Many countries across Africa have faced challenges implementing the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system due to the costs involved. However, a significantly cheaper alternative has been trialled at the 2026 COSAFA Under-20 Championships in Mozambique.
The system, known as Football Video Support (FVS), performs a similar function to VAR by allowing contentious decisions to be reviewed. However, the process is driven by the coaches of the teams involved and the referees on the field.
Under the system, coaches are allowed a minimum of two reviews per match for decisions they believe are incorrect. If a review is successful, the team retains the opportunity to make another review. If the review is unsuccessful, the team loses that opportunity, according to COSAFA Referees Manager Felix Tangawarima.
“We have come up with a new project, the Football Video Support (FVS), which is different from the Video Assistant Referee,” Tangawarima told FORBES AFRICA.
He explained that all junior tournaments organised by CAF and FIFA are using FVS, describing the system as useful training for referees before they participate in competitions where the technology is deployed.
Tangawarima explained that the major difference between VAR and FVS is the officials involved in reviewing decisions.
“With VAR, you have referees and assistant referees who are following the game from the (broadcast) van,” he said.
“With FVS, it is only the referees on the field and the fourth official, who are the main actors.”
Under FVS, either of the two coaches can request a review when they believe an incorrect decision has been made.
“The fourth official then advises the referee that there is a request for a review,” Tangawarima explained.
The referee and fourth official then move to the pitch-side monitor to review the incident.
After reaching a decision, they call the two coaches over and inform them whether the original decision has been changed or upheld. This means the decision remains primarily in the hands of the referees on the field, rather than officials reviewing the match remotely.
The equipment required for FVS is minimal compared with VAR and is also portable, allowing it to be moved between stadiums.
One of the challenges associated with VAR is the need to install cameras at venues as permanent fixtures. This raises questions about who will fund the installation, provide security for the equipment and handle its maintenance.
FVS does not require such permanent installations while still providing a mechanism for reviewing contentious decisions and helping officials reach the correct outcomes during matches.
Tanzania has already implemented FVS in its domestic league, with other countries expected to follow.
About The Author
