The water breaks at the 2026 World Cup continue to be a topic of discussion. Criticized for their commercial aspect, they have been defended by Gianni Infantino, who assures that FIFA will not derive any financial benefit from them.
As a reminder, during this World Cup, matches are interrupted twice to allow players to hydrate. These three-minute breaks are scheduled for the 22nd and 67th minutes of each match. The measure is presented as a response to the high temperatures expected during the competition, which is being held in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The problem is, they look more like... a flimsy pretext for inserting ads during televised broadcasts.
Player health as the official justification
Gianni Infantino defends these breaks as a protective measure. According to him, they should allow players to maintain their fitness in a long, intense competition, played over 39 days, with teams potentially playing up to eight matches. The FIFA president also puts forward an argument of sporting fairness. In his view, all teams must benefit from the same conditions during matches. He believes that a coach should not be able to take advantage of a break granted solely because it is hotter during a match, while another coach, in a match played in cooler temperatures, would not have the same opportunity to adjust his team.
A format that changes the rhythm of the matches
This decision, however, alters the very structure of the matches. With two fixed breaks, each game will be divided into four "halves." But critics argue that these breaks kill the momentum. A scheduled interruption at the 22nd minute and then at the 67th minute completely disrupts the rhythm.
Endless ads
The commercial exploitation of these interruptions is obviously drawing criticism. Three-minute breaks, twice per match, at pre-arranged times, represent ideal advertising opportunities for broadcasters. These pauses occur mid-game, when the audience is fully engaged, even if the players don't need to drink. And so, they provide a perfect pretext for advertising…
"FIFA earns absolutely nothing"
Faced with these accusations, Gianni Infantino rejects any financial calculation. He asserts that FIFA "earns absolutely nothing" with these refreshment breaks. According to him, there will be no additional revenue, as the commercial agreements have already been signed beforehand.
The argument addresses some of the criticism, but not all of it. The fact that FIFA doesn't directly receive additional revenue doesn't mean these breaks have no economic value. They can benefit broadcasters, advertisers, and the entire television product. They create opportunities for viewers to focus their attention during the world's most-watched sporting event.
A defense that wasn't really credible.
Protecting players is a legitimate objective. Extreme heat can pose a real problem during a summer World Cup. But the systematic nature of these breaks weakens the official defense. A break decided based on temperature is a response to a specific situation. A break imposed on all matches, regardless of conditions, seems more like a deliberate choice of format. This is where FIFA's communication falls short. By focusing solely on health and fairness, it avoids the most obvious point: these interruptions fit perfectly into the demands of televised entertainment.
Infantino can ensure that FIFA does not win "Absolutely nothing"However, these breaks create a new exploitable space in each match. And in a World Cup that's already expanded, it's difficult to ask the public to believe that this commercial advantage doesn't exist…
