The new European league season is barely under way, but VAR already has plenty to answer for.
From a penalty deep into stoppage time at St James’ Park to a red card that changed the shape of Athletic Club’s home opener, the weekend produced a useful reminder of something that often gets lost in the wider VAR debate: not every controversial decision is a VAR decision.
Sometimes the video referee intervenes and changes the call. Sometimes it checks and supports the referee. And sometimes the biggest argument comes from VAR choosing not to intervene at all.
Here are the incidents that stood out.
Newcastle 2–2 Liverpool: a 99th-minute penalty divides opinion
The Premier League’s most debated call came at the very end of Newcastle’s meeting with Liverpool.
With Liverpool trailing, referee Stuart Attwell awarded a penalty after Lewis Hall challenged Víctor Muñoz inside the area. VAR checked the incident but did not send Attwell to the monitor.
The Premier League Match Centre subsequently explained the reasoning. Attwell reported that Hall had not played the ball and had made clear contact, while VAR identified knee-to-thigh contact and confirmed the on-field decision.
Dominik Szoboszlai converted in the 99th minute to rescue a 2–2 draw.
That sequence is important when judging VAR’s role. This was not a penalty created by the video referee. The referee gave it live and VAR decided that the evidence did not meet the threshold required to overturn him.
Whether the original decision was too soft is another question.
Newcastle manager Matthias Jaissle certainly thought so, describing the penalty as “really soft”. Others argued that Hall’s failure to win the ball, combined with the contact, made the decision defensible.
Confirmed: penalty awarded on the field and checked and confirmed by VAR.
Debatable: whether the contact was sufficient to justify the original penalty decision.
Brighton 4–0 Aston Villa: VAR turns yellow into red
There was much less ambiguity at the Amex Stadium.
Aston Villa’s João Gomes, making his debut, kicked out at Georginio Rutter shortly before half-time. Referee Peter Bankes initially showed Gomes a yellow card.
VAR Matt Donohue recommended a review. Bankes went to the pitchside monitor and upgraded the punishment to a straight red.
By then Villa were already 4–0 down, so the dismissal did not create Brighton’s commanding lead. It did, however, provide a straightforward example of the type of clear and serious incident VAR was designed to catch.
Confirmed: Gomes was initially booked before a VAR review resulted in a straight red card.
There has been little credible argument that the final sanction was incorrect.
Atlético Madrid 2–2 Villarreal: VAR at the centre of a chaotic second half
The Metropolitano supplied two major penalty incidents and a red card as Atlético and Villarreal drew 2–2.
Villarreal’s first penalty followed a foul by Morten Hjulmand and was converted by Gerard Moreno.
The more consequential intervention came later.
Robin Le Normand challenged Georges Mikautadze as the Villarreal forward attacked the penalty area. Following VAR involvement, Villarreal were awarded another penalty and Le Normand was sent off. Mikautadze converted to put Villarreal 2–1 ahead.
Atlético nevertheless found an equaliser through Giuliano Simeone.
Reuters described VAR as playing a crucial role in both Villarreal penalties. The second incident in particular demonstrates how one review can transform a match twice: Villarreal received a penalty while Atlético simultaneously lost a defender.
Confirmed: Villarreal were awarded two penalties, with VAR playing a role in the decisions, and Le Normand was dismissed during the second incident.
Athletic Club 1–3 Sevilla: should VAR have overturned Yuri’s red?
One of the weekend’s more interesting non-interventions came at San Mamés.
Athletic defender Yuri Berchiche was shown a straight red after bringing down Miguel Sierra in the 11th minute. The decision stood after VAR consideration, leaving Athletic to play almost the entire match with ten men.
Sevilla went on to win 3–1.
The disagreement is over whether the incident genuinely satisfied the criteria for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Athletic captain Iñaki Williams argued afterwards that it could be considered a foul but “never” a red card, pointing to Sierra’s control of the ball and questioning why VAR had not corrected the referee.
Former international referee Iturralde González also considered yellow to be the more appropriate sanction.
That does not make the red card an established refereeing error. It does make it exactly the kind of incident that fuels frustration with VAR: a potentially match-defining judgement was checked, yet reasonable disagreement remained over whether the intervention threshold had been reached.
Confirmed: Yuri received a straight red in the 11th minute and VAR did not overturn it.
Disputed: whether the situation constituted an obvious goalscoring opportunity and therefore justified dismissal.
Lens 5–2 Auxerre: one match, several video decisions
Lens and Auxerre produced perhaps the busiest VAR match of the weekend.
Florian Thauvin opened the scoring from the penalty spot after an Auxerre handball. Christ Makosso was later sent off for bringing down Abdallah Sima as he threatened to break through on goal.
VAR also became involved in Lens’ third goal, which was ultimately allowed after an offside question, before another review late in the game resulted in a second Lens penalty.
Thauvin initially saw that penalty saved, only for the kick to be retaken because goalkeeper Mamadou Diop had left his line too early. Thauvin scored at the second attempt to complete the 5–2 result.
French newspaper L’Équipe noted the accumulation of incidents and refereeing decisions that went against Auxerre, while the official Ligue 1 account confirms the two Thauvin penalties and Makosso’s dismissal.
It was less a single controversial VAR moment than a match in which video review repeatedly became part of the story.
Torino 0–2 Milan: the intervention that never came
Sometimes the most controversial VAR moment is no intervention at all.
Milan appealed for a penalty around the hour mark when Alphadjo Cissé’s cross struck Nikola Vlašić’s arm inside the Torino area.
Referee Luca Zufferli did not award a penalty. VAR checked the incident but did not recommend an on-field review.
Milan-focused coverage strongly disputed the decision, arguing that Vlašić’s arm position warranted a penalty. That interpretation should not be confused with an official admission of error: no authoritative ruling available at the time of writing establishes that VAR was wrong.
Milan ultimately won 2–0, meaning the decision did not determine the result.
But as a VAR discussion, it matters. Supporters tend to focus on visible trips to the monitor. Silent checks such as this one can be every bit as controversial.
Confirmed: Milan appealed for handball, no penalty was awarded and VAR did not overturn the decision.
Disputed: whether Vlašić’s arm position should have resulted in a penalty.
And in Germany, the argument was bigger than any single decision
The most significant VAR story in Germany did not require a monitor.
Supporter groups from numerous clubs used the opening DFB-Pokal weekend to campaign for the abolition of VAR in German professional football. The first round of the cup is being played without VAR at many grounds, and campaigners argued that the experience offered a more immediate and emotional version of the game.
The movement also received notable support from inside the professional game. FC Augsburg managing director Michael Ströll publicly questioned whether VAR’s benefits justify its impact.
That debate arrives just as German football introduces further changes to the system for 2026/27, including the ability for VAR to intervene when an incorrect second yellow card results in a sending-off.
So while England, Spain, France and Italy spent the weekend debating individual calls, Germany was asking the larger question.
Not whether VAR got a particular decision right.
Whether football still wants VAR at all.
The weekend verdict
There was no single type of VAR controversy this weekend.
Brighton–Aston Villa showed the technology doing something relatively clear: identifying serious foul play that the referee had initially punished only with yellow.
Newcastle–Liverpool was different. VAR did not make the controversial decision; it decided there was insufficient reason to reverse it.
Athletic–Sevilla and Torino–Milan raised the opposite complaint. In both cases, critics wanted VAR to intervene and it did not.
That distinction matters.
The argument around VAR is no longer simply about whether video can identify what happened. Increasingly, it is about where football wants the threshold for intervention to sit.
And one weekend into several of Europe’s major leagues, there is already plenty of disagreement about the answer.