By Robbie Butler
Additional time and refereeing decisions are now a regular topic of debate in football. Recently, Liverpool played just three minutes of added time at the end of a Premier League game against Everton. The Reds were leading 2–1, and this relatively short addition was immediately questioned. One influencer even joked that the match must have been played in the 1990s!
But why do we react so strongly when this happens at the end of the game — and not at half-time? Few would question three minutes added at the end of the first half in the Merseyside Derby. But at the end of the second half, it’s suddenly a major story.
The reason is simple. The first half doesn’t decide the match. The second half does.
Our new paper, “Objective Calls under the Spotlight: Referee Consistency and Behaviour on Football’s Biggest Stage,” has just been accepted by the Journal of Sports Economics. The work is a collaboration between myself, David Butler, and Carl Singleton (University of Stirling).
We explore how referees behave differently under social and psychological pressure — especially when the game’s outcome is on the line - and hypothesise that referees face heightened social pressure near the end of matches, as outcomes become imminent. This may include subconsciously enjoy extending their time in the spotlight, prolonging those final moments.
In the closing minutes, every decision is magnified. Referees are under the greatest scrutiny, with millions watching their choices in real time. This phase offers one last opportunity to project fairness and competence — and to “manage” the optics of the match. Meanwhile, emotions among players, managers, and supporters peak. That cocktail of pressure may unconsciously shape refereeing behaviour — even if the rules are supposed to stay the same.
Some might argue that it’s natural for referees to treat each half differently. But according to the Laws of the Game, the same standards apply. Any systematic difference is a violation of consistency — and evidence of bias, however unintentional.
We examined additional time at two major tournaments - 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar and 2024 UEFA European Championship in Germany. Our analysis compared how much time was added in the first and second halves of matches, controlling for stoppages, goals, substitutions, and other within-match events. In theory, both halves should be treated identically. In practice, they’re not.
Even after controlling for stoppages and match events, referees consistently added more time in the second half than in the first — despite the rules being the same. We also report that when matches were tight, referees tended to add even more time in the second half — particularly at the World Cup. Interestingly, close contests there were actually shortened in the first halves.
These patterns suggest that social pressure and the stakes of the moment can influence even the most professional referees. This isn’t just about football. Our results highlight broader questions about decision-making under pressure and implicit bias in high-stakes environments.
So yes, referees do behave differently. Even in the same game.
The full paper will be available in the Journal of Sports Economics before the end of 2025.
Additional time and refereeing decisions are now a regular topic of debate in football. Recently, Liverpool played just three minutes of added time at the end of a Premier League game against Everton. The Reds were leading 2–1, and this relatively short addition was immediately questioned. One influencer even joked that the match must have been played in the 1990s!
But why do we react so strongly when this happens at the end of the game — and not at half-time? Few would question three minutes added at the end of the first half in the Merseyside Derby. But at the end of the second half, it’s suddenly a major story.
The reason is simple. The first half doesn’t decide the match. The second half does.
Our new paper, “Objective Calls under the Spotlight: Referee Consistency and Behaviour on Football’s Biggest Stage,” has just been accepted by the Journal of Sports Economics. The work is a collaboration between myself, David Butler, and Carl Singleton (University of Stirling).
We explore how referees behave differently under social and psychological pressure — especially when the game’s outcome is on the line - and hypothesise that referees face heightened social pressure near the end of matches, as outcomes become imminent. This may include subconsciously enjoy extending their time in the spotlight, prolonging those final moments.
In the closing minutes, every decision is magnified. Referees are under the greatest scrutiny, with millions watching their choices in real time. This phase offers one last opportunity to project fairness and competence — and to “manage” the optics of the match. Meanwhile, emotions among players, managers, and supporters peak. That cocktail of pressure may unconsciously shape refereeing behaviour — even if the rules are supposed to stay the same.
Some might argue that it’s natural for referees to treat each half differently. But according to the Laws of the Game, the same standards apply. Any systematic difference is a violation of consistency — and evidence of bias, however unintentional.
We examined additional time at two major tournaments - 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar and 2024 UEFA European Championship in Germany. Our analysis compared how much time was added in the first and second halves of matches, controlling for stoppages, goals, substitutions, and other within-match events. In theory, both halves should be treated identically. In practice, they’re not.
Even after controlling for stoppages and match events, referees consistently added more time in the second half than in the first — despite the rules being the same. We also report that when matches were tight, referees tended to add even more time in the second half — particularly at the World Cup. Interestingly, close contests there were actually shortened in the first halves.
These patterns suggest that social pressure and the stakes of the moment can influence even the most professional referees. This isn’t just about football. Our results highlight broader questions about decision-making under pressure and implicit bias in high-stakes environments.
So yes, referees do behave differently. Even in the same game.
The full paper will be available in the Journal of Sports Economics before the end of 2025.
RSS Feed
