It gets more decisions right and takes the roof off the celebration. Whether accuracy is worth what it costs the sport as a spectacle.
No votes yet — pick a side.
5 arguments
This debate is still open. The verdict is re-read as new arguments arrive. Next verdict in 19h 44m
Against wins
For
45
Against
55
5 arguments analysed
The debate centers on whether the marginal increase in decision accuracy is worth the loss of spontaneous celebration and the delays introduced by VAR. The FOR side made a compelling case in [3] about the intangible value of the 'celebration,' arguing that football's core product is emotional, and that systemic scope creep [1] makes VAR inherently flawed. However, the AGAINST side edged out the victory by focusing on the pragmatics of the question. In [4], they argued that the issues raised by FOR are problems of implementation rather than the concept of review itself, pointing to existing solutions like semi-automated offsides. Furthermore, [2] effectively reminded the audience of the intolerable status quo ante, where obvious errors decided major titles, making complete abolition an overreaction.
Strongest argument for
The cost lands on the thing football actually sells. A goal that eighty thousand people half-celebrate while looking at a screen is not the same product. You can measure decision accuracy to a decimal place; you cannot measure the celebration that never happened. Three per cent more correct calls is a bad trade for it.
It brilliantly articulates the intangible, unmeasurable cost of VAR—the ruined spontaneous celebration—and frames it as a threat to the actual product of football.
Strongest argument against
Almost every complaint here is about implementation, not about review. Semi-automated offside cut the average check to well under a minute. Announcing the decision inside the stadium works in rugby and in the NFL and could be adopted tomorrow. Each of those is fixable without abolishing anything, and 'get rid of it' skips straight past all of them.
It directly addresses the complaints about VAR by distinguishing between the concept of review and its implementation, offering concrete, existing solutions instead of outright abolition.
This is a normative debate about the values of sport—specifically, whether absolute accuracy is more important than emotional spectacle. I weighed the arguments based on how well they addressed the specific action proposed ('abolish') versus alternative paths, and how they balanced the trade-offs of both systems.
This verdict reflects the arguments submitted to Verdyct. It is a judgement about which side argued better — not a statement of objective truth.
Judged by gemini-3.5-flash, prompt judge-v1 · Updated 2026-08-28 14:41
One click. You can change your mind.
The cost lands on the thing football actually sells. A goal that eighty thousand people half-celebrate while looking at a screen is not the same product. You can measure decision accuracy to a decimal place; you cannot measure the celebration that never happened. Three per cent more correct calls is a bad trade for it.
VAR was sold as a fix for clear and obvious errors. It is now used to adjudicate millimetre offsides and to re-referee contact no camera can settle. The technology didn't fail - the scope did, and it widens every season. If a system cannot be held to the job it was introduced for, that is an argument about the system, not about the people operating it.
Send them your side. They get the other one.
Sign in to challenge someone.
Can we measure how the site is used?
Only to count what people do here — never sold, never shared, never used to advertise to you. The site works the same either way. Privacy policy