The simple answer to this is that they're human. I mean footballers get stuff wrong every week don't they, and they're the best of the best in a much, much more competitive field, and are being paid an awful lot more. One of the biggest things with refereeing that always gets overlooked is that for the most part it's subjective. We try to pretend that the laws of the game are objective and absolute but they aren't, it's a subjective call as to whether there's enough contact for someone to go down or a hand is an unnatural position or whatever. That's why when people say 'yeah but look at this thing that happened in another game where a different decision was reached' it's pointless, because it will always be a subjective call.
Always?
Sometimes maybe, but a foul and a dive are, generally speaking, pretty easy to determine with the aid of an instant replay of the event. Even opposition supporters -who are infamously biased- will often times admit these days that a VAR call got it completely and totally wrong.
There are always influencing factors that could sway a person towards making a decision that he wouldn't otherwise have made, even if that does not mean outright brown envelopes.
Corruption can operate on a subconcious or subliminal level. For example if you were a games reviewer on youtube, and one company started sending you boat loads of free stuff or giving you exclusive interviews, the next time you reviewed their product, even if you were not actually bribed or corrupt yourself, you might still find yourself being swayed and giving them favorable reviews, or even convincing yourself that it was the best game you ever played!
This happens all the time, and I don't think it is out and out corruption as it doesn't need to be, just manipulation. I think the same kind of thing applies in football or anywhere where there are stack loads of cash riding on one mans decision making. Refs who have careers will probably know on some level how best to stay onside (pardon the pun) their very powerful bosses.
So while I don't think refs are outright bribed, I do think when it comes to certain teams and certain narratives they can be influenced consciously or unconsciously to vote in a certain way.
Everton are terrible in how they deal with the refs, but Man U who have Ole (who knows all about dealing with refs from Fergies era) are known for getting the calls. How many pens have they had this season compared to us (actually asking)? Former united players though have admitted that they knew how to influence and deal with them. We just meekly slink away!
Truth is none of us really know (right?) but some of the decisions I have to say have nothing to do with subjectivity, and are just straight up wrong! No matter who one supports. This subjectivity argument is something I see alot in the media but to me its a fox news tactic. Nothing is true and therefore pretty much anything they like can be true or permissible!
Most of the time (not always I agree) I can see with my own eyes if a player was fouled, offside or if he dived.
