Premier League in firing line after damning comments on latest VAR controversy during Wolves v Man City

Wolves boss Gary O'Neil was left fuming with VAR and referee Chris Kavanagh after John Stones' 95th minute winner was allowed to stand against his side

Gary O'Neil quipped, and it was one to remember: "If I had to upset someone in the street and there's a big guy and a little guy, I'm upsetting the little guy."

This line came as a candid highlight during his press session on Sunday afternoon. It surely eased the tension, drawing chuckles from the media gathered after a contentious finish to his team's clash with Manchester City.

The Wolves manager had just witnessed his squad suffer a harsh outcome from VAR—conceding a last-gasp decider to the reigning Premier League titans—a header from England's John Stones as time ticked away at Molineux, resulting in a 1-0 defeat. It marked Wolves' seventh loss in eight outings, leaving them rooted to the bottom of the league table with a solitary point.

Stones' fervent goal celebration was short-lived; Bernardo Silva was offside. The linesman's flag went up instantly, and amidst the celebrations from the City camp, referee Chris Kavanagh waved the goal off.

On the sidelines, Pep Guardiola and his coaching staff vented their frustrations at the fourth official. Meanwhile, an animated O'Neil could be observed gesturing from his technical area, insisting, "it's offside, it's offside", reports the Mirror.

The Wolves boss and his team found themselves in a familiar situation, reminiscent of an incident six months ago when they had a late goal disallowed against West Ham under similar circumstances. The Wolves camp was unhappy then, arguing that Hammers' goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski could see Max Kilman's shot, but referee Tony Harrington was advised to review the pitchside monitors due to young forward Tawanda Chirewa standing offside.

Consequently, the goal was disallowed. O'Neil described it as "possibly the worst decision I have ever seen", prompting Wolves to demand a change in VAR usage.

However, a vote to scrap VAR was overwhelmingly defeated 19-1 in the summer. O'Neil and his staff even sent images to the PGMOL to demonstrate that Fabianski could "clearly see the ball".

But this wasn't enough, with the Wolves manager revealing that referees' chiefs ruled it out because "he [Chirewa] was still in close proximity to the goalkeeper."

O'Neil added: "So even though his line of vision wasn't impacted, he was in close proximity, and it had an effect on him. Bernardo Silva is less than a yard away from Jose's feet. So I think that same reasoning should be applied to this one."

However, Stockley Park and VAR Stuart Attwell thought differently. The issue was referred back to the on-field official for another check, and after Kavanagh reviewed it a few more times, the decision was reversed and the goal was allowed.

Two near-identical situations led to two different outcomes. "I'm sure they'll tell us it was the right call and everybody got it right," O'Neil commented.

He expressed scepticism about the review process, saying, "You get these reviews back. And it says 5-0 it's the right decision, when it's not that clear."

The PGMOL released a statement explaining their decision: "Stones' goal was disallowed on-field due to Bernardo Silva being in an offside position and in the goalkeeper's line of vision. The VAR deemed Bernardo Silva wasn't in the line of vision and had no impact on the goalkeeper and recommended an on-field review. The referee overturned his original decision and a goal was awarded."

Manchester City supporters, including Guardiola and Stones, were adamant that justice had been served with the correct call. However, this did little to quell the debate, especially given the ambiguity of the situation.

O'Neil didn't hold much hope for favourable decisions, stating, "I didn't have too much faith that we would get the rub of the green. The refereeing will be the refereeing and there's nothing I can do about it."

But he raised a question that is often discussed among fans but seldom openly addressed by football managers: Do officials subconsciously favour the bigger clubs?

While the Wolves manager made it clear that he doesn't believe anyone is intentionally biased against his team, he did ponder whether it's easier for referees to side with the so-called 'elite'.

He pondered: "Is there something in the subconscious around decision-making? Without even knowing it, are you more likely to give it to Manchester City than Wolves? ".

"My focus and my senses are heightened when we're facing Man City and Pep (Guardiola) and (Erling) Haaland. Are the officials the same, when it's Haaland and when it's Manchester City? Is there something in there that influences decision-making? And I've spoken to them about this as well, and they obviously guarantee me there isn't. They are human."

"Referees are human, and Manchester City scoring a last-minute winner is a big thing, so maybe there's something sub-consciously that you're less likely to get those decisions."

"But Manchester City scoring a last-minute winner is a big thing. It's a bigger thing than Wolves scoring a last-minute goal against West Ham. So maybe there's something subconsciously that means that you are less likely to get them."

"I might be miles off, but if I had to upset someone in a street and there was a little guy and a big guy, I'm upsetting the little guy."

"But there is something in there and they definitely don't do it on purpose. I know they're 100 per cent honest, and they're doing the best job they can, and I respect them fully. I just know that from a human point of view, I feel different playing Manchester City than I do when we play someone in the first round of the Carabao Cup. I'm sure the officials feel the same. They feel it. They're human."

The Wolves manager has hinted at a possible bias in tight decisions, saying: "But maybe there's something that just edges it in that direction when it's really tight."

He also disclosed plans to speak with PGMOL chief Howard Webb this week, stressing it would be "only from an understanding point of view."

His open remarks are sure to stir debate over referees and the notion of big-club bias.