What do you think?
Rate this book
I Can't Stop Thinking about Var: Forward by Jonathan Wilson
Is it football any more?
'Fascinating and persuasive' The Herald
'Everyone involved in the VAR controversy should read this short, beautifully-written book and think again' Sir Michael Barber
In 2019, the English Premier League introduced the Video Assistant Referee (VAR), a way of using technology to review and correct the on-field referee's decisions. It's been a players hate it, managers hate it, pundits line up to pour scorn on its decisions, and fans have coined the chant 'it's not football any more' to describe its effect on the game.
Almost every other sport in the world has managed to integrate technology into its decision-making process. Why is football failing so badly? Is it a special case, or have the game's authorities got something wrong? And what does the controversy about VAR tell us about the nature of authority, rationality and technology in the 21st century?
'Fascinating and persuasive' The Herald
'Everyone involved in the VAR controversy should read this short, beautifully-written book and think again' Sir Michael Barber
In 2019, the English Premier League introduced the Video Assistant Referee (VAR), a way of using technology to review and correct the on-field referee's decisions. It's been a players hate it, managers hate it, pundits line up to pour scorn on its decisions, and fans have coined the chant 'it's not football any more' to describe its effect on the game.
Almost every other sport in the world has managed to integrate technology into its decision-making process. Why is football failing so badly? Is it a special case, or have the game's authorities got something wrong? And what does the controversy about VAR tell us about the nature of authority, rationality and technology in the 21st century?
- GenresNonfictionSportsFootball
224 pages, Paperback
Published November 6, 2025
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
October 5, 2025
I can’t stop thinking about VAR by Daisy Christodoulou, an academic analysis of a never-ending terrace debate.
This is a thought piece that dodges a conclusion. It is less an extended article in When Saturday Comes and more of an academic dissertation. Why else does a short book on VAR end on a debate between academic and populist post-modernism?
Whilst the debates on VAR are deep and well thought out, there is a point where you cannot see the forest for the trees.
She debates for or against VAR close to the point that it is here and there is no going back, even with all its problems.
The theoretical points can end up a long way from the fans waiting for the humans to decide in a studio in West London, and that is the point where it loses the average fan.
The other sports -cricket and tennis – have absorbed technology well, with a few hiccups. But her point that football is different is well argued. VAR will never work as a solution to human refereeing.
The book ends on a vague whimper without a real way forward. She proposes a pause in VAR so that there can be labs to test on tweaks, but I doubt it is any more than window dressing.
Lots of arguments for and against, but the analysis leaves no way back. Maybe because there isn’t, but the book avoids that. Fans do not like wayward refereeing, but they also don’t like the wait for a VAR decision only to find out it's just as controversial but for different reasons, as the author explores in her book – the more you look for accuracy, the harder it gets.
Everyone has a view on VAR. Everyone has problems with it. But no one has a workable solution. I spent last season watching Leeds in the Championship. Occasionally, the crowd would let the referee know when he had clearly lost control of the match. But there is no VAR in the Championship. At the end of the match, we were happier knowing where we stood – sometimes a good referee, sometimes not. But it was always an accepted part of the story. We happily lived without VAR.
I walked away from this book even more against VAR. However much I want it to improve on human error, it is clearly not going to happen. The book explores how VAR could be made more accurate, but accuracy actually takes refereeing away from the spirit of the game. I remember when Pat Bamford pointed where he wanted the ball to go in the penalty, and his arm was judged as offside. It is difficult to know how VAR can make these decisions about where the line is drawn.
This is undoubtedly a never-ending debate on the terraces. VAR’s worst excesses are long delays and human error. The best we can hope for is to minimise the controversies.
This is a thought piece that dodges a conclusion. It is less an extended article in When Saturday Comes and more of an academic dissertation. Why else does a short book on VAR end on a debate between academic and populist post-modernism?
Whilst the debates on VAR are deep and well thought out, there is a point where you cannot see the forest for the trees.
She debates for or against VAR close to the point that it is here and there is no going back, even with all its problems.
The theoretical points can end up a long way from the fans waiting for the humans to decide in a studio in West London, and that is the point where it loses the average fan.
The other sports -cricket and tennis – have absorbed technology well, with a few hiccups. But her point that football is different is well argued. VAR will never work as a solution to human refereeing.
The book ends on a vague whimper without a real way forward. She proposes a pause in VAR so that there can be labs to test on tweaks, but I doubt it is any more than window dressing.
Lots of arguments for and against, but the analysis leaves no way back. Maybe because there isn’t, but the book avoids that. Fans do not like wayward refereeing, but they also don’t like the wait for a VAR decision only to find out it's just as controversial but for different reasons, as the author explores in her book – the more you look for accuracy, the harder it gets.
Everyone has a view on VAR. Everyone has problems with it. But no one has a workable solution. I spent last season watching Leeds in the Championship. Occasionally, the crowd would let the referee know when he had clearly lost control of the match. But there is no VAR in the Championship. At the end of the match, we were happier knowing where we stood – sometimes a good referee, sometimes not. But it was always an accepted part of the story. We happily lived without VAR.
I walked away from this book even more against VAR. However much I want it to improve on human error, it is clearly not going to happen. The book explores how VAR could be made more accurate, but accuracy actually takes refereeing away from the spirit of the game. I remember when Pat Bamford pointed where he wanted the ball to go in the penalty, and his arm was judged as offside. It is difficult to know how VAR can make these decisions about where the line is drawn.
This is undoubtedly a never-ending debate on the terraces. VAR’s worst excesses are long delays and human error. The best we can hope for is to minimise the controversies.
February 23, 2026
A really enjoyable read, tackling the frequently commented upon but rarely forensically examined problems of VAR in football with analytical rigour and, even rarer, suggesting some potential methods for improvement.
Daisy's comments that individuals' views on the need for ever greater detail in the game's laws, decision-making processes and human and non-human intervention might be reflective of philosophical disposition more generally is insightful, as is her assessment that any approach to decision-making in football is unlikely to avoid the trade off between consistency and the (undefined and in any case wholly subjective) "spirt of the game".
A number of references are made to the perception that technological introductions in cricket and tennis have been deemed a success (both within the game and by fans) and rightly notes that this may be partly due to the intrinsic nature of these "non-continuous" games but also because of the agency of players and the lower stakes of individual decisions in games with potentially hundreds of the same to be made over the course of a match.
One thing I think might also be explored further (when comparing football to other professional sports) is the potential impact of the "bad faith" in which football fans now "enjoy" football as a whole and scrutinise perceived refereeing decisions in particular: it seems to me that the toxicity and tribalism of the football ecosystem, combined with a wider world of outrage and conspiracy, in which your club winning (and your rivals losing) is the only thing that matters, may have created a permanently broken belief system in which many otherwise well adjusted humans see bias, cheating and institutional chicanery at every turn (not just with regards to refereeing decisions) and there seems to be little acknowledgement from fans, pundits, players or managers that human error, the intrinsic subjectivity of the laws and the limitations of technology will unavoidably lead to decisions that are capable of "good faith" differences of opinion. Against this background I see little likelihood of any improvement in perceptions through revision of the laws, their implementation or the use (or non-use) of supporting technology.
Daisy's comments that individuals' views on the need for ever greater detail in the game's laws, decision-making processes and human and non-human intervention might be reflective of philosophical disposition more generally is insightful, as is her assessment that any approach to decision-making in football is unlikely to avoid the trade off between consistency and the (undefined and in any case wholly subjective) "spirt of the game".
A number of references are made to the perception that technological introductions in cricket and tennis have been deemed a success (both within the game and by fans) and rightly notes that this may be partly due to the intrinsic nature of these "non-continuous" games but also because of the agency of players and the lower stakes of individual decisions in games with potentially hundreds of the same to be made over the course of a match.
One thing I think might also be explored further (when comparing football to other professional sports) is the potential impact of the "bad faith" in which football fans now "enjoy" football as a whole and scrutinise perceived refereeing decisions in particular: it seems to me that the toxicity and tribalism of the football ecosystem, combined with a wider world of outrage and conspiracy, in which your club winning (and your rivals losing) is the only thing that matters, may have created a permanently broken belief system in which many otherwise well adjusted humans see bias, cheating and institutional chicanery at every turn (not just with regards to refereeing decisions) and there seems to be little acknowledgement from fans, pundits, players or managers that human error, the intrinsic subjectivity of the laws and the limitations of technology will unavoidably lead to decisions that are capable of "good faith" differences of opinion. Against this background I see little likelihood of any improvement in perceptions through revision of the laws, their implementation or the use (or non-use) of supporting technology.
May 26, 2025
I had heard Daisy talk about this book on a podcast before reading so was intrigued, and was then even more impressed by the book itself. The way she compares VAR and refereeing issues to other seemingly unconnected issues and movements is fascinating and has made me thinking of VAR in new ways. She has thought a lot about this and sets it out in a very digestible way, with pragmatic recommendations. I hope she is consulted about these matters in future! Recommended to anyone who finds VAR baffling, as she explains the hows and whys around VAR very well, while offering a very human perspective.
June 1, 2025
A timely book with a vital perspective and some excellent prescriptions for improving modern football. It bathes in the warm light of logic a sport that has withered in the lengthening shadow of rank stupidity.
That said, it feels a mite long for such a short book – possibly its disciplined style could have done with a stricter, shorter delivery, or it could have opted for a looser, more discretionary style entirely. A bit like its appraisal of the state of football's officiating.
That said, it feels a mite long for such a short book – possibly its disciplined style could have done with a stricter, shorter delivery, or it could have opted for a looser, more discretionary style entirely. A bit like its appraisal of the state of football's officiating.
January 17, 2025
Well laid out thoughts on the issues with VAR and how we may be able to improve it. Did almost too good of a job convincing me that it is unfixable, but outside of var I learned a lot about technology in other sports, reasoning and other subjects.
January 20, 2026
This was a bit of a joke present from my mother in law. In actual fact the book is rather good! I enjoyed the read and made me reflect a little on my thoughts on VAR in football. IMO it did not offer me anything new, the compare and contract part were rather good. For me well worth a read.
March 1, 2026
This book reminds me of how I used to write essays in college. Tangent leading to tangent leading to tangent. Not a lot of insight from insiders or flow to the book. It’s a subject that was fun to read for a little, but then the 200 page book dragged on which is a kinda a problem…
February 15, 2026
Very readable and some interesting analogies and arguments but they essentially all add up to “what a mess we’re in with VAR and any changes could create further mess”.
April 3, 2026
A quite serious look at VAR. Quite heavy going in parts.
June 18, 2026
Wide-ranging pamphlet on the perils of video assistance in football. Good for beginners too.
August 16, 2026
Fascinating! I know i’m such a nerd but this was such a cool idea and I think it the rules changed in the way she suggests the game would be improved.
November 23, 2024
Daisy Christodoulou’s I Can’t Stop Thinking About VAR is such an interesting and fun read about how video-assisted refereeing has changed football. Her insights are spot-on, and she explains things in a way that’s smart but really easy to follow. If you love football and enjoy a fresh perspective, this is definitely a must read.
December 10, 2025
This was easy to read considering the highbrow references, but an odd book. It discussed the philosophical elements of VAR without properly applying them to VAR, and proferred a solution without explaining how it would work in practise.
Christodoulou outlined the problems she had with VAR as well as the English media's reaction to it, and speculated on why it has been so difficult to implement with success in football. The basic problem is that it's quite hard to get a decent enough word count on such a narrow topic, so there is a lot of explaining stuff that any casual football fan would know already, and yet despite that, solutions aren't really offered, merely routes to solutions.
On top of that, there were two major blind spots that are so significant that to ignore them makes any proposals moot. The first relates to a point she made many times, that football is popular because of its fluid nature rather than stop-start, and thus harder to correct through technology due to less convenient interruptions. I think this overstates the nature of the game itself, baseball, NFL and cricket are more popular in Japan, USA and India. - The coverage of VAR gains more traction because there is more tabloid interest in the game and thus more need for controversy. Michael Atherton wrote that it was great to have a series without DRS shortly after it was introduced. Rugby pundits moan about the length of stoppages in the game. Neither of these sustain radio phone-ins a few days after the game has finished.
The second blind spot is assuming that spectators want the correct outcome in terms of the rules. Bar a few absolute clangers, debates and annoyance stem from the undesirable outcome, namely their team losing. It was precisely this attitude, and media furore over bad decisions courting their eyeballs and ears, that led to VAR in the first place, because "I don't like this" could be disguised by false concern over getting the decision correct. It is why decisions affecting Liverpool and Arsenal remain in the news cycle but mundane ones affecting Fulham sink without trace from consciousness. Christodoulou should recognise this from the slightly odd classroom interaction about who her pupil's 3rd best local firefighter was, but apparently hasn't.
She approached the issue from a neutral observer who wants the correct outcome (or at least, the instinctively right outcome) or a spectator who wants entertainment. But engagement is generally driven by fandom, where the important issue is who wins or loses. This can never be solved through officiating, and until cricket and rugby teams have 40,000 season ticket holders and social media handles with the team's initials in the name, comparisons with other sports will always fall short.
I wasn't convinced by her arguments either. She stated we have the worst of both worlds, because we have both interruptions and mistakes. But this assumes a single mistake is just as bad as multiple mistakes which I don't think holds, just as banning drink driving isn't the worst of both worlds because there are still car accidents and now people can't drive home from the pub either. The technical solution for ranking fouls is on the face of it fair enough, in practice the sort of bureaucratic mess that would get roasted in the media. The question of how to implement it is brushed aside because we have to trial and improve it through use as one can't foresee all the problems at the outset.
Christodoulou also rehashed the argument that the late flag leads to ghost time (so what?) and injuries that could have been prevented by blowing for offside. Does this mean linespeople that wrongly kept their flag down for players who were actually offside have also caused injuries? It is playing football that leads to injuries, so why not let teams agree to 'declare' a result early if a sufficient deficit means neither team wants to see out 90 minutes? It is an argument that sounds weighty under the guise of safety but is rather facile. Likewise, the possibilty that a player could be called offside while onside due to frame rate issues is a quirk of the system, and so rare that it is easier to accept these edge case mistakes are possible but correct to the best measurement we have.
The author isn't an idiot and is a genuine fan of the sport, but that only made this offering more disappointing. The misunderstanding as to why fans moan is such a key part as to why 'VAR' is unpopular, as fans forgive mistakes by players but hold officiating to an impossible standard of decisions they agree with as a partisan spectator. The Coventry decision was not so egregious because it felt wrong, but because the majority of those watching thought it would be brilliant if Manchester United were embarrassed, who didn't want to blame it on the attacker for lazily staying offside.
Christodoulou outlined the problems she had with VAR as well as the English media's reaction to it, and speculated on why it has been so difficult to implement with success in football. The basic problem is that it's quite hard to get a decent enough word count on such a narrow topic, so there is a lot of explaining stuff that any casual football fan would know already, and yet despite that, solutions aren't really offered, merely routes to solutions.
On top of that, there were two major blind spots that are so significant that to ignore them makes any proposals moot. The first relates to a point she made many times, that football is popular because of its fluid nature rather than stop-start, and thus harder to correct through technology due to less convenient interruptions. I think this overstates the nature of the game itself, baseball, NFL and cricket are more popular in Japan, USA and India. - The coverage of VAR gains more traction because there is more tabloid interest in the game and thus more need for controversy. Michael Atherton wrote that it was great to have a series without DRS shortly after it was introduced. Rugby pundits moan about the length of stoppages in the game. Neither of these sustain radio phone-ins a few days after the game has finished.
The second blind spot is assuming that spectators want the correct outcome in terms of the rules. Bar a few absolute clangers, debates and annoyance stem from the undesirable outcome, namely their team losing. It was precisely this attitude, and media furore over bad decisions courting their eyeballs and ears, that led to VAR in the first place, because "I don't like this" could be disguised by false concern over getting the decision correct. It is why decisions affecting Liverpool and Arsenal remain in the news cycle but mundane ones affecting Fulham sink without trace from consciousness. Christodoulou should recognise this from the slightly odd classroom interaction about who her pupil's 3rd best local firefighter was, but apparently hasn't.
She approached the issue from a neutral observer who wants the correct outcome (or at least, the instinctively right outcome) or a spectator who wants entertainment. But engagement is generally driven by fandom, where the important issue is who wins or loses. This can never be solved through officiating, and until cricket and rugby teams have 40,000 season ticket holders and social media handles with the team's initials in the name, comparisons with other sports will always fall short.
I wasn't convinced by her arguments either. She stated we have the worst of both worlds, because we have both interruptions and mistakes. But this assumes a single mistake is just as bad as multiple mistakes which I don't think holds, just as banning drink driving isn't the worst of both worlds because there are still car accidents and now people can't drive home from the pub either. The technical solution for ranking fouls is on the face of it fair enough, in practice the sort of bureaucratic mess that would get roasted in the media. The question of how to implement it is brushed aside because we have to trial and improve it through use as one can't foresee all the problems at the outset.
Christodoulou also rehashed the argument that the late flag leads to ghost time (so what?) and injuries that could have been prevented by blowing for offside. Does this mean linespeople that wrongly kept their flag down for players who were actually offside have also caused injuries? It is playing football that leads to injuries, so why not let teams agree to 'declare' a result early if a sufficient deficit means neither team wants to see out 90 minutes? It is an argument that sounds weighty under the guise of safety but is rather facile. Likewise, the possibilty that a player could be called offside while onside due to frame rate issues is a quirk of the system, and so rare that it is easier to accept these edge case mistakes are possible but correct to the best measurement we have.
The author isn't an idiot and is a genuine fan of the sport, but that only made this offering more disappointing. The misunderstanding as to why fans moan is such a key part as to why 'VAR' is unpopular, as fans forgive mistakes by players but hold officiating to an impossible standard of decisions they agree with as a partisan spectator. The Coventry decision was not so egregious because it felt wrong, but because the majority of those watching thought it would be brilliant if Manchester United were embarrassed, who didn't want to blame it on the attacker for lazily staying offside.
January 4, 2025
A nice, short polemical piece on the nature of VAR and it's relation to human nature. I admire Christodoulou's contempt for VAR and the desire for utter perfection in an often random, low scoring game such as football.
"Otto Von Bismarck gave the clearest summary of the cynic's critique of transparency when he said there are two things you don't want to see being made: Sausages and Laws"
"Otto Von Bismarck gave the clearest summary of the cynic's critique of transparency when he said there are two things you don't want to see being made: Sausages and Laws"
April 25, 2025
This is primarily a book about VAR (Video Assistant Referee), its problems, and some ways to think about possible improvements. But there is an undercurrent of some deeper themes about the natural and limits of rule-governed orders and how to make sure they function well towards their aims.
It is a quick read, with many interesting ideas and analyses of VAR. The author discusses the way VAR has affected the rules and the games. She explores the why of these changes as well. She discusses how VAR might be improved, but also the limits to any such improvement. The writing is smooth and interesting.
It’s worth reading for anything interested in football, but also for those interested in the philosophy of sport. There isn’t any reference to the philosophical literature on these issues, but it’s not really about the higher-order questions here: it’s more practically focused. That said, the things she covers have relevance for those philosophical questions, the philosophy has relevance for the issues she is looking at.
It is a quick read, with many interesting ideas and analyses of VAR. The author discusses the way VAR has affected the rules and the games. She explores the why of these changes as well. She discusses how VAR might be improved, but also the limits to any such improvement. The writing is smooth and interesting.
It’s worth reading for anything interested in football, but also for those interested in the philosophy of sport. There isn’t any reference to the philosophical literature on these issues, but it’s not really about the higher-order questions here: it’s more practically focused. That said, the things she covers have relevance for those philosophical questions, the philosophy has relevance for the issues she is looking at.
April 17, 2026
Who knew VAR was nothing more than a postmodern reflection of societal disillusion with the fading power of conservative sporting legislation? I didn't! 🥴
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews