VAR

“So close to glory.”

That’s how Iván Barton described the moment he heard his last name called during the 2026 World Cup referee assignment meeting. It wasn’t to ask a question or to correct some administrative detail.

The next sentence changed his career forever: “Barton, your match is France vs. Spain. … After that, I didn’t hear anything else. I didn’t even know who my assistant referees would be.” The World Cup semifinal — one of the biggest matches a referee can officiate — had just been entrusted to the Salvadoran.

“It’s like going into shock, but a good kind of shock. ‘This is happening — it’s really happening.’ Reaching a semifinal is coming within a hair’s breadth of glory, because after a World Cup final, there’s nothing left,” Barton said.

Referee Iván Barton issues a yellow card to France’s Adrien Rabiot during a World Cup semifinal match against Spain on July 14 in Arlington, Texas.

(Lars Baron / Getty Images)

There’s one detail in that scene that captures the magnitude of the moment. While waiting for the meeting to begin, Barton was checking the airline’s app on his phone. His ticket was still scheduled for a return flight to El Salvador the next day. He had already started packing, convinced that his World Cup was over.

“I was already mentally preparing to fly back to El Salvador the next day,” Barton recalled. “When I heard ‘Barton,’ I thought, ‘What happened?’ Then they said, ‘Spain vs. France, semifinal.’ I didn’t even hear the names of my assistants.”

The first thing he did after that was call his wife.

“That’s when the tears of joy came,” he said. “It was also a moment to thank God for what was happening and immediately start preparing for the match.”

For the first time, both World Cup semifinal matches were officiated by CONCACAF referees. Barton officiated the France-Spain match, while American Ismail Elfath refereed the England-Argentina match. The confederation described both appointments as an unprecedented event for the region.

Barton said he fulfilled a dream working during the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, but he and other CONCACAF referees were determined to show their ability to call the most important games.

“Qatar meant making a dream come true. Making it to 2026 was a huge challenge because the bar had been set very high,” Barton said. “There were high expectations. We approached it with a great sense of responsibility and humility.”

When the tournament ended, the feeling was different from that of his first World Cup.

“I feel happy, very proud to have placed our little El Salvador flag practically at the very top of world soccer,” he said. “That’s what fills me with the most pride. We continue to open doors not only for my country, but also for the entire region and for CONCACAF refereeing.”

The red card that made history

Among the four matches Barton officiated, the Turkey-Paraguay game went down in history at the 45+3-minute mark.

During a confrontation between Miguel Almirón and Turkey’s Mert Muldur, the Paraguayan star covered his mouth while speaking aggressively to his opponent.

Barton had to review the play via VAR, and as stipulated by the new amendment to Law 12, the incident resulted in a red card, since the situation had elements of confrontation and the gesture served to conceal provocative, derogatory or inflammatory communication.

The review confirmed his interpretation.

Referee Iván Barton issues a red card to Miguel Almirón for covering his mouth while confronting another player during a World Cup match.

(Dean Mouhtaropoulos / Getty Images)

Almirón became the first player sent off in a World Cup under this new provision.

For Barton, however, the story isn’t simply about a player covering his mouth.

“People get confused. It’s not just the act of doing it; it’s doing it in a confrontational situation against an opponent. That’s what changes the picture,” Barton explained.

Clarity is important.

The amendment aims to prevent players from hiding insults or other abuse — including discriminatory remarks — behind their hand, arm or jersey.

In Almirón’s case, Barton believed the conditions were met.

“In that match, it was clear that it had occurred during a confrontational situation in which the players were facing off,” Barton explained. “Seeing it on the VAR footage was clear. It was evident, and at no point was there any doubt about the decision that had to be made.”

The incident occurred shortly before halftime, when Paraguay was leading 1-0. The red card left Paraguay with 10 players for the entire second half, but the team went on to win the match 1-0.

For Barton, the red card illustrates something he believes the public still misunderstands: VAR does not eliminate the need for the referee to interpret the rules.

“VAR isn’t there to eliminate 100% of errors,” he said. “Errors will always be part of soccer because there are many issues open to interpretation, and that’s what the referee is there for — to interpret them.”

Breaks that changed the pace of the matches

There was another major change fans protested during the World Cup — the hydration breaks.

FIFA decided that during the 2026 World Cup, there would be a three-minute break midway through each half, regardless of the temperature or stadium conditions. The referee was required to stop the match around the 22nd minute of each half.

The decision was motivated by concerns about player welfare in some of the hottest venues and a committee agreed it would be best to use the breaks universally rather than whenever the weather conditions required it to assure no teams were hampered by not getting breaks, but the debate did not go away.

In some cases, the breaks interrupted the flow of the game just as a team was starting to take control.

Barton understands that criticism, but he also doesn’t believe the break necessarily has a favorable or unfavorable effect on a team.

“Team A is attacking, attacking, attacking Team B. Obviously, it won’t be beneficial for Team A because they’re at their peak. For Team B, it will be,” he said.

The scenario can change in the second half.

“And what if, in the second half, the roles are reversed and it’s Team B that’s attacking Team A? For Team A, it’ll be beneficial. It’s very relative. I don’t think you can generalize whether it’s positive or not because it depends on the circumstances of the game.”

There’s also a difference between analyzing the break from the spectator’s perspective and doing so from the field.

As a referee, Barton found an immediate benefit.

“For us as referees, it’s beneficial because having a break to rest a bit, regain our strength and get feedback from our colleagues to see if anything needs adjusting — well, of course that’s positive,” said Barton. “In the United States, summers are extreme and it often becomes very difficult to say, ‘In this game, yes; in this game, no,’ because that undermines the consistency that the application of a rule must have.”

The stars’ last names don’t change the rule

What happens when the player who needs to be disciplined is named Kylian Mbappé, Lionel Messi, Lamine Yamal or James Rodríguez?

In a stadium, those names carry weight. On the lineup sheet, according to Barton, they don’t.

“As a referee — contrary to what many people might think — you detach yourself from many situations, from the noise, from the pressure,” he said.

That doesn’t mean the referee is unaware of who’s on the field. According to him, it means he can’t let a player’s name influence his decision.

“On the field, there are no big names, no big teams. You see 11 players against 11 players,” Barton said.

The Salvadoran had already officiated games featuring Messi during his career in various tournaments and at the 2026 World Cup, he faced some of the most renowned soccer players on the planet.

“At no point do we think, ‘I’m not going to speak to him firmly or show him a card because it’s this player.’ No, absolutely not,” Barton stated.

The rules must apply equally to everyone.

“If you see an incident, a foul or something someone did, you make a decision regardless of who it is,” Barton said.

Barton explains the relationship in a way that makes it clear it’s not about ignoring the players’ status in the sport. It’s about understanding that, for those 90 minutes, roles are clearly defined.

“Obviously, we respect them for what they’ve achieved, for what they represent in soccer, but when it comes to applying the rules of the game, we see 11 players against 11 players — and that’s it,” he said.

Taking El Salvador to the biggest stage

Barton speaks little about himself and a lot about his country. Every assignment, he explains, ceases to be an individual endeavor.

“The higher you climb a mountain, the stronger the wind blows. The harder it is to maintain your balance,” he said.

His philosophy has changed little since he began his career.

“I haven’t achieved these things on my own. There’s a huge team behind me. … My family, CONCACAF, FIFA, the people who have always supported me,” Barton said.

The Salvadoran acknowledges that, during international competitions, he often finds that there are still people who don’t even know where El Salvador is located.

“When you get to competitions at this level, there are people who can’t even locate our country on a map,” Barton noted. “Serving as a means for others to learn about El Salvador and ensuring that representation is dignified is one of my greatest responsibilities.”

There’s a common perception among fans that FIFA assigns the matches each referee will officiate from the very beginning of the tournament.

Instead, each assignment depends on the performance shown during the previous match.

France captain Kylian Mbappe and Spain captain Rodri pose with referee Iván Barton and match officials before a World Cup semifinal.

(Florencia Tan Jun / Getty Images)

“First, you have to earn a spot in the World Cup. Then you have to earn the privilege of officiating a match. And after that, it depends entirely on how you perform in that match,” Barton said. “It’s just like the teams. No one is guaranteed to advance. Game by game, you prove whether you deserve to stay in the competition.”

After each match, there are technical sessions during which every major match decision is analyzed.

“We have debriefing sessions to review what we did well and what we need to improve,” he said. “We also work with a technical staff that conducts tactical analyses of the teams to prepare for the different scenarios a match might present.”

Although the semifinal against France and Spain holds a special place in his heart, Barton recalls other World Cup moments that will likely stay with him forever.

“The four walkouts before the matches were impressive. Hearing the World Cup anthem and walking out of the tunnel was always special,” he said.

“When the final whistle blew in the semifinal, I felt like I’d written my name into soccer history by representing my country. It was one of the most sublime moments of my career.”

Unlike many public figures, Barton decided to stay virtually off social media before and during the World Cup.

“Our minds are what we choose to feed them. If we feed them garbage, we’ll end up thinking that way,” he said.

Barton only opened official accounts after the tournament — and, according to him, not out of personal interest.

“There were too many fake profiles impersonating me,” Barton said. “I’m not swayed by flattery, just as I’m not affected by insults. … I’ve faced the most attacks in my own country, not abroad,” Barton confessed.

Even so, he insists on always responding with the same message.

“Behind the referee is a human being. There’s a father, a husband, a son,” he said. “It’s fine to criticize the work, but don’t cross the line into personal attacks.”

It is difficult to find words to express my disgust for the coming White House visit. Like the man they are going to see, the Dodgers are without honor.

Rico Gardiner
San Diego

Sports do not transcend or evade association with politics, especially in the current period of America’s decline under President Trump. It’s disgraceful that the Dodgers would again honor a rank authoritarian, a brazenly corrupt kleptocrat, criminal, malignant narcissist and wrecker of our democracy and rule of law.

Trump is not honoring the Dodgers; he’s using their presence to honor him and give him a bit more gaslight glory. The organization has smeared itself with the dishonor, serving the PR agenda of our vainglorious tyrant. If they cared about the optics, their civic duty and the good of the country, they would decline.

T.R. Jahns
Hemet

Dodgers, you are out. Out of our house. In normal times, a White House visit is a grand honor for a championship club. I get that. These are NOT normal times. For you to pretend they are and honor this man with your presence is unforgivable. Spineless. A statement that makes the wrong statement. We will not be watching or rooting for you this season. You are out at home. Our home.

William Lewis
Burbank

Ever since the Dodgers accepted their World Series visit to the White House, they’ve been error-prone on the field, and losing most games. In the All-Star Game, the players were hitless and the pitcher served up the only home run. To add more insult, their former player received the MVP award! Most importantly, is the disappointment and loss of respect from the fans. Karma has a way to haunt.

Robert Torres
Torrance

Your letters to the editor section regarding the Dodgers’ planned visit to the White House continues the left bias of the L.A. Times. Four letters were published praising the article and one was published critical of the article. I doubt that the 4-to-1 ratio reflects the opinions of the L.A. population, but it may reflect the opinions of readers that your left-leaning paper attracts. I read the paper only to see what the lefties are up to.

Larry Hart
Tarzana

Croatia’s World Cup was seconds away from being over and Portugal was seconds away from the round of 16 when Ivan Perisic sent a long, desperate cross into the penalty area. The ball bounced off bodies like a pinball before magically, unbelievably, caroming into the net.

Gooooooallllllll!!!!

Fate had given Croatia a reprieve.

But as pandemonium broke out in the stands and on the pitch, Norwegian referee Espen Eskas stood in the middle of the celebration in Toronto, hand to his ear, listening to a voice half a continent away in Dallas.

The voice recommended a review, via the video assistant referee, or VAR.

So Eskas trotted over to a TV monitor, watched a video replay over and over again, and more than 2½ minutes after the goal was recorded, he took it off the board. Perisic’s cross had brushed the hair of teammate Igor Matanovic, leaving Mario Pasalic in an offside position when the ball reached him near the far post. The contact was imperceptible to the naked eye, but a space-age sensor in the ball had confirmed it.

A VAR review led a referee to overturn a Croatia goal during its 2-1 World Cup loss to Portugal in Toronto, eliminating Croatia from the tournament.

(Dan Mullan / Getty Images)

Croatia’s World Cup was over, another victim of VAR, which has had an outsized influence on this summer’s tournament.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. When VAR was introduced to soccer nine years ago, its mission was clear: to alert the head referee to potential clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents. At least that’s what Major League Soccer, one of the first leagues to use the system, wrote in the news release introducing it.

“It was really to stop the headlines,” said Mark Geiger, who helped implement VAR as an MLS referee. “These super-egregious errors in a game that impact the outcome. The mantra for VAR was always minimum interference but maximum benefit.”

Under the VAR system, officials sitting before a bank of monitors in a centralized control room review match footage in real time and advise the on-field referee of potential errors. If the video assistant referees believe a mistake has been made, they communicate that through an earpiece the match referee is wearing. If the match official agrees, they will stop play, signal a review by motioning their hands in the shape of a rectangular TV screen, then watch the play themselves on a pitch-side monitor before either confirming or reversing the original decision.

It is comparable to the Automated Ball-Strike review added this year in Major League Baseball, tennis’ Hawk-Eye line-calling system and long-standing centralized instant replay review in the National Football League and National Basketball Assn., systems that have both corrected errors and stoked debate.

But VAR has morphed into something far greater. In this World Cup, there have been more than 100 VAR interventions, encompassing both confirmed on-field calls and overturned decisions, through the end of the round of 16, according to Antonio Vuksanovic, a publication relations and communications professional at Sofascore, a Croatian technology company and sports statistics website.

“When it comes to actual overturned decisions, we’re looking at roughly 0.5 per match, which is higher than the last World Cup and higher than what we saw across the most recently completed club season,” Vuksanovic said.

Even though the officials have gotten most of those calls right, many of the infractions reviewed have been so imperceptible yet so consequential, it has raised a question: if human error on the part of players and coaches is part of the sport, is allowing a game to be decided by electronic evidence of a touch detectable only through NASA-level technology violating the spirit of the game?

Iran’s Shoja Khalilzadeh shoots past Egypt’s Mostafa Shobeir, but the goal was overturned after VAR review during a World Cup match in Seattle on June 26.

(Maddy Grassy / Associated Press)

Christina Unkel, a former FIFA referee, state referee administrator in Florida and a rules of the game analyst for multiple TV networks, believes it does.

“Football is an art. And that’s why we love it,” she said. “It truly isn’t the referee’s fault. We’re not the ones seeking more advanced technology. We don’t want to look like robots out there. But the stakeholders are like ‘more, more, more.’

“When you do pursue black and white — objectivity is what they’re trying to get to, and I get it; they want to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible — what everyone is hating is this perfection thing.”

FIFA, the major stakeholder in the World Cup, declined multiple requests to answer questions about the officiating, but it has clearly doubled down on the technology for this tournament, introducing the semi-automated offside system which uses player-tracking cameras, computer-generated offside lines and, in some cases, data from a measuring instrument inside the match ball, to identify everyone’s position on the pitch when the ball is played.

“The whole genesis of VAR was not to fix every mistake or to make the referees perfect,” said Geiger, the first American to officiate a World Cup knockout game and now general manager of the Professional Referees Organization (PRO), which oversees referees for MLS and the NWSL. “Is the referee correct? That’s not the right question. They should be asking themselves, ‘is the referee clearly and obviously wrong?’”

Geiger, however, remains a huge proponent of the system and was careful not to criticize how it’s been used in this World Cup.

Belgium’s Youri Tielemans on a penalty kick that sails by Senegal goalkeeper Mory Diaw during a World Cup round of 32 match in Seattle on July 1. The game-deciding penalty kick was awarded after VAR review.

(Manu Fernandez / Associated Press)

Still, the frequent use of VAR and other technologies has clearly robbed the World Cup of much as its drama, with spontaneous celebrations of game-winning goals turning to grief moments later when the referee steps away from the monitor and takes away a score.

Reviews not only ended Croatia’s tournament, but they showed Shoja Khalilzadeh was a toe offside when he scored the goal that would have sent Iran to the knockout stages, one of three goals Iran had disallowed by VAR in the tournament; it gave Belgium a late penalty, based on light contact, that Youri Tielemans converted to end Senegal’s World Cup; and it cost Egypt a goal for a perceived foul that took place nearly 100 yards away from the ball in its 3-2 loss to Argentina.

“What happened to us wasn’t fair,” Egypt coach Hossam Hassan said.

Unkel agreed with that sentiment too.

“Everyone hates it,” she said. “According to VAR, that’s correct to take that goal away. That’s not the spirit of the game. But it’s the correct decision by law.”

What Unkel would prefer — and she believes a majority of officials are on her side — is for referees to have discretion to ignore or even overrule VAR if common sense and their understanding of the game suggest they should, just as judges have discretion to use common sense in applying the law.

“A lot of our game, the majority of it, is very subjective,” she said. “When we’re all sitting there saying, ‘No, that doesn’t gain an unfair advantage,’ then that’s when we have to start reconsidering things back to the spirit of the law. That’s the catchall loophole for saying, ‘Do we want this to be part of our game?’

“And I think everyone’s universally saying there a lot of different kinds of decisions we do not want part of our game. Toenail offsides, hair follicle arguments.”

Without the use of video replays, its unlikely any of those calls would have been made and the World Cup quarterfinals would probably look quite different.

England players react as referee Alireza Faghani shows a red card to England’s Jarell Quansah during a World Cup match against Mexico on July 5.

(Natacha Pisarenko / Ap Photo/natacha Pisarenko)

England coach Thomas Tuchel, upset about a penalty call on captain Harry Kane and a red card given to defender Jarell Quansah, both following video reviews in his team’s round-of-16 win over Mexico, said rulings were being overturned in the tournament “in a very questionable way.”

“The referees can send any team out in any moment,” he added. “It’s just not good enough. It’s just erratic. It’s just unreliable.”

An apparent misuse of the technology also led to the most controversial incident in the tournament. In the second half of an elimination game between the U.S. and Bosnia-Herzegovina, American Folarin Balogun stomped on the ankle of Bosnia’s Tarik Muharemovic, something Brazilian referee Raphael Claus initially decided did not merit even a caution. But after VAR official Juan Soto of Venezuela urged him to watch a replay, Claus flashed a red card at Balogun, expelling him from the game and banning him from the next match in the round of 16.

Claus had watched the replay in slow motion, allowing him to see what wasn’t apparent at game speed. FIFA later intervened by lifting Balogun’s one-game suspension, igniting ever greater controversy because it was just the second time that has happened in a World Cup.

U.S. forward Folarin Balogun steps on Bosnia-Herzegovina defender Tarik Muharemovic’s foot and received a red card after VAR review during the World Cup.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

The heavy use of VAR has also interrupted the flow of games by halting matches that weren’t meant to be halted, leaving everyone standing on the field while the referee goes off to watch TV, sometimes for minutes at a time.

“When calls are reviewed and when goals are reviewed, sometimes it could take away from the momentum,” U.S. defender Chris Richards said. “Look under anything with a microscope, you could probably find something. But ultimately it was meant to be helpful for the game.”

And it has been. Because if officials have become over-reliant on VAR to review decisions that were not, or could not, be seen in real time, at least they’re getting those decisions right.

“I wish we had it in the 2002 World Cup,” said Bruce Arena, who coached the U.S. in that tournament. “We might have made it to the semifinals.”

In the quarterfinals of that tournament, with Germany leading 1-0 in the 40th minute, an obvious handball by Germany’s Torsten Frings kept out a shot from American Gregg Berhalter. If VAR had been available, Scottish referee Hugh Dallas could have corrected the missed call, awarding a penalty and giving Frings a red card, expelling him for the final 40 minutes.

“Look at every sport now in the world,” said Arena, coach of the San José Earthquakes. “They have some version of VAR. Why not make decisions correct?”

“There are still plenty of opportunities for the referees to control the game and make mistakes and not make mistakes,” he continued in reference to the human element. “It’s not like every moment is evaluated. But key moments are.”

As for interrupting the flow of play, Arena says the three-minute hydration breaks FIFA has introduced each half — ostensibly for player welfare, but in practice to give the TV networks additional commercial breaks — have been more disruptive.

“You don’t want VAR to officiate the game completely,” Arena said. “You have to pick your spots. For the most part, I think VAR is good.”

The clamour surrounding the World Cup’s controversy involving US President Donald Trump and FIFA chief Gianni Infantino had barely died down when another arose in the aftermath of Argentina’s controversial 3-2 win over Egypt in the round-of-16 match in Atlanta.

As the defending champions staged a stunning comeback against the Pharaohs in the knockout match on Tuesday, questions were raised about an unusually late VAR call that saw Egypt’s second goal rescinded, followed by a chain of events that led to Argentina’s victory.

A day earlier, Trump had revealed that he had asked FIFA to review, and overturn, USA striker Folarin Balogun’s one-game suspension for a red card, and the governing body controversially obliged. The matter was dusted off by Belgium as they dumped the hosts out of the tournament with a 4-1 win in the match Balogun was initially suspended from but ended up playing – to no avail.

Trump watch on the World Cup

While the anger surrounding FIFA’s red-card decision was directed at both the football governing body and Trump, Egypt’s outburst was solely aimed at the organisation, which, according to Egypt’s manager, had “wanted to keep the world champions in the competition”.

Head coach Hossam Hassan speculated that match officials had been put under pressure to ensure that one of the biggest names, Argentina’s Lionel Messi, stayed in the tournament.

“Perhaps they wanted Messi to stay in the running,” Hassan told beIN Sports after the match.

“In football, there are sometimes external factors that go beyond the technical aspects. The world champions received support at every level.”

While the tournament has been no stranger to the political spotlight of questionable integrity, experts say the lines between sport and politics have been blurred even further.

“After the Balogun affair, who knows which decisions are legitimate and can be trusted, and which can’t?” Simon Chadwick, professor of Afro-Eurasian sport at the Emlyon Business School in Shanghai, told Al Jazeera.

“If the Trump administration is maintaining a watching brief over the tournament, it’s worth remembering: Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, is a staunch Trump supporter.”

Trump and his Argentinian counterpart share a close relationship. Milei is a regular feature at pro-Trump political gatherings in the United States, and Trump has described Argentina’s far-right populist leader as his “favourite president”.

Chadwick also opined that Hassan’s vociferous support for Palestine at the World Cup could have prompted some officials to “have built-in biases when making decisions”.

Hassan dedicated part of his pre-match news conference on Monday to making an impassioned plea for the people of Palestine, especially those in the besieged Gaza Strip.

Advantage, Argentina

Circling back to the VAR call that sliced Egypt’s lead in half and was followed by decisions that conveniently favoured Argentina, Chadwick said the period of play was “unusual”.

He wondered why the referee had not called a foul in real-time that VAR picked up several moments later and only once Egypt scored their second goal.

“There was something distinctly unusual about the goal and VAR decision, something that was amplified when Argentina scored one of its goals,” Chadwick said, questioning refereeing standards in the match.

“In the build-up, an infringement was perpetrated by an Argentina player, which could have been interpreted as a similar offence to that supposedly committed earlier by the Egyptian player. At the very least, refereeing standards during the game were somewhat inconsistent, although critics are clearly making much more serious claims.”

But while many social media commentators and football experts were outraged at the decisions – Portuguese football icon Jose Mourinho reportedly termed the match “daylight robbery” – some football experts said it was a closer call.

“Robbed might be a strong word,” football analyst Ali El Garni said.

“I’d say decisions made by both the referee and VAR could have gone either way, and Argentina benefitted from all the 50/50 incidents.

“The incident leading to the Egyptian disallowed goal was an indisputable foul. The question is how far VAR should go back to check the legitimacy of a goal,” said El Garni, who has extensively reported on European and North African football.

However, he did wonder if VAR would have been involved had the scoreline been 2-0 in Argentina’s favour instead.

“Would the goal have been disallowed had it been scored by Argentina? It’s unlikely,” he said.

“What’s making it worse for Egypt is the fact that a similar incident involving what appeared to be a foul on [Mohamed] Salah took place before Argentina’s third goal, and VAR didn’t intervene,” he said.

Meanwhile, Chadwick questioned why VAR officials had raised the issue if the on-field officials did not call a foul when Egypt‘s Marwan Attia lightly tugged the shirt and stepped on the foot of Lisandro Martinez.

A logical solution to the VAR issue, Chadwick proposed, would be “for fans and viewers to listen to an assessment of the alleged offence, hear the various arguments, and have a clear insight into the basis for a decision”.

Chadwick admitted that although Egyptian players should not have become overwhelmed with emotion, “a sense of injustice was induced by the VAR decision”.

“This technology was supposed to minimise doubt and bring consistency. Instead, its use during this match had significant cognitive and behavioural effects,” he said.

“Indeed, rather than brandishing cards and inflaming the situation even further, the referee should have used his discretion and judgement to defuse the situation.”

While Chadwick dismissed rumours of match-rigging in favour of Messi and Argentina, he acknowledged the pull of the iconic footballer’s star power.

“There is no doubt that Messi is a box office attraction the tournament really can’t afford to be without.”

SANTA CLARA, Calif. — What do you mean U.S. forward Folarin Balogun got red-carded? For that?

As a nation, we’re pretty new to all this. And this VAR abomination we’ve all now been introduced to? Thanks, we hate it.

Soccer’s video assistant referee system is worse than the NBA’s tedious in-game reviews. Worse than the existential NFL question of whether it is or is not a catch. Dumber than not being able to argue obvious balls and strikes in a pre-ABS baseball world.

Worse than all those things put together.

And now that we witnessed it burn the U.S. men’s soccer team in its rousing 2-0 round of 32 World Cup victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wednesday, all of us newly accredited soccer experts in America are ready to declare war on VAR.

In a physical fixture filled with shoving and shouldering, pushing and pummeling, blood and guts, after 60-plus minutes of letting ’em play, Balogun’s off-balance misstep got him kicked off the pitch.

A match of no-calls — including, initially, this gnarly moment of incidental contact between Balogun and Tarik Muharemovic — and the United States found itself down a man for most of the second half at Levi’s Stadium.

The unfortunate accident will rob Americans — both those on the pitch and those glued to screens at home or at a watch party — of their top scorer (Balogun has three goals in three matches) in a round of 16 showdown with Belgium on Monday in Seattle.

The young man was doing LeBron James’ silencer celebration after scoring a goal one moment and being tagged with soccer’s equivalent of a Flagrant 2 the next — because of how one moment was assessed on tape delay.

Delay being the operative phrase. No one loves late calls, but soccer has some late calls. Examined in super-slow motion. And, as the United States’ Tyler Adams pointed out: “When you slow everything down, it’s only going to look worse.”

And Balogun didn’t mean it! That’s a better defense in some situations than others — including this one. Per letter of the law.

ESPN’s resident refereeing expert, Andy Davies, a former Select Group referee with more 12 seasons on the elite list provided this summary judgment: “With both players challenging for ball, the contact from Balogun on Muharemovic, while it looked bad in slow motion, was purely accidental and an unfortunate result from two players challenging for possession of the ball in a normal football movement.”

Also, Davies: “VAR made their recommendation to the referee based on slow-motion and still replays, which is not aligned with VAR protocols, as these should be used for only point-of-contact purposes in a red card tackle situation.”

Let me tell you something you already knew: FIFA is inconsistent.

Malik Tillman’s exquisitely placed, curving free kick for a goal in the 82nd minute might have been Messi-esque, but the call on Balogun? Not Messi-esque.

In a group play match against Algeria, Lionel Messi, the Argentine superstar, seemed to rake his studs along Aïssa Mandi’s right calf and ankle. That time, a foul was called. VAR had a look. And despite the rules stating that a challenge from behind with studs-on-calf contact and a level of force should be a red card — no card was administered. Can’t have Messi missing games.

The armchair referee system, so far from unassailable, is also unappealable — to U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino’s dismay.

“For me, never is this red card,” Pochettino said. “Watching after on TV, never was [it] intention[al] to step up on the player. That was a normal action in football that happened by accident.

“That is why for me it’s never a red card.”

But you don’t have to take his word for it.

On Fox, former French footballing legend Thierry Henry said: “You need to adopt some type of common sense. He never went to hurt nobody. He went to get the ball, and where do you land after? You have to land somewhere.”

Commentator Ian Darke weighed in with a post on X: “Reckless and yellow would have covered it.”

Trust your own eyes.

In an attempt to eliminate human error, this great sport has introduced human error. But it feels more egregious than a bad call in the run of play because it’s justice — or injustice — meted out arbitrarily, unevenly and after the fact.

Look, I’m sure the world doesn’t want to hear any of our star-spangled opinions about how to improve the beautiful game — but in this, we’re united.

There’s a universal sentiment: Give VAR the red card.

Was Switzerland’s Remo Freuler offside before he was brought down by Qatar goalkeeper Mahmoud Abunada?

It is the question that, for many, remains unanswered despite Fifa finally releasing images four and a half hours after the incident happened.

The move led to a penalty, converted by Breel Embolo, as the teams drew 1-1 in Saturday’s World Cup Group B match in Santa Clara.

Before the tournament Fifa put a lot of stock in its new, enhanced semi-automated offside system.

World football’s governing body scanned every player at the World Cup to create unique, lifelike avatars.

It was supposed to provide the most accurate illustration of offside decisions we have ever seen.

But it did not work and Fifa had to revert to drawing lines to the players and on the pitch.

Fifa released a statement saying “a brief technical outage prevented the onside animation graphic from being generated”.

It went on to say the lines drawn by the video assistant referee (VAR) showed no offside and released two images – which remain unconvincing – but not the usual avatar graphics.

Within the move, two Switzerland players could potentially have been offside.

Fifa released an image for both as evidence they were onside. The first was for Embolo in the build-up, the second for Freuler before he was fouled by Abunada.

Fifa’s statement read: “The workflow of the VAR was not affected by this issue and followed the normal procedure in checking the on-field decision.

“The lines used by the VAR to check the position of the relevant players did not show the attacking player to be in an offside position in either of the two situations immediately before the penalty decision.”

The semi-automated technology is not flawless. It can be impacted by many things, such as players being close together or even something as random as ticker tape on the pitch.

When the technology fails in the Premier League there is the option to fall back to the old technology where the VAR draws the lines.

But the offside image is produced straight away, not several hours later.

“We all think [it was offside],” Gary Neville said on ITV before the statement was released.

“Everybody at home thinks it. Fifa are the host broadcaster and they have the semi-automatic decision that they can show us.

“There is a massive question over that because it is offside in my eyes until they prove to me different.”

If there is one thing that is guaranteed to create doubt it is delay. It creates a vacuum that feeds conspiracy theories. It might give the impression Fifa is hiding something.

The United States opened their World Cup campaign with a fine win – but not before a sequence of events that left everyone inside SoFi Stadium scratching their heads as the video assistant referee (VAR) made history.

The co-hosts were comfortably leading Paraguay 3-0 when confusion reigned in the Group D game.

Veteran defender Tim Ream, 38, conceded a free-kick and was shown a yellow card for his ‘challenge’ on Miguel Almiron.

After the free-kick was taken, Dutch referee Danny Makkelie was sent to the screen by the VAR and overturned his decision – something officials have not previously been allowed to do.

After rescinding Ream’s caution, Makkelie instead booked former Newcastle United forward Almiron, who had clearly dived.

It is the first VAR intervention for mistaken identity at the World Cup, even if it perhaps was not used in the way most expected it to be.

Fifa has introduced of a number of rule changes for the tournament, with Pierluigi Collina, the head of referees, requesting one specifically for mistaken identity.

The rule states that if a player is booked or sent off – but the foul was actually committed by the opposition team – the decision can be changed.

Another new law is second yellow cards leading to a red card can be reviewed, but not first yellow cards. The only reason referee Makkelie was able to rescind the decision was by using the mistaken identity law.

The officials allowed the game to restart before stopping, which also confused fans as normally once the game resumes it cannot be pulled back.

Former Everton and Wales defender Ashley Williams, speaking to BBC Sport, added: “They let them take the free-kick, which was bizarre but clearly the right decision.

“It’s the first time we have seen it but fair play.”

Former England midfielder Danny Murphy, who was co-commentating for BBC Sport, added: “Any adaptation of the rules which means diving gets more punishment is good.”

The United States, managed by former Tottenham boss Mauricio Pochettino, won the match 4-1 to get their campaign off to a winning start in front of a jubilant home crowd.

Following an own goal by Damian Bobadilla, the US led 3-0 at half-time after Folarin Balogun scored twice.

In doing so he became just the second US player to score more than once in a World Cup match.

Paraguay pulled one back through Brazilian-born Mauricio before the goal of the night from substitute Giovanni Reyna, who curled a 20-yard shot home with the outside of his right foot with the final kick of the game.

Five goals, four water breaks, three red cards and a glittering opening ceremony.

The World Cup 2026 opening day delivered everything you could ask for.

From an early thunder strike to a late winning goal, Thursday was filled with drama, stretching from Mexico City to Zapopan.

Al Jazeera breaks down the key takeaways from the 2026 FIFA World Cup’s day 1:

Is this going to be the World Cup with the most red cards?

The three red cards brandished to Yaya Sithole, Themba Zwame and Cesar Montes during Mexico’s 2-0 win over South Africa were an unusual sight at a World Cup.

In the last two editions, Qatar 2022 and Russia 2018, only four red cards were handed out during the entire tournament. This year’s World Cup opening game nearly matched that singlehandedly.

With officiating at the start of the tournament usually setting the tone for the rest of the campaign, the sequence of sending offs at Estadio Azteca could be repeated several times during the 39-day, 104-match spectacle in North America.

Thursday’s three reds fell just one short of the record of four at a World Cup 2006 game, nicknamed the “Battle of Nuremberg”, between Portugal and the Netherlands.

The record for the most red cards – 28 – was also set at the same tournament in Germany.

Controversial VAR at the centre of debate again

The look of confusion and disbelief among South African players after Zwane was sent off for flinging an arm into Mexico’s Roberto Alvarado’s face prompted the debate: Is Video Assistant Referee (VAR) playing spoilsport again?

Referee Wilton Sampaio did not initially pull out the red card, but after being sent to the pitchside monitor by VAR, Sampaio decided to send Zwane off.

While the replays were unclear, it seemed Zwane was trying to move past Alvarado, but his hand caught the Mexican’s face in the process.

Zwane was ultimately booked for “violent conduct”, a controversial decision, which seemed harsh given it was not an obvious call. South Africa coach Hugo Broos was not convinced by it, either.

“The second red card, I think the Mexican player blocked my player,” Broos said in the post-match media conference.

“It’s the position of the referee, and we have to accept it also, but I don’t think [it was a red], it was too soft to give that as a red card.”

Hydration breaks or momentum killers?

The introduction of fixed hydration breaks – one in each half – came into effect for the first time at the World Cup on Thursday, and attracted early criticism from viewers and coaches alike.

While some broadcasters stuck with the live feed featuring players, others cut to commercials, disrupting the match-viewing experience for fans watching on TV.

Viewers in the United States were frustrated after broadcaster Fox cut away to full-screen commercials and they missed some live action during the second half of the Mexico vs South Africa opening match.

US head coach Mauricio Pochettino had a mixed opinion over the three-minute breaks, which are held regardless of weather conditions and introduced by FIFA to prioritise player welfare.

“I don’t like it. I only like it when the conditions are very extreme, but when the conditions are good, it is not necessary to have water breaks,” he said during a news conference on Thursday.

“For me, it’s 50-50. For coaches and staff, it’s a chance to make some changes or fix problems. But it’s part of the game, and we accept that.

“I don’t agree with it, but it’s not a big issue and won’t have a big effect on the games,” he said, adding that he did not watch the opening game.

Son Heung-min misfires, but South Korea prevail

Son Heung-min has often been the hero of the South Korea national team on the biggest stage, but on Thursday, even though the talisman got the lion’s share of the chances, he failed to score in their 2-1 win over Czechia.

Son worked seamlessly with the impressive Lee Kang-in and Lee Jae-sung to create a host of first-half chances, with the trio combining darting runs through the middle with a succession of dangerous pass-and-go moves that they just could not finish.

But Oh Hyeon-gyu and Hwang In-beom stepped up to the occasion, bagging a goal each to steer the Koreans to a dramatic late comeback win over Czechia.

South Korea vs Czechia: A clash of styles

Even though both teams opted for a 3-4-3 formation, there was a stark difference in their systems and approach.

South Korea played a fluid, possession-based style of football, while Czechia were heavily reliant on dead balls, opting for a rugged, route-one tactic.

Although the Czechs broke forward first with direct, physical play, the Koreans – buoyed by a largely Mexican crowd rooting for them – bounced back with their dominance of possession and stylish play, getting the better of their set-piece specialist opponents.