Mistakes were made: Looking back on Nashville SC controversy

In five games this season, the Philadelphia Union have lost just once and that one loss to Nashville remains clouded in controversy, especially after PRO acknowledged that two VAR decisions that went against the Union should’ve gone the other way.

The first came when Quinn Sullivan made a driving run down the right side of the pitch, pushing deep into the box near the touchline before being swiped down by defender Daniel Lovitz. The referee initially waved play on, ruling no penalty. However, after a VAR review, he was sent to the monitor. Despite clear contact that took Sullivan’s legs out from under him, the referee ultimately stood by his decision, leaving fans and players frustrated. Given Daniel Gazdag’s strong penalty-taking history, a successful spot-kick would have leveled the match at 2-2, with the home crowd ready to push the Union forward toward a potential game-winner.

Instead, less than ten minutes later, the game was sealed with another controversial call. A long throw-in led to a challenge inside the box between Union defender Jakob Glesnes and Nashville forward Hany Mukhtar. Both players fairly attacked the ball in the air, but after stopping play for potential head injuries, the referee once again turned to the monitor. After an extended review, he ruled that Glesnes had unfairly charged into Mukhtar’s back, awarding a penalty to Nashville. The visitors converted from the spot, making it 3-1 and effectively ending any hope of a Union comeback.

Fans left Subaru Park with a bad taste in their mouths, feeling the game had been influenced by questionable refereeing decisions. The frustration was only heightened when PRO (Professional Referee Organization) later released its weekly analysis, “The Definitive Angle,” which reviews VAR decisions across MLS. Out of eight calls analyzed, two from this match were reviewed. Regarding the Sullivan penalty decision, PRO stated:

“The referee maintained his original decision of no penalty, believing the direction of the challenge from Lovitz was in front of, and not deliberately into, his opponent. Lovitz took a risk by going to ground with his leg in the air. This was a tripping offense, and a penalty should have been awarded.”

The acknowledgment that a penalty should have been given only reinforced the belief that this was a turning point in the match. Often, in situations like Sullivan’s, the attacker is favored, making it particularly unlucky for the Union not to receive the call.

PRO also addressed the controversial penalty awarded against Glesnes, stating:

“The VAR determined that Glesnes committed an offense by charging Mukhtar in the back. Due to the subjective nature of the upper body challenge, PRO would have preferred that no review be initiated.”

This statement suggests that there was no clear indication of a foul and that the play should not have been reviewed in the first place. While it was appropriate for the referee to stop play for medical attention, the decision to overturn the no-call sent the wrong message – almost as if the Union were being punished for fairly challenging for the ball. Glesnes had every right to compete for the header; Mukhtar simply ran in front of him. Soccer is a physical, contact-heavy sport, and sometimes these challenges happen.

While Union fans and players received the clarification they were looking for, it doesn’t change the result. The 3-1 loss stands, and they must move forward. Fortunately, the team responded well, securing a hard-fought 1-0 victory over St. Louis City despite missing several key players on international duty. The win was crucial in proving the squad’s depth.

Looking ahead, the Union will aim to build on their momentum when they take on Inter Miami and Lionel Messi on March 29th in what promises to be another major test.