Prof. Elisa Carbonari, Ph.D. – Vice President, MUST University FL USA – 07/0725
Review
Source: MELO, Adriano Boschi; BLUM, Renato Opice. The judge blows the whistle: VAR, AI, and the Judiciary. O Estado de S. Paulo, São Paulo, July 6, 2025. Open Space, p. A4.
The article published in the newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo” on July 6 (Sunday), in the Open Space section, caught my attention first because of the acronym AI – currently well known in academic circles – and second because of the acronym VAR – well known in soccer circles.
The acronym VAR stands for “Video Assistant Referee.” It is a tool that analyzes video images to help soccer referees make decisions during a game when there is a questionable play.
Now, let’s turn to the newspaper article, in which the authors discuss in a precise and accessible way the limits and possibilities of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in sectors that involve judgment, such as soccer (with VAR) and the judiciary. The authors draw a parallel between soccer referees and judges to address a central point: AI should be a strategic tool, but it should never replace human decision-making.
The analogy with VAR in soccer is timely and effective: despite technological advances that have improved the accuracy of decisions on the field, it is the referee who “blows the whistle,” that is, who makes the final decision. The same logic applies to the judiciary, where AI can support judges and legal practitioners in screening cases, identifying patterns, and analyzing case law, but cannot and should not make autonomous decisions in complex litigation.
The authors emphasize that the responsible use of AI in algorithms requires transparency, constant human supervision, and technical training for operators. This applies to both sports and justice, emphasizing that technology should be seen as a strategic supporting player, not as the protagonist in the decision-making process.
The article also presents relevant data, such as the increase in the CBF Arbitration Commission’s accuracy rate with the use of VAR and the CNJ project (Resolution No. 332/2020), which establishes guidelines for the ethical use of AI in the judiciary. International examples are also mentioned, such as the use of ChatGPT in the US to clarify legal terms during trials.
Finally, the authors conclude that “the referee is the judge” is not just a soccer metaphor, but a statement about the need to preserve human judgment in justice systems, even in the face of increasingly sophisticated AI tools.
This text serves as a warning to MUST University Master’s and Doctoral students, specifically in the legal field, to note that AI can be a tool used by professionals in the most delicate and subjective areas, but that human judgment must be preserved.
Maria Elisa Ehrhardt Carbonari
University Vice-President
