Argentina and Mexico have been the biggest beneficiaries of VAR so far at this World Cup, with four favorable intervention decisions each across a tournament that has already seen 35 reviews in 97 games. The numbers do not prove bias, but they do give a clear picture of which teams have been on the right side of the technology most often.
That is the central point from Brennan Klein, the director of the Northeastern NetSI Sport research group, who says the data can help identify patterns even if it cannot definitively settle the question of referee favoritism. In his view, the key distinction is between what the eye sees in the moment and what the recorded data can actually show.
Klein: the data can measure patterns, not prove bias
Klein said it may be easy for supporters to react to a controversial call in real time, but the numbers tell a more limited story. “It might be easy to see with your eyes, ‘Oh God, that was a bad call,’” he said. “But the data that I see just says the foul occurred in this minute by this player at this X, Y coordinate on the pitch.”
He also stressed that there is “no quantitative way” to answer the bias question definitively, though there are still ways “to poke at it.” That makes the tournament data useful as a guide, but not as a final verdict on whether any team has been helped or harmed deliberately.
Argentina and Mexico lead the favorable calls
So far, Argentina and Mexico sit at the top of the list with four favorable VAR interventions each. Behind them, Paraguay and Croatia have each had three VAR intervention decisions go against them.
The broader context matters too. There were 22 VAR interventions in the 2018 World Cup, the year the system was introduced, and 26 in 2022. This year’s total has already reached 35 across 97 games, underlining just how central the review process has become to the tournament.
Argentina’s place in the discussion has also been sharpened by events earlier this week, when they beat Egypt 3-2 after a VAR review disallowed an Egyptian goal. That result has only added to the debate about how the technology is shaping outcomes and how closely teams and fans are watching each decision.
What the numbers do and do not say
The important point is that these figures are descriptive rather than conclusive. Klein noted that the chart is not a “smoking gun” proving referees are biased for or against one team, but it does provide measurable numbers on how fouls are being judged with VAR.
He also warned against making a leap from one set of outcomes to a wider accusation. “There’s a hop, step and a jump away from: ‘They’re biased against my team or for this team,’” he said.
That leaves the World Cup with a familiar tension. VAR is producing more interventions, more reviews and more debate, but the data stops short of proving intent. What it does show is that Argentina and Mexico have been the teams most helped by favorable decisions so far, and that will remain part of the conversation as the tournament continues.
