UEFA has issued an official statement to justify the reversal of a late penalty awarded to Arsenal during the first leg of their Champions League semi‑final against Atletico Madrid. The controversy began in the 78th minute when substitute Eberechi Eze appeared to be brought down inside the box by Atletico defender David Hancko. Although the initial contact seemed to involve Eze's foot, the VAR team signalled referee Danny Makkelie to review the incident on the pitchside monitor. After examining several angles, Makkelie concluded that the foul did not merit a penalty, a decision that Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta described as "completely unacceptable".
The match ultimately ended in a 1‑1 draw, setting up a decisive second leg for the following Tuesday. In a concise communiqué, UEFA stated: "Atleti player, No 17, did not commit a foul on the opponent." The governing body declined to elaborate further when Sky Sports News pressed for additional details about the decision‑making process that led to the overturn. The VAR protocol, as UEFA has repeatedly emphasized, is to intervene only in "clear and obvious" mistakes that could change the outcome of a match. This principle was cited in the statement accompanying the technology's introduction, underscoring that the VAR team is tasked with reviewing all match‑changing situations but must act only when the error is unmistakable.
Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher, appearing on Sky Sports News, offered his perspective on the incident. He noted that one camera angle suggested a clear foul on Eze, while another was inconclusive. "Rather than focusing on the inconclusive angles, you should look at the conclusive ones," Gallagher said.
He argued that once a referee on the field signals a penalty, the burden shifts to the VAR to determine whether the decision is sufficiently obvious to be overturned. "One angle shows the defender catching the foot, which is entirely in Eze's favour," he added, concluding that the evidence was not strong enough to reverse the on‑field call.
"It is not the most obvious penalty in the world, and therefore it should stand." Arsenal midfielder Declan Rice echoed Arteta's frustration, insisting that the spot‑kick should have been awarded and suggesting that the hostile atmosphere created by Atletico supporters may have influenced the referee's change of mind. Rice said, "It's a clear penalty.
I don't understand how it wasn't given. The fans provoked the decision and changed the ref's mind. UEFA operates differently from the Premier League; you have to be extremely careful because they give everything in both boxes." Arteta, visibly angry after the match, told TNT Sports that the reversal left him "very upset". He explained that the decision violated the rules and altered the trajectory of the tie.
"There is clear contact. You make the decision, you cannot overturn that decision after watching it 13 times. It's completely unacceptable at this level," he said.
When asked whether Arsenal would lodge a formal protest with UEFA, Arteta replied, "I leave that to the club to decide what's the best thing to do. Now they're not going to give us a penalty. That's it.
That's gone." The game was notable for its penalty drama. It featured three spot‑kicks and became the first Champions League knockout match since 2001 in which every goal—when more than one was scored—came from the penalty spot. Arsenal took the lead at halftime through a penalty converted by Viktor Gyokeres after a second challenge from Hancko, who again appeared to trip the striker from behind.
Atletico equalised after the break when Julian Alvarez scored from the spot following a VAR‑reviewed handball involving Ben White. The ball had deflected off White's knee onto his hand after Marcos Llorente's shot, prompting Makkelie to award the penalty. Arteta acknowledged that the interpretation of handball in the Champions League differs from that in the Premier League, noting the competition's consistency in applying the rule.
"If you are going to give a penalty for this kind of thing, you have to accept it," he said. The handball decision against White came on the heels of another contentious call in the other semi‑final, where Alphonso Davies was penalised in PSG's victory over Bayern Munich. Sky Sports analyst Jamie Carragher took to X (formerly Twitter) to demand that UEFA clarify its handball definition, calling the penalty rulings a "stain on the competition" and urging consistency across matches.
Beyond the immediate fallout, the incident has reignited a broader debate about VAR's role in high‑stakes fixtures. Critics argue that the technology, while intended to eliminate clear errors, sometimes introduces new controversies when officials over‑analyze marginal incidents.
Supporters counter that VAR provides a safety net that can correct mistakes that would otherwise stand unchallenged. In the aftermath, both clubs will have a week to prepare for the second leg in London. Arsenal will be looking to capitalize on the momentum of their first‑half penalty and to avoid another potentially game‑changing reversal, while Atletico will aim to exploit the home advantage and the psychological edge gained from the controversial decisions. As the Champions League progresses toward its climax, the Eze penalty saga serves as a reminder that even with advanced technology, human judgment remains at the heart of football's most pivotal moments.
The outcome of the tie will ultimately be decided on the pitch, but the conversation about fairness, consistency, and the proper use of VAR is likely to continue long after the final whistle blows.