FIFA is to assess the use of hydration breaks at the 2026 World Cup after the measure attracted criticism from several high-profile coaches and raised concerns over its impact on the flow of matches.
Arsène Wenger, FIFA’s chief of global football development, said the organisation’s Technical Study Group would analyse information gathered during the tournament before a decision is made on whether the breaks should continue.
The breaks were introduced for every match during the competition, with FIFA seeking to ensure that the same approach was followed across all venues rather than applying different rules according to individual stadiums or weather conditions.
However, the decision has prompted debate, particularly when breaks were taken during matches played in covered stadiums.
“Sometimes people didn’t like it,” Wenger told reporters in New Jersey. “We will have to analyse after the World Cup, but it didn’t look to me as if they changed the outcome of the competition.”
Wenger said the breaks had been considered necessary in some games because of the conditions players faced, although he acknowledged that FIFA had yet to reach a final view on the wider policy.
“We have not come to a conclusion yet, but I promise that you will get one,” Wenger said.
The issue has been particularly controversial among some coaches. Uruguay head coach Marcelo Bielsa was one of the most vocal opponents, arguing that splitting matches into four distinct periods did not provide enough benefit to justify the disruption caused to the natural rhythm of games.
The introduction of the breaks has also created difficulties for television coverage. Some broadcasters used the stoppages as opportunities to show advertising, meaning viewers were occasionally left without live coverage at moments when play had already restarted.
FIFA will now consider the evidence from the tournament before deciding how the system should operate in future competitions. The review could result in hydration breaks remaining compulsory for all matches, being restricted to games played in certain weather conditions or being removed altogether from some fixtures.
Wenger also discussed another major concern surrounding the 2026 World Cup – the amount of travel required by teams competing across a large geographical area and the limited time available for players to recover between matches.
Before the tournament began, FIFA had been concerned that the distances between venues might have an adverse effect on the standard of football.
Teams were required to cope with a schedule that involved significant travel, in contrast to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where players and staff were able to remain in one general area throughout the competition.
Wenger, however, said the progress made by Spain and Argentina provided evidence that the logistical demands had not prevented teams from developing as the tournament continued.
“In Qatar, every night we slept in the same bed, not here,” he said. “But when you see Argentina and Spain, the two teams have grown during the tournament.”
The performances of the two finalists were cited by Wenger as an indication that the challenges presented by travel and recovery did not necessarily prevent teams from improving throughout the competition.
He maintained that the outcome of matches was ultimately determined by the ability and commitment of the teams involved rather than the logistical difficulties created by the tournament’s format.
FIFA’s post-tournament review will therefore cover both the practical impact of the hydration breaks and the wider lessons from the competition. The governing body is expected to examine the available data before deciding whether the breaks should remain a permanent feature of matches.
The review will determine whether hydration stoppages continue to be used in every game, are introduced only when weather conditions require them, or are eliminated from certain fixtures.
For now, FIFA has not reached a final conclusion. Wenger’s comments indicate that the organisation will wait until the tournament is over before assessing the evidence and deciding what changes, if any, should be made to the policy.
