When the group stage match between England and Ghana was put on hold for at “hydration break” after 22 minutes, loud boos rang out from the stands of Boston Stadium. The players trudged to the sidelines, and the coaches gathered their teams around them for brief tactical instructions. Just a few days into the World Cup, it had already become clear; no change is polarizing the fans quite like these mandatory interruptions in play.

“As a coach, I would have loved it,” Jürgen Klopp told DW. A few extra minutes for tactical instructions give a team a clear advantage.

However, the former Liverpool and Dortmund manager also voiced criticism.

“There is a problem with the length of the water breaks and what TV broadcasters or FIFA do during them.”

From heat protection to a bone of contention

The rule was introduced officially to help players cope with the summer heat. Matches at this World Cup are stopped twice in addition to the halftime break, at around the 22nd and 67th minutes. Unlike in previous major tournaments or league games, the decision to call a water break isn’t based on how hot it is, although the idea of introducing them came up during last summer’s Club World Cup, when extremely high temperatures were a problem.

At this World Cup, though, the hydration break has become a major bone of contention.

“I don’t like this water break,” an Iraq fan told DW in Philadelphia.

“If the players really need a drink, they should just do it before taking a corner kick.”

On the sidelines of the match between Argentina and Austria, another fan pointed to the fact that it was being played in a covered stadium in Dallas: “The air conditioning is running here, so where is the heat?”

Not just a water break

It is primarily the impact on the game that is sparking debate. In many cases, what was meant to be a brief opportunity to hydrate has turned into a tactical timeout. Coaches adjust formations, give instructions to players, and disrupt the opponent’s rhythm.

Advertisement

“On one hand, the breaks have changed the game by giving coaches more influence; on the other, they break the flow of play for the fans,” an Argentina supporter told DW.

Research conducted by the English newspaper “The Times” suggests this impression is not merely subjective. Using Opta data, the paper evaluated every group-stage match. A significant shift in momentum occurred in 32% of matches after the first water break, and in 26% after the second. On average, match momentum dropped by 17% following an interruption. Particularly striking was the finding that the team with higher momentum prior to the break experienced a much sharper decline in momentum afterward.

Players and coaches also view this trend critically. Netherlands captain Virgil van Dijk noted that the interruptions are far from ideal for neutral viewers watching on TV. While water breaks make sense in extreme heat, he argued that decisions regarding their use should be made on a match-by-match basis.

England manager Thomas Tuchel criticized the fact that the breaks unnecessarily prolong the matches. Paraguay coach Gustavo Alfaro went so far as to say that soccer is increasingly evolving into a game played in four quarters—a comparison that comes naturally in North America, given that popular American sports, like basketball and American football, are structured that way.

Advertisement

A financial windfall for FIFA?

That is precisely where another point of criticism arises. In many countries, broadcasters are using these guaranteed stoppages for commercial breaks, something previously almost unheard of in soccer.

“They have to fit in their advertising; from a corporate perspective, that probably makes sense,” an American fan told DW.

The hydration breaks themselves even have their own sponsor, whose name appears on the stadium’s big screen at the beginning of the breaks.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has denied that football’s global governing body was profiting from the introduction of the hydration breaks.

“We don’t earn a single extra dollar from the hydration breaks because all the contracts were already signed before they were introduced,” he told SNTV.

Advertisement

At the same time, he announced plans to carefully evaluate the experience gained during this World Cup. Only after that would a decision on the future of the water breaks be taken.

Medical benefit

Sports medicine experts consider additional opportunities for players to hydrate during extreme heat to be sensible.

“There is data showing that so-called ‘cooling breaks’ have a beneficial effect on body temperature,” sports doctor Tim Meyer told Germany’s “11 Freunde” football magazine.

“In extreme conditions, players run less – and, above all, less intensely – and play more safe passes. From a health perspective, that is probably sensible, but it certainly isn’t in the spirit of the sport.”

Advertisement

The debate has long since shifted away from the question of whether players need  protection from the heat to the question of what that protection should look like – and whether the breaks should apply to every match, no matter the temperature.

This article was originally published in German.