The tournament to crown soccer’s next world champion is halfway over — and one of its biggest controversies is over mandatory water breaks.
This year’s FIFA World Cup is the first in history to require three-minute hydration breaks at the midpoint of each half in every game — regardless of heat conditions.
Many fans and players have derided them as a cheap ploy to sell TV ads that corrupts the free-flowing nature of the beautiful game. But medical professionals say some version of hydration breaks are necessary for an outdoor sport that is increasingly asking players to compete in extreme heat conditions.
“I don’t think the core of football has to fundamentally change,” Travis Hanson, an orthopedic surgeon who’s on the medical staff for the U.S. men’s and women’s national soccer teams, said in an email. “No true fan wants to put the health of the players they cheer for at risk.”
Players, coaches, fans and commentators are not only debating whether to have hydration breaks, but at what temperatures, for how long and at whose discretion. The World Cup dilemma has become a miniature version of the one faced by soccer officials all over the world: how the sport should adapt to climate change without sacrificing the character of the sport.
In comments to the press last week, FIFA President Gianni Infantino said the association “will analyse” how to incorporate cooling breaks in future World Cups.
Others describe the lapse in action as an intentional foul befitting a red card.
“This is even beyond money; it’s about the game and has totally impacted the game for the worse. Selling the soul of the game,” said Ramon Vega, a former defender for English club Tottenham Hotspur F.C., in a Wednesday tweet.
This year’s World Cup is among the hottest ever, as climate change fuels more frequent and intense heat waves. This week’s knockout round comes as a heat dome envelops the Eastern U.S. and parts of Canada and Mexico. It may drive temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in many of the cities where the do-or-die matches will be played outdoors: Miami; Kansas City, Missouri; and East Rutherford, New Jersey.
Fourteen of the 16 stadiums in the tournament — located in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. — now experience more “extremely” hot days in June and July than in 1970, according to the nonprofit Climate Central.
Two matches early in the tournament — in Miami and Monterrey, Mexico — were played in scorching conditions. An analysis from The Guardian found that the heat exceeded the level that a players union has previously said should warrant postponing games.
Alex Jacobs, a central defender who played in the Jamaica Premier League last year, said he sees the need for the game to adapt even as he bristled at seeing the three-minute water breaks during the World Cup.
“This isn’t the game I know,” he said by phone. “In some sense, I’m a football purist. But I think it’d be imprudent to imagine a future where football does not change, especially with how radically global warming will change our world. Something has to give. I’m not opposed to that.”
‘Broken the game’
The use of water breaks at the World Cup isn’t new. But the fiery debate over how to implement them is.
FIFA first started allowing referees to call hydration breaks at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, when the “wet-bulb globe temperature” exceeded 32 degrees Celsius, or nearly 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Wet-bulb temperature was designed by the U.S. military to measure how various conditions, including direct sunlight and humidity, combine with air temperature to impact physical performance.
The optional breaks were three minutes long and came roughly 30 minutes into each 45-minute half. They were used sparingly: The first didn’t occur until the playoff round.
FIFPRO, a union representing more than 70,000 players worldwide, pushed back against FIFA’s approach after a major club tournament in the U.S. last summer. Footballers endured “concerning” levels of heat during the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup, the union said, arguing that “current guidelines do not do enough to protect the health and performance of players.”
The union recommends requiring water breaks roughly midway through each half when the wet-bulb temperature exceeds 26 degrees Celsius. If it surpasses 28 degrees Celsius, the match should be postponed, according to the group.
FIFA went further. It said in December that it would require all 104 matches of the 2026 World Cup to have hydration breaks in all weather conditions, “to ensure equal conditions for all teams, in all matches.” The breaks last three minutes and come at the 22-minute mark of each half.
The blanket application has been criticized by prominent players and coaches — including participants in the tournament. Most argue that breaks should occur only if they’re needed.
“I only like it when the conditions are extreme,” Mauricio Pochettino, who coaches the U.S. team, told ESPN. “When the conditions are good, it is unnecessary.”
Alan Shearer, a former star forward for England, said in a podcast that the hydration break swung momentum in a match between Germany and Curaçao, allowing the Germans to weather an attack and spring forth to a 7-1 victory.
Jacobs, the central defender who played in Jamaica, said the water stoppages give coaches an opportunity in the middle of a 45-minute half to change tactics.
“This is now a strategic break to plan,” he said. “It’s broken the game into quarters.”
Infantino, the FIFA president, has defended the hydration breaks, saying it’s not fair to allow some teams the benefit of a strategic reset simply because it’s hot outside, without extending that benefit to other teams in the tournament.
In an emailed statement, Infantino said: “This decision is based purely on the sporting equity and the sporting merits. I want to stress this, because I hear as well it’s about money — it is not.”
“Some of the traditionalists don’t like it,” John Gallucci Jr., assistant chief medical officer for Major League Soccer in the U.S., said by phone. “Me as a health care provider, and most health care providers, love it.”
MLS rules are less strict than FIFA’s. Referees are given the option to call cooling breaks of 90-180 seconds and drink breaks up to one minute, if the wet-bulb temperature tops 82 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 28 Celsius — a threshold at which “player safety is determined to be at risk,” according to MLS.
An ‘evolving game’
Versions of the hydration debate are occurring throughout the world among soccer authorities.
The Union of European Football Associations, which hosts world-famous competitions like the Champions League and the European Championship, will not be adopting FIFA’s mandated hydration breaks, as first reported by The Telegraph. UEFA confirmed in a statement to POLITICO that it has no plans to change its heat-related rules.
UEFA requires referees to call a cooling break if the wet-bulb temperature exceeds 32 degrees Celsius just before a match. The association did not answer questions about the thinking behind its policy.
The Asian Football Confederation uses a protocol similar to UEFA’s, while the Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol, which oversees soccer in South America, also applied rules that echo UEFA’s in its 2024 tournament of nations, the Copa America.
It’s unclear whether the Confederation of African Football has heat-related rules. It didn’t respond to requests for comment.
FIFPRO’s medical director, Vincent Gouttebarge, has said that soccer officials need to develop “optimal mitigation strategies” for matches on a hotter planet.
Beyond cooling breaks, FIFPRO has said halftime could be lengthened to 20 minutes, a five-minute increase. FIFPRO declined to comment for this story, and Gouttebarge did not respond to inquiries.
In May, a group of medical and public-health professionals wrote to FIFA saying it should lengthen hydration breaks to six minutes, arguing that three minutes isn’t enough time “to have a meaningful impact on rehydration and body cooling.”
The letter said locker rooms should feature equipment that players could use to cool down before games and at halftime. The authors said FIFA didn’t respond.
Mathias Vuille, a professor of atmospheric science at the University at Albany, said soccer is in less “dire” shape than winter sports, many of which will struggle to adapt on a planet less hospitable to snow and ice.
Vuille, a passionate soccer fan, said the future of the World Cup could involve holding matches in the morning, rather than in the afternoon. The tournament could also be moved to cooler regions, and the number of substitutions could be increased to eight from the current five.
“Climate aspects should be part of the decision-making,” he said by phone. “It’s an evolving game.”
Chelsea Harvey contributed to this report.
