Hydration Breaks: Do We Really Need Them?
If you've been watching the 2026 FIFA World Cup, you probably noticed something different about this year's matches. About 22 minutes into each half, the referee blows his whistle and the players take a three-minute hydration break. Three minutes is just the right amount of time for players to replenish their fluids, a much-needed addition, and for beer-guzzling fans to run to the bathroom for a much-needed subtraction.
“For every game, no matter where the games are played, no matter if there’s a roof, (or) temperature-wise, there will be a three-minute hydration break. It will be three minutes from whistle to whistle in both halves,” Manolo Zubiria, chief tournament officer, USA, for the FIFA World Cup 2026 said last December in announcing the initiative.
He made his announcement at the World Broadcaster Meeting in Washington DC, where all the broadcasters were excited to know that FIFA had prioritized player safety by creating two long breaks for commercials. Soon they will be calling for even more player safety. Two breaks per half at the 2030 World Hydration Cup.
As expected, soccer purists have welcomed the hydration breaks with as much zeal as a Saudi sheikh welcoming electric cars. Many have expressed their displeasure on social media, saying that the hydration breaks ruin the natural flow of the game. “The hydration breaks are just farcical. We’ve completely changed football so FIFA can show a few more ads,” Daniel Hussey, sports presenter for Ireland AM, wrote on X.
I don’t know if the hydration breaks have “completely changed football,” but how else can you explain Germany scoring a touchdown against Curaçao? The score was 1-1 before the first hydration break, then things “completely changed” as Germany scored six more goals.
“Take nothing away from the German performance, but the hydration break killed Curaçao early momentum,” Gary Al-Smith of SportyFM Ghana wrote on X.
When they're on the ropes, boxers are often “saved by the bell.” The German team has apparently introduced a new phrase: saved by the hydration break.
You may be wondering what happened to Curaçao during the hydration break. Did the players drink too much Powerade? Perhaps it was the electrolytes that caused them to look shocked every time Germany scored.
More than hurting one team’s momentum, what the hydration breaks do is reduce the importance of endurance. I played recreational soccer in my younger days and know what an advantage the most physically fit players have. They would just dribble past me in a flash, leaving me to just dribble on my shirt.
“I’ve never been a fan of the hydration break because it disadvantages the team that’s in better shape,” writes Cathal Kelly of Canada’s Globe & Mail. “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.”
I agree. Only the team that’s winning should get a full breather. The losing team should run laps while drinking Powerade. If marathon runners can drink while they run, so can soccer players.
What makes people skeptical of FIFA’s motives, believing that the organization is more concerned about commercial opportunities than player safety, is mandating hydration breaks for all games, even those played in ideal temperature.
“Maybe an exception could be made in exceptionally hot conditions,” Kelly writes. “Some sort of wet bulb temperature threshold that’s universally applied. But not just because the sun’s out.”
Indeed, referees should whistle for hydration breaks only in these circumstances:
The temperature is above 85 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius).
At least two players from each team have collapsed on the field.
Lionel Messi asks for one.
A trace of sweat has been detected on one of the goalkeepers.
Curaçao has no momentum.
Do they provide the players with juice boxes and orange segments during hydration breaks as well?