Connecting business research with policy, practice and public debate
Chirantan Chatterjee
July 15th, 2026
0 comments | 5 shares
Estimated reading time: 9 minutes
Connecting business research with policy, practice and public debate
Chirantan Chatterjee
July 15th, 2026
0 comments | 5 shares
Estimated reading time: 9 minutes
High profile international sports competitions such as the World Cup depend on fair play. But the pressure, and money, behind such events can unintentionally distort efforts to truly level the playing field – even for referees using the technology designed to support them. Chirantan Chatterjee offers lessons in sports and behavioural economics from this highly controversial contest.
Football’s most valuable asset isn’t broadcasting revenue or its superstar players. It is something surprisingly simple and fragile: trust. And we are reminded of that even as mega commercial spectacle of the FIFA World Cup 2026 draws to a close. Supporters may buy tickets, subscribe to television packages and devote countless hours. But all this will disappear if sporting merit is compromised.
Economists would describe merit and competitive integrity as an intangible asset. However, in this World Cup we are observing a tangible demonstration of it with refereeing controversies.
These will be put to test today as England face Argentina (a 40-year grudge match since Diego Maradona’s infamous “hand of god” goal helped Argentina beat England in Mexico in 1986.)
FWC 2026 has already seen formal complaints from the Egyptian Football Association regarding refereeing decisions in its match again Argentina, which José Mourinho called “a disgrace” and criticism from Switzerland after it’s elimination against the same team Argentina. And of course there was the controversy over different repercussions of red cards for Folarin Balogun and Jarell Quansah.
Whether or not any individual decision was correct has become secondary. The important question is whether supporters believe that similar incidents are judged consistently across teams, tournaments and players. For sports economists, this raises fascinating questions. Can technology really eliminate referee bias? Or does it merely change the way bias operates? The behavioural economics research I show in my sports economics classes suggests the latter.
Oi, ref!
The greatest threat to football’s integrity is unlikely to be deliberate corruption. Rather, it is the interaction between predictable human psychology, institutional incentives and technological systems that sometimes amplify (rather than eliminate) the pressures under which referees make decisions.
The popular debate about refereeing often begins with accusations of bias. The strongest evidence emerged accidentally during the COVID-19 pandemic. When football resumed behind closed doors, economists were presented with a natural experiment. For the first time, referees officiated thousands of professional matches without home crowds. Analysis of these so-called “ghost matches” found that traditional home advantage in refereeing decisions declined markedly once spectators disappeared. Away teams received fewer yellow cards and adverse decisions, suggesting that officials (without intending to do so) had previously responded to the immense social pressure generated by home supporters.
These findings are pointers to more nuanced thinking about referee bias. Bias need not arise from dishonesty, favouritism or corruption. Instead, it can emerge subconsciously as referees attempt to manage an exceptionally demanding decision-making environment. At a World Cup, however, the source of pressure changes dramatically. World Cup referees operate before billions of viewers, journalists, former international players, national associations, commercial broadcasters and governing bodies. Every decision is replayed instantly from multiple camera angles and dissected across television studios and social media within minutes.
One way of describing this phenomenon is narrative density, the accumulation of historical expectations, commercial significance, media attention and national emotion surrounding matches. A referee taking charge of a World Cup knockout match know they are managing one of the largest live media events on the planet. Behavioural research suggests that such environments encourage risk-averse decision-making. The greater the scrutiny, the greater the incentive to avoid becoming the centre of the story.
Hawthorne effects at play?
Here Elton Mayo’s classic work on the Hawthorne effect becomes relevant. Individuals frequently alter their behaviour simply because they know they are being observed. In elite football, referees are among the most scrutinised professionals in any occupation. This does not imply that referees consciously favour famous players or major footballing nations. Rather, behavioural economics predicts that people operating under intense observation become more sensitive to the perceived consequences of their actions.
The Balogun controversy, in which the USA player received a red card but was allowed to play the subsequent match, illustrates this as well and became considerably more significant once it moved beyond the referee’s original decision and into FIFA’s disciplinary process. According to recent reporting, the decision to suspect Balogun’s punishment was taken not by FIFA’s full 18-member disciplinary committee, nor by the smaller panels that typically consider contentious disciplinary matters, but by the committee’s chairman acting alone.
The comparison of the incident with English defender Jarrell Quansah intensified the controversy. Quansah received a red card for serious foul play after VAR intervention against Mexico and was given an extended two-match suspension under FIFA’s disciplinary rules. England were unable to appeal that decision. Balogun, by contrast, became the only player at the tournament whose automatic suspension was deferred, producing an outcome that many observers regarded as difficult to reconcile with FIFA’s consistent treatment of similar incidents. The governance questions deepened further after President Donald Trump publicly stated that he had spoken with FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, regarding Balogun’s suspension. The combination of political lobbying, an unusually structured disciplinary decision and the absence of a detailed public explanation inevitably has fuelled wider questions about FIFA’s transparency and procedural consistency.
The VAR paradox: technology has changed referee bias, not eliminated it
The introduction of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was intended to solve one of football’s oldest problems: human error. To a considerable extent, it succeeded. Objective decisions, such as whether a player was offside or whether the ball crossed the goal line, are generally more accurate than they were a decade ago.
Recent empirical evidence offers more evidence, albeit mixed, on VAR. One study analysing professional football before and after VAR found that the technology reduced some forms of traditional home-team bias but did not eliminate inconsistency in subjective decisions. Another using evidence from 41 professional leagues across 26 countries, concluded that VAR substantially improved objective officiating while producing much weaker and less consistent effects for discretionary decisions such as penalties and serious foul play.
Overall, this creates a VAR paradox. Indeed, there are reasons to believe that technology may sometimes amplify the very psychological pressures it was intended to reduce. When referees review incidents on a pitch-side monitor, they are no longer making instinctive decisions in real time. Instead, they examine slow-motion replays from multiple camera angles while fully aware that every frame is simultaneously being globally scrutinised. VAR can thus transform a split-second judgement into a highly public institutional decision whose consequences extend far beyond the match itself.
VAR does not remove discretion; it relocates it. Instead of asking whether an incident occurred, officials increasingly debate whether the available evidence reaches the threshold of a “clear and obvious error” – a standard that is itself inherently subjective. Two equally experienced referees may interpret identical footage differently while both acting entirely in good faith.
From an economic perspective, this matters. Technology can improve accuracy. But only institutions can improve legitimacy. If supporters continue to believe that comparable incidents are interpreted differently depending on context, reputation or circumstance, then even increasingly sophisticated technology cannot fully protect trust.
Superstar and broadcasting economics
Economists have long recognised the importance of superstar effects amplified further by global broadcasting revenues. And World Cups are a global media product from where FIFA derives large share of revenues. Sherwin Rosen’s seminal work in 1981 showed that small differences in talent or public recognition can generate disproportionately large differences in economic returns because technology allows the very best (or the most recognisable) to reach enormous global audiences. Football illustrates this phenomenon perfectly with a Lionel Messi or a Jude Bellingham. There is nothing improper about this. It is simply how entertainment markets function. Yet behavioural economics reminds us that these high-powered incentives created around broadcasters in combination with superstars do not need to be explicit to influence institutional environments – and may have unintended consequences due to psychological pressure on officials.
That is why controversies of the World Cup have generated such widespread attention. The debates were never about one penalty, one red card or one disciplinary decision. They reflect broader concerns about whether institutions governing a multi-billion-dollar industry are sufficiently robust to withstand the pressures associated with global sporting spectacles.
Technology can improve accuracy. But only trustworthy institutions can sustain confidence and mitigate unintended behavioural consequences. If the economics of football teaches us anything, it is that good governance cannot rely solely on better technology. Instead, successful institutions acknowledge predictable human biases and construct rules that reduce their influence while increasing public confidence in the fairness of outcomes.
Reform the beautiful game
Four reforms may deserve serious consideration.
FIFA can automate every factual decision that technology can determine objectively. Goal-line technology and semi-automated offside systems have shown that AI performs exceptionally well. FIFA should continue removing human discretion wherever factual determination is technologically feasible.
FIFA should embrace far greater transparency in decision-making. Rugby and cricket have demonstrated that allowing spectators to hear conversations between officials increases trust, even if there is disagreement with final outcomes.
FIFA should strengthen accountability through explanation rather than blame. Carefully structured post-match briefings, designed to improve transparency rather than apportion fault, could help supporters understand how difficult discretionary decisions are reached.
Finally, one will want to see improved transparency within FIFA’s disciplinary processes. Transparency cannot eliminate disagreement, but it can reduce uncertainty and strengthen institutional credibility.
These reforms are not designed to eliminate human judgement. They are designed to ensure that institutions complement technology and enable real people make better decisions under pressure. The central lesson of this World Cup is therefore not that whether referees are biased or that VAR is a shame or even if that FIFA deliberately favours particular teams and superstars. Rather, it is that even well-intentioned institutions remain vulnerable to predictable behavioural pressures unless governance evolves alongside technology. In the long run, that lesson may prove to be the most valuable investment the game can make to retain authenticity of the product under consideration. Are Mr. Infantino et al. paying attention?
This article gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics. You are agreeing with our comment policy when you leave a comment.
Image credit: fifg provided by Shutterstock.
About the author
Chirantan Chatterjee
Chirantan Chatterjee is a Professor of Development Economics, Innovation and Global Health at University of Sussex and a 2025 Founding Fellow of Royal Economic Society. He is also a Visiting Professor at Max Planck Institute of Innovation and Competition (MIPLC), EMLYON Business School in France and Ahmedabad University in India. Chatterjee’s work on global health and pharmaceutical economics has been supported earlier by the National Fellowship at Hoover Institution, Stanford University and also by grants from Wellcome Trust, NSF, Sloan Foundation, United Nations, World Bank and WHO.
Source: Lse.ac.uk
