Will FIFA keep hydration breaks at the next World Cup?

FIFA has said the mandatory breaks are to ensure equal conditions for all teams in all matches.

Professor Jeff Dixon is a sports academic at La Trobe University.

He says most players understand the need to stop when temperatures become extreme, but he questions whether that's what's happening in this situation.

On the one hand, they're all about player welfare, but on the other hand, they have, uh, been used as a, as...

It's created the opportunity for, for increased commercialization of the game.

But just last month, FIFA President Gianni Infantino pushed back on criticism over hydration breaks.

He insists the breaks are about player welfare, not profit.

I want to stress this because I, I hear as well it's about money or things like...

It is not.

We don't make $1 more revenues in FIFA with these hydration breaks, because all our contracts were signed well ahead of the decision to have these breaks.

Broadcasters maybe, they make, uh, they generate more.

I don't know.

That's great for them.

But for us, we make zero, uh, additional revenues.

Professor Dixon argues the biggest long-term impact may not be on the pitch, but in future broadcast negotiations.

I have absolutely no doubt that FIFA will present this as a, as a, as a rationale for increased revenue generation for any future broadcast sales at future World Cups.

I think it was a very weak defense on behalf of FIFA to say that we're not making any money out of it this time.

But the reality is this is now, I think, the, the hardest part for FIFA was to introduce it the first time, and now that they have introduced it for the first time, the tournament has not collapsed [laughs] because of it.

Uh, the- these hydration breaks are here to stay and they will be used to drive up the value of broadcasting rights in the future.

Professor Dixon says the conditions at many matches simply haven't justified the breaks.

The, the challenge or the opportunity for critics of the hydration breaks is to ensure that they stay at only three minutes in length, um, because I can see the situation getting a whole lot [laughs] worse before it ever gets better.

But the, the, the, the dam is broken, so to speak, and, uh, the- these hydration breaks wi- will feature at, uh, the next FIFA World Cup, and I suspect that they will soon infiltrate the Women's World Cup as well as their underage events.

And he says having transparency is essential in this scenario.

You know, there are certain circumstances where these hydration breaks would be absolutely justified in terms of playing in hot and humid conditions.

Uh, but the conditions that the athletes are being exposed to, um, are not, are not meeting the threshold that would be of a, a, a concern to player welfare.

FIFA has said the mandatory breaks are to ensure equal conditions for all teams in all matches.

Professor Jeff Dixon is a sports academic at La Trobe University.

He says most players understand the need to stop when temperatures become extreme, but he questions whether that's what's happening in this situation.

On the one hand, they're all about player welfare, but on the other hand, they have, uh, been used as a, as...

It's created the opportunity for, for increased commercialization of the game.

But just last month, FIFA President Gianni Infantino pushed back on criticism over hydration breaks.

He insists the breaks are about player welfare, not profit.

I want to stress this because I, I hear as well it's about money or things like...

It is not.

We don't make $1 more revenues in FIFA with these hydration breaks, because all our contracts were signed well ahead of the decision to have these breaks.

Broadcasters maybe, they make, uh, they generate more.

I don't know.

That's great for them.

But for us, we make zero, uh, additional revenues.

Professor Dixon argues the biggest long-term impact may not be on the pitch, but in future broadcast negotiations.

I have absolutely no doubt that FIFA will present this as a, as a, as a rationale for increased revenue generation for any future broadcast sales at future World Cups.

I think it was a very weak defense on behalf of FIFA to say that we're not making any money out of it this time.

But the reality is this is now, I think, the, the hardest part for FIFA was to introduce it the first time, and now that they have introduced it for the first time, the tournament has not collapsed [laughs] because of it.

Uh, the- these hydration breaks are here to stay and they will be used to drive up the value of broadcasting rights in the future.

Professor Dixon says the conditions at many matches simply haven't justified the breaks.

The, the challenge or the opportunity for critics of the hydration breaks is to ensure that they stay at only three minutes in length, um, because I can see the situation getting a whole lot [laughs] worse before it ever gets better.

But the, the, the, the dam is broken, so to speak, and, uh, the- these hydration breaks wi- will feature at, uh, the next FIFA World Cup, and I suspect that they will soon infiltrate the Women's World Cup as well as their underage events.

And he says having transparency is essential in this scenario.

You know, there are certain circumstances where these hydration breaks would be absolutely justified in terms of playing in hot and humid conditions.

Uh, but the conditions that the athletes are being exposed to, um, are not, are not meeting the threshold that would be of a, a, a concern to player welfare.