Ghana Coach’s ‘VAR Went for Coffee’ Remark: A Symptom of Deeper Football Frustrations
The VAR Controversy That Sparked a Fiery Remark
Following a contentious international friendly between Ghana and England, the Ghana coach levelled a stinging critique at the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system, claiming it “went for coffee” during the match, effectively aiding a “lucky” England side. The comment, widely reported but not officially transcribed in full, captures a growing sentiment among teams that feel disadvantaged by the inconsistent application of football’s most scrutinised officiating tool. While specific details of the match – including the final score, key incidents, and the exact identity of the coach making the remark – remain undisclosed in initial reports, the headline alone has reignited a global debate about VAR’s reliability and transparency.
The phrase “went for coffee” is a vivid metaphor suggesting that VAR officials were either absent, disengaged, or deliberately overlooking decisions that could have favoured Ghana. In the context of modern football, where every marginal offside and penalty shout is dissected frame by frame, such a remark is explosive. It implies not merely human error but a systematic failure or even bias. The match itself, though a friendly, carried weight for both sides. For England, it was a chance to fine-tune tactics ahead of major tournaments; for Ghana, an opportunity to test themselves against a top-ranked European nation. But the coach’s post-match outburst has overshadowed any sporting narrative.
Without official footage or a detailed match report, we cannot verify the specific decisions that triggered the comment. Yet the very fact that a national team coach would make such a provocative statement speaks volumes about the current state of officiating technology in football. It echoes previous criticisms from managers across the globe who argue that VAR, instead of bringing clarity, often introduces a new layer of confusion and perceived injustice.
What the Ghana Coach’s Comments Reveal About VAR’s Perception
The Ghana coach’s accusation that VAR “went for coffee” taps into a deep well of distrust that has been building since the system’s introduction in top-level football. Designed to correct clear and obvious errors, VAR was meant to make the game fairer. Instead, it has frequently become a lightning rod for controversy. The problem is not the technology itself but its implementation: lengthy delays, inconsistent thresholds for intervention, and a lack of transparency in decision-making have all eroded faith.
When a coach from a historically underrepresented football nation – Ghana, a five-time Africa Cup of Nations winner but often overlooked in global power structures – makes such a remark, it highlights a perceived power imbalance. The implication is that England, as a football superpower, benefits from a tacit leniency from match officials, including those operating the VAR. This is not a new accusation; similar sentiments have been voiced by coaches from smaller nations in World Cups and continental tournaments. The “big team bias” is a recurring theme in football psychology, and VAR was supposed to neutralise it. The Ghana coach’s outburst suggests it has not succeeded.
Moreover, the comment underscores a broader frustration with the opacity of VAR protocols. Fans and media are often left in the dark about what the referee and VAR crew are discussing, leading to conspiracy theories. Calls for releasing audio recordings – as is done in rugby or cricket – have grown louder. If the Ghana coach felt that VAR officials were effectively on a break, it indicates a belief that the system is not being taken seriously enough to deliver justice in high-stakes moments, even in friendlies.
The Role of the Match Referee and VAR Crew
In any VAR-reviewed match, the on-field referee retains final authority, but the VAR team – located in a remote booth – can recommend reviews. The “coffee” metaphor may refer to a perceived lack of urgency or attentiveness. Without a specific incident, we can only generalise that such remarks often arise when a possible penalty or red card is not reviewed despite clear TV replays. The Ghana coach likely felt that a key decision went England’s way without proper scrutiny, turning a friendly into a microcosm of global dissatisfaction.
According to IFAB protocols, VAR should only intervene for “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents.” This subjective threshold is a constant source of debate. For the Ghana coach, the threshold seemed to have been set impossibly high, or perhaps not activated at all – as if the VAR officials were on a coffee break.
Background: The Ghana National Team and Its Relationship with Refereeing
Ghana’s national football team, the Black Stars, has a storied history of battles against perceived officiating injustices. The most infamous incident occurred at the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, where Ghana were denied a clear penalty in the semi-final against Uruguay after Luis Suárez’s deliberate handball on the goal line. The referee missed the penalty and Ghana missed the subsequent spot-kick, losing in a shootout. That moment remains a scar on Ghanaian football consciousness.
More recently, in 2022 World Cup qualifiers and the Africa Cup of Nations, similar controversies have arisen. The Ghana Football Association (GFA) has often vocally criticised refereeing standards, especially in high-stakes matches. This historical context makes the coach’s latest comment part of a longer narrative. When a Ghanaian coach says VAR “went for coffee”, he is speaking for a nation that feels it has been repeatedly let down by match officials at the highest level.
The current Ghana squad, managed by Chris Hughton (as of 2024, though the coach in question may have been his predecessor or a different figure depending on the match date), contains stars like Mohammed Kudus, Thomas Partey, and Jordan Ayew. These players compete in top European leagues and expect a certain standard of officiating. When they perceive that standard dropping, the coach’s frustration becomes inevitable.
England’s Status as a Football Powerhouse
England, winners of the 1966 World Cup and runners-up in 2021 and 2023 (Women’s and Men’s Euro finals), are often seen as benefiting from favourable decisions. While this is partly anecdotal, the “lucky England” trope is persistent in football folklore. The Ghana coach’s choice of words – “lucky” England aided by a quiescent VAR – reinforces that stereotype. Whether or not it is fair, the perception of a biased system is a reality that football governing bodies cannot ignore.
England’s ‘Lucky’ Reputation and Football’s Ongoing Debate on Technology
England’s national team has long been labelled “lucky” by opponents, a label that intensified during their run to the Euro 2020 final when they benefited from several penalty decisions and a favourable draw. The tag is often used dismissively, but it carries weight in the global narrative. The Ghana coach’s remark is the latest iteration of this narrative, now tied to VAR ineffectiveness rather than mere fortune.
The debate on technology in football is not new. Introduced in 2018, VAR has been lauded for correcting clear errors – such as offsides and mistaken identities – but widely criticised for disrupting the flow of the game and failing to eliminate controversy. The Premier League, where many Ghanaian players ply their trade, has seen endless disputes over handball interpretations, penalty thresholds, and the duration of checks. A 2023 study by the BBC found that VAR decisions in the Premier League took an average of 51 seconds, with only 5% of reviews leading to an overturned call. Such statistics make the “coffee” metaphor even more potent – if VAR takes long but rarely changes things, what is it doing?
In the Ghana vs. England friendly, the coach’s frustration may have been amplified by the fact that friendlies are often used to test VAR protocols. If the system malfunctioned or was underutilised, the entire purpose of the technology is called into question. England, as the higher-ranked team, might have been expected to win even without questionable decisions, but the coach’s view is that they needed a “coffee break” from VAR to do so.
The Future of VAR: Calls for Transparency and Consistency
The “coffee” comment is not just a one-off joke; it is a demand for reform. FIFA and IFAB have already announced experiments with offside semi-automated technology and plans to release VAR audio in some competitions. The Copa América 2024 and the 2026 FIFA World Cup will likely see further changes. Critics argue that the current system is too secretive and that allowing TV viewers to see and hear what the VAR crew is doing would restore trust.
The Ghana coach’s remark underscores the need for clearer communication between officials and team benches. In many sports, coaches can request a review or get an explanation mid-game. In football, the manager has no direct line to the VAR room. A coach’s only outlet is a post-match press conference, where raw emotion can produce explosive metaphors. Addressing this systemic silence might prevent future “coffee” controversies.
Moreover, the consistency of VAR across different competitions remains problematic. A friendly match may not have the same standard of VAR operation as a World Cup knockout tie. If Ghana felt that the VAR crew was less attentive because the match carried less weight, that would be a serious indictment of the technology’s implementation. The phrase “went for coffee” could be interpreted as a critique of the professionalism and dedication of match officials in less high-stakes encounters.
Potential Impact on Ghana-England Relations
Beyond the technical debate, the coach’s comments could strain relations between the two football associations. England’s FA has historically maintained diplomatic relationships with African federations. While such statements are often quickly forgotten, they add to a narrative of disrespect. Ghana may demand a review of the match’s officiating, though friendlies rarely prompt formal investigations.
Conclusion: When a Coffee Break Becomes a Symbol of Frustration
The Ghana coach’s claim that VAR “went for coffee” is far more than a throwaway line. It is a powerful symbol of the discontent that many coaches, players, and fans feel towards a technology that was supposed to perfect football officiating but has instead introduced new uncertainties. The remark exposes the fragile trust placed in video reviews, especially when the team on the receiving end is from a continent that has long felt marginalised in global football governance.
Whether or not the specific decisions in the friendly were correct is secondary to the broader message: VAR must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair. The Ghana coach’s colourful language may have been born of in-the-moment anger, but it should prompt governing bodies to examine how they can make the system more transparent, consistent, and, above all, active – not taking a break when the game needs it most. For now, the image of VAR officials sipping coffee while crucial decisions go unchecked will linger, a damning metaphor for football’s ongoing struggle to reconcile technology with the human drama of the beautiful game.
