A conundrum of the in-stadium video review in football

What is needed to make VAR spectator-friendly and commercially-lucrative?

When the giant screens displayed a message of an ongoing VAR check in the 63rd minute of the match, few inside the stadium knew what direction that “possible penalty” could even go. “Surely must be us,” said one guy behind me but another immediately replied “After that first half? They might as well be going back a few minutes to our box...”

It could have taken place at many other stadiums but this particular incident occurred at Chelsea v Leicester last Tuesday, May 18th in a crucial battle for the UEFA Champions League qualification next season; I was one of the lucky few to be part of the return of the spectators as the football season was drawing to close.

In the end, the penalty went Chelsea’s way, and Jorginho confidentially dispatched the ball to extend the lead to 2-0. But just like the Blues' struggle (ultimately successful!) to secure UCL football continued into the following game, I watched similar incidents happening across European football over the past week, with little improvement to what was VAR’s early, pre-pandemic experience.

Imagine going to the Royal Albert Hall or La Scala, paying a lot for your seats, and… not being able to experience the entire spectacle as those watching it from the comfort of their home sofa for a fraction of costs. How quickly would the appeal of watching spectacles from theatre stalls wane? Some may correctly observe that it already happened in the form of movies and TV shows where the taped laughter and applause is now played to enhance some key moments. How many people do attend the same cultural venues week-in, week-out as opposed to the unscripted drama of live sports entertainment?

We already knew in pre-Covid era that the presence of real, actual fans enhances the overall commercial appeal of live sports as a product - both in terms of media rights' fees and sponsorship activation opportunities. The pandemic has clearly proven that supporters’ presence can’t be faked without damaging the experience for all participants, from athletes on the pitch, through spectators themselves, to viewers at home – with rights holders themselves and their commercial partners further on. As I experienced first-hand last week, eight thousand real fans contribute more to this live TV show that a football match is than a full house of artificial noise.

Why then football’s video check system continues to serve only TV audience? Even there it’s faring below its potential. There is reportedly little success so far in commercialising key breaks when all eyes are glued to the on-pitch, standstill developments in what otherwise is a low-scoring, fluid sport. If you attend a tennis, volleyball, or American football event, the official video review is an integral part of the entertainment for the spectators - and sponsors and advertisers, too. The list of sports that have worked it out well only gets longer with rugby, basketball et al almost immediately springing to mind.

The EPL Handbook reads (K.38.4 & K.38.5) that the “screen can be used to show (…) replays or still images of incidents determined by the video assistant referee, in accordance with any guidance issued by the Board,” yet it cannot display “action replays of negative or controversial incidents” – often resulting in a number of VAR decisions never properly explained to the baffled and disgruntled in-venue spectators. And yet these are the very key moments of the game that drive our interest, and get to be discussed by experts at lengths in post-game TV studios, pundits on the back pages of newspapers, and fans on online platforms!

By putting a ‘fan hat’ on we’re in a better position to recognise these shortcomings – and start thinking about solutions. If you work in #sportsbiz industry but don’t watch your sport as a fan, it’s like working in a supermarket HQ and not doing grocery shopping in your local store. From a spectator’s point of view, the much-lauded #returnorthefans in English football left me with some bittersweet taste. It was amazing see so many familiar faces again and exchange some fist bumps, too! It was great to feel the matchday atmosphere again and be back at Stamford Bridge. But even with a heavily-reduced stadium capacity, the spectators were still patronised with no replays nor explanations of controversial VAR verdicts. Technology in officiating (while still developing, albeit at lightening speed) gets a lot of criticism even though it often simply amplifies the shortcomings in decision-making and decision-explaining processes.

Fans – especially in football/soccer more than any other sport – can be often seen as resilient to the latest trends and revolutionary changes, even those that ultimately benefit their beloved game in a long run. But they are almost always right in sensing when things are going wrong for some reason... Naturally, solving an in-stadium VAR conundrum is a complex, multi-facet exercise that requires a good understanding of crowd psychology, educational programmes on laws of the game, as well as trust and respect from all stakeholders. The end result of engaging the spectators and subsequently also commercial partners is worth the effort, though!

On that note, if you work for a sports rights owner and think about using #sportstech to enhance the in-stadium viewing experience to make watching sports enjoyable for your fans both in and out of the venues, feel free to drop me to discuss various ideas.

If you happen to be in Porto this week for the UEFA Champions League final, we can even meet in an al fresco, socially-distant environment over a cup of coffee and some pastéis de nata! 

(P.S. This little piece of writing has turned out to be significantly longer than initially planned; I have almost forgotten the pleasure of some undistracted work at 10,000 metres. Like with sports fans in stadiums around the world, it's great to see air travel gradually returning!)