Does VAR truly serve justice or selective favouritism in matches?

Question

Accepted Answer

VAR is being viewed as selective favouritism rather than consistent justice in this World Cup

VAR is widely portrayed as not serving justice consistently in this World Cup, with controversies framed around “selective VAR” rather than VAR itself. The clearest example given is Argentina vs Egypt, where Egypt’s goal was overturned after VAR looked back to a foul involving Lisandro Martinez before the attacking phase developed. The same account argues that while VAR can detect extremely fine offside and foul details, it also appears to stay silent in other matches, leaving fans with the sense that some teams are scrutinised while others are not.
Egypt’s goal was erased after VAR went back to an earlier foul
In Argentina vs Egypt, Egypt scored what was described as a monumental goal, but VAR reversed it by tracing the play back to a foul on Lisandro Martinez before the move developed. The point made is that the decision could be technically within the rules if the foul happened during the attacking possession phase. Still, the reported reaction from Egypt’s coach Hossam Hassan was described as furious, with reports saying he accused officials of favouring Argentina and suggested the tournament wanted Messi to stay.
Group-stage VAR disputes included microscopic offside and cancelled goals
The group stage is described as already carrying multiple VAR controversies involving fine margins and disputed calls. Iran vs Egypt saw a stoppage-time winner ruled out for a microscopic offside, while Ghana felt it was denied a penalty against England. Brazil’s Vinicius Jr goal against Scotland was also chalked off after VAR found a foul in the build-up, reinforcing the narrative that VAR can intervene decisively when it reaches certain thresholds of review.
The core criticism is inconsistency: “sees everything and nothing”
The argument is that the technology can detect a toenail-level offside, a whisper of a foul, and even revive offences from earlier phases of an attack. Yet in other matches, VAR is described as not intervening at all, creating a pattern that fans interpret as uneven application rather than uniform enforcement. This is presented as the reason the dispute goes beyond dislike of technology correcting errors, shifting instead to a belief that power is being exercised with a replay button.
Broader credibility concerns are tied to discipline and decision-making trust
Beyond VAR, the account links the overall credibility problem to discipline and decision-making processes that are portrayed as influenced by external pressure. It cites the Folarin Balogun red-card case, where an automatic one-match ban was suspended for a year and he was fined and allowed to play against Belgium after Donald Trump confirmed he spoke to FIFA president Gianni Infantino and asked for a review. The wider claim is that once fans see decisions as potentially subject to favour, every subsequent call, whether by officials or VAR, can start to look like evidence rather than impartial judgement.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Does VAR truly serve justice or selective favouritism in matches?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

3

0

0

Share with friends