VAR in V-League: When Technology Isn't Enough for Transparency

In the 78th minute of the match between Hanoi FC and Ho Chi Minh City FC in round 12 of V-League 2026, referee Nguyen Van Dung received a signal from the VAR team. He ran to the screen, reviewed the handball situation by defender Que Ngoc Hai in the penalty area. After 2 minutes and 30 seconds, he decided to cancel the penalty for Hanoi. The Ho Chi Minh City players reacted fiercely, and the crowd at Hang Day Stadium booed. But no one heard the specific reason from the referee. That is a typical moment for a bigger problem: how is VAR being operated in Vietnam?

VAR was officially applied in V-League from the 2026-2026 season, after years of preparation. The Vietnam Football Federation (VFF) and Vietnam Professional Football Joint Stock Company (VPF) invested in the system and trained referees. The goal was to reduce critical errors and increase transparency. But after two seasons, controversy has not decreased but increased. Teams continuously complain, and fans lose trust. The question is: is VAR being used correctly?

According to VPF statistics, in the 2026-2026 season, VAR was used 187 times, averaging 0.8 times per match. Of these, 42 times changed the referee's initial decision, accounting for 22.5%. This rate is significantly higher than the average in European leagues (about 15%). This suggests that Vietnamese referees may be overly dependent on VAR, or initial decisions have many errors. But data is only part of it. What is more concerning is the operational mechanism. Of the 42 changes, only 5 times did the main referee publicly explain over the public address system. Most decisions were made without clear reasons, leaving players and fans confused. This violates the basic principle of VAR: transparency. I have followed many V-League matches and noticed a recurring pattern: the referee runs to the screen, then makes a decision without saying anything. Fans only know the result, not the reason. This creates a huge gap between technology and fans. Accurate technology without communication will never build trust.

Looking deeper, the problem is not just the intervention rate. Consider the nature of the situations VAR intervened in. In the 2026-2026 season, VAR intervened 23 times to determine offside errors, 12 times for penalty situations, and 7 times for serious fouls. But notably, the average review time was 1 minute 45 seconds, 30 seconds longer than FIFA's recommendation. This shows that Vietnamese referees are not yet proficient in using technology, or lack confidence to make quick decisions. The consequence is that the match rhythm is interrupted, and the emotions of players and fans are negatively affected. I remember a match between Binh Duong FC and Hai Phong FC, where VAR took 3 minutes to determine an offside situation, and it still caused controversy. Binh Duong players surrounded the referee but received no explanation. This is not a technology problem, but a process and human problem.

Many people think VAR reduces errors, but I see it increasing controversy. The reason is not that the technology is wrong, but that it is used as a tool to protect referees, not as a tool for transparency. When a decision is controversial, the referee can blame VAR. But when VAR intervenes, no one explains why. This creates a new "dark zone." For example, in the match between Binh Duong FC and Hai Phong FC, VAR intervened to disallow Binh Duong's goal for offside. But on replay, it was unclear which player was offside, and the referee did not explain. Binh Duong reacted fiercely, but nothing changed. The problem is that VAR is being operated as a closed system, lacking accountability. Referees are not trained to communicate with players and fans. They are only taught how to use technology, not how to explain decisions. This leads to growing distrust. I remember my Kante lesson: when I was wrong, I needed to admit it and explain. But Vietnamese referees do not do that. They hide behind the VAR screen, and no one takes responsibility.

There is another aspect that few notice: the cost of operating VAR. According to estimates, each match using VAR costs about 50 million VND, including operation costs, personnel, and equipment. With 187 uses in the season, the total cost exceeds 9 billion VND. This is a large investment, but its effectiveness is being questioned. If VAR only creates more controversy and does not improve transparency, is this investment worth it? I think the answer is no. Instead of spending money on technology, VFF and VPF should invest in training referees in communication and decision explanation skills. This is the root of the problem.

Let's compare with top European leagues. In the Premier League, referees regularly explain decisions over the public address system, and team captains are given the right to request explanations. In La Liga, a similar system is applied. This creates mutual respect between referees, players, and fans. In V-League, we do not have this yet. Referees are often surrounded, fans boo, and teams complain to VPF. But VPF rarely publicly explains controversial decisions. This creates a vicious cycle: lack of transparency leads to loss of trust, loss of trust leads to negative reactions, negative reactions lead to pressure on referees, and pressure leads to more errors.

I have followed Vietnamese football for more than 10 years, and I see that the VAR problem is not a technology problem, but a cultural problem. We do not yet have a culture of explanation and accountability. Referees are seen as having supreme authority on the pitch, and they do not need to explain. But in the age of technology, this is no longer appropriate. Fans have the right to know why a decision is made. Players have the right to hear an explanation. If not, VAR will only be an expensive tool to create more controversy.

The problem is not technology, but people and process. If VFF and VPF do not change their approach, VAR will only be an expensive tool to create more controversy. The question is: do we need technology or transparency? The answer is clearly both, but transparency must be prioritized. I hope next season will bring improvements, but I am not optimistic. Vietnamese football needs a communication revolution, not just a technology one. When referees are willing to state their reasons, when VPF publicly explains controversial decisions, when players and fans are heard, then VAR will truly realize its value. For now, it is just an expensive big screen, and we are fooling ourselves into thinking we are modernizing.