Ololade Adeyanju/
FIFA has come under a barrage of criticism from football supporters after President Gianni Infantino insisted that mandatory hydration breaks at the 2026 World Cup were introduced solely for sporting reasons and generate “absolutely nothing” in additional revenue for world football’s governing body.
The backlash erupted after FIFA Media posted Mr Infantino’s explanation on X on Tuesday evening, prompting hundreds of reactions from supporters who overwhelmingly rejected the claim that the stoppages were purely about player welfare and competitive fairness.
For the first time in World Cup history, FIFA has introduced compulsory three-minute hydration breaks in every match, regardless of weather conditions, with stoppages taking place in the 22nd and 67th minutes.
FIFA says the measure is designed to protect players and ensure all teams compete under identical conditions.
Defending the policy, Infantino said the breaks were introduced primarily because of concerns over heat and player welfare during a demanding 39-day tournament in which some teams could play as many as eight matches.
However, he argued that an even more important consideration was ensuring competitive consistency across the tournament.
“What matters even more to us is ensuring that all teams, in every match, are playing under the same conditions. And it’s very difficult to accept that a coach might have the opportunity to influence a match by making adjustments simply because it’s hotter, while in another match, where the temperature is slightly lower, the same coach doesn’t have the same opportunity. We want to ensure equal conditions for everyone, and that’s why these breaks are implemented in every match.”
The comments highlight FIFA’s position that mandatory hydration breaks are not merely a welfare measure but also a competitive tool designed to standardise match conditions.
Under that reasoning, a coach whose team plays in extreme heat should not have access to additional opportunities for tactical instructions, substitutions planning or player recovery that are unavailable to a coach whose team plays in cooler temperatures.
FIFA believes introducing the breaks in every match removes that disparity and creates a level playing field throughout the tournament.
The FIFA president also sought to dismiss suggestions that the breaks were designed to create additional advertising opportunities.
“There is no additional revenue for FIFA, as all commercial agreements were signed well in advance. So, this is not a financial issue for us. For us, it is purely a sporting matter,” he said.
The explanation, however, did little to convince many supporters.
One of the most widely shared responses came from X user @roodza53430 (Easy Rider), who wrote: “As always the reason is: $$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and the quality of the product or the experience for players or supporters does not matter….”
Another user, @Vast… (Andreas Andersson), directly challenged FIFA’s justification.
“An the response to that is. False. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety of any players. If so the FIFA Club World Cup wouldn’t even be played.”
Questions were also raised about the consistency of FIFA’s argument.
X user @PerplexedMarmot (Ant) pointed to England’s goalless draw against Ghana.
“It was raining and in the low 20’s at the England v Ghana match. There was a length injury break so the players went for a drink. They were told to get back on the pitch. A few mins later the Hydration break, sponsored by Powerade, happened. The main reason is money not welfare.”
A similar observation came from @mitche71189 (John Mitchell), who wrote: “what called out FIFA was what happened last night players went to the side-lines at 21 minutes when an injury happened; but had to go back to to the side-lines for their Powerade a minute later.”
Others accused FIFA of disguising commercial interests as player welfare initiatives.
“Utter bollocks. This is just a transparent excuse for an ad break. Where’s the health risk in air conditioned stadiums? Qatar? It should be linked to the temperature and humidity in the stadium whether a break is taken,” wrote @Straal_Jager (Ray Hunter).
@andrewmuzz (Andy Murray) was equally dismissive, posting: “Make all players go to the opposite side of the pitch to the coaches for 30 seconds where the drinks are waiting for them, then crack on. Stop talking shit.”
The criticism intensified over FIFA’s decision to apply the rule universally, including in cooler climates and covered stadiums.
“It’s odd how FIFA didn’t need hydration breaks in Qatar, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa. I guess giving the players a moment to rest wasn’t that important for those tournaments,” wrote @This… (Christopher Howell).
For some supporters, the issue was not player welfare itself but the perception that football was being reshaped around commercial considerations.
“Pure and solely monetisation!!! This is not football and play against the essence of the football itself. I buy the theory of used this hydration breaks in Qatar but climate in all North America (Mexico, USA, Canada) is not as extreme as there… shame!!” posted @enebcn (Enelio Farina).
Another user, @1875MJ (M), wrote: “Of course you don’t benefit from the ‘ad breaks’ specially this is the benefit of the broadcasters… but dont pretend we’re stupid enough to think there wasn’t a big load of cash given prior to the tournament to add this ‘hydration break’ in.”
Likewise, @Tweets2any1 (WS) questioned why a hydration break was required after an earlier stoppage.
“If any of that was true explain why in England v Ghana first half injury around 20′ took 3′ and both teams took hydration and coaching, game re-started and then the ‘official’ hydration break took place. Bear in mind 20c & rain! Weren’t the TV adverts ready to go earlier?”
Adding to the debate, X user @M_Mhor (DMhor) responded directly to FIFA’s claim about revenue.
“There is no additional revenue for FIFA, as all commercial agreements were signed well in advance.”
He then added: “In other words, ‘No additional revenue because we’ve already been paid up front by the TV companies and sponsors.'”
That reaction echoed a broader sentiment among critics who argued that the absence of new revenue during the tournament does not necessarily mean commercial interests played no role in creating the breaks in the first place.
While FIFA maintains that the measure is entirely sporting in nature, many supporters remain unconvinced that player welfare and competitive balance are the sole motivations.
The controversy has spread beyond social media, with supporters, commentators and some within football questioning whether mandatory breaks in every match are necessary, particularly in venues with roofs, air conditioning or relatively mild temperatures.
Critics argue that the stoppages disrupt the flow of matches and create additional advertising windows for broadcasters, while FIFA insists they are essential for player welfare and competitive fairness.
Despite the growing backlash, Infantino indicated that FIFA could consider retaining the breaks at future World Cups, with the governing body expected to assess their impact after the tournament concludes.
Click on link to join our WhatsApp channel:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaH43zJGJP88wNggvZ16
0
