I don't agree with that. VAR has the potential to achieve that, hut the way it is implemented, it makes matters much, much worse.
Prior to VAR when all officiating was done on the pitch, officials had the scrutiny of 50,000 people to worry about. Their decisions would be analysed by Sky and MOTD and they would have to turn up next week in front of another 50,000. There is not much they can do about their own incompetence, but their ability to blatantly cheat is highly moderated. Make too many dreadful calls and questions may be asked and you must get find yourself dropping down the refereeing pecking order.
VAR drives a coach and horses through this. Faceless, unaccountable people in a dark room 100's if miles away can do WTF they like. Critically they can let pass the infringements they want to let pass, whilst ruling over the ones they do not. No-one in the stand saw the ball hit Laporte's arm. What other infringements happened which no-one saw, but the VAR team did see, but chose to ignore? We have no idea.
In the Spurs game I don't think there were any actually (the Rodri penalty, we all saw, and they still managed to ignore that!).
But what if the game had been different and a ball had struck a Spurs players arm, just as it supposedly hit Laporte's? What's to stop corrupt officials simply choosing to ignore it?
No, if VAR is to diminish bad decisions and downright cheating, it needs to be MUCH more transparent. For example, why is the VAR data, ALL of the VAR data not available for public scrutiny? Or at least for scrutiny by all the clubs? If fairness, neutrality and better decisions are the true motive, then surely that would be an obvious thing to do.
I don't think that is the motive however, at least not the entire motive. It offers the opportunity to improve decision-making overall and I am guessing it will do that. But it also offers a perfect cover for the manipulation of results. It's absolutely ideal as it stands, to do that.