FIFA defends mandatory hydration breaks at the World Cup: Infantino rejects claims of a hidden commercial motive
On 24 June 2026, FIFA again defended the mandatory hydration breaks at the World Cup, after stoppages in the 22nd and 67th minutes of matches became one of the most controversial topics of the tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico. FIFA President Gianni Infantino stated, according to Associated Press reports carried by ESPN and The Independent, that the effects of the new rule would be analysed after the tournament, but also that the possibility of keeping it at future World Cups was not being ruled out. FIFA claims that the measure was introduced to protect players, equalise competition conditions and manage physical workload during the expanded tournament. Critics, including some coaches, players, commentators and fans, believe that the breaks disrupt the rhythm of matches and create the impression that football is moving closer to the format of sports with more frequent television stoppages. The debate has been intensified further because the stoppages are carried out in all matches, regardless of weather conditions, including in stadiums with roofs or air conditioning.
How the new rule works
According to FIFA’s official announcement from December 2025, every match at the 2026 World Cup has one three-minute hydration break in each half. FIFA states that the referee stops play around the 22nd minute of each half, that is, approximately in the 22nd and 67th minutes of the match, so that players can replenish fluids and recover briefly. The same announcement specifies that there is no temperature or weather condition that determines whether the break will be applied; instead, it is implemented in all matches to ensure equal conditions for all national teams. Manolo Zubiria, the chief tournament officer for the United States area, said in December at a meeting of world broadcasters that the stoppage would last three minutes “from whistle to whistle”, regardless of the stadium, roof or temperature. FIFA explained at the time that the decision relied on experience from previous tournaments, including the 2025 Club World Cup in the United States.
This difference between classic drink breaks and the current tournament protocol is important for understanding the dispute. The Laws of the Game, issued by IFAB, allow drinks breaks and cooling breaks in accordance with competition rules, while in general football guidelines short drinks breaks are usually distinguished from longer cooling breaks. For the 2026 World Cup, FIFA chose a uniform, automated approach instead of an assessment from match to match. This reduces the scope for debate about whether an individual match is hot enough for play to be stopped, but at the same time it raises the question of proportionality in matches played in more favourable conditions. It is precisely this universality, more than the idea itself of protecting players from heat, that has become the focus of dissatisfaction.
Infantino: FIFA has no additional revenue from the stoppages
In a public appearance on 23 June 2026, Infantino rejected accusations that the breaks had been introduced as disguised advertising blocks. According to ESPN’s report, he stressed that commercial and television contracts had been concluded before the decision on hydration breaks, so FIFA, in his words, does not generate additional revenue from them. SportBible, citing Infantino’s statement, reported his wording that there is “no additional revenue for FIFA” and that, for football’s governing organisation, it is “purely a sporting matter”. In this way, the FIFA president tried to separate two levels of the debate: the fact that some broadcasters may show advertisements during the breaks and the question of whether FIFA derives a direct financial benefit from that. In public perception, this distinction has not always been accepted, especially among viewers who see the interruptions precisely through the television broadcast.
At the same time, Infantino defended the sporting logic of the measure. According to the Associated Press, he said that the stoppage can allow coaches to make a brief correction, and players to recover before returning at a higher intensity. He added that FIFA is seeing an extremely high tempo of matches at this year’s tournament and that it is possible to discuss whether short breaks help maintain such a level of play until the final minutes. In the same explanation, he emphasised the principle of equality: if breaks were applied only in hot matches, the coach of one team would gain an additional opportunity for tactical intervention, while another coach in a similar competitive position, but in cooler conditions, would not have the same opportunity. FIFA, according to that argument, wants to avoid weather conditions indirectly creating different tactical rights within the same competition.
Criticism: stoppages change the rhythm and feel of the match
Part of the criticism does not concern the need to protect players from extreme heat, but the impression that the break is turning into a new structure of the match. Instead of the traditional two halves, many viewers and commentators speak of matches that are practically divided into four shorter segments. TNT Sports reported the assessment of Dutch captain Virgil van Dijk that such stoppages are not good even for neutral television viewers, while England manager Thomas Tuchel said that the breaks interrupt and change the identity of a football match more than he had expected. According to the same source, United States coach Mauricio Pochettino believes that such stoppages should exist only when conditions are extreme. Uruguay coach Marcelo Bielsa, according to British media reports, assessed that the concept of football in quarters “adds nothing, and takes away a lot”.
In practice, the tactical effect of the breaks can be significant. In three minutes, coaches can gather the team, change the height of the press, agree on adjustments in defending set pieces or slow down an opponent’s surge. For a team under pressure, the stoppage can serve as a breather and an opportunity to reorganise, while for a team that is dominating it can interrupt momentum. For that reason, the criticism is not reduced only to viewing comfort, but also to competitive dynamics. FIFA turns precisely that argument in the opposite direction: if the stoppage exists in all matches, all coaches and players know in advance that they will have the same structural moment for adjustment. The debate is therefore being conducted between two principles: equality at the level of protocol and the authenticity of football rhythm at the level of the game itself.
Heat remains a real problem for players and fans
Although the commercial aspect of the debate attracted the most attention, the health context cannot be ignored. The 2026 World Cup is being played during the summer across a wide area of North America, with matches in different climatic conditions, from humid and warm cities to stadiums with partial or complete protection from outside temperatures. FIFA states in its official announcement that, when preparing the schedule, it took into account average temperatures, cooling infrastructure, travel, security, transport and the needs of the television broadcast. The Guardian, in an analysis published during the tournament, stated that some matches had already been played in conditions of serious heat stress according to the WBGT indicator, which takes into account temperature, humidity, solar radiation and wind. Such data support the claim that heat risk is not theoretical, but a real operational problem for organisers.
The international association of professional footballers FIFPRO has for years been calling for stricter protocols for extreme weather conditions. According to FIFPRO guidelines, WBGT values between 28 and 32 degrees Celsius should lead to cooling breaks, and values above 32 degrees should lead to postponement or rescheduling of the match. In another publication, FIFPRO states that a WBGT above 28 degrees, or an air temperature above 36 degrees, should also prompt serious consideration of postponement until conditions become safer for players, officials and the public. These recommendations show that the expert debate is not directed against hydration, but against measures that are too weak or insufficiently precise in the most dangerous conditions. In other words, some experts believe that breaks are useful, but that they are not in themselves a substitute for a broader system of protection against heat stress.
The wider context of a tournament with 48 national teams
This year’s World Cup is the first edition with 48 national teams and 104 matches, which further increases the logistical and physical workload. The tournament is played over 39 days, and national teams that reach the final can play eight matches. In his defence of the measure, Infantino emphasised precisely that aspect, stating that during such a long competition a short moment of rest can be important for players. FIFA claims that the schedule was designed to reduce travel and increase rest days, but the expanded format necessarily brings more matches, more television slots and greater exposure to different climatic conditions. In such a framework, hydration breaks become only one aspect of a broader question: how to organise the biggest football tournament in an era of increasingly pronounced weather risks, major commercial expectations and growing demands for the protection of athletes’ health.
The issue of fans is also part of the same debate. In early June, ESPN reported that FIFA had changed the rules after criticism over the ban on bringing certain water bottles into stadiums and allowed fans to bring one factory-sealed soft plastic bottle of 590 millilitres into matches in the United States and Canada, while hard bottles remained banned for security reasons. FIFA stated at the time that its goal was to protect the health and safety of players, referees, fans, volunteers and staff. That episode showed how sensitive every organisational rule touching on heat, water and stadium consumption is. When advertisements during television breaks are being discussed at the same time, the public more easily connects safety measures with commercial interests, even when the organiser claims that it has no direct additional revenue from a particular decision.
What FIFA could change after the tournament
According to the Associated Press, Infantino announced that FIFA would evaluate the experience of this tournament before making a decision on future World Cups. That leaves at least three possibilities open. The first is retaining universal breaks, with the argument that they are simple, predictable and equal for everyone. The second is a return to a model in which breaks are activated only at certain weather thresholds, which would reduce the number of stoppages in ideal conditions, but would reopen the question of equality in coaching interventions. The third is a hybrid approach, in which the possibility of mandatory breaks would be retained at tournaments with major heat risk, but with clearer criteria, different communication towards viewers and stricter rules on what may be shown in the television broadcast during stoppages.
For FIFA, it is crucial to convincingly explain the boundary between player protection and the commercial product. If advertisements are shown during three-minute breaks in some broadcasts, fans will find it difficult to accept the claim that the measure is only health-related, even if FIFA formally has no additional revenue from already signed contracts. On the other hand, completely rejecting hydration breaks would not be in line with increasingly frequent warnings from doctors, players’ unions and heat-stress experts. The most likely direction of the debate after 19 July 2026 will not be whether football should have hydration and cooling breaks at all, but who activates them, according to which criteria, how long they last and how to prevent a protective measure from becoming, in the eyes of viewers, a symbol of the commercialisation of the game.
In that sense, the current dispute goes beyond one organisational decision at one tournament. It shows how modern football is trying to reconcile health protocols, television rights, the fan experience and the very tradition of the game. FIFA insists that hydration breaks were introduced for the sake of players and the equality of teams, while critics warn that even the best-explained measure can change the experience of a match if it is implemented regardless of the actual conditions on the pitch. The final assessment of this rule will not be given only by an administrative analysis within FIFA, but also by the reactions of players, coaches, broadcasters and fans after the entire tournament. Until then, every break in the middle of a half will remain a reminder of a broader dilemma: how to protect footballers in an increasingly demanding sporting and climatic environment, while preserving the rhythm of the game that made football globally recognisable.
Sources:
- FIFA – official announcement on three-minute hydration breaks at the 2026 World Cup and explanation of the protocol (link)
- ESPN / Associated Press – report on Infantino’s defence of the breaks, the possibility of their use at future tournaments and the claim that FIFA has no additional revenue (link)
- The Independent – report on fan criticism, Infantino’s arguments and the universal application of the breaks (link)
- TNT Sports / SNTV – statements and reactions from coaches and players on the impact of breaks on the identity and rhythm of matches (link)
- FIFPRO – guidelines on extreme heat, WBGT thresholds and recommendations for breaks or match postponement (link)
- IFAB – Law 7 and the framework for match duration, allowance for time lost and permitted stoppages (link)
- The Guardian – analysis of heat stress at 2026 World Cup matches and the context of health risks (link)
- ESPN – report on the change to rules for bringing water bottles into stadiums after public criticism (link)