Hydration break - is there a way to boycot?

Don't know. One Data point is Lalas is defending it and specifically referring to the revenue it brings in as a good thing. So at the very least we know that FOX likes it and is benefitting from it. Also FOX was one of the first to announce they would be showing commercials during the hydration break. it just seems to make more sense that the group that benefits the most financially, in this case FOX, would be the one who floated it first.

Not complaining about Hydration breaks when they are needed. I am totally fine with formalizing a process for Hydration breaks. Specific thresholds at a specific point then communicated to the teams. Personally I would like the decision taken as close to kickoff as reasonable but would even be okay with it announced hours ahead of time. Whatever. Just not six months ahead of time for every venue even climate controlled ones.

I am starting to see the defense "it needs to be in every game to keep it fair" a lot. Someone needs to explain this to me. We are having a World Cup across three different counties, in different stadiums, climate conditions, different referees. Hell even different Immigration Laws changing which players can play, and which fans can watch. Each game is different. So as long as it's fair for both teams playing that day, and the criteria is clear and implemented fairly I don't understand why you can't have hydration breaks when you need them, and skip them when you don't.

And again if the answer is "it's easier to just implement them across all matches" fine but guess what? The sport just went from 2 halves to 4 quarters. That's a pretty fundamental shift.

That feckin drives me nuts too. Happy? Not entirely sure how the two are related though? But I am 100% in favor of rules saying if you require a physio then you are off the field for a proscribed amount of time. MLS has been doing that for a while without a hydration break.

 

Thanks, I've been hoping that would catch on

 

Honestly other than the ads the only thing that bothers me about it is WHY DON'T THEY STOP THE FXCKING CLOCK IT'S 2026

 

I think you are underestimating the impact of a 3 minute break to adjust tactics actually has. Your team and my team play the same opponent….but I got to review my initial game plan for twenty minutes…then got a break to change that game plan and discuss it in detail how we need to react as a team. You didn’t get that opportunity.

We played two very different games under very different rules against the same opponents.

 

But that opponent also got that same opportunity against you but not against them.

 

Unpopular opinion: I don't oppose mandatory water breaks.

 

If the players are made to wait on the sideline for as long as they're on the ground, I can go for that.

 

I do understand it, that's why I don't want it to become the norm. I want this to remain a game determined by the players not the coaches. I love American football but I don't want this to become American football where every aspect is controlled from the sidelines.

In terms of playing the same opponent under different conditions. Yeah that's called sports. Playing a game at 9pm in Seattle when it's 60 degrees, is fundamentally different than playing in KC at noon in ninety degrees. If there is a bad injury and a ten minute break in one game, does every other game now have to take a ten minute break to keep it fair? Every game is it's own unique situation. But as long as both teams on the day are in the same conditions I think it's fair.

Sounds like we agree that these breaks are a major change to the game. I guess where I end up is I would rather prevent the entire game from changing and adopting them, even if it means having some inconsistencies between individual games.

 

In other words, 100% speculation and no evidence re FOX. Of course FOX likes the extra revenue. But the idea FIFA did that to get FOX extra revenue doesn't make sense. FIFA is upset at how cheap they gave FOX the rights and tried unsuccessfully to get out of the contract. Why in the world would they do something for the purpose of helping FOX make even more money from the WC? It just doesn't track. I don't know the extent to which they announced before some of their other deals were cut--and it would increase the market value of those deals they were still making, as well as future tournaments.

 

This was somewhat of a FIFA own goal (the cheap rights to this WC). They awarded TV rights to Qatar…and then decided after to move it to the winter. Fox would have sued FIFA into oblivion….so FIFA awarded the tv rights for this WC for cheap to avoid the inevitable lawsuit.

 

Theory: the water breaks and 5 subs lets coaches and teams be more aggressive, producing better soccer.

 

its FIFA, not Yanks. Yanks don't make the rules of FIFA games.

 

They’re supposed to be making them wait 60 seconds. It seems to have reduced the amount of “injury” stoppages quite a bit.

 

Ask yourself who stands to benefit from hydration breaks. Follow the money. It’s Big Water.

 

You must have not read my follow-up. I know FIFA isn't making extra money on these breaks in this WC, but laying out a plan to keep them and up the FUTURE TV rights money.

 

And you must have ignored the entire history of cooling breaks…which groups pushed for them…and which groups resisted (hint…it’s not the target of this discussion).

Does nobody remember 2014 but me?

 

Are we sure about that? I know they aren't making extra money form Fox, but are there other countries where the rights were sold after the breaks were announced (or perhaps discussed with the broadcasters before they were announced) and FIFA got a better deal on those?

 

Yes we’re sure about that

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/why-fifa-endured-240-million-113000381.html

 

I think a lot of purists will hate them, but in hot weather tournaments I think they are valid. I think that cutting the whole game into quarters is a different story. If so, are the moms going to pass out orange slices after the 1st and 3rd quarters like they did when I was a kid back in the olden days?

 

The thing complicating it is that the commercials have been pretty good. A lot more fun than watching guys spit water.

 

Chris Richards was asked about and said it was a benefit for Euro teams because Americans were used to it and that makes it an advantage for them. So thinking back on how it came about it started at the Brazil WC because the Euros were spazzing out about the heat and humidity. Worked too didn't as Germany won. Would they have if there weren't breaks? probably but who knows as it is a bigger advantage for teams who need it than teams that don't.

 

I do think there's something to that. Teams can play at a high tempo for longer with more breaks and more subs.

If I can be an old man complaining about modern changes, though, this reminds me of one of the classic criticisms of college soccer. When I played (25 years ago now), I think the rule was that you had unlimited subs, but if you take a player off in the first half, he couldn't come back in that half, and then I believe the second half was truly unlimited. People criticized that model because they said it led to games being overly frenetic and chaotic, because everyone could just go 100 mph all the time, and skill and nuanced understanding of the game were less emphasized.

I don't think the modern international game is like that yet, but I think we do see moves in that direction. The midfield maestros who weren't that athletic but who could dictate the pace of the game through their skill and understanding (e.g., Pirlo, Xavi, Busquets, etc.) are basically extinct at this point. As someone who was that sort of player and enjoyed watching those sort of players, I do miss that aspect of the international game, but the faster pace and more frenetic action might be more appealing for younger/more casual fans.

 

Nothing will top this old gem from 2006, though: