Infantino opens the door to permanent hydration breaks: after the 2026 World Cup, FIFA must decide whether the rhythm of football is changing
FIFA president Gianni Infantino has indicated that hydration breaks, one of the most visible and most controversial rules at the 2026 World Cup, could remain part of the biggest football tournaments even after the competition in North America ends. According to an ESPN report, FIFA will consider the possibility that the interruptions introduced to protect players from heat become a broader and longer-term solution, although a final decision has not yet been made. According to the same report, Infantino tried to reconcile two opposing sides of the debate: those who believe that protecting players' health is necessary in increasingly demanding climate conditions and those who warn that football is thereby moving away from its traditional structure of two uninterrupted halves.
The debate gained additional weight because the rule is not applied only in matches played in extreme heat, but in all matches of the tournament. Back in December 2025, FIFA announced that at the 2026 World Cup, every match would include a three-minute hydration break in each half, regardless of weather conditions, temperature, stadium roof or air conditioning. In practical terms, each match thereby received two additional official interruptions, and in the perception of some viewers and coaches the football rhythm began to move closer to a format with four periods of play. It is precisely this change that opened a question that goes beyond the current tournament: is this a temporary safety measure for a particularly hot host environment, or the beginning of a new era in the organization of elite football?
A rule introduced for safety, but without a temperature threshold
According to FIFA's official announcement, hydration breaks were introduced as part of a broader effort to ensure the best possible conditions for players during the 2026 World Cup, which is being held in Canada, Mexico and the United States of America. The tournament is the first in history with 48 national teams and 104 matches, and it is being played in 16 host cities during the period from 11 June to 19 July 2026. FIFA stated that the decision also relies on experiences from the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup, held in the United States of America, where high temperatures and the burden on players had already raised questions of safety, scheduling and performance conditions.
Manolo Zubiria, the chief tournament officer for the American part of the 2026 World Cup, explained in FIFA's announcement that every match would have a three-minute interruption “from whistle to whistle” in both halves. According to that announcement, the referee stops play around the 22nd minute of each half, and the rule applies equally to all teams in order to avoid a situation in which some play with a break and others without one. FIFA thereby standardized a procedure that at earlier major competitions had been applied occasionally, most often when temperature or humidity reached a predetermined level, or when the referee judged that an interruption was necessary.
Such universal application is also what has been most exposed to criticism. In matches played in closed or partially air-conditioned stadiums, as well as in cities with milder conditions, some coaches and commentators question the need for the same regime as in matches under high heat stress. FIFA, on the other hand, argues that a consistent rule reduces the scope for unequal treatment of teams and makes it easier to organize a tournament with a large number of matches, different time zones and very different climate profiles among the host cities. Precisely that tension between simplicity of application and the actual conditions on the pitch is now at the center of the debate.
Heat is a real risk, but experts are asking for more precise measures
The health argument behind FIFA's decision is not disputed in its essence. In an analysis published during the tournament, Associated Press recalled that even top-trained athletes can face illnesses related to exertion in heat, especially when high temperature is combined with humidity, prolonged running and limited opportunities for substitutions. Experts cited by the agency list symptoms such as cramps, extreme fatigue, weaker performance, headache, nausea, dizziness and dehydration, while in the most severe cases of heat stroke there can be confusion, loss of consciousness and other conditions that require urgent medical intervention.
According to data and analysis by the organization Climate Central, climate change is increasing the likelihood of conditions that can impair players' performance in a large number of matches at the 2026 World Cup. The organization estimated that the risk of heat that can affect performance increases in 97 of 104 matches, and that almost half of the matches have at least a 50 percent probability of being played in conditions that can make maximum physical performance more difficult. Climate Central also emphasizes that extremely hot days in the period of June and July are becoming more frequent in almost all host cities, with Miami, Mexico City, Houston and Guadalajara cited as particularly exposed locations.
Still, the expert debate does not end with the claim that breaks should be kept or abolished. Associated Press reports that some scientists believe three minutes can help, but may not be sufficient for significant cooling and rehydration in the toughest conditions. Some experts have called for longer interruptions or a more flexible system in which actual measurement data would be taken into account, including temperature, humidity, solar radiation and wind. In that sense, criticism of FIFA does not come only from football traditionalists, but also from some heat-stress experts who believe that a universal three-minute interruption is not necessarily the most precise medical tool for every situation.
Coaches received an unexpected tactical moment
The most visible football consequence of hydration breaks is the fact that they are not only a physical rest. Although they are officially introduced for rehydration and cooling, during the interruption players gather by the touchline, talk with coaches and technical staffs and often receive direct tactical instructions. Associated Press recorded a statement by Mexico coach Javier Aguirre, who admitted that coaches cannot enter the pitch, but that players can come close to them while drinking water, so staffs can use the moment for corrections during the match. Such a detail explains why part of the football public fears that breaks are changing the very nature of the competition.
IFAB's simplified explanations of the rules distinguish drinks breaks from cooling breaks and state that such interruptions should not become coaching sessions. In the practice of a major tournament, however, the line between a health measure and a tactical meeting is difficult to maintain. When players are already gathered by the bench, and the coach has three minutes in a situation in which he would otherwise be able to communicate only by shouting, it is natural that this space will be used to change the plan, calm the team or stop the opponent's momentum. That is why opponents of the rule warn that the additional break cannot be viewed only through a medical lens.
According to available reports, Infantino saw a possible positive side precisely in that element. His message that a short rest gives coaches an opportunity for additional communication, so “maybe it is not bad” that football gets such a moment, shows that FIFA does not view breaks exclusively as an unwanted interruption. But that statement simultaneously deepens the dilemma: if the rule was introduced for health reasons, should its future also be justified by tactical value? The answer to that question will be important for the decision on whether breaks will remain an exception for extreme conditions or become a standard of major competitions.
Criticism concerns not only the pitch but also the broadcast
Another layer of the debate concerns television broadcasts and commercial space. ESPN reported that FIFA presented the decision as a measure for player welfare, but that critics also pointed to commercial motives, especially after it was made possible for certain rights holders to show advertisements during the breaks. For viewers in many countries, football is traditionally a sport in which advertisements are shown before the match, at halftime and after the final whistle, not during the active flow of the match. Hydration breaks have therefore opened space for a viewing experience closer to sports with customary interruptions, which part of the audience sees as a disruption of football's identity.
FIFA publicly emphasizes that the primary goal is player protection and equal conditions for all national teams. Still, the fact that the interruptions take place at a predictable point in each half creates a television rhythm that can be commercially planned. That does not mean that the health argument is invalid, but it explains why the suspicions of some fans and commentators relate not only to the sporting side but also to the business side of the decision. At a time when the World Cup is bigger than ever, with more matches, more markets and a greater global reach, every change in the structure of the game is also viewed through the question of revenue.
For FIFA, this is a delicate balance. If the breaks are perceived as a sincere and effective safety solution, they will be easier to defend in the future as well. If, however, the impression becomes entrenched that they have turned into a concealed advertising window or a tool for turning football into a format with quarters, resistance will probably grow. In that sense, the debate about hydration is in fact also a debate about the limits of commercialization in a sport whose continuity of play is one of its main distinctive features.
FIFA announces analysis before a decision on future competitions
According to the available information, FIFA will not make a final conclusion on the long-term application of hydration breaks before analyzing the effect of the rule after the 2026 World Cup. Such an analysis would have to cover more than the simple question of whether players had enough time for water. The key criteria should include health data, the number and type of medical interventions, actual weather conditions at stadiums, reactions from national teams, the impact on stoppage time, the quality of play, broadcast viewership and audience feedback. Only such a broader approach can show whether the breaks are an effective protective measure or too blunt an instrument for very different conditions.
One possibility is that FIFA keeps the breaks, but in the future links them to clearer temperature and meteorological thresholds. Another is that the rule continues to be applied universally at competitions played in periods and regions with high heat risk. A third possibility would be a hybrid model, in which every match would have a predefined medical protocol, but the activation of longer or shorter interruptions would depend on measurements on the pitch. Such an approach could reduce accusations that breaks are being introduced even where they are not needed, while at the same time preserving a safety net for matches in dangerous conditions.
Infantino's openness to keeping the rule shows that FIFA does not view hydration breaks as a technical detail, but as a potential response to a broader change in the conditions in which global football is played. Climate risks, increasingly crowded calendars, larger tournaments and ever greater television demands are creating pressure on the traditional model of the match. That is why the decision after 2026 will have consequences not only for World Cups, but also for the way in which player health, the integrity of the game and commercial interests are balanced in the future.
A change that touches the identity of the game
For decades, football has differed from many other globally popular sports precisely because the game unfolds in two long periods with minimal interruptions. That structure is not only a technical rule, but part of the way teams build rhythm, protect a lead, endure pressure and react to changes without the possibility of constant consultations with the bench. A hydration break therefore changes not only the schedule for fluid intake, but also the psychology of the match. A team under pressure gets an opportunity to calm down, the coach gets a moment for correction, and an opponent that is on the rise can lose momentum.
On the other hand, professional football can no longer pretend that climate conditions have not become an important organizational factor. If matches are played in high temperatures, in humid conditions and in front of millions of spectators in stadiums and on screens, organizers have a responsibility to reduce predictable risks. The question is not whether players should be protected, but how to do so without unnecessarily disrupting sporting continuity. That is exactly why the future of hydration breaks will depend on whether FIFA succeeds in proving that they are medically justified, sporting-wise fair and commercially transparent.
For now, the only certainty is that the breaks have become one of the main topics of the 2026 World Cup. A rule presented as a practical protective measure has grown into a debate about where elite football is heading in a time of increasingly extreme weather conditions and ever stronger business pressures. If, after the tournament, FIFA decides that the interruptions will continue at future competitions, it will have to explain more clearly when they are truly necessary, how long they should last and how to prevent a health measure from becoming another form of commercial or tactical reshaping of the game.
Sources:
- FIFA / Inside FIFA – official announcement on mandatory hydration breaks at the 2026 World Cup and the organizational context of the tournament (link)
- ESPN – report on Gianni Infantino's announcement that FIFA is considering keeping hydration breaks at future World Cups (link)
- Associated Press – analysis of criticism, health effects and expert reactions to hydration breaks during the 2026 World Cup (link)
- Climate Central – analysis of heat risk and the possible impact of heat on player performance during the 2026 World Cup (link)
- IFAB / Football Rules – explanation of the rules on drinks and cooling breaks in football (link)