I’ve made this point as infinitum but the fact that they allow their own biases to affect their performances IS EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE SHIT AT THEIR JOBS.
And the fact that they let their biases affect them, often consistently, and the fact that the current refereeing set up and leadership allows this, without scrutiny and accountability, is really all anyone is claiming, because absent hand-written, signed confessions, that's all we can know. And it's a very big thing, which you seem to be trying to dial down. 'Oh it's only that they are shit at their jobs'. As if that weren't monumentally unacceptable.
You are probably never going to get the 'evidence' that you, and some others, seem to require. Maybe it's "just" shitness, maybe there is more to it for certain individuals. Who knows? The outcome is the same and that's the important bit, not whether you can absolve yourself that you didn't agree with a 'conspiracy theory'.
And one should not let oneself get too distracted by the way people express their anger and frustration. For example:
There are several groups which think that there is a clear unified favouritism of Manchester United, many of those people (including numerous on this forum) have thrown around various explanations for this, last season it was to get them into Europe as pre-lockdown that was unlikely (for the CL at least), this season it was because they ‘wanted a title race’ (which didn’t really happen as it was done in terms of a competition by March) - thinking that groups of people have combined together to dishonestly influence something to achieve a certain (favourable for them) result is a conspiracy theory.
All sorts of suggestions get thrown about as people try and understand why very bad refereeing is allowed to go on. No one is really making specific and detailed claims about an organised conspiracy, and therefore the 'conspiracy thoerist' putdown is unwarranted and is usually used to try and shut down the conversation because some people find it awkward, or they are afraid 'other fans' will take the piss and so on.
And while we're on the subject it's not true that groups have to combine together to have pretty significant affects. There only needs to be a general notion in the air - for example if it was voiced early on by, say the broadcasters, in one of the interminable meetings, that they really hope there's a more equal title race this year and Liverpool don't run away with it again, then it wouldn't need anything more for, for example, an individual ref to think that he agreea and to do what he can to make this happen. No collusion needed, though of course people, even refs, talk to each other and we all influence each other. Quite noticeable affects can occur by accident, so to speak, (or maybe by seeding an idea if you take a propaganda-led view of the media - are we allowed to do that?). The world, in other words is complex. Looking the other way and insisting there's no-one behind the curtain rarely leads to truths. This applies as much to the trivialities as it does to the biggest and most urgent areas of life because, I repeat, people are people.
In terms of your point about referees being subject to bias etc etc, i totally agree and a quick search of my posts will show I’ve being banging that drum for months. The good referees are less influenced by those points and they just do the job.
The point here, though, is that the refereeing structure currently in place does not even acknowledge this possibility or have protocols in place to ensure proper scrutiny, constant accountability, training and re-training and so on. Instead it's mostly a bunch of guys in a private organisation allowed to do what they want and covering each others' backs, while earning telephone number salaries, while a strangely complaisant media looks on. This would be unacceptable even if there were no noticeable consequences, and is well worth shouting about over and over again, even if yer mates do take the piss.
