Challenging Refereeing Errors: Could FVS Become Football’s Post-VAR Model?

France’s newly professional third tier, Ligue 3, has started the 2026-27 season with more than a new identity. It has also introduced a different way of reviewing refereeing decisions.

Football Video Support, or FVS, replaces VAR’s continuous video monitoring with a limited challenge system controlled by coaches. After influencing red cards, goals and penalty decisions in its very first round of matches, the system is already raising a bigger question: could the next stage of video refereeing place part of the responsibility in the hands of the teams themselves?

For years, VAR has dominated football’s debate around video technology.

Its cost, lengthy reviews, inconsistent interpretations of the “clear and obvious error” threshold and the frustration caused by marginal decisions have all fuelled criticism across different leagues and competitions.

France’s third tier has now begun the new season with a different approach.

With Ligue 3 Betclic moving into a professional structure for 2026-27, Football Video Support (FVS) has been introduced into a French league competition for the first time.

The French Football Federation has positioned the new Ligue 3 not only as a structural reform of the football pyramid, but also as a space where new refereeing and sporting regulations can be tested.

FVS is one of the most significant parts of that experiment.

An immediate impact

It did not take long for the system to influence a match.

Just five minutes into Aubagne’s meeting with Thionville on 7 August 2026, Thionville head coach Julien François used a challenge following a tackle by Aubagne’s Bilel Tafni.

Referee Edgar Barenton reviewed the incident on the pitch-side monitor and changed his original decision, showing Tafni a red card.

Thionville went on to win 3-0, meaning the opening round of the new Ligue 3 also produced one of the first major examples of FVS directly changing a refereeing decision in French football.

And that was far from the only intervention.

During the opening round, a Valenciennes goal was ruled out after review, a penalty initially awarded to Rouen was overturned, while Le Puy-en-Velay and Paris 13 were both awarded penalties following video reviews.

In one evening, FVS had already influenced several of the most decisive areas of refereeing.

That alone made its introduction worth watching.

FVS is not simply a cheaper version of VAR

It is tempting to describe FVS as “VAR on a budget”.

But the most important difference between the two systems is not the amount of technology involved.

It is who starts the review process.

Under VAR, a dedicated video officiating team monitors the match continuously. Incidents covered by the protocol can be checked without any action from either team.

FVS works differently.

There is no separate VAR team constantly watching the match.

A review begins only when a coach requests one.

The coach signals for a review and submits a challenge request to the fourth official. The referee then goes to the pitch-side monitor, watches the footage and makes the final decision.

In other words, FVS does not transfer authority to another referee.

It gives the same referee a second look.

In Ligue 3, each team begins the match with two challenges.

If the review results in the original decision being changed, the team keeps its challenge.

If the decision stands, one challenge is lost.

That means the real limitation is not the number of successful reviews a team can request.

It is the number of unsuccessful challenges it can afford to make.

And that changes the nature of video refereeing.

Refereeing becomes partly a team responsibility

This may be the most significant consequence of FVS.

Under VAR, identifying a potentially serious refereeing error is primarily the responsibility of the video officials.

With FVS, part of that responsibility shifts to the team.

A referee may make an incorrect decision.

But if the technical staff do not recognise that the incident should be challenged, there may be no video review at all.

Equally, a coach who has already lost both challenges may later be unable to request another review in a more important moment.

In theory, two similar refereeing mistakes in the same match could therefore produce different outcomes.

One team recognises the mistake, challenges it and gets the decision changed.

The other does not.

FVS is therefore not only a refereeing technology.

It is also a decision-making system.

Coaches must judge, within seconds, whether an incident falls within the protocol, whether the available footage is likely to change the decision and whether the challenge is worth using at that moment.

That introduces a completely new strategic element to the technical area.

Kickwise Perspective: Could a new football role emerge?

One of the most interesting long-term consequences of FVS may have less to do with referees and more to do with how clubs build their technical staffs.

Modern professional clubs already employ performance analysts, video analysts, data scientists, set-piece specialists and opposition analysts.

If challenge-based video systems become more common, another area of specialisation could emerge.

Clubs may decide to assign someone specifically to monitor refereeing decisions and identify incidents that could justify a challenge.

That role would be different from traditional performance analysis.

Its purpose would not primarily be to evaluate tactical patterns or player performance.

Instead, the specialist could be expected to assess controversial incidents within seconds, understand the relevant Laws of the Game, determine whether an incident falls within the FVS protocol and quickly advise the head coach:

Challenge it.

Or, just as importantly:

Keep the challenge.

There is currently no established professional role in football called an “FVS Analyst”, “Challenge Analyst” or “Refereeing Analyst”.

But if systems such as FVS become widespread, it is not difficult to understand why such a role could develop.

A single correct recommendation could overturn an incorrect red card, lead to the award of a penalty, disallow an invalid goal or prevent a major decision from going against the team.

In professional football, where one decision can influence points, promotion, relegation or progression in a cup competition, the value of someone capable of identifying the right moment to challenge could quickly become significant.

From this perspective, FVS may not only change the way referees work.

It could also change the structure of coaching staffs.

Why was FVS created?

Accessibility is one of the main reasons behind the system.

A full VAR operation involves far more than cameras.

It requires video officials, communication systems, technical infrastructure, training and, in many competitions, dedicated operational facilities.

Those costs may be manageable for elite leagues but are far more difficult to sustain further down the football pyramid.

FVS is designed to offer video review using fewer cameras and fewer operational resources.

That strength is also one of its limitations.

With fewer camera angles available, the referee may not always receive a definitive view of the incident.

A review can take place without providing enough evidence to overturn the original decision.

FVS is therefore not designed to eliminate every refereeing mistake.

Its more realistic purpose is to give officials an opportunity to correct some major errors in competitions where full VAR is not economically or operationally practical.

France is part of a wider experiment

Ligue 3 is not the first competition to use FVS.

After initial trials in FIFA youth competitions, the system began appearing in domestic competitions including Italy’s Serie C, Spain’s Primera Federación and Liga F.

France should therefore be viewed as part of a much wider experiment.

The broader objective is to make video review available beyond the richest leagues and competitions in world football.

If FVS proves reliable, quick and affordable, it could become particularly attractive to second and third divisions, women’s leagues, youth competitions and federations with more limited resources.

But the more interesting long-term question may go beyond access.

Could FVS really become an alternative to VAR?

For now, FIFA does not present FVS as a replacement for VAR.

But football technologies rarely remain exactly as they were first introduced.

Some of the principles behind FVS offer very different answers to questions that have surrounded VAR for years:

Limited challenges instead of constant monitoring.

Team responsibility instead of every incident being checked automatically.

The on-field referee reviewing the footage rather than another official effectively directing the process.

And a system that can operate with significantly fewer resources.

Of course, FVS brings its own problems.

How coaches manage their challenges, whether tactical or speculative challenges become common, how much time reviews add to matches and whether limited camera coverage provides enough information will all need to be assessed over a much longer period.

One weekend in Ligue 3 cannot answer those questions.

But it has already demonstrated something important.

Football Video Support is no longer simply an experimental concept.

It is now changing red cards, goals and penalties in competitive matches.

The next stage of the discussion will therefore not be limited to how referees adapt.

It will also concern whether coaches develop challenge strategies, whether clubs begin investing in specialists to support those decisions and whether more competitions decide to adopt the same model.

Because the most important innovation behind FVS may not be the screen itself.

It may be the fact that teams are becoming active participants in the process of correcting refereeing errors.

And if that model spreads, the football industry may eventually need not only referees capable of making the right decisions, but also professionals capable of spotting the wrong ones before anyone else does.