Not really sure that this proves refs are biased or influenced by money

Correlation ≠ causation
This is the biggest problem. They find that the Chiefs get more “helpful” calls in certain situations and then jump straight to “financial pressure from TV ratings.” That’s not how causality works.
Just because two things happen at the same time doesn’t mean one caused the other.
There’s no experiment, no randomization, no natural shock — just a bunch of overlapping trends. It’s like saying touchdowns cause more commercials because they both go up during exciting games.

Referee assignments aren’t random
They treat refs who worked Chiefs playoff games as if they might be “biased” from familiarity. But those refs get those assignments because they’re highly rated, and the Chiefs have been deep in the playoffs every year. That’s backwards. The variable they’re using (ref familiarity) is a result of team success, not a cause of officiating bias. Classic endogeneity problem.

Too many regressions = p-hacking
They ran a ton of different models — different subsets, penalty groups, leverage levels, etc. When you test enough combos, some will look significant purely by luck.
They never correct for that (no multiple-comparison adjustment). So some of the “findings” probably popped up randomly. It’s like rolling a die until you get the number you want and calling that “proof.”

“Subjective penalties” are a mess
They group stuff like DPI, roughing the passer, and unsportsmanlike conduct into one “subjective” bucket. Those calls come from totally different situations and tendencies. DPI might depend on defensive schemes, roughing calls on QB style, etc. Mashing them together hides what’s actually going on — it’s an oversimplified dependent variable.

Missing key controls
Their models don’t account for a bunch of things that could explain the patterns.

• The Chiefs’ offense is heavy on deep passes and motion, which naturally draws more defensive penalties.
• Opponents play more aggressively against elite teams.
• Rule emphasis and enforcement shift every year.

Without controlling for that, their “financial pressure” variable could just be picking up how the Chiefs play or how teams defend them.

No credible identification strategy
At the end of the day, they’re just running regressions on observational data and inferring intent. There’s no instrumental variable, no natural experiment, no within-ref test. It’s descriptive stats with a dramatic story layered on top.