This is essentially true in college. I watch a decent amount of my alma mater, and we're very good -- but we run a system that is reliant on the subs. It's smothering, but the soccer is not pretty. It's particularly bad for development. I have a friend who runs an AAU basketball team, and at the lower levels his frustration is the insistence of every coach on pressing like hell instead of teaching good positional defense. The kids really never learn to defend by swarming young player who won't know how to beat it for years, and the kids on the other side struggle to develop skillsets because when you aren't great with the ball, it's overwhelming. Meanwhile, you don't even see pressure much at the college level anymore because handles have gotten too good once you are older. I don't think the top flight will become like college or it will be as devastating with the one break a half and five subs -- it's simply not enough. But you're right it's moving soccer slightly closer to be a sprint sport than an endurance sport. I bet it helps us this World Cup, though, if we keep pressing.
Yep 100% speculation. But the other option is to believe that FIFA is introducing these water breaks, even in domed stadiums, out of the goodness of their hearts and genuine care and concern for the welfare of the players. I'll go with my theory.
Or to set it up as part of the next round of negotiations. FIFA giving a gift to Fox is absurd on its face in the context of the contract--if Fox had agreed to pay more, I'd totally be behind them as instigators. The breaks when called for by weather are already ingrained and not new. All that is new is that they take place in all games (and, I suppose, FIFA not being outraged if broadcasters cut away for commercials during them).
I remember them and didn't like them at the time partially because I was concerned about them being the thin end of a wedge that would eventually end up with commercial breaks. And here we are. But I also remember that they were only implemented in actual hot weather conditions. They weren't introduced across every game preemptively. Maybe this still gets introduced if another country hosts it. But introducing it when the host countries fans, and broadcasters, are already used to commercial breaks in their sports does make it easier. That may be a silver lining. I do think the five sub rule has led to more late drama. And allowing coaches to organize their teams might lead to more complex attacks and more goals. Not entirely convinced myself but possible for sure. But even if it does I'm worried that it's another step towards unlimited substitutions which is where this ends up. it will allow the clubs to bring in my revenue by playing more games with the stars in them. Not saying it happens next season but expect the discussion to begin under the guise of "Player Safety", sound familiar?
The breaks help both. FOX gets the revenue now but FIFA gets to point to the extra revenue fox generated this time around in their next negotiations. And whatever private feelings there are in Switzerland about FOX it is in FIFA's best interest for Fox to have a successful and profitable world cup. But I guess I need to ask what do you think is happening here? Do you really believe this is just in the interest of the players? Ding ding. This is the issue. The issue is not the Hydration breaks themselves, it's the decision to implement them across all matches, make them 3 minutes long, and allow broadcasters to break away for commercials. That's the issue. And what I am curious about is who made those decisions and why? I suspect Fox was heavily involved, and it was for money.
I wasn’t talking about the fact they existed. I was talking about who pushed for them and who resisted. FIFA was literally sued in Brazilian court by the Brazilian players association and there was a court order mandating they be implemented or FIFA was going to pay massive fines for every game they didn’t do them. If FIFA really wanted to turn this into a money grab…they would have mandated split screen adverts…as all in broadcast advertising is controlled by FIFA (in broadcast meaning live feed…not breaks in coverage for commercial breaks). FIFA didn’t mandate commercial breaks. They have networks the option. So if Americans really want to kick and scream at anyone…blame the ********ing Australians. They gave us Murdoch.
You are correct, FIFA didn't mandate advertisements... But prior to this WC, FIFA did not allow a broadcaster to cut away to a commercial during the half. In fact, shortly before this WC, FIFA had to modify their own rules to allow for cutting to commercial. So, while the option is now up to the broadcaster, the broadcaster didn't have a choice prior to this WC. Why did FIFA open up the option? For the health of the players, most certainly...
Could there be a clause in the contract that gives FIFA a percentage of ads during breaks? I do not think there could be but it is not inconsistent with FIFA's overall behavior. Also you have the possibility/probability of kickbacks. That, also, is not outside of FIFA's normal behavior.
FIFA gets the revenue from split screens and all in stadium ad rights. The networks get the money from all the other ads. FIFA makes way more money selling broadcast rights than in game advertising rights. Networks pay money for those broadcasting rights…they then MAKE money selling ad blocks. If FIFA takes the ad money…the broadcast rights are worthless.
Well, who didn't see this coming: https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...nsiders-using-hydration-breaks-all-world-cups
At Norway Senegal last night it was satisfying in the stadium to hear the chorus of boos when the game went to each hydration break. You don’t catch that on the TV audio but it was clearly disliked in person, loudly.
It's here to stay and there's nothing to be done about it. [It did start with noble intentions. For outdoor games under extremely hot conditions, the players got a break. Then the coaches started using it as a real time-out to work with players. And the tv stations (plus FIFA) saw it as a chance to get additional advertising in.]
A related article (Athletic paywall): https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7379136/2026/06/24/hydration-breaks-fifa-world-cup-players/ Jedi's quote is interesting. When he tried to get back on the field after a water break the ref wouldn't let him: “The referees are saying: ‘No, you’ve got more time, it’s alright, because the ads are still running’,” Robinson said.
Talking about American traditions, looking for this in the Turkey game. 4s up in the hydration break??? pic.twitter.com/ZQBTpKY2YB— PFT Commenter (@PFTCommenter) June 24, 2026
I was against the hydration break as it really protects Euro teams that can't handle heat but after watching other changes such as you have to come off for ay=t least a minute if you stay down too long, five seconds on throwins and what 10 seconds on ? I'm ok with the tradeoff. No more pretend time wasting injuries that sucked all of the joy out of the game. No more walking back and forth looking for the perfect throw in. I think overall there is actually less wasted time and we all know it's coming and it mostly doesn't favor any side whereas time wasting made it hell if your team was behind facing a dark arts team.
I certainly get why they do the hydration break and I certainly understand the frustration behind why most fans don't like it. Yes, it does disrupt the flow of the game and especially if one team has the momentum going for them when the hydration break comes into play. I also get the heat and humidity of the thing and the whole logic for the safety of the players. I honestly don't think it is going away anytime soon.