No that's exactly what I'm not saying. Read what I wrote:

Now I'm not saying the referee can not influence events, but in 99% of games at the top the level the outcome of that game lies in the hands of the players, and not the referee. Italy and Spain still had their destiny in their own hands if they had simply tucked away a few of their chances.

Okay, sure 99% was hyperbole, but the point still stands. You are in control of your destiny as players, you can control whether or not you take your chances, you can't control shitty refereeing. When Liverpool beat Milan in 2005 does anyone complain about the absolutely blatant handball from Nesta in the box at 1-0? No, nobody complains about that because Liverpool came back and won. Liverpool overcame a travesty of a decision by taking their chances when they came and defending brilliantly.

Madrid, Bayern, Chelsea, Barca, Inter - the last 5 Champions League winners won those trophies on the merit of their players.

Chelsea, City, United and Arsenal all won the Premier League based on the merits of their players?

Do we say Germany, Spain, italy, Brazil or France benefited from refereeing decisions to win the last 5 World Cups? - No, they won it because they fucking deserved too.

Referee's can affect the outcome of games, but it's the players themselves who determine the outcome of just about every game ever played. Otherwise it would be a fucking pantomime of a sport if you think games and championships are decided by referees. Hell, the worst decision of last season was Sterling being called offside against City at the Etihad when he was about two yards on.

Sterling scores that and Liverpool win the League come May. But it wasn't that linesman that cost us the title, it was Gerrard's slip and the inability to break Chelsea down, along with shitty defeats to Southampton and Hull at the beginning of the season.

Yes, referee's can have an effect, sometimes a big effect, but players win and lose you games.