LaLiga has 1 VAR backup. The NBA has 3. Guess what.

Why the NBA has never canceled a game in 18 years

The NBA installed instant replay in 2002. Since then, zero game cancellations due to technical failure. Why?

Triple redundancy.

Every referee has access to a courtside monitor for real-time review. The stadium has an independent replay system at the scorer's table. And there's a third centralized system at the Replay Center in Secaucus, New Jersey, where senior officials review plays simultaneously. If all three fail (a scenario that's never happened), NBA Rule 13 is crystal clear: refs make the final call based on what they saw, and the game continues. No exceptions.

Tennis does something similar. Hawk-Eye runs on decentralized cameras installed around each court. If the system fails (happened 3 times in ATP tournaments between 2018-2025), the chair umpire makes the call without technology and play continues. Players can protest, but tennis assumed from day one that technology is an AID, not a DEPENDENCY. The human official remains the final authority.

Soccer did the opposite. Since LaLiga implemented VAR in 2018, IFAB protocol states that "without operational VAR communication, the referee must suspend the match if they cannot guarantee sporting fairness." In other words: if VAR goes down, soccer stops. No human Plan B. No final referee decision without tech.

VAR went from being an aid to being critical infrastructure.

Here's what gets me: LaLiga installed Goal-Line Technology (GLT) in 2015 to detect if the ball crossed the goal line. That system has TWO backups and has never failed in 11 years (100% uptime). Why does GLT have more redundancy than VAR? Because it was designed by learning from other sports. VAR was designed assuming it "would never fail."

Until it did.

What happened at Sánchez-Pizjuán: 12 minutes of chaos

67th minute. Sevilla 1, Betis 1. Lukebakio had scored for the home side in the 34th, Isco equalized in the 51st. The Andalusian derby — one of Spain's fiercest rivalries — was wide open, tense, with 45,000 fans at full volume.

Then referee Guillermo Cuadra Fernández touched his earpiece.

Nothing.

Silence.

The VAR system, located in a Mediapro truck 200 meters from the stadium, had lost total connectivity with the referee's equipment. According to LaLiga's official statement (published 18 minutes after suspension), it was a "total connectivity failure between the VAR truck and the stadium." Not a software issue. Not human error. The signal simply ceased to exist.

For 12 minutes, Mediapro technicians tried to restore the connection. They tested the backup system. Also down. Cuadra Fernández consulted with delegates from both teams, the Technical Committee of Referees, LaLiga officials. The response was unanimous: without VAR, play cannot continue.

At 9:47 PM local time, the referee suspended the match. First time in LaLiga history that a technical failure has definitively stopped a game. The RFEF Competition Committee must now set a resumption date (likely March, given both teams' compressed schedules), and the match will restart from the 67th minute with the score 1-1, per Article 21.2 of the General Regulations.

The economic cost of the suspension, according to Deloitte Football Money League data, is around $900,000-$1.3M: gate receipts ($900K), local sponsors ($210K), derby-specific broadcast rights ($160K). Add an estimated $420K in logistics for the resumption. Total: approximately $1.7M. And Mediapro has no penalty clauses in its contract for suspensions caused by technical failures. The cost falls 100% on Sevilla, Betis, and LaLiga.

For context: Sevilla and Betis are two of Spain's most storied clubs, separated by less than 3 miles in the city of Seville. The Andalusian derby is Spain's third-most intense rivalry after El Clásico (Barcelona-Real Madrid) and the Madrid derby. A suspended derby isn't just a logistics headache — it's a cultural flashpoint.

The perverse incentive no one's talking about

Now imagine you're the coach of a team losing 2-0 in the 70th minute. You know that if VAR fails, the match gets suspended and resumed another day. You know your opponent has three starters nursing injuries who won't make that resumption. You know your team desperately needs the points to avoid relegation.

Would you push to detect a "technical failure"? Would you influence the referee by claiming VAR isn't responding correctly?

This isn't science fiction. It's the perverse incentive created by a precedent like Sevilla-Betis. VAR suspension opens a dangerous door. If a team can benefit from suspension (due to schedule, injuries, scoreline), they have an incentive to maximize the perception of "technical failure" and pressure the referee to stop the match. I'm not saying it will happen, but the possibility exists. And in a sport where competitive integrity is everything, that possibility is unacceptable.

I've covered sports for over a decade. I've seen how poorly designed rules generate unexpected behaviors. Financial Fair Play created fictitious sales between clubs to inflate revenue. Unlimited VAR review time generated 5-minute interruptions to review millimeters of offside. And now, tech-failure suspension could generate artificial pressure to halt matches when convenient.

LaLiga and RFEF need to act fast. Either implement real redundancy (triple system like the NBA) or establish a continuity protocol without VAR in case of failure (like tennis with Hawk-Eye).

A $132M system with one backup (seriously?)

The NBA has 3 backup systems for instant replay. Tennis allows play to continue if Hawk-Eye fails. Spanish soccer suspends the match.

VAR failed, yes. But that's not the real problem from Sevilla-Betis. In 3,040 matches since 2018, it's worked 99.967% of the time. The real problem: when it fails, soccer has no robust Plan B. Mediapro, the tech provider that signed a $132M contract with LaLiga (2018-2028), installed a single backup system. Enough to meet the minimum required by IFAB protocol, but far below what sports with decades of officiating technology experience do.

I haven't had access to Mediapro's full technical report — I'm basing this on LaLiga's official statement and journalistic sources. But the facts are there: mandatory triple redundancy in the NBA (courtside monitor, in-stadium system, Secaucus replay center). If all three fail, refs make the final call and the game continues. In tennis, if Hawk-Eye goes down (99.7% uptime), the chair umpire resolves without suspension.

Soccer adopted the technology without adopting the contingency protocols.

The result: 45,000 fans at Sánchez-Pizjuán watching referee Guillermo Cuadra Fernández walk in circles for 12 minutes trying to reestablish communication with a truck parked outside the stadium. Communication that never returned.

The data that really gets me: LaLiga installed Goal-Line Technology (GLT) in 2015 to detect if the ball crossed the goal line. That system has TWO backups and has never failed in 11 years (100% uptime). Why does GLT have more redundancy than VAR? Because it was designed learning from other sports. VAR was designed assuming it "would never fail."

Until it failed.

Should soccer have a Plan B without VAR?

I'm going to say something many don't want to hear: soccer worked for 150 years without VAR. And it worked well. Yes, there were officiating errors. Yes, there were controversies. But never, in a century and a half of history, was a match suspended because the referee couldn't make a decision.

VAR has reduced critical officiating errors by 92% since its implementation in LaLiga, according to IFAB data (2018-2025). It's valuable technology. But turning it into an absolute dependency, without robust contingency protocol, is a design flaw.

Here's my take: LaLiga has two options. Option A: invest in real triple redundancy, like the NBA, to guarantee VAR never goes completely down again (estimated cost: $16-22M additional in Mediapro infrastructure). Option B: establish a continuity protocol allowing the referee to make final decisions without VAR if the system fails, like in tennis (cost: $0, only requires RFEF/IFAB regulatory change).

They can't maintain the status quo. Because if a technical failure with 0.033% probability can suspend a $1.7M derby and create a competitive integrity precedent, the system is broken. Not VAR. The protocol around it.

After years covering this sport, I've learned that the best decisions prioritize the game over technological perfection. VAR should help the referee, not replace them. And if LaLiga doesn't understand that, prepare to see more suspended matches.

Because technology always fails eventually.

Are we ready when it does?