The hydration breaks at this year’s World Cup have been one of the most controversial introductions to the tournament in the US, but the criticism does not outweigh the health benefits.
Football fans often malign change. Anything that challenges the status quo, like the hydration breaks happening at the 2026 World Cup, often comes with intense scrutiny.
Whether its VAR or even something as frivolous such as a five second rule for a throw-in, football has slowly diverged into a sport being defined by rules that has fans passionately supporting or criticising them from whichever end of the landscape they fall on.
More often than not, if you are one of those fans in support of a new rule, you will often get chastised for your stance, so here’s my assertation… the hydration breaks at the 2026 World Cup are too overly criticised.
Hydration breaks did not come out of the blue. They were introduced during the inaugural 2025 FIFA Club World Cup which was staged in the US, with FIFA confirming they will be enforced during the World Cup.
The three-minute intervals for each of the first and second halves of World Cup games have been criticised for commercial gain, being used as de facto breaks in play to mirror the quarterly breaks in most US sports.
Others may point to the break in momentum of matches, and, while this may be valid in certain cases, the heat in a majority of World Cup host cities is an unavoidable factor. It’s the reason why hydration breaks have been implemented in the first place, for the protection of the players.
How broadcasters choose the capitalise on hydration makes is a different matter. Just because they come with ad breaks in the US, doesn’t mean the breaks in play aren’t warranted.
Hydration breaks are necessary for player welfare
FIFA is often criticised for its treatment of players under Gianni Infantino’s Presidency.
During his tenure, Infantino created up to seven additional games after the 2024/25 season for players to compete in a revamped Club World Cup nobody asked for. As players called on FIFA to find measures to protect their welfare, FIFA and the player’s global union responded.
A World Weather Attribution report found that upon the recommendation of the global player’s union FIFPRO, temperatures reaching or exceeding 26°C becomes a risk for player welfare and hydration breaks must be implemented.
At this year’s World Cup, 26 games are expected to reach or exceed the 26°C threshold, with nine stadiums unable to provide air conditioning to combat this.
FIFPRO, made up of active and retired players, have even argued that games being played at 28°C or higher are unsafe and should be cause for abandonment.
So far, six of the first 24 games at the World Cup have been played at 28°C or above, primarily in Texas and Florida. Luckily, there were no major health risks to players and no games were postponed.
However, if a World Cup game this summer were to be postponed, would you as a fan now be calling for hydration breaks if it meant the game were to be played at its scheduled kick-off time?
Assimilating to US sports customs
Another criticism for the hydration breaks has been they have been disguised as commercial ‘ad breaks’ for FIFA to accommodate broadcast ad revenue and showcase their premium sponsors.
This was spotlighted during FOX’s US broadcast of the opening game at the tournament, during Mexico’s 2-0 win over South Africa, when its three-minute full-screen commercials ran for 40 seconds.
FOX were cautioned by FIFA and has yet to be repeated since, but any non-US fan using this as a battering stick to hit FIFA with is a non-starter.
However, this is par for the course when it comes to US sports broadcasting, which knows how to generate money better than any in the world.
The BBC reported the average 30 second World Cup ad on FOX earns the broadcaster between $200,000-$300,000, with ads for US games costing a further $750,000. This is set to generate $250m in ad revenue for FOX across the World Cup.
Turn on a NFL or NBA game, this is standard practice and many international fans of either sport have already come accustomed to this.
The World Cup has an ethical spirit of bringing countries all across the globe to understand one another’s culture and share their love of the game with one another.
Whether the US’ sporting culture is a lot more capitalistic than that of England, Brazil or Argentina, shouldn’t we at least come to understand this rather than criticise a country still looking to foster a new generation of football, or soccer, player and fan.
This is not going to last forever
In the social media age, people are quick to outrage but once the steam from their keypads simmers down, they will often forget what they were even angry about.
Hydration breaks are not mandatory, they have been brought in especially for the 2026 World Cup and will not be used until at least another four years, depending on how warm Spain, Portugal and Morocco are in the summer of 2030.
UEFA thought it made the honourable distinction by recently announcing EURO 2028 will not have any hydration breaks.
I know many in the UK right now (24 June 2026) are battling another unbearable heatwave, but would Brits and Irish people be surprised if all EURO 2028 games across the UK and Ireland barely touched 26°C?
There will also be no hydration breaks across Europe leagues once the 2026/27 starts in August.
So, for those outraged or feel as if football has come into disrepute due to three minute in-game breaks for players to take extra precautions, some changes are needed more than they need to be criticised.
