Eredivisie refereeing decisions reignite debate over treatment of the traditional top three
Controversial calls in three Eredivisie matches have prompted fresh questions about consistency in Dutch football—and whether Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord receive the benefit of close decisions more often than other clubs. The debate followed PSV’s 2-0 win over sc Heerenveen, Feyenoord’s 2-0 victory against AZ and Ajax’s 1-1 draw with NEC, with disputed moments in each game drawing attention to the role of referees and the video assistant referee (VAR).
In his column for Algemeen Dagblad, journalist Sjoerd Mossou argued that officials can appear to judge the traditional top three differently from the other 15 Eredivisie teams. His remarks came as head of refereeing Raymond van Meenen discussed the weekend’s contentious decisions on ESPN’s Goedemorgen Eredivisie on Sunday morning.
Three matches, three sets of questions
The incidents raised by Mossou involved decisions that could have significantly affected the matches. In Feyenoord’s game against AZ, the VAR intervened after referee Danny Makkelie awarded AZ a penalty. Mossou questioned why the video officials believed the on-field decision amounted to a “clear and obvious mistake”, particularly given that AZ forward Mexx Meerdink appeared to have been caught.
The Ajax-NEC match produced a different kind of controversy. Mossou asked why neither Jorthy Mokio nor Abdellah Ouazane was sent off, while the PSV-Heerenveen fixture brought scrutiny over Armando Obispo’s failure to receive a second yellow card. Each situation involved a judgement call, but together they became part of a wider conversation about how similar incidents are assessed across the league.
Van Meenen addressed the disputed decisions during his television appearance, explaining the refereeing perspective behind them. Mossou acknowledged that the head of refereeing defended himself well under questioning. Yet, in his view, an important issue remained largely untouched: all three examples involved a home team from the country’s traditional top three clubs.
Why VAR has not ended the argument
VAR was introduced to help officials correct major mistakes and improve fairness in football. It can review incidents that might otherwise escape the referee’s attention, including penalties, possible red cards and goals. But the system has not removed disagreement from the game. Instead, Mossou suggested, it can make every decision feel open to further examination.
That is partly because VAR is not a replacement for judgement. The technology can provide additional camera angles and slow-motion replays, but officials must still decide how to interpret what they see. Was contact enough to justify a penalty? Did a challenge meet the threshold for a red card? Was an on-field decision clearly wrong, or simply debatable? Those questions rarely have answers that satisfy everyone.
When a decision is reviewed, supporters also see more of the process—and may expect a definitive explanation. If the final call remains subjective, the review can intensify frustration rather than settle it. As Mossou’s criticism suggests, the result can be a lingering sense of injustice, with fans and clubs revisiting the same incident long after the final whistle.
Does club status influence close calls?
Mossou’s central question was not simply whether individual decisions were correct. It was whether close calls tend to fall differently depending on the team involved. His argument reflects a familiar belief among supporters of clubs outside the title race: that Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord can receive more favourable treatment in decisive moments than mid-table or lower-ranked sides.
That perception is difficult to establish from a handful of incidents. A penalty decision or missed second yellow card does not, by itself, prove that officials treat clubs differently. A stronger assessment would require a much broader review of comparable decisions across multiple seasons, including the match situation, the referee’s position, the nature of the contact and whether VAR intervened.
Even so, perceptions matter. Clubs outside the traditional top three may feel that a borderline call against a major side attracts more scrutiny, while a similar incident involving a less prominent team passes with little discussion. Supporters also remember decisions that affect important matches, and those memories can reinforce a belief that the system is not applied evenly.
Consistency is the real test for Dutch football
The challenge for refereeing authorities is therefore twofold: make decisions as consistently as possible and explain them clearly enough for players, coaches and supporters to understand the reasoning. Public discussion from officials such as Van Meenen can help, but explanations are most persuasive when they address the specific threshold applied in each incident and show how comparable situations are treated.
For referees, the pressure is considerable. They must make rapid decisions in a high-speed game, often from imperfect viewing angles, while knowing that replays will later be examined in detail. VAR offers support, but it also raises expectations. Fans may assume that technology should eliminate error, even though football’s rules still require interpretation and some contact remains open to debate.
The weekend’s results will stand: PSV and Feyenoord both won 2-0, while Ajax were held to a 1-1 draw by NEC. But the discussion around those matches is unlikely to disappear quickly. For many supporters, the key issue is not whether one isolated call can be defended, but whether the same standards apply to every club in the Eredivisie.
What the controversy means for the next round
As the season continues, refereeing decisions will remain a major talking point, particularly in matches involving title contenders and teams fighting for European places or survival. Any new close call is likely to be measured against this weekend’s incidents, adding pressure on officials to demonstrate consistency.
For fans looking ahead, the controversy also complicates every prediction. Match forecasts usually focus on form, injuries, tactics and home advantage, but a disputed penalty or dismissal can quickly change the course of a game. That uncertainty is part of football’s drama—but confidence in fair, consistent officiating is essential if supporters are to accept the outcome, even when their own team loses.
Mossou’s column has renewed a question that VAR alone cannot answer: do the biggest clubs receive more favourable treatment, or does the appearance of a pattern grow from the intense attention they attract? The fairest response will require transparent explanations and consistent standards across the league—not just debate after the most high-profile matches.
