⚽ The VAR Double Standard: Why Manchester City Always Seem to Benefit in Offside Controversies

The Premier League’s reputation for impartial officiating has once again been shredded, this time by a glaring inconsistency that has fueled accusations of a persistent “double standard” favoring Manchester City. The latest flashpoint occurred during the pivotal clash at the Etihad Stadium, where Liverpool’s potential equalising goal from Virgil van Dijk was controversially disallowed by VAR.

While the decision—ruling that Andy Robertson, in an offside position, interfered with the goalkeeper’s line of sight—was highly contentious on its own merits, the fury that followed stems from a much deeper, more troubling pattern. For the third consecutive season, Manchester City have appeared to benefit from an almost identical scenario involving highly subjective offside calls, leaving fans and pundits to wonder if this is an uncanny run of coincidence or something that strikes at the heart of VAR’s integrity.

The Van Dijk Disallowed Goal: A Question of Interpretation

Liverpool’s frustration centers on the application of Law 11, specifically regarding a player in an offside position who is deemed to be ‘interfering with an opponent’. In the 38th minute, with the score at 1-0 to City, Van Dijk headed the ball past Gianluigi Donnarumma. The goal was immediately flagged for offside against Robertson, who was near the goalkeeper but did not touch the ball, only ducking out of its path.

VAR official Michael Oliver upheld the on-field decision, confirming that Robertson was “making an obvious action directly in front of the goalkeeper.” However, replays and pundit analysis overwhelmingly suggested that Robertson was not in Donnarumma’s direct line of sight and the goalkeeper was unlikely to have saved the powerful header regardless of the Scottish international’s position. Liverpool manager Arne Slot explicitly stated, “It’s obvious and clear a wrong decision had been made. He didn’t interfere at all with what the goalkeeper could do.”

The Recurring Pattern: Three Seasons, Three Controversies

The core of the outrage is the stark contrast between the VAR ruling against Liverpool and nearly identical incidents involving Manchester City in previous seasons that went the other way. This perceived double standard has become a key talking point across social media and traditional punditry.

1. The Stones Goal vs. Wolves (2024/2025 Season):

Perhaps the most damaging comparison comes from last season’s fixture against Wolverhampton Wanderers. Manchester City defender John Stones scored a late winner that was initially ruled out on the field by the same referee, Chris Kavanagh, due to Bernardo Silva being offside and obstructing the goalkeeper, José Sá. Crucially, on that occasion, VAR intervened, advising Kavanagh to review the goal on the pitchside monitor. Following the review, the goal was awarded, with the final ruling determining that Silva was not in the goalkeeper’s line of sight and did not impact the save attempt.

The parallels are stunning: both incidents involved an offside player ducking out of the way on a corner kick, and both involved the same on-field referee. Yet, for City, the ruling was overturned in their favour, while for Liverpool, the contentious on-field decision was upheld.

2. The 2023/2024 Season Incident (Similar Offside Call):

Similar subjective offside decisions benefiting City have been cited in the season prior, further solidifying the narrative of inconsistent application of the laws. While less prominent than the Stones case, these moments continue to be pulled up by analysts whenever a similar marginal call occurs, collectively building a case that the interpretation of “active involvement” in an offside position shifts favourably whenever the champions are involved.

The Crisis of Credibility

This trio of controversies forces PGMOL to confront the perception of an alarming lack of consistency in their application of VAR protocol, especially in moments involving two of the league’s perennial title rivals.

The issue is no longer about human error on a single day; it is about the system’s ability to apply the law equally to all teams. When the same referee (Kavanagh) is involved in two highly comparable situations with diametrically opposed outcomes, the accusations of a systematic bias—whether conscious or unconscious—become impossible to ignore. Liverpool’s latest disallowed goal is not just a frustrating result; it is the breaking point that has turned suspicion into a definitive call for transparency and fundamental reform regarding VAR’s subjective rulings in the Premier League.

Would you like me to find out if the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) has issued any official statement addressing the comparison between the disallowed Liverpool goal and the previously allowed Manchester City goal?