Data debunks referee favoritism myth: The real story behind Argentina’s VAR decisions

For years, a persistent narrative has followed the Argentina national team and Lionel Messi: the claim that world football’s governing bodies and referees afford the Albiceleste a favorable advantage. However, a comprehensive breakdown of six major officiating and VAR incidents reveals a statistical picture that completely flips that narrative on its head.

A closer look at critical matches involving Argentina suggests that far from receiving preferential treatment, the world champions have actually been on the wrong end of initial officiating calls in the vast majority of contentious situations.

The Algeria Controversy: A Tale of Three Decisions
The examination begins with Argentina’s highly charged encounter against Algeria. The incident that sparked the most outrage—Messi’s challenge on Algeria’s Mandi—was indeed a decision that benefitted Argentina (representing the sole instance of favorable treatment in the review).

However, that match actually featured two separate, significant VAR errors that went against Argentina. While Algeria’s disallowed goal was ultimately deemed offside, the VAR team utilized the wrong frame to make the determination—a technical error that technically counted as a mistake against the South American side. Even more damningly, Messi had a legitimate goal ruled out because VAR again selected the wrong frame to draw the offside line, denying Argentina a perfectly good strike.

A Systematic Pattern of Initial Errors
The trend of on-field officials disadvantaging Argentina continued across other fixtures. Against Austria, the referee completely failed to award a clear penalty to Argentina; it took a VAR intervention to rectify the referee’s wrong initial call.

Meanwhile, in the match against Egypt, the referee initially allowed a goal to stand despite a clear foul occurring in the build-up. Once again, VAR had to intervene to overturn the goal, correcting another unfavorable call against the Argentines. Furthermore, in the heated clash against Switzerland, the referee mistakenly booked Leandro Paredes instead of sending off Breel Embolo for a serious infraction—a critical error that VAR was forced to step in and overturn.

The Final Tally: Proof of Protection, Not Privilege
When the numbers are finalized, the evidence is stark. Out of the six major refereeing incidents reviewed, only one decision ultimately favored Argentina. Meanwhile, five initial on-field decisions went directly against them. Of those five erroneous on-field calls, VAR was forced to intervene and successfully correct three of them.

The ‘Without VAR’ Reality
This data paints a fascinating counterfactual: without the Video Assistant Referee, Argentina would have been severely disadvantaged in three different matches. They would have been denied a legitimate penalty against Austria; Egypt’s goal would have stood despite an illegal foul; and Embolo would have completely avoided a deserved red card against Switzerland. Add to that the wrongfully disallowed Messi goal, and the outcomes of those tournaments could have drastically shifted.

Far from enjoying a systemic bias, the statistics suggest that VAR has actually acted as a crucial safety net for Argentina, shielding them from a staggering number of poor on-field calls that have historically worked against them. The myth of favoritism, it seems, does not hold up under the weight of the data.