Thomas Tuchel didn't hold back after England's Round of 16 exit. "The referees are just not good enough, the fourth officials are just not good enough — that's the bottom line." Strong words. But the real story isn't referee quality. It's what VAR is doing to the entire decision-making ecosystem around them.
Two VAR interventions shaped that match against Mexico. A red card. A penalty. Fans on both sides disagreed with both calls. That's not unusual — it's now the norm, and it points to a problem VAR was never going to fully solve.
The accuracy argument is real, but complicated
The numbers do support VAR. Across 2,195 matches in 13 countries, one study found decision accuracy jumped from 92% to 98% after VAR intervention. In the Premier League specifically, referees overturned their original call 95% of the time following VAR input. That's not marginal improvement — that's a structural shift in how the game is officiated.
VAR gives officials tools no pitch referee has: multiple replays, slow motion, different camera angles. All of them demonstrably improve accuracy. So the technology works, at least in a narrow sense.
The problem is what it's doing to the humans running the game.
Preliminary research suggests referees are actively pulling back from making calls they think VAR might overturn — awarding fewer red cards and penalties, essentially outsourcing their judgment. One referee described it bluntly: "Now the situation is that referees run on the field just waiting for the VAR to make decisions for them." Two studies in the Israeli Premier League also found referees experienced greater mental fatigue during VAR-monitored matches. That has consequences over a long tournament — or a long season.
The philosophical problem VAR can't fix
Croatia manager Zlatko Dalic put it another way after his side's controversial Round of 32 defeat to Portugal: "VAR kills emotions, it kills everything within you. We have gone too far with VAR."
He has a point, even if it's uncomfortable to admit. Catching a player offside by a toe is, technically, a correct decision. Whether it's the right decision for football as a sport is a different question entirely. Fans don't watch matches for surgical precision — and every stoppage for a VAR review chips away at momentum, atmosphere, and the spontaneous joy that makes this game worth watching.
The choice is becoming clearer: accept time delays in exchange for accuracy, or accept a level of human error in exchange for a game that flows. There's no version where you get both.
- VAR increased decision accuracy from 92% to 98% across major leagues
- Premier League referees reversed decisions 95% of the time after VAR input
- Evidence suggests referees now make fewer penalties and red card calls under VAR
- Mental fatigue among referees increases in VAR-monitored matches
What's largely missing from the loudest VAR debates is any concern for the referees themselves. Across all levels of the game, officials face verbal abuse, threats, and physical violence — and many are walking away entirely. Research directly links officials' mental health to that abuse culture. Most referees in community football don't have VAR to fall back on. They're making judgment calls under pressure, often alone, with no safety net.
Tuchel's post-match criticism may be understandable frustration, but it feeds exactly the culture that's hollowing out refereeing at every level below the World Cup.
