FIFA‘s decision to implement mandatory hydration and cooling breaks during matches at the 2026 World Cup has generated growing controversy among players, coaches, and tactical analysts, who argue the stoppages are disrupting the natural flow of games and potentially altering outcomes in ways that go beyond the health benefits FIFA cites as justification.

The breaks, introduced formally into the Laws of the Game by IFAB in 2024, are triggered when a wet bulb globe temperature reading — which combines heat, humidity, and solar radiation — exceeds 32 degrees Celsius during a match. When the threshold is met, referees stop play at the next dead ball moment in the first and second halves for a 90-second break. Teams return to their technical areas and receive hydration and coach communication during the window.

Several coaches at the 2026 tournament have objected to the tactical dimension of the breaks. Because teams can speak to their benches during the stoppages, the intervals effectively function as extra 90-second timeouts granted by the weather rather than by planned substitution. A coach whose team is under pressure can use the break to reorganize their defence, reset a high press, or shift formation — options they would not normally have unless making a substitution.

Morocco manager Walid Regragui said on Thursday that the breaks were “not football” and that they rewarded teams willing to exploit the tactical pause more than they helped players with their hydration. He said teams that were dominating lost momentum every time a break came, while teams sitting deep and absorbing pressure benefited from the reset.

Players from multiple nations told the FIFA player liaison committee this week that the breaks felt artificial and broke their concentration at critical moments in matches. One unnamed European captain, quoted in a tournament daily bulletin released Friday, said the breaks were “killing the rhythm of the game” in a way that the pre-tournament medical briefings had not adequately prepared players for.

FIFA’s chief medical officer defended the policy, saying player safety in summer heat was not negotiable and that the breaks had been introduced precisely because medical research showed significant risk of heat-related injury during 90 minutes of intense physical activity in high humidity. The US cities hosting matches include Miami, Dallas, and Los Angeles, where summer temperatures regularly exceed the threshold by a wide margin.

Statisticians have begun tracking whether teams that were leading at the break maintained their advantage or whether results diverged from what was expected based on match statistics immediately before the stoppage. Early data from the first nine days of play suggested teams that were level or trailing at a hydration break were slightly more likely than usual to score in the 15 minutes following the restart, though the sample size was too small to draw firm conclusions. Scotland’s manager Steve Clarke said his team had specifically prepared for the breaks and drilled their repositioning during training sessions held in warm weather before the tournament.

The controversy mirrors similar debates about breaks in women’s football and in under-20 World Cups where the measure has been in use longer. In those competitions, there was initial pushback but most coaches eventually accepted the breaks as part of the game’s new environment given the global trend toward hosting major tournaments in hotter climates and seasons.

IFAB said on Friday it would collect data from the 2026 World Cup to assess whether any modifications to the break protocol were warranted. FIFA’s tournament committee has the authority to adjust the temperature threshold mid-tournament if the evidence justified it, though no change was currently planned.