What prevents AI from fully replacing football referees despite technological advances?

Question

Accepted Answer

AI is unlikely to fully replace football referees because controversial, subjective calls are part of the sport’s human element.

Even with technological advances, full replacement is unlikely because football is played by humans and the excitement includes disagreement over decisions. The decisions that do not make everyone happy, including calls that fans see as biased or unfair, are framed as an accepted part of the game’s subjectivity. The columnist also argues that AI could produce “unassailable justifications” for controversial calls, but that would remove the human element fans want to keep.
Disputed calls and fan disagreement are treated as inherent to football
The piece points to multiple World Cup examples of heated moments, including stoppage time winning goals ruled out and a potential red card for Lionel Messi that was not given. It also describes how Egypt fans were upset by decisions involving Mostafa Ziko’s disallowed goal against Argentina and a claimed foul on Mo Salah in the penalty box. In this framing, apparent injustice and poor decision-making are “in the eye of the beholder,” meaning fans’ perspectives differ depending on whether their team is favoured or disadvantaged.
The game’s excitement depends on decision subjectivity, not only rule application
The argument emphasises that subjectivity is what makes football decisions compelling for supporters, with refereeing outcomes that “simply will NOT make everyone happy.” It contrasts fans’ stories of wrong calls against their own team benefiting from “referee blindness, oversight, carelessness or VAR simply missing something.” The columnist treats this back-and-forth of perceived injustice as part of football being “very human,” rather than a defect to be eliminated.
AI could justify outcomes, but that would change what fans value
The piece suggests that bringing AI in to decide controversial calls would be easy in principle, because it could generate “hundreds of unassailable justifications.” However, it states that this would effectively remove the human element that fans desire, which is linked to the emotional and argumentative sides of disputed calls. In the columnist’s view, the presence of human flaws is precisely what keeps the sport’s character intact.
The sport remains structured around human involvement on the pitch
The article describes a match as involving 22 players, officials, and highly involved managers and assistants on the sidelines all trying to influence the game “in the slightest manner possible.” It argues that this human-driven contest will not change, and “frankly, shouldn’t change.” Against that backdrop, the prevention of full AI replacement is presented as a cultural and experiential choice: keeping refereeing tied to human decision-making rather than converting it into purely machine-determined calls.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What prevents AI from fully replacing football referees despite technological advances?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends