Soccer has long embraced innovation, though often reluctantly. In the 1990s, the back-pass rule transformed how teams build from the back. A decade ago, goal-line technology finally settled debates over whether the ball had crossed the line.
Today, the game’s technological evolution extends far beyond isolated decisions. Video Assistant Referee, semi-automated offside technology, and sensor-equipped balls have fundamentally changed how matches are played, officiated, and remembered.
The 2026 World Cup has become another proving ground for these innovations. Recent knockout round matches demonstrate that technology is no longer a supporting actor. In many cases, it has become the game’s central protagonist.
Portugal’s 2-1 round of 32 victory over Croatia offered perhaps the tournament’s clearest example. Croatia thought it had scored a dramatic late equalizer, only to see the goal erased after a VAR review.
The decision hinged not simply on replay angles, but on data collected by a microchip in the ball, which detected a slight touch that altered the attacking sequence and confirmed an offside offense. Portugal moved on, while Croatia’s World Cup came to an abrupt end.
Josko Gvardiol’s would-be equalizer 13 minutes into stoppage time was called off after it was determined that Igor Mantanovic had made the slightest contact with his head—perhaps even the tips of his hair—in the build-up to the goal.
From a technical standpoint, the system worked. The technology deployed before the tournament delivered information unavailable to the naked eye and allowed the match officials to apply the Laws of the Game with remarkable precision.
This comes after FIFA has invested years developing tools that combine player tracking, artificial intelligence, and ball sensors to reduce human error in crucial moments.
Until now, the World Cup had largely been free of controversial decisions. But the knockout round has highlighted a series of controversies over the past week—ones that would have never been called into question at past World Cups that were more low-tech.
Technology Versus Emotion
Soccer, critics say, has never been only about precision. The Portugal-Croatia decision sparked debate because many fans struggled to reconcile what technology detected with what they experienced emotionally.
FIFA confirmed that Croatia’s equalizer was correctly ruled out for offside due to technology housed inside the Adidas Trionda World Cup ball. FIFA said “sensors housed within the Trionda ball are capable of determining any slight contact, displayed to viewers in the broadcast as a ‘heartbeat graphic,’ and allowing officials an unprecedented level of data to make fast, accurate decisions.”
However, the difference between a legitimate goal and elimination came down to a touch that virtually no one inside the stadium saw in real time. That the ball had been touched by Mantanovic’s hair—never even changing the ball’s trajectory—was viewed by critics as a fundamental altering of the game.
“All these decisions take the joy out of football,” Croatia manager Zlatiko Dalic said.
Portugal manager Roberto Martínez had a different take, saying, “The balls now have a chip, and it’s very clear that’s why the VAR intervened. It’s not a subjective opinion.”
Technology has undoubtedly corrected mistakes that once shaped tournaments. Goal-line technology has eliminated uncertainty over whether a goal should count. Semi-automated offside reviews have shortened delays while improving consistency. VAR has overturned cases of mistaken identity, missed penalties, and dangerous fouls that refs could not see from their angle on the field.
Technology has not removed controversy from soccer. If anything, it has shifted the conversation from whether referees saw an incident to whether technology was applied correctly and consistently.
Seeing Red
The United States experienced another side of this technological change during its 2-0 victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina in the round of 32. Striker Folarin Balogun was shown a red card after VAR prompted the referee to review a challenge. The replay convinced officials that the tackle met the threshold for a serious foul, leaving the Americans to finish the match with 10 players.
The incident reignited one of soccer’s enduring debates about replay technology. Slow-motion footage reveals details that live speed often conceals, but it can also make challenges appear more forceful or intentional than players experience them in real time. Technology may provide additional evidence, but human interpretation still determines the final outcome.
Contrary to popular perception, VAR does not eliminate subjectivity. Referees continue to judge intent, excessive force, and the context surrounding each incident. Technology supplies better information, but it does not remove the need for human judgment. As a result, controversy has not disappeared. Instead, it has evolved.
It’s also true that soccer has gained accuracy, but surrendered some spontaneity. That trade-off remains the defining question of modern soccer. The objective has never been perfection for its own sake, but fairness.
Few fans would willingly return to a time when obvious officiating mistakes decided matches. At the same time, few want technology to overshadow the players whose performances should define the occasion.
