I don’t care, I just get my own drink. And the game is always evolving so I don’t care about two extra opportunities for coaching and tactical adjustments.
I don't mind that the game changes, but I do think that any changes should be carefully considered for the betterment of the game. This changes the game for cash profit with no real consideration for what it does to the game. I would say that all the recent changes -- "hydration breaks," five subs -- all lend themselves to helping this version of the United States. We're not an especially high soccer IQ team nor have we played a lot together or have a lot of cultural DNA. But we do have a high level coach. These breaks probably help us more than Spain or Brazil or Switzerland. And since we are pressing like madmen, having a three minute break each half and five subs is super helpful. I also am not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but this one is real. More and more ads are creeping in, and two things I like about soccer are the lack of breaks and the fact that coaches don't constantly direct things. If I were sports czar, I'd actually make all American Football teams call their plays from the huddle or go no huddle.
I think you mis-spelled 'FIFA'. This has ZERO to do with the 'Yanks', as it applies to all matches (hint - some are NOT in the US). So yes, FIFA are yearning for easy ways to make more money with commercials.
I’m less prone to purity arguments given that soccer is the sport with big ads front and center on club jerseys. That was a real culture shock when I first found out about Euro soccer, but it didn’t take long to normalize it and just focus on the actual game. Even here expanding the tournament to 48 teams seems a much more obvious cash grab to me than a water break, so I can’t muster the energy to be upset.
It's not a purity argument for me. It's a reduction in my enjoyment for the enrichment of others. I simply don't think the product is as good.
It's the commercial more than the break that bothers me. I'm so used to watching a 45+ block of soccer. There were always the occasions of various stoppages and delays, but those were treated as part of the story. Abruptly leaving the broadcast coverage feels incongruous. It feels like halftime, but not enough has happened for it to be halftime yet.
I know there is speculation, but is there any evidence that Fox had anything to do with this? Fox already had its contract, so what leverage did it have on FIFA to make a change?
It 100% degrades the viewing experience. Yesterday it seemed every big goal was followed within 5 minutes by a stoppage. Call it a stoppage, that's what it is.
FIFA and Fox are not really on good terms, so I doubt this was done for Fox. The reality is that FIFA is almost certainly doing this so that the next winner of the World Cup TV/Streaming rights has to pay a shitload more, not specifically for Fox.
What I imagine they'll start doing within the next year or 2, once the dust settles from this WC and they discuss all the feedback--at least for big games like the WC, CL, etc--is keep hydration breaks and cut to commercial as the default, and offer a paid subscription model to access a broadcast that stays with the commentary during the break.
Bingo, this has little to nothing to do with the broadcasters this time around, but FIFA is looking to the future. Don't be surprised if other competitions see it and implement something similar.
Yup, people are blaming the US Fed or Fox, this is 100% FIFA. They wanted it when negotiating the TV deal.
I can picture it now: A men's Euro match played at the height of winter in some parts of Germany at about 2 degrees C and moderate snow falling and they have a mandatory hydration break and the teams use pop-up warming huts on the sideline. Somehow it just seems somewhat less than intelligent although there are some matches I remember in the old west Germany where I would have welcomed the break and a good belt of strong German coffee, or at least what they called "coffee." It gets COLD playing goal in Germany for a decent team where you have long periods of playing spectator and it is snowing. I felt better after my coach introduced me to the joys of wearing panty hose under my uniform. It is a secret that many women hide judiciously so we men "think" they are tougher than they really are. Besides the hose actually provided extra support and made minor bumps and pulls feel better. The only problems were a few of my teammates kept teasing me but that was very minor compared to the extra warming I received and being more comfortable made me a better player. After a short while a few of the field players began wearing them as well and, because of the wear and tear the local shops had trouble keeping the double extra large in stock during winter.
It’s good to stay hydrated. I think FIFA should also mandate a healthy breakfast. It is after all the most important meal of the day.
The break gives you a chance to take a break yourself- place a bet, relieve yourself, get some food, check BS, etc. As long as it is one break within 45 minutes, I can accept it. But NO MORE than that.
People in an uproar over the hydration breaks say nothing about guys getting “treatment” on the field for several minutes before running back on without so much as a limp as soon as play restarts. I’ll take the one water break per half over the multiple stoppages for “injured” players. Though it’d be nice to eliminate both.
Just so you guys know, Major League Rugby, the USA's pro Rugby Union competition, also has hydration breaks, but after 20 minutes in each half. The Rugby World Cup currently does not have hydration breaks, unless it's above 90 F / 32 C iirc. Rugby Union has two, 40-minute halves and when the ball goes out of play after the 40th or 80th minute, it's either half-time or full-time respectively.
Except FIFA don’t make money off the tv ads…the networks do. FIFA sells the broadcast rights…the networks sell that ad blocks.
This is wrong. Broadcasting rights for this World Cup were awarded almost a decade ago. The mandatory break decision was 6 months ago.
I realize the FIFA are supposed to always be the big bad boogie man in the eyes of fans everywhere…but it is actually the feds, their medical staffs that pushed for hydration breaks. And the reason it became mandatory and consistent is because the feds and their managers bitched about the arbitrary nature of the ad hoc referee decisions of when to start…or to even have one. Then there is the issue of fairness when your playing a team and you didn’t get a break to adjust tactically to what they were doing when the team your competing to advance to the next round did. Climate change is real. It is hotter in the summer now. If you want to watch international football tournaments that don’t kill players…this is the only way it happens.
Do you have a link to any article that cites what you're stating here? I'm not talking about the climate change part.