World Cup fans have not been “quite so understanding” of hydration breaks, as they “flooded to social media to express their outrage that the beautiful game was now put on pause so corporations could pitch their products” after matches began Thursday, according to O’Connell & Vranica of the WALL STREET JOURNAL. Much of the entire soccer world “sees something else besides player safety at play: corporate greed.” One ad buyer said that a 30-second spot during early games “costs some brands roughly $200,000, but jumps to around $750,000 when the U.S. national team is playing” (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 6/13). THE ATHLETIC’s Jacob Whitehead asked if the “welfare of those on the pitch” was “really behind their introduction?” FIFA has not limited water breaks to warm venues only, nor has it introduced a temperature minimum. This is a “sweeping dictate across the board. … Who exactly is this serving?” Whitehead: “If it is not for fans, and not for players, who does this break truly serve? The answer was suspected before the tournament, but is now becoming increasingly clear” (THE ATHLETIC, 6/14).
MONEY HUNGRY: In London, Oliver Brown notes the “uncomfortable spectacle of the global game” is being “refashioned according to American rhythms, with those God-awful mid-half hydration breaks turning each match into a staccato four-parter where passion gives way to publicity.” You “could understand it if this decision arose purely for a concern for players’ welfare, protecting them from the often sapping North American humidity.” But it was 75 degrees Fahrenheit in Foxborough on Saturday night. Those watching one of these enforced intervals here in the U.S. would “quickly understand the real motivation, with the interruption giving a precious three minutes for host broadcasters to pivot to adverts about beer, betting and medications where the side-effects take longer to list than the benefits.” Multiply those three minutes by two across 104 games and it equates to “10-and-a-half-hour cash bonanza” (London TELEGRAPH, 6/15).
COMES WITH DISADVANTAGE: GLOBE & MAIL’s Cathal Kelly writes, “I’ve never been a fan of the hydration break because it disadvantages the team that’s in better shape. I’m not against hydration. They can stack water bottles at the touch line. Anyone who wants one can come get a drink. I’m against the idea of a full breather for the team that’s losing.” He added, “Maybe an exception could be made in exceptionally hot conditions. Some sort of wet bulb temperature threshold that’s universally applied. But not just because the sun’s out.” Once the hydration break appeared, “you knew in your bones that someone was going to use it as an excuse to put ads in the middle of soccer games” (GLOBE & MAIL, 6/15).
SEE BOTH SIDES: Netherlands captain and CB Virgil Van Dijk said after watching hydration breaks during games, he does not “like it.” He said for neutral viewers on TV, it is “also not great.” He said if it is “really hot, obviously, it will be good to put them in, but I think you have to look at it in every game separately” (X, 6/15).
OLD SCHOOL: A Telemundo TV commentator said, “We are one of the only networks in the world to NOT show ads during the World Cup cooling breaks.” They added, “We prefer the old school way. We should be able to see what the players do. We show fans, people enjoying, not the corporate direction of football” (X, 6/12).
SOCIAL REACTIONS: Plenty of people weighed in on hydration breaks through early World Cup matches:
- Former USWNT soccer player Carli Lloyd on Threads: “These hydration breaks are not something I’ll ever get used to. Basically soccer is now 4 quarters. And that changes the game completely.”
- NWSL club Utah Royals MF Madison Hammond on Threads: “So are we all collectively unhappy every time the hydration break comes around? Or is that just me?”
- The Athletic’s Megan Feringa on X: “Fox commentator just said “that’s it for the proverbial third quarter” as the ref blew for the third hydration break. Devastating."
- The Athletic’s Dave Helman on X: “I’ve got zero issue if we’re playing in 88+ degrees outside. Hydration break in an air conditioned dome so you can air four commercials is some shameful, cynical stuff.”
- BBC Sport’s Dale Johnson on X: “Nothing says a momentum killer like a hydration break in an enclosed, air conditioned stadium.”
- Bundesliga commentator Kevin Hatchard on X: “Lots of hate for the hydration breaks, and rightly so. Purely done for ad revenue. If it’s hot enough for a drinks break, it shouldn’t take more than 60 seconds. Wretched.”
- Ireland AM commentator Daniel Hussey on X: “The hydration breaks are just farcical. We’ve completely changed football so FIFA can show a few more ads. Going to get more frustrating as tournament gets into the knockout stages. And there’s nothing we can do.”
- SportyFM Ghana’s Gary Al-Smith on X: “Take nothing away from the German performance, but the hydration break killed Curaçao early momentum. Like it did to Haiti who were at it vs Scotland yesterday.”
