VAR in the WSL: Progress or Premature?

Sophie Hurst
Feb 25
5 min read

The Women’s Super League is expanding at pace; attendances are rising, broadcast deals are strengthening and the quality of football is improving. With that growth comes an inevitable question: when does the league introduce VAR?

On the surface, it feels like a logical next step. If the women’s game is positioning itself as elite, then technological parity with the men’s game seems part of that evolution. Accurate decisions protect competitive integrity. Controversies, like those seen in Arsenal v Chelsea earlier this season, intensify calls for change, with Arsenal Manager, Renee Slegers quoting “If you were to ask me the question now, ‘are you in favour of VAR’, I would say yes”. But structural decisions cannot be made in reaction to isolated incidents.

The real question is not whether VAR improves decision-making in theory. It is whether the WSL is ready for it, and whether it should be a priority.

The Financial Reality

The economic gap between the men’s and women’s game remains drastic. The average WSL salary sits around £47,000 per year, where, if you compare it to the Premier League, it is approximately £4.16 million.

The WSL has only recently implemented a £40,000 minimum salary across its top two tiers to senior players, with the minimum pay for u-23s sitting at less than national living wage for a typical full time job. And whilst, yes, that is progress for the seniors, it also reflects how young the league’s professionalisation still is.

League-wide VAR implementation is estimated to cost around £1.2 million a season - based on Scotland’s top flight costs - excluding the additional investment required to upgrade stadiums lacking the necessary camera infrastructure, replay systems and technical support. That figure raises a fundamental strategic question: if significant funding is available, where does it create the greatest long-term benefit? Because the league still faces structural gaps.

Waterlogged pitches continue to cause postponements. Brighton v Arsenal earlier this month highlighted how scheduling instability impacts players and supporters. Weather cannot be controlled, but venue planning and infrastructure can. If main stadiums are available, the decision not to utilise them becomes a competitive issue.

Similarly, fixture clashes have forced clubs such as London City Lionesses to relocate matches due to scheduling conflicts with men’s teams at their Bromley stadium. Shared facilities and pitch congestion remain realities in parts of the pyramid.

At the same time, financial fragility is evident. Blackburn Rovers’ withdrawal from the second tier due to regulatory pressures highlight that not every club operates on stable footing. In that context, VAR is not just a technological upgrade. It is a resource-allocation decision.

Visibility vs Foundations

Technology is visible, it signals modernity and reassures audiences that the league is serious. Partnerships, like the new Apple one, signify intention to improve technology for clubs fairly throughout the league. But professionalisation is not only about what is visible.

Across the women’s game, disparities persist in areas that are less marketable but arguably more fundamental: access to high-performance gym facilities, individualised nutrition support, consistent medical staffing, recovery resources and travel standards. The ongoing ACL injury crisis has highlighted the need for deeper investment in research, prevention frameworks and load management. Player welfare demands sustained funding.

How can we justify implementing an expensive officiating system when foundational performance environments are still uneven? This is not an argument against VAR. It is an argument about sequencing.

Infrastructure and Competitive Integrity

For VAR to function effectively, it must operate uniformly. You cannot introduce it at some grounds but not others without compromising fairness, meaning every stadium must meet the same technical standards. Former England International, Izzy Christiansen said that “there has to be parity throughout all of it… from that perspective you can't have VAR. But should we have VAR? Yes”.

That is not currently the case. Several players and pundits have acknowledged that infrastructure across the league varies significantly. Without parity in camera angles, review facilities and trained operators, the system risks inconsistency.

Infrastructure is only one part of the equation. The other, and arguably more fundamental, is officiating itself. The Women’s Super League still relies heavily on part-time referees. That reality complicates the case for VAR. Technology does not operate independently; it depends on the expertise, training and consistency of those using it.

Introducing a video review system without fully professionalised officiating pathways risks addressing symptoms rather than causes. If decision-making standards vary due to limited training time, insufficient support structures, adding screens and additional referees does not automatically solve that.

Millie Bright articulated this clearly when discussing VAR implementation: “If we had the right level of people behind the screens then yeah… If the people looking at VAR don’t know what they’re looking at, it’s like giving a tool to someone who doesn’t know how to use it.”

Technology does not eliminate human error; it relocates it. Retention is also part of the issue. Officials who reach the highest level in the women’s game often transition into the men’s system, where full-time contracts and greater financial security are available. Without competitive pathways for referees within the women’s pyramid, consistency becomes harder to maintain.

Even in the Premier League, where referees are full-time, BBC Sport reported 13 VAR errors by mid-January this season. That represents improvement compared to previous years, but it reinforces: technology does not remove subjectivity. London City’s Forward, Nikita Parris has shared her perspective, that VAR has not eradicated mistakes in the men’s game, and that whilst it can provide clarity, it also prolongs decision-making and does not remove subjectivity.

If the women’s game takes on VAR, it must do so with trained professionals and standardised infrastructure. Otherwise, it risks adding complexity without solving core issues.

The Physical Impact

There are also competitive implications when it comes to technological interventions. VAR is known to extend match duration due to the grueling amount of time it takes to come to a decision. In the Premier League, games regularly exceed 100 minutes due to lengthy reviews and increased stoppage time, which means additional minutes, thus increasing physical load, fatigue and recovery demands.

In a league still developing squad depth and navigating fixture congestion, extended match time is not insignificant. Football is inherently intermittent, but prolonged stoppages disrupt rhythm and momentum. Inefficient review processes exacerbate this effect. If the objective is competitive balance and player welfare, these considerations cannot be dismissed.

A League at a Crossroads

The WSL is at a pivotal stage of ambition, growth and global attraction, but growth requires strategic clarity.

VAR may well be part of the league’s future; officiating accuracy matters and players deserve fairness in moments which could decide the league, yet fairness is broader than a single decision. It encompasses safe pitches that do not flood, and equal access to high-performance facilities. Consistent nutrition, medical support and investment in injury research. It includes professionalised refereeing pathways and financial stability across the pyramid.

Professionalisation is not about optics, it’s about conditions. Introducing VAR would signal progress, but unless foundational disparities are addressed alongside it, that progress risks being cosmetic and glorified.

The question, then, is not whether the WSL should have VAR, but whether VAR is the upgrade the league needs most right now.