FIFA Referees 2021

So, usually nominations have been sent to FIFA by now. With the pandemic this year and the disruption to leagues around the world, there is a revised timeline. Nominations are now due November 8th.

I'm sure we'll delve into the rumors about US additions or removals. But I'm more interested in the content of the FIFA Circular that went to national associations late last week: https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...tional-lists.pdf?cloudid=hbslfeewkgsybnri2bpk

A few points that are rather startling to me:

1) The top of the second page notes that "all match official roles are now gender neutral" and that "both men and women can be nominated for each role since separate roles for men and women no longer exist." That's a bombshell, right? If separate roles no longer exist, does that mean the FIFA women's fitness test no longer exists and that all women have to pass the (previous) men's standard? It used to be that female referees had to pass the male test IF they wanted to work men's matches. But that obviously can't be the situation any longer given this language. Does anyone have any idea how fitness tests are being handled for FIFA referees now? Either a LOT of women are losing FIFA badges (seems unlikely) or there has to be some sort of hybrid approach... but I can't fathom what that approach would be that wouldn't render the text quoted above pointless. It's not like some men referees are going to pass the women's fitness test in order to referee women's international matches now.

2) To that end, the second item in the list says that each candidate must be ranked by their officiating marks in national level matches. That's not new. But if there aren't separate men's and women's lists... how is that handled? Outside Tori Penso (if she is nominated this year) where would US women referees fall on the now gender-neutral list? Comparing NWSL and MLS assessment scores is akin to comparing apples with oranges. So how does that get resolved?

3) Finally, the language of "all nominated matches officials (except video match officials) must have passed..." is the first time I've seen FIFA allude or referee to FIFA-nominated VARs. So sounds like there will be a VAR list from 2021 onward? Unless it's just nominated VARs who are certified and then eligible for international competition.

There's a LOT going on in this circular. Does anyone have access to the "Enclosed regulations?" I've seen them in the past but haven't seen this year's copy yet. Might provide answers to or explanations on the three points above.

 

I'm not sure that's a better question than the fitness test one, but it definitely is an additional question that needs to be (and I presume has been) answered for FAs.

 

Truly my reaction. But I can't help but think there's a FIFA semantics game going on here.

There is NO WAY they are requiring all FIFA female referees to pass the men's test. That would decimate the ranks of female FIFA referees globally.

There's also no way you're suddenly going to start seeing male referees--who couldn't pass the men's FIFA standard--at the WWC and other women's competitions.

So... what does this actually mean? Maybe they're just merging the lists for appearances sake and keeping the divergent fitness requirements? I guess that seems like the most logical answer. But that is not at all how any of this reads.

 

If this is the route they have gone, I’m fascinated to see which direction.

You are either removing dozens—more likely hundreds—of female international referees.

Or, you are unilaterally dropping fitness standards for male international referees after about 25 years of consistently increasing them (and denying several otherwise elite officials appointments to World Cups and other events). All in the name of being gender neutral.

Neither option is a good look.

 

@Mikael_Referee or @allan_park , do either of you have any insight on this?

This would seem to have clear implications on the UEFA lists, too. I can't imagine FIFA wants everything to be gender neutral and then would be okay with separate UEFA category lists. But then again, maybe UEFA just won't care? I know there's a lot of discussion about Frappart right now but she is one of a couple hundred women officials in Europe. So while this could affect her positively (I presume she'd go into First Category at this point?) it would seemingly have adverse effects for almost every other female referee or, at the very least, sow chaos!

 

How is this relevant to the merging of the lists? This is just about the list (formerly lists) being gender neutral. It is not about assigning.

This isn't some mandate that will open up men's professional matches to female officials on a wide scale (or vice versa, for that matter). A signal that it's possible, yes; but not a mandate.

Until it is explained, however, it raises some very interesting questions about who should be nominated and how--both from fitness and assessment standpoints.

 

I would think not. What would be the imperative for that?

If you are a nation that doesn't have any international female referees already... what do you think the interest is in having them? Such a nation probably doesn't have a strong women's footballing history and, as such, would have limited interest in getting referees on such matches.

More to the point politically, I don't think using "gender neutral" to reverse engineer a scenario where male referees can now be appointed to women's international matches would be a political winner at this juncture in time. Look at the attention Frappart is getting in Europe and Penso just got here. This has to be about going in the other direction and reinforcing the signal that women can referee men.

I just can't quite fathom what the overall consequences are and how it will be implemented.

 

Historically that means CR v AR.

Well, yes. We saw this at the WWC and there's no reason to think it can't work in the other direction. Also... you don't find VAR for women's games, at this point, anywhere other than international matches, right?

That was my third question above, based on the third point in the letter. It looks like it's happening--though whether formally or informally is unclear. But again, that is not what is meant by match roles. The letter literally says "all match official roles are now gender neutral." So even if there is a new, official VAR list, this also quite clearly affects the CR and AR lists.

No. Several years old now. In theory referees could go to WC18 while being over 45. I don't think any did, but it did allow Mazic and Kuipers to attend while being 45, which previously was a no-no. Here in the US, Toledo stayed on the list for an extra year.

 

Looking back at the 2020 list, which is in PDF form, maybe FIFA considered 2020 to be "gender neutral?": https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...ch-officials.pdf?cloudid=bdhkmbhyt2evwe69isju

The gender of each referee is indicated within each list, but the lists themselves are not divided by gender as that had been prior to 2020. I forgot about this presentation.

So maybe that's what is meant? But, as I think about it, that doesn't really make sense because, well, the lists still indicates gender and the circular above has language ("please note... are now...") that makes this sound like a new change that people should be aware of when making nominations. So... maybe not.

 

As I've said elsewhere, I think the speculation about psychology around this from people who don't use or aren't familiar with VAR is way, way overblown. I also think the idea that an elite referee would be more likely to take advice from someone who doesn't referee in the league strains credulity. Because if psychology did matter a lot here... wouldn't a referee be less likely to take advice from someone who doesn't fully understand or have an appreciation for the on-field dynamics?

I digress, though, because again, I think all this is overblown. Everything on this comes down to what the national federations and refereeing authorities do and how they train and treat the VAR project. In MLS, none of this is an issue because assessment scores and, consequently secure employment are contingent on using VAR appropriately. If you ignored or rejected good advice from a VAR, that is MUCH worse than just getting a decision wrong in the first place. I'm sure personalities can play a role on the margins, just as they might with a new AR or 4th (or one that a referee might not love personally). But at the end of the day you're talking about professionals who want to remain professionals. So there is every incentive to go about it in a professional way and do what your employer said you need to do in order to keep your job.

Now... in leagues (ahem, EPL) that don't seem to take VAR training and its use seriously, the incentives for using VAR well might be different. But MLS and the Eredivisie and A-League and many other leagues have shown this truly does not need to be a problem at all. And I say that a someone who was sympathetic to this argument (just as I was with AARs) early on.

To the main point about different roles or lists, I would say that one thing I've learned and has become an axiomatic principle for me: referee training and skills is totally different than VAR training and skills. So, yes, I do think there should be separate lists. But there can be overlap. I've seen many referees in MLS who are great at VARing (and you see this with someone like Makkelie internationally). I've also seen a few MLS referees who are almost terrible at VARing. And then some officials who can't quite cut it on the field in MLS, but are great at the VARing aspect. Remember that there are skills--mostly about communication but also directing the VRO and knowing what camera angles are available--in addition to just understanding the different VAR "clearly wrong" threshold that are totally different from ones you use on the field.

So, yes... at the international level I think there should be a FIFA VAR badge. But I think there can, should and will be (or is, to the extent the separate certification is a "list" already) overlap with the referee list.

 

Right. That seems to contradict the idea of gender neutrality which is why I thought this new circular was a bombshell to begin with. But I can't help but think maybe FIFA is playing semantics on steroids. I'm sure we'll learn the answer eventually!