CODE IN TOKYO

Technology Made the Calls More Accurate. But It Did Not Bring Peace to Sports.

Accuracy Has Not Ended the Arguments

The World Cup is entering its final stages, and one thing about this tournament has stood out to me: the sheer number of complaints about officiating.

Players and coaches do not merely confront referees during matches. Long after the final whistle, debates continue over whether a decision was wrong, whether VAR was used properly, or whether the referee ruined the game.

Bad calls existed in the past too.

Even so, there was an underlying acceptance that referees were human and mistakes were inevitable. A decision might have been frustrating, but once the whistle blew, the match moved on. When the game ended, there was little choice but to accept the result.

VAR changed that assumption.

Now that decisions are reviewed repeatedly on video—and sometimes overturned in front of a global audience—everyone can plainly see that referees make mistakes.

Once that becomes obvious, protesting as forcefully as possible starts to look like a rational strategy. A strong appeal might trigger a VAR review. Even if the immediate decision stands, the pressure might influence the next one.

In a competitive sport, that logic makes perfect sense.

When Pressure Appears to Work

This tournament also produced an episode that seemed to symbolize the problem.

A suspension following a red card issued to a U.S. national team player was put on hold, amid reports that President Trump had appealed to FIFA.

Whatever the precise sequence of events or official explanation, many people were left with a simple impression:

If you push hard enough, a decision or penalty may change.

Once such a precedent exists, everyone has an incentive to protest the next time.

If organizers are told, “You changed it before,” dismissing a new appeal becomes much harder.

Fairer Decisions, Weaker Authority

The irony is that VAR was introduced to make sports fairer.

Officiating is more accurate than it used to be. But in achieving that accuracy, the technology also weakened the assumption that the referee’s authority was final.

In the past, even a questionable decision ultimately had to be accepted. Today, there is video evidence, there are precedents, and everyone knows that a sufficiently strong protest might lead to a different outcome.

As a result, the sport has become more accurate, yet fewer people seem willing to accept its decisions.

Perhaps what people truly want is not necessarily the correct call.

They want the call that benefits them.

Technology has reduced officiating errors. But it may also have taken away one of the losing side’s last reasons to let go and accept defeat.

Contact

I provide system development and technical consulting using AI, AWS, and Claude Code.

Contact form: https://holly-money-e94.notion.site/390ff30cf18c8086a676fe630d171873