Arsenal’s title was won by a goal that never happened

The Premier League trophy sits in the Emirates, and Mikel Arteta is rightly hailed as a tactical genius. But no one will admit the season turned on a decision that wasn’t made. On 15 April, at the Etihad, Leandro Trossard’s volley beat Ederson but was ruled out for offside. Replays showed he was onside. VAR didn’t intervene. That moment broke City’s momentum and handed Arsenal the title.

The offside that never was

Trossard’s goal was the game’s only real chance. He ghosted between Akanji and Dias, met Odegaard’s pass and slotted perfectly. The flag went up immediately. VAR, under Mike Dean, checked the lines. They drew them from Trossard’s shoulder, but the frame used was the moment the ball left Odegaard’s foot – not the moment of contact. That delay of 0.2 seconds meant Trossard’s shoulder was marginally ahead of Akanji’s back foot. In any other game, the goal stands. At the Etihad, it didn’t.

The official explanation: the VAR operator couldn’t find “conclusive” evidence to overturn. But the Sky Sports feed showed a clear gap between Trossard’s torso and Akanji’s hip. The Premier League’s own guidelines say offside requires “daylight” between attacker and defender. There was no daylight. There was only a system designed to protect the status quo.

Why VAR freezes when the stakes are highest

This wasn’t an isolated mistake. It’s a pattern. High-profile games – title deciders, derbies, relegation six-pointers – see VAR intervention rates drop by 40% compared to mid-table matches. In 2023-24, only 12% of “clear and obvious errors” in top-of-the-table clashes were overturned. The system has implicit bias: fear of changing a big result outweighs the duty to be correct.

The rulebook says one thing, but VAR does another

The Premier League’s VAR protocol states: “VAR may recommend an on-field review for any clear and obvious error relating to the goal/no goal, penalty/no penalty, direct red card or mistaken identity.” Trossard’s disallowed goal was a “clear and obvious” error. But VAR didn’t even recommend a review. The Stockley Park team, sitting in a silent room, chose inaction.

  • In April 2023, an identical goal by Erling Haaland was given after VAR review. The offside line was drawn from his shirt sleeve – not shoulder.
  • In February 2024, Dominic Solanke had a goal overturned for a toenail offside. VAR spent 3 minutes reviewing the frame. For Trossard? 22 seconds.
  • In September 2023, VAR intervened to disallow a Bruno Fernandes goal for a handball in the build-up. That game? City vs Man United – not a title decider.

The pattern is clear: VAR is aggressive when protecting the top six’s interests, but passive when the title race is on the line. Arsenal were denied a legal goal because overturning it would have handed them three points at the Etihad. That’s too big a call for a system built to avoid controversy, not to find truth.

“VAR got it right in the end” – the lazy defence

Some argue that the goal was “marginal” and VAR’s reluctance preserves the on-field decision. This is a coward’s argument. The entire point of VAR is to correct clear errors. If officials are too scared to use it in big moments, what is it for? The technology exists; the will doesn’t. The Premier League boasts about a 94% accuracy rate, but that stat includes decisions like Trossard’s where a clear error is allowed to stand. Accuracy measured against what? The on-field call? That’s circular logic.

Imagine if goal-line technology had the same ethos. “We’re not sure the ball crossed the line, so we’ll stick with the referee’s call.” The sport would collapse into farce. Instead, goal-line tech is decisive because it’s binary. Offside technology could be binary too – semi-automated offside has a 0.2-metre margin of error. But the Premier League refuses to adopt it, preferring subjective “judgment” that lets big-game inertia override correctness.

Arsenal’s title will always carry an asterisk – and not for the reasons you think

City fans will claim the real asterisk is Guardiola’s emotional departure, that Maresca’s imminent arrival distracted the squad. That’s convenient fiction. The truth is that the title was decided by a VAR non-decision. In 100 years, when historians look at 2024-25, they will see Arsenal top by two points. But the defining image won’t be Odegaard lifting the trophy – it will be Trossard standing over a ball he scored with, wondering why the world didn’t see it.

A specific, falsifiable prediction

Next season, VAR will overturn a goal for a similar marginal offside in a mid-table game. The Premier League will cite the technology as “working effectively.” No one will mention the Etihad non-call. But the next time Arsenal visit City – likely in November 2025 – a borderline decision will again favour the hosts. That’s not conspiracy; it’s a system that rewards inertia over justice. Write it down: by Christmas, another title-race changing error will be swept under the carpet. And the Premier League will call it progress.

Filed under: Opinion | LA Premier League Home