Championship clubs have made their position crystal clear : Video Assistant Referee technology will not be coming to the second tier of English football next season. The vote, taken among club representatives, signals a firm resistance to any form of automated review in a division that prides itself on pace and continuity of play. While the Premier League continues to refine its own VAR system, the Championship is charting a different course entirely.
FVS : The alternative to VAR that clubs are actually considering
The technology on the table was never traditional VAR. Football Video Support — known as FVS — has been under trial for the past two years, specifically designed for leagues operating with fewer cameras and a smaller pool of match officials. The system works differently from what fans see on Saturday afternoons at Anfield or the Etihad : there is no dedicated VAR team sitting in a review hub miles away.
Instead, a single replay operator sits pitchside and presents the on-field referee with selected camera angles via a monitor. The decision still rests entirely with the referee. Each head coach receives two challenges per match, and crucially, a successful challenge is retained — meaning a sharp-eyed manager could, in theory, keep challenging throughout a game if he is right every time.
FA chief executive Mark Bullingham described FVS 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.” That framing sounds attractive in principle. But the reality, when you dig into the numbers, is more complicated.
In the final two rounds of Premier League fixtures this season, referees visited the pitchside monitor just twice across 20 matches. Under FVS, that figure could jump to four stoppages per game — and potentially higher if challenges are upheld and coaches retain them. Far from speeding up the game, FVS could produce more interruptions than the current Premier League setup, not fewer.
| System | Monitor visits per game (avg) | Decision maker | Coach challenges |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premier League VAR | ~0.1 | VAR team + referee | None |
| FVS (trial data) | Up to 4+ | Referee only | 2 per coach |
Where FVS has been tested — and the controversy it has already sparked
Before any Championship club was asked to vote, FVS trials were already underway in three competitions : Spain’s third division of men’s football, the top flight of Spanish women’s football, and Serie C in Italy. Results have been mixed, and the expansion to the Canadian Premier League this month brought the system’s flaws into sharp public focus.
The incident that raised eyebrows involved Pacific FC and Supra du Quebec, locked at 2-2 deep into injury time. Referee allowed a tackle by Pacific FC’s Joshua Belluz to go unpunished. Supra du Quebec immediately lodged a challenge, requesting a straight red card.
The tackle did not warrant a dismissal — but once the referee reviewed the footage at the monitor, he was obliged to take the correct disciplinary action available to him. Belluz already carried a yellow card, so the second booking meant an automatic red. Supra du Quebec lost their challenge, yet they had achieved exactly what they wanted :
- A key opponent removed from the field
- Additional injury time created by the review itself
- A winning goal scored in that added time
This sequence exposed a genuine loophole. A team can use a challenge tactically, not to overturn a decision, but to force a review they expect to lose — knowing the referee might still uncover a punishable offence in the process. No rule currently prevents this kind of gamesmanship, and it happened in the very first weeks of the Canadian rollout.
What the Championship vote really signals for English football’s future
Championship clubs rejecting VAR — or any VAR-adjacent system — is not simply technophobia. The second tier processes 552 league matches per season, and club owners are acutely aware of the operational and financial costs that come with any monitoring infrastructure. Installing pitchside review equipment across 24 stadiums, training replay operators, and absorbing potential delays is a significant commitment for clubs already managing tight budgets.
There is also a genuine philosophical argument here. The Championship produces some of the most intense, relentless football in Europe — free-flowing, physical, uninterrupted. Introducing any challenge system risks turning tactical timeouts into a coaching weapon, which fundamentally alters how managers approach close games.
The Canadian Premier League incident perfectly illustrates the concern. Rather than correcting genuine errors, FVS was used as a strategic tool to manufacture a dismissal. That is not what review technology was built for, and it places referees in an uncomfortable position : technically correct in their final call, yet clearly manipulated into arriving there.
The FA and the EFL now face a defining choice. Do they continue pushing FVS down toward the lower divisions, accepting that edge cases and tactical exploitation will become part of the game ? Or does the Championship rejection prompt a genuine rethink of how review technology should be designed before it reaches leagues with less resources and fewer cameras to catch every angle ? For now, the Championship clubs have sent their answer loud and clearly — and the rest of English football is watching closely to see whether that resistance holds.
