The World Cup’s hydration breaks have become one of the tournament’s first major flashpoints.

With matches being played across the United States, Canada and Mexico, heat and humidity were always expected to be concerns. But the across-the-board use of the breaks has drawn criticism, particularly when games are played indoors or in air-conditioned stadiums.

FIFA introduced hydration breaks in each half of every match after extreme heat became a major issue at last summer’s revamped Club World Cup.

Former Liverpool manager Jürgen Klopp reportedly offered one of the strongest rebukes, accusing soccer’s decision-makers of allowing the sport to be interrupted for sponsors.

“Football is being held hostage by executives in air-conditioned offices,” Klopp said to L’Équipe. “These so-called ‘cooling breaks’ were sold to us as a shield for the players’ well-being, a noble sword against the heat. But in reality? It’s nothing more than a gilded cage built for sponsors.”

The frustration has also reached the players.

Netherlands captain Virgil van Dijk questioned the stoppages after his team’s 2-2 draw with Japan on Sunday — a match played inside the air-conditioned AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas.

“Hydration breaks are a bit interesting,” Van Dijk told ESPN. “I was obviously watching almost all the games up until today, and every time going to commercial is a bit … Not really that I like it.”

Van Dijk said the breaks make sense in extreme conditions, but suggested they should not be treated the same in every match.

“If it’s really hot, obviously it would be good to put them in,” he said. “But I think you have to look at it in every game, separately.”

There are positive aspects of the breaks, too.

“The new rule should be viewed primarily as a medical safety measure,” Prof. Mehmet Karabulut, M.D., Medicana Health Group, told ESPN. “Today, the game of football is much faster and requires immense physical effort; players traverse vast distances on the field and often engage in high-intensity efforts.

“Under such conditions, it’s easy to lose a lot of fluids through sweat, making it difficult to regulate body temperature, especially in warm and humid weather. An organized break to consume fluids and cool down will enable players to return to the field in optimal condition and prevent possible health risks before fatigue sets in.

“These breaks are not a complete player-safety policy on their own. Kickoff times, recovery periods, cooling areas, emergency medical protocols and acclimatization plans are also essential. Hydration breaks are one important layer in a much larger welfare system, and in the case of the World Cup in summer in North America, the medical argument is extremely strong.”

For FIFA, the breaks are rooted in player safety. For broadcasters, they have created valuable ad inventory in a sport that traditionally offers few guaranteed commercial windows.

For players and viewers, they have changed the feel of the game.

Soccer is built around long, uninterrupted stretches of play, with halftime usually the only fixed break. The hydration stoppages now create two extra pauses in every match, giving broadcasters a chance to cut away and coaches a chance to reset.

Germany coach Julian Nagelsmann acknowledged the tactical benefit after Germany’s 7-1 win over Curaçao, saying the break helped his team reinforce adjustments against Curaçao’s midfield shape.

“The water break was actually good to simply reiterate what we had already adjusted on the board,” Nagelsmann said.

That admission added another dimension to the debate. A stoppage designed to protect players from heat can also function as an unscheduled timeout.

For broadcasters, the appeal is clear. Live sports remain among the most valuable properties on television, and the expanded 104-match World Cup has created more games, more inventory and more chances to monetize a global audience.

For critics, that is exactly the concern.

A policy introduced in the name of safety is now at the center of a wider debate about advertising, television demands and the flow of soccer itself.

And with Fox potentially looking at a nine-figure return from the stoppages, the World Cup’s water breaks have become about more than just rehydration.

Using reported ad-rate figures from The Wall Street Journal, Awful Announcing estimated that Fox could make nearly $250 million from commercials aired during hydration breaks alone across the tournament.

The outlet projected the total at roughly $249.6 million, with the figure potentially climbing past $300 million if average ad prices rise as the World Cup progresses.

That would represent a significant return against the reported $485 million Fox paid for U.S. broadcast rights to the 2026 tournament.