The 2022 World Cup final had one of the most controversial refereeing sequences in modern tournament history.
In extra time, with Argentina 2-1 up, Marcus Thuram fouled Kylian Mbappé in the box. Referee Szymon Marciniak pointed to the spot. It was a clear penalty.
But minutes earlier, Randal Kolo Muani had been sent through on goal. He had a clean breakaway. No France attacker touched him from behind. Argentina defender Nahuel Molina appeared to brush his leg. The VAR reviewed, said "no foul," play continued.
Both decisions were technically correct. Both decisions were debated for months. Because VAR doesn't fix the subjective calls; it only fixes the factual ones.
What VAR does well
- Offside: Semi-automated system introduced in 2022 produces near-perfect decisions in 20 seconds. Removed one source of controversy.
- Goal-line: Watches on referee wrists give factual decisions.
- Clear and obvious penalty contact: If a defender takes out an attacker in the box, VAR catches any missed calls.
What VAR doesn't fix
Handball. The handball rule has been changed multiple times and remains subjective. "Unnatural position" — what does that mean? Different refs interpret it differently. VAR can review the incident but the decision still hinges on interpretation.
Red card threshold. A tackle from behind that studs the standing leg? Was it reckless? Was it dangerous? Different refs, different decisions. VAR can recommend review but the ref on the pitch decides.
Simulation. Players fall. Was contact genuine? Did the player overreact? VAR can review but the subjective call remains.
Out-of-bounds advantage. Ball goes out, advantage played, goal scored. Was the touch in or out? VAR helps on factual questions but not on timing of advantage.
The 2022 catalog of controversial calls
- Argentina vs Netherlands (QF): 16 yellow cards in a single match. Refereeing chaos.
- Argentina vs France (Final): The Kolo Muani incident above. The extra-time penalty. The 3+ minutes of injury time at the end of regulation.
- Spain vs Morocco (R16): Various debatable VAR decisions during extra time.
- Croatia vs Brazil (QF): Contested second goal that led to Croatia's equalizer. Was it properly offside? VAR said no.
Each of these games produced post-match pundit columns about "bad officiating." Each time, the decisions were technically defensible. The problem is that defensible isn't the same as satisfying.
What changes for 2026
Minor things:
- Faster VAR decisions. Target of 30-second turnarounds for most checks.
- Clearer communication. Referees will announce VAR decisions via the PA system (introduced at Club World Cup 2023).
- More semi-automated offside. Already deployed in 2022, now refined.
Major things that won't change:
- Subjective calls remain subjective.
- Referees from certain countries still have national biases visible in their decisions.
- Late-game penalty decisions remain influenced by game context.
The prediction
2026 will produce at least three matches that become "the VAR match" in post-tournament discussions. Probably one in the group stage, one in the Round of 16, and one in the final.
The final in particular is guaranteed to have a contested decision. They always do. Argentina-France 2022 had the Kolo Muani and the Thuram penalty. Spain-Netherlands 2010 had a Puyol tackle that could have been a red card. Germany-Argentina 2014 had the Gonzalo Higuaín offside goal.
If you're watching the final: expect controversy. Prepare for Twitter arguments. The ref will become the story, regardless of how well he officiates.
That's tournament football. VAR hasn't fixed it. VAR has made some things clearer and other things more contested. That's the tradeoff we've accepted.