The Championship won’t be getting VAR next season. That much is now clear. Championship clubs voted against introducing any form of video review technology for the 2026-27 campaign, drawing a firm line under months of speculation. The decision doesn’t come as a complete surprise — but it does raise pressing questions about what happens next, and whether the alternative on the table is actually better.
Why Championship clubs rejected video review technology
The system under discussion wasn’t traditional VAR as seen in the Premier League. Football Video Support — known as FVS — has been on trial for two years, specifically designed for competitions with fewer cameras and fewer officials on the ground. It works differently : there’s no dedicated VAR team sitting in a remote hub. Instead, a replay operator presents available camera angles directly to the referee at a pitchside monitor. The decision stays with the on-field official throughout.
Each manager gets two challenges per match. If a challenge succeeds, the coach keeps it for later use. Football Association chief executive Mark Bullingham framed it earlier this year as a system that “reduces the amount of times when there is a VAR intervention and effectively puts the onus on the coach.” On paper, that sounds cleaner and less intrusive than what Premier League fans have grown used to.
The reality, though, is more complicated. FVS does limit automatic checks — but it actually risks stopping the game more frequently than current VAR in top-flight football. Consider this : across the last two rounds of Premier League fixtures, referees walked to the pitchside monitor just twice across 20 matches. Under FVS, that number could hit four stoppages per game, and climb even higher whenever a challenge is upheld and additional review time is needed. That’s not a marginal difference. Championship clubs looked at those numbers and said no.
Where FVS has been trialled — and the controversy already emerging
FVS hasn’t been tested in a vacuum. Trials have run in Spain’s third division and the top flight of women’s football, as well as in Serie C in Italy. The early data from those competitions informed the ongoing debate in England. More recently, the system expanded to the Canadian Premier League — and almost immediately, it generated exactly the kind of controversy that critics feared.
| Competition | Country | FVS trial status |
|---|---|---|
| Third division (men’s) | Spain | Active trial |
| Women’s top flight | Spain | Active trial |
| Serie C | Italy | Active trial |
| Canadian Premier League | Canada | Expanded April 2026 |
The incident that crystallised the debate involved Pacific FC and Supra du Quebec. Locked at 2-2 deep into injury time, Supra’s coaching staff challenged a tackle by Pacific FC’s Joshua Belluz, arguing it warranted a straight red card. The referee disagreed on the red card — but once at the monitor, he was obliged to take whatever disciplinary action the footage warranted. That turned out to be a yellow card. Since Belluz was already on a booking, he was sent off.
Supra du Quebec lost the challenge technically. But they achieved what they wanted : a man advantage. They scored in the additional time created by the review and won the match. The challenge had been used as a tactical weapon, not as a genuine attempt to correct a refereeing error. That’s a loophole most football administrators didn’t anticipate — and it happened within weeks of the Canadian rollout.
What the FVS debate reveals about football’s technology problem
Here’s the core tension : no technology system exists yet that genuinely satisfies all stakeholders in football. Traditional VAR slows the game, strips away goal celebrations, and generates endless arguments about millimetre offside calls. FVS was supposed to be the lighter touch — a compromise between human error and technological overreach. The Canadian example proves it’s no silver bullet.
The key flaws becoming visible in FVS trials can be summarised clearly :
- Tactical challenge abuse — teams use reviews to manufacture suspensions rather than correct errors
- Higher stoppage frequency than anticipated, potentially exceeding standard VAR interruptions
- Inconsistent application across competitions with varying camera setups
- Referee pressure at the monitor without the support structure VAR normally provides
For Championship clubs, the calculation was straightforward. Introducing a half-finished system mid-development carries more risk than waiting. The second tier of English football already operates without any video assistance, and clubs appear willing to hold that line rather than adopt technology that might cause more problems than it solves.
What’s worth watching now is whether the FVS trials in Spain and Italy produce cleaner results over the next 12 to 18 months — results free from the tactical manipulation seen in Canada. If administrators can close the loopholes before the next vote, the Championship may look very different in 2027. Until then, the second tier stays exactly where it is : referees alone, no replays, no challenges. Some will call that refreshing. Others will call it stubborn. Frankly, given what FVS just produced in Vancouver, it might simply be the more honest choice.
