAR reviews a penalty, it is applying human judgement to a subjective one. The technology is not the problem in the second case — the problem is that the laws of football are simply not precise enough for video review to solve them cleanly.
Therefore, until football simplifies its rules around contact and intent, VAR will keep producing decisions that look wrong to half the people watching — regardless of how good the technology gets.
So, Is VAR Helping or Hurting?
The 2026 World Cup has given us the clearest answer yet — and it is not a comfortable one. VAR is doing both simultaneously.
It correctly ruled out Iran’s offside goal. It correctly fixed a case of mistaken identity between Ream and Almirón. Those were the right calls, made possible only by technology.
At the same time, it denied Colombia a winner by a toe, failed to intervene on a clear penalty for Ghana, wrongly disallowed Germany’s goal, and took seven minutes to award a soft penalty that eliminated Senegal.
The technology is not the villain. Inconsistency is the villain. And until football addresses that — through clearer rules, better communication with fans in stadiums, and more consistent application from match to match — VAR will keep producing moments that leave half the world cheering and the other half furious.
What do you think? Was VAR fair at this World Cup? Let us know in the comments.
Stay with GameDay for daily World Cup coverage and the latest football analysis at pitchmag.online. For the full list of VAR decisions at the 2026 World Cup, visit ESPN’s official VAR review.
You might also enjoy:
Leave a Reply