Complaints about VAR have become almost a ritual in the Premier League, yet the FIFA World Cup 2026 has largely passed with far less uproar over video review decisions. The contrast in atmosphere has been striking — but a closer look at the data reveals a paradox that challenges public perception.

More interventions, fewer complaints

Despite the calmer feel at the FIFA World Cup 2026, referees have actually intervened via VAR more frequently than in the Premier League last season. The Premier League recorded the lowest rate of VAR interventions in Europe at 0.29 per game. At the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, that figure was 0.41 per game; at this tournament, it has come down to 0.33 — still above the English top flight.

The UEFA Champions League, by comparison, saw 0.47 interventions per match last season — nearly one every other game. On subjective reviews, where a referee must visit the pitchside monitor, the FIFA World Cup 2026 and the Premier League are almost identical at 0.15 per game. The Champions League sits at more than double that figure, at 0.36.

Fewer fouls, higher tempo

The philosophy driving this shift belongs to Pierluigi Collina, FIFA's head of referees. Collina wants football treated as a contact sport in which not every challenge warrants a whistle, and he has pushed for free-flowing matches at a higher tempo. The numbers back his approach: foul counts per game have dropped from 27 at the 2018 World Cup, to 25 in Qatar, and now to 21.7 at the FIFA World Cup 2026 — almost identical to the Premier League's 21.6 last season. Cautions have also fallen, with just 2.4 bookings per game, well below any recent World Cup or major competition.

Collina's logic is consistent: if the threshold for a foul on the field rises, the threshold for a VAR intervention must rise alongside it. Penalty appeals during Scotland's match against Morocco — involving John McGinn and Scott McTominay — were cited as examples of appeals that were real but fell below the bar Collina has set.

Why does VAR feel so much calmer?

Speed is the most important factor. Collina has instructed his video officials to make quick, decisive calls rather than dwelling on replay after replay. Errors should be obvious; prolonged analysis is discouraged. The result has been noticeably shorter review periods, even on contentious decisions such as the red card shown to South Africa's Themba Zwane in the opening game, or the decision not to award a penalty when France's Kylian Mbappe appeared to be tripped by Senegal's Sadio Mane.

FIFA's enhanced semi-automated offside technology has also played a role. Assistant referees receive an audio alert when a player is 10cm or more offside, largely eliminating the delayed flag and reducing the number of disallowed-goal reviews that drag on for minutes.

The broadcast effect

Perhaps the most underappreciated factor is how each competition is presented to viewers. At the FIFA World Cup 2026, the host broadcaster replays an incident once or twice at most while VAR is active, and shows the video official's screen only when the referee walks to the pitchside monitor. FIFA and UEFA both enforce this approach at their flagship tournaments.

In the Premier League, Sky Sports and TNT Sports analyse every incident from multiple angles, slow it down, speed it up, and cut to pundits in real time. Commentators have a live audio feed from the VAR hub and can share it with viewers at any moment. That editorial freedom generates far greater scrutiny — and far greater frustration — even when the actual decision-making process is comparable.

Tournament organisers prioritise presenting a clean spectacle; broadcast rights holders prioritise transparency and debate. The result is that two systems with broadly similar intervention rates feel worlds apart to the viewer at home.