Week 45. Referee Impartiality
Impartiality is one of the most fundamental principles underpinning sport. In football, the legitimacy of competition depends on the assumption that matches are officiated fairly, and without bias. When that assumption is weakened, trust in the game itself begins to erode.
In recent seasons, controversy surrounding refereeing decisions, the operation of Video Assistant Referee (VAR), and the role of the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) has intensified. While disagreement has always been part of football culture, the persistence and scale of these debates raise deeper questions, not simply about individual decisions, but about governance, and public confidence.
In law, impartiality is not limited to the absence of actual bias. Decision-makers must also be seen to be impartial. This principle is well established in administrative law and underpins the doctrine of natural justice, where both fairness of outcome and fairness of process are required (Craig, 2014).
Football referees occupy a quasi-judicial role. Their decisions materially affect league positions, promotion and relegation, European qualification, commercial revenues, and individual careers. From a governance perspective, this places officiating firmly within the realm of decision-making that demands independence, transparency, and accountability.
Importantly, the focus here is not on alleging wrongdoing by individual referees, but on whether the structures within which they operate are sufficiently robust to command public confidence.
PGMOL
PGMOL was established to professionalise refereeing in English football and is responsible for the appointment, training, and assessment of match officials across the Premier League, EFL, and FA competitions. It is a private company limited by guarantee, funded and controlled by the Premier League, the English Football League, and the Football Association (Wikipedia, 2026).
From a company law perspective, this model is lawful. Many service bodies are owned by their stakeholders. However, corporate governance analysis is concerned not only with legality, but with risk, independence, and perception. Directors of PGMOL owe fiduciary duties to the company itself, including duties to exercise independent judgment and to avoid conflicts of interest (Companies Act 2006). Where the organisation responsible for refereeing is funded and overseen by the very bodies whose competitions are directly affected by refereeing decisions, questions inevitably arise as to whether sufficient structural separation exists. The issue is not intent. Governance analysis focuses on whether institutional design adequately mitigates risk, including the risk that decisions may be perceived as influenced, even where no such influence exists.
VAR
VAR was introduced to improve accuracy and reduce “clear and obvious errors”. (The IFAB, 2026) Instead, it has become one of the most contentious aspects of modern football. Delays, inconsistent thresholds, opaque communication, and selective post-match explanations have fuelled frustration among fans, players, and clubs alike. From a regulatory standpoint, VAR suffers from a transparency deficit. Decision-making occurs behind closed doors, audio releases are discretionary, and accountability mechanisms remain largely internal.
In legal systems, legitimacy is reinforced through reasoned decisions, published criteria, and avenues for independent review. Football officiating lacks comparable safeguards. As a result, even correct decisions may fail to command trust where the process by which they are reached is unclear.
Another persistent concern is inconsistency. Similar incidents appear to yield different outcomes across matches and competitions. In law, inconsistency is addressed through precedent, guidance, and appellate oversight. Football, by contrast, relies primarily on internal assessment and performance management, much of which remains confidential (PGMOL, 2024).
While recent efforts have been made to improve communication, these remain discretionary rather than structural. A governance-led approach would ask whether external oversight, clearer standards, and independent review mechanisms could strengthen legitimacy without undermining referees’ authority.
The Football Governance Bill and the Independent Regulator
Concerns about officiating do not exist in isolation. They form part of wider debates about football governance that have prompted legislative intervention. The Football Governance Bill proposes the creation of an Independent Football Regulator (IFR) to oversee financial sustainability, ownership, and systemic risk within the professional game (UK Government, 2024).
Although refereeing does not fall directly within the Bill’s current scope, the underlying rationale is highly relevant. The Bill reflects parliamentary recognition that football’s self-regulatory model has struggled to maintain public confidence (GOV.UK, 2025).
From a governance perspective, officiating integrity is inseparable from competition integrity. An independent regulator could, in principle, establish minimum governance standards for officiating bodies, not by interfering with on-field decisions, but by requiring transparency, independence, and credible accountability structures.
In regulated industries, independence is rarely absolute. Instead, it is achieved through layered oversight, separation of functions, and external scrutiny. Applying this logic to football suggests that officiating should not exist entirely outside the scope of broader governance reform.
An Independent Football Regulator could potentially:
Require disclosure of governance arrangements and funding structures
Mandate transparency around decision-making frameworks
Ensure conflicts of interest are identified and mitigated
Provide systemic oversight rather than reactive controversy management
Such oversight would not diminish referees’ authority. Rather, it would protect officials by embedding their work within defensible institutional frameworks.
Identifying Conflicts of Interest: A Guide for Fans
For supporters seeking to understand whether conflicts of interest may exist, company law offers a useful analytical framework. Key indicators include:
Ownership and control: Who ultimately governs the organisation?
Funding arrangements: Who pays, and under what conditions?
Board composition: Are decision-makers independent or stakeholder-aligned?
Transparency: Are accounts, governance documents, and procedures accessible?
Accountability mechanisms: Is oversight internal or external?
None of these factors alone establishes bias. However, together they explain why perceptions of partiality persist, even where individuals act professionally and in good faith. In both company law and public law, the appearance of a conflict can be as damaging as actual misconduct. Trust depends on structures that are demonstrably fair and independent.
Football is no exception. When officiating bodies are financially and structurally linked to competition organisers, fans are entitled to question whether safeguards are sufficient, particularly given the financial stakes, global audiences, and betting markets now associated with elite football.
Referee impartiality should be understood as a governance issue, not a personal one. Most referees operate under extraordinary pressure in an environment of intense scrutiny. Robust governance exists precisely to protect individuals by ensuring that systems are fair, transparent, and accountable.
The Football Governance Bill and the proposed Independent Football Regulator offer an opportunity to address long-standing structural concerns within the game, including those affecting officiating. By learning from legal and regulatory frameworks, football can strengthen trust not by eliminating controversy, but by ensuring that decisions are made within institutions worthy of public confidence.
References
Craig, P. (2014) Administrative Law. 7th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell
Wikipedia, Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL). Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Game_Match_Officials_Limited
Companies Act 2006. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents
The IFAB. (2026) Video Assistant Referee (VAR) protocol. 1. Principles. Available at: https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#principles
UK Government. The Football Governance Bill. Available at: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3701
GOV.UK. (2025) Impact assessment Fact sheet: Football Governance Bill - overview Updated 11 June 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/football-governance-bill-2024-supporting-documents/fact-sheet-overview
