World Cup hydration breaks don’t actually work, science suggests
The hydration breaks at the World Cup don’t just interrupt the game and disrupt the flow. They could actually be hurting their own cause.
The 2026 World Cup’s hydration breaks have been a source of discussion and controversy throughout the tournament. While staying hydrated and cooling off the body’s core temperature is a very real necessity for players competing in a world that is rapidly heating, the breaks are more of a nice idea than actually useful.
What has fans most up in arms is the stoppage in play. The breaks interrupt the game and stop the flow. And on top of that, they happen at the same intervals in every game, regardless of temperature or real need. And therein lies the problem. When done right, hydration breaks can actually be extremely helpful. But in this World Cup, hosted by one of the most consumerist nations in the world, the breaks are being catered more to broadcast schedules and commercial breaks.
What the science actually says about hydration breaks
According to heat and performance researcher Harry Brown of the Heat and Health Research Centre at the University of Sydney, the issue isn’t the idea of hydration breaks, but how they’re being used.
“Cooling breaks can work. The science is strong. But they must be executed properly,” he wrote.
At the heart of his argument is a disconnect between policy and practice at this World Cup. Officially, these breaks are supposed to be triggered by dangerous heat conditions, specifically when the wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) exceeds 32°C, a widely used measure that accounts for heat, humidity, wind, and sunlight.
In reality, however, breaks have been applied uniformly, regardless of conditions, even in climate-controlled stadiums. That, Brown warns, risks undermining both their effectiveness and their credibility.
One of the biggest criticisms from a scientific perspective is that hydration breaks are not being triggered by real-time environmental risk, but instead appear tied to broadcast schedules. Brown points out that when breaks become routine rather than responsive, they stop serving their primary purpose. This is not just about fans being frustrated by interruptions. It’s about the trust in heat-safety measures in sports.
Passive rest vs. real cooling
Brown’s research goes further, highlighting the more fundamental issue that not all breaks actually cool players down. In controlled experiments simulating soccer matches in extreme heat (around 40°C), his team tested different strategies. The results were telling:
- Active cooling (ice towels, cold fluids, shade) significantly reduced core body temperature and cardiovascular strain.
- Passive breaks (simply stopping play without targeted cooling) showed little measurable benefit.
The problem isn’t the pause in play, but what happens during it. “If players aren’t actively cooling, heat strain remains a problem,” writes Brown. This aligns with what many fans are seeing. Players often remain exposed on the field, receiving coaching instruction rather than moving into shaded or cooled environments.
What other sports are doing differently
Brown stresses that this isn’t just about elite sports. The same principles apply to workers in high-heat environments, from construction sites to agriculture. When cooling strategies are structured and evidence-based, they reduce physical strain and protect health. When they are poorly designed or inconsistently applied, the benefits largely disappear. High-profile tournaments like the World Cup matter even more because they set the standard.
“When governing bodies misapply science in highly visible events, it risks normalizing ineffective approaches.”
Some sports have already moved toward more sophisticated, science-led systems. The Australian Open uses a five-level heat stress scale, combining environmental data with physiological risk. World Rugby has introduced tailored heat guidelines that adjust based on both conditions and individual player risk
These approaches are more flexible, and crucially, more aligned with how the human body actually responds to heat. By contrast, soccer’s current one-size-fits-all model is increasingly outdated.
How FIFA could fix the problem
Brown outlines three key steps that could make hydration breaks genuinely effective.
- Use science-based thresholds: Breaks should be triggered by real-time heat stress data - not pre-planned timings
- Mandate active cooling: Ice towels, shade, and cold fluids should be standard, not optional.
- Protect the purpose of the break:nLimit tactical talks and commercial activity so recovery remains the priority.
Ultimately, hydration breaks aren’t the problem. Misusing them is. As the planet warms and extreme heat becomes more common, sports will need to adapt. But adaptation has to be grounded in science, not convenience.
Right now, according to Brown’s research, soccer is falling short. And unless that gap between science and spectacle is addressed, what should be a player-safety measure risks becoming exactly what many fans already believe it is...just another stoppage.
Related stories
Get closer to the game! Whether you like your soccer of the European variety or that on this side of the pond, our AS USA app has it all. Dive into live coverage, expert insights, breaking news, exclusive videos, and more. Plus, stay updated on NFL, NBA and all other big sports stories as well as the latest in current affairs and entertainment. Download now for all-access coverage, right at your fingertips – anytime, anywhere.
And there’s more: check out our TikTok and Instagram reels for bite-sized visual takes on all the biggest soccer news and insights.