Mandatory three-minute drinks breaks at all 104 matches of the 2026 World Cup have quickly become one of the tournament’s most contentious talking points.
Introduced to help players cope with stifling heat and humidity across Mexico, Canada and the United States, the breaks occur 22 minutes into each half of every game.
Critics have wasted no time in pushing back, with some describing the interruptions as little more than commercial breaks designed to accommodate US broadcasters.
The controversy deepened when it emerged that hydration breaks are taking place even at stadiums equipped with retractable roofs and interior climate control systems.
USA head coach Mauricio Pochettino has been among the most vocal opponents, saying: “I don’t like it. I only like it when the conditions are extreme. But when the conditions are good, it is unnecessary.”
Brazil boss Carlo Ancelotti offered a more measured view, acknowledging that the break allowed him to deliver fresh instructions when his side trailed Morocco 1-0 in New Jersey on Saturday.
Six minutes after the break, Vinicius Jr had equalised with a brilliant strike, cutting inside onto his right foot before lashing the ball into the roof of the net.
Ancelotti said the breaks gave coaches a clear advantage, explaining: “You can explain a problem to the players. [You can] make a tactical adjustment that can be very good.”
US women’s boss Emma Hayes, speaking to ITV Sport, put it more bluntly, saying: “It’s advantageous for the team losing momentum – that’s why I call them momentum breaks. When you’re on top, you don’t want it; when you’re losing, you do.”
Hayes also raised questions about whether the breaks genuinely serve player welfare when coaches use every second to issue tactical instructions, adding: “Sometimes it’s not even coaching. It’s about taking on fluid and calming players. Sometimes it can be doing nothing, but that can be considered coaching as well.”
Canada also benefited from a similar shift, with substitute Cyle Larin equalising shortly after a second-half break in their game against Bosnia-Herzegovina on Friday.
Scotland scored the only goal in their win over Haiti shortly after a break, while Australia grabbed their opener in similar circumstances during a 2-0 victory against Turkey.
Former Spain international Juan Mata, who won the World Cup in 2010, said: “As a player I don’t think it’s great. When you’re losing, you want to score, and when you’re winning you want to keep the ball. I think they break the momentum.”
World Cup debutants Curacao experienced the downside sharply, having equalised against Germany before the first-half drinks break in Houston on Sunday, only to eventually lose 7-1.
The Czech Republic were similarly punished, losing control of their game against South Korea after the break and ultimately falling to a 2-1 defeat despite having taken the lead.
The Netherlands also failed to hold a 2-1 advantage over Japan in Arlington, Texas, drawing 2-2 after the second-half interruption disrupted their rhythm.
Former Arsenal and England forward Ian Wright made his position clear, saying: “I just think it’s another way of getting adverts into it from an American point of view. They’ve used the fact that it’s for the players, but it’s not for me.”
US broadcaster Fox US appeared to confirm those suspicions by overrunning adverts during a hydration break in the opening match between Mexico and South Africa.
Spain head coach Luis de la Fuente offered the clearest defence of the policy, saying: “I am always interested in the health of my players. I think it’s the right measure, a pause, freshen up and continue.”
Whether the breaks prove decisive as the tournament progresses remains to be seen, but with strong opinions on all sides, the debate shows no signs of cooling down.
