FIFA calms VAR controversy after Qatar and Switzerland draw: graphic was not shown due to a technical interruption
FIFA has tried to close one of the first major refereeing issues of the 2026 World Cup after Qatar and Switzerland played 1:1 on Saturday, June 13, in a Group B match in Santa Clara, California. The disputed moment occurred in the first half, in the move that preceded the Swiss penalty. Remo Freuler ran in behind the Qatari defence, and goalkeeper Mahmoud Abunada brought him down in the penalty area. Breel Embolo then converted the penalty in the 17th minute, but the debate immediately shifted to whether Freuler had been offside before the foul.
According to FIFA's explanation reported by PA Media and British media, the VAR check was nevertheless carried out according to the regular procedure, and the absence of the graphic in the stadium and on the television broadcast was the result of a brief technical interruption. FIFA states that the problem prevented the generation of the animation that was supposed to show that the Swiss player had been in an onside position before the penalty was awarded. The world football governing body also said that the VAR workflow had not been affected and that the lines used in the check showed that the attacker had not been offside in either of the two situations immediately before the penalty decision.
The explanation did not completely silence the criticism, because the central problem was visible to everyone who watched the match: the decision was confirmed, but viewers were not immediately shown the evidence on which it was based. In a sport in which VAR has for years been justified by greater precision and transparency, it was precisely this lack of a publicly available image that caused suspicion and angry reactions. The controversy grew further because Qatar equalised in the closing stages, giving the result much greater weight for the standings in Group B.
The move that sparked the debate
The match at the stadium that FIFA lists in official documents as San Francisco Bay Area Stadium, and which outside the tournament's commercial regime is known as Levi's Stadium, opened with clear Swiss initiative. Switzerland had more possession and quickly began to create pressure through midfield, where Freuler and Granit Xhaka tried to control the rhythm. The key situation came midway through the first half, when Freuler reacted to a knockdown and entered the space in front of the Qatari goalkeeper. Abunada was late coming out, contact followed, and the referee pointed to the spot.
The first television replays raised the question of offside because Freuler, at the moment of the pass, looked very close to the last line of the Qatari defence. Under usual World Cup circumstances with semi-automated offside technology, after a check viewers are shown an animation with lines and the position of the relevant body parts. This time such a display did not arrive at the moment when the decision was confirmed, so viewers, commentators and analysts were left without the key visual explanation. It was precisely this absence, and not only the awarding of the penalty, that turned the situation into a broader debate about trust in refereeing technology.
According to reports from the match, Embolo took the penalty confidently and put Switzerland in front. Qatar spent much of the remainder in an inferior position, but stayed in the match thanks to defensive discipline, Swiss misses and several important interventions by Abunada. Switzerland, according to Yahoo Sports statistics, finished the match with 70 percent possession, 27 shots and 10 attempts on target, while Qatar had five shots and three on target. That ratio further underlined the impression that Switzerland had failed to settle the match long before stoppage time.
FIFA claims the check was not compromised
FIFA's explanation focused on the difference between the internal check and the public display of the decision. According to the statement reported by PA Media, The Guardian and other media, the technical problem related to the animation graphic that was supposed to be shown to viewers, not to the VAR room's ability to check the player's position. FIFA said the fault was quickly resolved and that the video officials used the lines needed to check offside. In other words, the organiser's official position is that the decision-making process did not fail, but rather the communication of the decision to the public.
That difference is also important because of the way the VAR protocol is structured. According to IFAB rules, VAR can assist the referee with decisions that directly change the course of a match, including a goal, a penalty, a direct red card and mistaken identity of the sanctioned player. In the case of a penalty, an offence by the attacking team in the build-up can also be checked, including offside. The IFAB protocol also states that the final decision is always made by the referee, while VAR can provide information or recommend a review of the incident.
In a case like this, checking a player's position is generally treated as a factual matter. If the lines and the point of the pass are clear, the referee can receive information from the VAR room without going to the pitchside monitor. That is precisely why the public graphic has great communication value: it does not make the decision instead of the referee, but it explains to viewers why the decision was confirmed. When such a display is absent at a sensitive moment, the impression remains that the decision happened behind closed doors, even if the technical check in the VAR room, according to FIFA, was complete.
Why the lack of a graphic is so problematic
FIFA introduced semi-automated offside technology so that disputed situations could be resolved more quickly and consistently. According to FIFA's technical explanation, the system uses cameras to track the position of the ball and players, records data points on players' bodies and combines them with information about the moment the ball is touched. The video officials then confirm the proposed point of the pass and the offside line before the decision is passed on to the referee. After confirmation, the same data is turned into a 3D animation that should be shown on the big screens and made available to television partners.
It was precisely that final step that was missing in Santa Clara. That is why the criticism was directed less at the technology itself and more at the lack of transparency at the moment when transparency is most needed. According to British media reports, former England international and television commentator Gary Neville was among the loudest critics of FIFA, arguing that viewers must see the evidence for a decision that has a direct impact on the score. Similar reactions appeared among other commentators as well, because the impression of an unexplained decision remained until FIFA's subsequent statement.
For FIFA, this is a sensitive issue because the 2026 World Cup is being played in an expanded format and in front of a global audience that expects clear, quick and consistent explanations. VAR is intended as a tool that reduces the number of obvious errors, but its acceptance also depends on the way decisions are communicated. If viewers see only the final decision, and not the process or the graphic that confirms it, suspicion can develop regardless of whether the decision is correct. That is why this episode raised the question of whether FIFA should have a more robust backup procedure for displaying key graphics when the main system fails.
Qatar reaches a historic point in stoppage time
The sporting outcome made the controversy even more important. After Embolo's goal, Switzerland had a large number of chances, but failed to increase their lead. Qatar, according to reports from the match, used one of the rare situations in the very closing stages in which they managed to seriously threaten the Swiss goal. After Homam Ahmed's cross in the 94th minute, Boualem Khoukhi and Miro Muheim found themselves in an aerial duel in front of goal, and the ball ended up in the net. Some reports highlighted Khoukhi's key role, while the official statistical records registered the goal as an own goal by Swiss defender Muheim.
For Qatar, that goal had historic value. After finishing their group-stage campaign at the 2022 World Cup as hosts without winning a point, the draw against Switzerland brought them their first point in the history of their World Cup appearances. That fact is especially important because in 2026 Qatar qualified as a competitive national team, not as the host of the tournament. The result against Switzerland can therefore be interpreted in the Qatari context as a symbolic step forward, although it came in a match in which the opponent had significantly more shots and controlled most of the game.
For Switzerland, on the other hand, the draw was a heavy blow. Murat Yakin's team entered the match as favourites, took an early lead and dominated statistically, but were punished for their inefficiency. In tournament football such mistakes often have a lasting effect because the difference between a win and a draw can change the entire path through the group. It is especially awkward that the post-match discussion was not only about missed chances and the closing stages, but also about the decision that gave Switzerland the lead.
Group B remains completely open
The draw between Qatar and Switzerland further complicated Group B. A day earlier, Canada and Bosnia and Herzegovina also played 1:1, meaning that after the first round all four national teams had one point each and the same goal difference. According to FIFA's report, Canada earned a point against Bosnia and Herzegovina through Cyle Larin's second-half goal, after Bosnia and Herzegovina had taken the lead through Jovo Lukić. Such a start to the group means that no team has gained an early advantage, and every next result can significantly change the standings.
In the expanded format of the 2026 World Cup, the value of a single point changes even more. FIFA previously confirmed that the tournament is being played with 48 national teams arranged in 12 groups of four teams. The top two teams from each group and the eight best third-placed teams progress to the knockout stage. This means that even a draw in the first match can be valuable, especially if the group proves balanced and if third-placed teams are compared by points, goal difference and other criteria.
For Qatar, the point against Switzerland is therefore more than an emotional moment. It leaves them with real competitive space before the continuation of the group, although qualification will require them to show more in attack and reduce the number of situations in front of their own goal. Switzerland, who have experience of regularly progressing from groups at major tournaments, remain in contention, but already at the start they lost two points that, based on the course of the match, they could have expected. In such circumstances, the second-round matches in Group B gain extra weight, because a victory by any national team could suddenly change the standings.
The VAR decision remains the main topic after the match
Although the match brought Qatar a historic point and a dramatic finish, the greatest reaction was caused by the communication of the VAR decision. FIFA clearly stated that the check had been carried out and that there had been no offside, but the incident showed how much the public display of decisions has become an integral part of expectations in modern football. In practice, it is no longer enough for the VAR room to reach a conclusion; viewers, teams and the wider public expect that conclusion to be shown to them immediately and understandably.
This situation will not necessarily lead to a change in the result, nor has FIFA indicated that the decision was wrong. Nevertheless, it may have consequences for the way disputed situations are communicated during the remainder of the tournament. If the problem was exclusively technical and quickly resolved, as FIFA claims, the organiser will have to show that a similar interruption will not be repeated in moments that decide matches. Otherwise, every subsequent similar situation could further weaken trust in a system that was introduced precisely so that refereeing decisions would be clearer, more precise and more acceptable.
Sources:
- FIFA – official match centre Qatar – Switzerland, Group B of the 2026 World Cup (link)
- The Guardian / PA Media – reported FIFA explanation about the technical interruption of the VAR graphic and the context of reactions after the match (link)
- The Guardian – course of the Qatar – Switzerland match and key events of the encounter (link)
- Yahoo Sports – match statistics, scorers and basic data on the Qatar – Switzerland encounter (link)
- IFAB – official VAR protocol and rules on penalty checks, offside and the referee's final decision (link)
- FIFA Innovation – explanation of semi-automated offside technology and the display of 3D animation to viewers (link)
- FIFA – explanation of the 2026 World Cup format with 48 national teams and progression to the round of 32 (link)
- FIFA – report from the Canada – Bosnia and Herzegovina match in Group B (link)