Hydration break boos: How FIFA united players, fans, coaches at World Cup
Criticism surrounding the breaks has been aimed at the commercial benefits for the three-minute pauses in action. FIFA’s ability to use football as a unifying
Criticism surrounding the breaks has been aimed at the commercial benefits for the three-minute pauses in action. FIFA’s ability to use football as a unifying factor has arguably never been more streamlined than the collective distaste for its decision to introduce hydration breaks in all fixtures at the World Cup. Fans, players, coaches, and everyone in between have criticised, debated, and challenged the decision that has become a major talking point of the si week-long tournament, with a myriad of other socioeconomic, political and financial problems. When FIFA unveiled the rule in December, it was announced with a sense of finality. The global governing body for football claimed that players would “benefit from three-minute hydration breaks in each half of games as FIFA prioritises player welfare”. Do players prefer hydration breaks? One week into the tournament, and it’s obvious that the players are not keen on the inaugural, compulsory, non-negotiable amendment. Netherlands defender Virgil Van Dijk led the charge against the “interesting” hydration breaks. “If it’s really hot, obviously it will be good to put them in. But I think you have to look at it in every game separately, in my opinion.” Belgium’s Youri Tielemans seemed to agree, saying the breaks could work both ways. “In some cities, it’s not that hot, and maybe we shouldn’t do it.
But at the end of the day, if you do it in some cities, you should do it for everyone.” Tielemans’s comments are in line with FIFA’s reasoning. “There will be no weather or temperature condition in place, with the breaks being called by the referee in all games, to ensure equal conditions for all teams, in all matches,” FIFA said last year. From a weather aspect, very few of the games have actually met the level required to need a hydration break so far, according to weather expert Everton Fox. “New York, California and Miami, as well as the Mexican stadiums, have been hot enough, but there’s no justification for breaks at the air-conditioned arenas like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta or Vancouver,” the senior meteorologist told Al Jazeera. “I know FIFA claim to have done this across all games to be consistent, but it’s hard to see it as anything other than a commercial venture worth millions of dollars in to the US TV channels, if not billions, globally.” Hydration or commercial break? Much of the criticism surrounding the breaks has been aimed at the commercial benefit of the three-minute pause in action. A 30-second World Cup slot on Fox Sports costs between $200,000 and $300,000, and can go as high as $750,000 during USA matches and later stages of the tournament, BBC Sport reported last week.
The BriefWire