LoaderSave StorySave this storyCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyThe penultimate Round of 16 match at the 2026 World Cup between Argentina and Egypt was marked not just by exceptional goals, great saves, and fans devoted to their teams. The match also sparked one of the most widely discussed controversies surrounding the video assistant referee system, known as VAR, a technology designed to assist on-field officials in making fairer decisions, but whose use has been criticized for allegedly favoring certain teams.
Egypt was eliminated from the tournament with a 3-2 loss to Argentina, after having held a two-goal lead. The Egyptian Football Association argued that “the failure to properly use VAR” had influenced several refereeing decisions that affected the final score. Consequently, it filed a formal protest with FIFA to demand an investigation into the alleged inconsistencies.
In a statement posted on social media, the governing body of Egyptian soccer emphasized that “the Egyptian Football Association cannot remain silent regarding the refereeing decisions observed during the match against Argentina.” Several experts and specialized analysts, both locally and internationally, have pointed out controversial refereeing incidents that influenced the course of the match. This underscores the importance of maintaining the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and transparency in refereeing, particularly in a competition of the magnitude and importance of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.”
Similar complaints—such as goals disallowed for offside calls that were not signaled on the field—have been a constant throughout this year’s World Cup. Some critics argue that, despite the use of technology, such plays are judged differently with the apparent intent of benefiting certain national teams. Others argue that VAR, in addition to disrupting the flow of the game, is a tool that could be used to adjust refereeing decisions and, once again, favor certain teams.
Amid these discussions, several questions arise. Can VAR technology alone guarantee fair decisions? Do the controversies stem from the system’s limitations or from its misuse? Are all referees participating in the 2026 World Cup truly trained to use this assistive tool?
VAR was first used in a World Cup during the 2018 tournament in Russia, after being incorporated into the Laws of the Game as “a support tool for the on-field refereeing team,” according to FIFA. Since then, the system has been implemented in more than 100 competitions around the world, including the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The platform has access to 42 broadcast cameras, eight of which provide super-slow-motion footage and four of which offer ultra-slow-motion footage. In addition, the system has access to feeds from cameras that use semi-automated technology to detect offsides, as well as all cameras from the FIFA host network.
All this information is made available to a refereeing team consisting of a video assistant referee and three assistants, who individually review different angles to make a decision in specific cases where VAR can intervene. Any potential anomalies or infractions are reported by the video assistant referee to the head referee, who receives the footage on the field to assess the possible infraction.
In the two previous World Cups, VAR assisted the head referees in reviewing goals and infractions leading to a goal; decisions on penalty kicks and the actions that led to them; direct red cards; and cases of mistaken identity.
For this edition of the World Cup, FIFA added new situations eligible for review. In principle, VAR can now intervene to correct clearly erroneous second yellow cards and prevent unjust send-offs. In addition, the system assists in detecting blocking, shoving, offsides, or offensive fouls prior to the taking of a free kick or corner kick.
Armando Archundia, a former Mexican World Cup referee, adds in an interview with WIRED en Español that features were also incorporated to detect infractions related to the so-called Prestianni-Vinícius Rule, which penalizes players with a direct red card for covering their mouth with their hand, their arm, or their jersey during a confrontation, as well as to prevent confusion between a corner kick and a goal kick.
“FIFA is doing this to prevent a goal from being scored under circumstances that were not correctly assessed by the referee,” Archundia explains.
The technological infrastructure behind VAR is complex and designed to address a long-standing shortcoming in soccer. Fernando Galván, a sports analyst and host of the podcast Más que Tres Puntos, notes that “in the past, refereeing evolved more slowly than soccer itself.”
In an interview with WIRED en Español, Galván recalls that, for years, the refereeing team consisted solely of a center referee and two linesmen responsible for calling offsides. Shortly thereafter, a fourth official was added to monitor the behavior of the benches and the area off the field, and later, two more referees were positioned behind the goals.
In Galván’s view, this system was complex to manage because it required aligning the judgment of six people so that the center referee could make the fairest possible decision. Consequently, he believes that VAR was introduced to solve part of the problem. However, he notes, during its early years of implementation, it also created a reliance that at times bordered on replacing the referee’s judgment.
“In previous World Cups, as well as in international tournaments like the Champions League or various leagues, many referees would simply blow the whistle and delegate the decision to VAR,” he says. “First, the referee decided everything, and then VAR decided everything.”
In his view, the guidelines on VAR usage implemented by FIFA for this World Cup aim to strike a balance that ultimately restores some autonomy to the referee, who can now rely on dozens of cameras to confirm or correct his decision.
“Let’s not forget that one of the objectives of VAR is to find footage that could change the central referee’s decision,” Galván says. “That is its main objective. It is not a tool that eliminates error 100 percent; it is a tool that, in theory, should provide the referee with better information to ensure justice.”
Galván and Archundia agree that soccer is a subjective sport and that refereeing decisions do not depend entirely on the information provided by technology, but also on each referee’s interpretation.
The former Mexican referee is unequivocal on this point. “It is the individual judgment of each referee that makes the decision, because not even VAR is going to support them in that regard.”
The question now is how well trained and familiar referees are with VAR to make the most of its capabilities. The answer, perhaps, lies in the technological gap.
Archundia explains that, at the end of a World Cup, FIFA convenes about 100 referees who are potential candidates to participate in the next edition of the tournament. During the four years between one World Cup and the next, these referees receive training from the FIFA Referees Committee through up to four annual meetings, with the aim of standardizing criteria and procedures, including the use of the VAR system.
Subsequently, the group of assistant referees and head referees who will officiate the World Cup matches is selected. In this edition of the World Cup, the refereeing corps consisted of 54 specialists considered among the most skilled and experienced, and the number is expected to be similar for the next World Cup.
Although the selection process is governed by rigorous standards, the reality is that some referees have little experience using VAR. According to Archundia, “only 20 percent of the countries participating in this World Cup have VAR in their domestic competitions.”
Given this situation, FIFA’s efforts to train World Cup referees in the use of new technologies may prove insufficient—especially considering that the standardization of criteria remains a systemic problem, evident even in regional and national tournaments.
“The issue with refereeing is that it’s a profession that isn’t very unified. That’s a huge problem. Achieving unanimous criteria on a global level is almost impossible, but that also adds to the flavor of soccer,” Galván explains.
There is speculation that, in the not-too-distant future, matches could be officiated by robots equipped with AI, capable of even replacing human referees in exchange for greater accuracy. However, these possibilities have not yet been confirmed in practice.
Despite this, what is clear is that soccer’s rules will need to adapt to harness the potential of new technologies, bridge the technological gap, and recognize a system (VAR) that is becoming increasingly important.
“Refereeing and soccer will continue to be played by humans, and humans will surely continue to officiate them as well—until soccer changes its name,” Archundia says.
This article originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.
