Everyone is angry about the new World Cup ‘hydration periods’ – except for Mr Moneybags here

Tune in to any World Cup match In the United States, Mexico or Canada this summer, and you’ll find that around the 22nd and 67th minutes of any game, play will stop. For the first time ever, FIFA Three-minute hydration breakswhich was officially put in place as a player welfare measure to combat the extreme heat. Breaks will take place regardless of the weather outside, even on relatively mild days in New York or Los Angeles.

While FIFA doesn’t detail exactly how much revenue is associated with these new in-game breaks, the breaks offer guaranteed and predictable commercial windows in live broadcasts, creating new advertising inventory. There has been a backlash from Fans and playerswith many arguing that commercial interruptions disrupt the flow of a sport defined by continuous play.

Ghazi Saud, 26, is a half-Lebanese, half-Norwegian soccer fan who lives in Chicago and supports Norway and Morocco. This World CupHe describes gaps as “hidden ad breaks.” Saud says this is part of what he makes soccer What’s unique is that it’s been played pretty much the same way for over 150 years: 90 minutes, two 45-minute halves and uninterrupted play as expected. Water outages have always existed, he says, but only when they are actually needed; Saud, like many others, believes that scheduled rest periods change the rhythm of the game.

“I see the argument under the circumstances Climate stressSays David Goldblatt, one of the most prominent football historians and author of the book: The Ball’s Round: A Global History of Football. “No one needs three minutes to drink a glass of water. Why three minutes?” He points out that Fox makes about $250 million in the United States from commercials shown during water outages, according to expert analysis. Given to BBC Sport.

The tension created by these breaks is really a struggle over what the World Cup will become. around $3.9 billion It is expected to come from broadcast rights alone, meaning networks such as Fox in the US or BBC in the UK pay FIFA to broadcast World Cup matches, and one other network. $1.8 billion Sponsorship and marketing are expected. Based on forecasts by WARC Media, a UK-based advertising research and intelligence firm that tracks global media spending, the tournament is expected to pump in approx. $10.5 billion In the global advertising market in 2026.

Some sports experts see FIFA’s broader commercialization efforts as reflecting something else: a shift toward American-style sports entertainment. “I think you see a clear Americanization in this World Cup in particular,” says Mark Dyerson, a professor of kinesiology and sports history at Penn State. He added: “I think that what FIFA is doing is normal and natural in the context of work, even though it offends many football experts for a long time.”

Goldblatt warns against treating the 2026 World Cup as a sudden turning point. “Football has been insanely commercialized for 40 years,” he says. “Lessons have been taken from the U.S. sports market in a hundred different ways over the last 30 or 40 years.”

In many ways, this trend was already evident in Qatar. The 2022 World Cup has been ranked as the most watched tournament ever, with more than… 5 billion viewerswhich helped FIFA generate $7.5 billion During the 2019-2022 session. Broadcast rights brought approx $2.96 billion In 2022 alone, compared to the approximately $3.9 billion that FIFA expects for 2026.

However, some experts say the breaks are less about money and more about adapting the World Cup to a changing media landscape.