15 Jun 2026 17:20:56
What does everyone think of these hydration breaks? I saw VVD's comments on this and I totally agree with him. If referees are making all kinds of calls over 90 minutes, why can't they make a call just before a game starts? Use readings on current temperature and humidity levels and follow prescribed norms. Decide to have the breaks or not. It can't be that difficult.
As they are now, they're a supreme annoyance to both the viewing fans and probably to the players too. They break the flow of the game, and the rhythm of the players too. World Cups have always been played in summers. Did they just discover high temeperatures?
15 Jun 2026 17:41:05
Absolute joke.
15 Jun 2026 17:42:18
As Klopp said, they are just an opportunity for TV to show more ads.
15 Jun 2026 17:43:49
I think it's a good thing, however making it into a timeout team talk is a bit too Americanised for me, especially when restarts have been delayed for adverts. I'd rather water be handed out onto the pitch by someone neutral, quick drink and back on with the game.
15 Jun 2026 17:43:41
Americans can't go 45 minutes without being told they need to buy something.
15 Jun 2026 17:53:40
The notion that a professional athlete can't go more than 20 minutes without a drink is beyond ridiculous. The fact that they get 3 whole minutes, which is the perfect amount of time to run a handful of ads, is just a blatant slap in the face. Next we'll have players doing live ad reads in the middle of the game.
What good about it, No.8?
15 Jun 2026 17:59:28
Re-hydration, Chewy, I agree it's handled poorly, but a quick drink isn't a bad thing.
15 Jun 2026 18:11:11
Absolutely correct about the commercials.
They wanted this for the '94 World Cup and it was rejected as a ludicrous idea by FIFA back then. This time around, I don't think Infantino needed much convincing.
These days so much of the game is about money.
15 Jun 2026 18:15:35
I agree, it completely upsets the flow of the game. Most of the time, it takes a team ten minutes to find their feet and get into it. Then ten minutes later, you've got a water break.
Football used to have no subs.
Then that changed to one, then three, then convid came along and they were given five. Now you need a break every 20 minutes, and get sent off if you pull someone's hair. I mean, honestly.
15 Jun 2026 18:22:14
No. 8, it defeats the purpose of what the sport is supposed to stand for. On the one hand, they are going after time wasting, targetting throw-ins, GK time wasting, player substitutions, and what not.
Ostensibly to speed up the game. And then they put in these 3 minute breaks, as if it's risking these athletes' lives. How about pauses during heavy rain? They could catch pneumonia.
15 Jun 2026 18:31:18
I think what I've said has come across wrong. A drink of water in hot, humid conditions = good. Stopping for a 3 minute commercial break and team talk = bad.
15 Jun 2026 18:39:40
It's all down to Infantino, he's the most corrupt bloke in football, needs investigating.
15 Jun 2026 18:45:29
It's just the American adverts money making scheme in disguise....
I'm pretty sure soon enough we'll hear of the stories about how expensive it's going to be to air an advert in the WC Final...apparently, the Super Bowl is known for being the most expensive when it comes to adverts during the breaks...I fully expect USA to milk it in the final as well.
Just a load of BS with Infantino happily bending over for his mate Trump and his cronies.
15 Jun 2026 18:46:47
When the US had the WC in 1994, they proposed splitting the game into 4 quarters to introduce more add breaks. I guess this time around they offered more money.
If at all, hydration breaks should be conditions (temp) based. Not every game.
15 Jun 2026 18:48:43
I don't have an issue with it cos this is being done with player health in mind. It may be poorly executed. But it is a very good thing, imo.
Btw, this process has existed on and off for 25 years esp. during preseason friendlies, hence, this is not that strange.
15 Jun 2026 18:49:59
It's not about cooling. It's about grabbing more money from advertising.
15 Jun 2026 19:03:12
To be honest, I don't mind it and much prefer this "break in play" than the constant rolling around time wasting that usually disrupts a game.
The refs seem to have a grip on all the nonsense stuff in the WC so far. I'm far more happy with that and can only hope the PL introduce some of those measures this coming season.
15 Jun 2026 19:08:40
A cooling break in an indoor stadium where it's 20 degrees isn't because of player health, it's for money. I'm fine with breaks if it's hot, 30+, but not every game. It should be on a game by game basis.
15 Jun 2026 19:19:23
The Americans wanted quarters for ads. They got quarters (water breaks).
We now have terms like quarter back used for players who can hit a long pass.
We are obsessed with stats and key interventions.
Video replays slow the game down without adding much value.
We are owned by US billionaires.
Like it or not, the IS influence is real and there is no turning back.
15 Jun 2026 19:26:50
No. 8, I'm struggling to comprehend the 'necessary rehydration' claims. Have we not been playing football for hundreds of years with just the one break at 45 minutes? Isn't there usually plenty of opportune moments for thirsty players to have a quick sip with all the 'injuries' that happen? Even if it's a must on hot days, 3 minutes? 5 seconds for a throw in, 8 seconds for a goal kick, 10 seconds to make a sub, but 3 whole minutes for a sup of water?! ? Pretty sure the water is the one that actually takes the least amount of time out of all the above.
15 Jun 2026 19:46:00
I was in Lake Placid in 1980 when the Winter Olympics were on. The Ice Hockey final was between USA and Russia. It was the equivalent of England in a World Cup final over here. I was watching the game on television, not really interested, but was aware of the importance of the game to the locals.
Anyway, the game was going on and they just cut to an advert. I couldn't believe it, but the locals never even batted an eyelid. When it cut back to the game, the commentator casually remarked that, while we were away, the US had scored.
We weren't away at all. We were still there. It was them who took the game away from us. If that had happened with a Liverpool game, I would have been apoplectic with rage.
I can well understand Infantini not having the balls to stand up to Trump, but we must never let that sort of thing in here, plus adverts on the grass like you see in rugby and cricket.
The more the USA get involved in 'soccer' (another pet hate), the more they will try to contaminate our beautiful game with rule changes, adverts etc.
15 Jun 2026 20:28:16
I've not been on the pitch, chewy, where these games are being held, but if we take our cynical caps off it can't be a bad thing to get some water to the players, as I keep saying, I think the 3 minute break is too much, a blatant cash grab essentialy breaking the game into quarters (cynical cap back on).
For me, just keep the players on the pitch, send a neutral on with 22 bottles, have a minute, then crack on.
15 Jun 2026 21:58:01
Last World Cup they had breaks at the referee's discretion and guidance from whoever the medical people were.
Qatar is a lot hotter than America, Canada and Mexico.
The only answer is that this is America.
15 Jun 2026 23:07:42
I think it is down to a lack of concentration span in America.
Or, more seriously, perhaps it's FIFA picking up the revenue from advertising brought in for the 'time outs' during the matches?
15 Jun 2026 23:17:27
Favourite memories of 94 were Houghton scoring against Italy and Aldo and Big Jack having a full on barney with the officials vs Mexico.