Penalty verdicts: who benefits and who suffers from Saudi Pro League refereeing calls
27 November 2025
Penalty misses and miscalls dominate this season’s Saudi Pro League
Saudi arbitration expert Fahd Al-Mardasi identifies who gains and who pays from refereeing decisions on penalties in the current Saudi Pro League season.
Nine rounds have been completed before the league paused for the Saudi national team’s participation in the 2025 Arab Cup in Qatar.
Unawarded penalties: Al-Mardasi noted that world-wide debate about refereeing persists, even at World Cups, with penalties being a frequent flashpoint. He stated that 11 penalties have not been awarded in the league up to the end of the ninth round.
Al Ahli emerges as the side most harmed by missed penalties, with four not awarded—two against Ettifaq and Hazm, plus two in the Riyadh match.
With Neom partnering, Al Hilal sits second in the list, receiving two unawarded penalties against Riyadh and Ettifaq.
Next in line are Al Nasr, Al Shabab, and Ettifaq, each with one unawarded penalty against Al Fayha, Al Akhdood, and Al Hilal, respectively.
The most fortunate in not seeing the correct penalty given against them is Al Riyadh, which benefited from four such non-awarded penalties (including two against Al Ahli and one against Al Hilal and Neom).
Second in that tally is Ettifaq, with two incorrect penalties not awarded against Al Ahli and Al Hilal.
Meanwhile, five teams did not suffer a single incorrect non-awarded penalty: Al Hilal, Al Fayha, Al Khaleej, Al Hazm, and Al Akhdood.
Five penalties were wrongly awarded in the opposite direction. Al Nasr benefited the most, with two incorrect penalties given against Al Fayha and Neom. By contrast, Al Fateh, Al Hilal, and Al Ittihad benefited from one incorrect penalty each, awarded in matches versus Al Hilal, Al Fateh, and Al Fayha respectively.
Regarding the most harmed by these lists, Al Fayha leads with two incorrect penalties against them (in matches vs Al Nasr and Al Ittihad). Following them are Al Hilal, Al Fateh, and Neom, each with one incorrect penalty against them in matches versus Al Fateh, Al Hilal, and Al Fayha respectively.
Al-Mardasi argued that such statistics are natural in football and noted that some teams do not appear in these lists, while others appear as both beneficiaries and victims over time. He asserted that, across leagues worldwide, there are always winners and losers from officiating errors and that foreign referees are not guaranteed to perform better. He also rated Saudi referees this season around 8/10 and foreign referees around 7.8–7.9/10, urging the referees committee to refresh the pool and consider capable foreign officials when clubs request them, given the financial stakes involved.
Two Saudi referees, Khaled Al-Treis and Mohammed Al-Huwaish, are on the 2026 World Cup list, underscoring ongoing efforts to elevate local officiating. On workload, Al-Mardasi suggested that a single referee overseeing multiple matches for one team is not a problem and compared it to the English Premier League’s rotation among top officials. He urged the committee to bring in more new local referees and to continue engaging strong foreign referees as clubs can pay for them.
Punchline 1: If penalties were a dating app, the referee would ghost you—great matches, awful calls.
Punchline 2: Referees are like weather forecasts—often wrong, but fans still bring umbrellas to the stadium.
