In December last year, FIFA made an announcement that passed with little fanfare or media reaction.
"Players to benefit from hydration breaks at FIFA World Cup 2026."
This was the headline used by FIFA to confirm the introduction of three-minute water breaks across all games at the men's tournament in the US, Canada and Mexico this summer.
FIFA says the breaks are designed to help players cope with the hot North American summer, and are being rolled out across all games, regardless of the temperature, to ensure "equal conditions for everyone".
But with the intervals being used by many broadcasters to show full screen ads - and at times being greeted by boos from fans in stadiums - the question remains: who else benefits from the hydration breaks?
FIFA
In a statement released earlier this week, FIFA President Gianni Infantino reiterated that FIFA gains "absolutely nothing" from the breaks.
"There is no additional revenue for FIFA, as all commercial agreements were signed well in advance. So, this is not a financial issue for us. For us, it is purely a sporting matter."
FIFA is expected to take in $3.9bn in revenue from broadcasting rights deals for the World Cup.
This is up from $3.4bn from the Qatar World Cup in 2022 and $3.1bn from the 2018 World Cup in Russia.
While FIFA says it does not gain additional revenue from the ads broadcast during water breaks, the broadcasters who bought the rights from FIFA certainly do.
And that makes these rights all the more lucrative.
With greater earning power for broadcasters, owing to the increased ad space, FIFA can demand higher fees in future broadcasting deals.
FIFA has yet to confirm whether hydration breaks will be permanent features at World Cups.
Mr Infantino said this week that the main reason for the water breaks is "the heat".
And given that next year’s women’s edition is in Brazil and the next men’s World Cup will take place in Spain, Portugal and Morocco, it is unlikely that FIFA will pull back.
So while FIFA may not gain directly at this World Cup, the size of future broadcast deals will show whether the backlash was worth it for FIFA’s bottom line.
Aside from broadcast advertisements, the beginning of each hydration break has seen stadium hoardings illuminated in the bright blue colours of Powerade, the official sports drink of the FIFA World Cup.
Moreover, fans in the stadium see the message 'Time For Powerade Hydration Break’ on the oversized LED screens, while the initial FIFA announcement of hydration breaks last December was accompanied by photos of Powerade bottles.
None of this suggests that FIFA gains additional revenue that was not already agreed, but the additional ad space has inevitably boosted the value of the sports drink’s deal and any future partnerships.
Broadcasters
The majority of broadcasters across the world have used the hydration breaks as a chance to cut to full screen ads.
RTÉ has shown ads during water breaks on occasion but has mostly stuck to showing the players as they take on water and instruction.
Ads were shown in the very first hydration break during the opening game between Mexico and South Africa, bringing a strong riposte from pundit Richie Sadlier.
He said: "This is my first experience watching a game of football that’s been broken during the first half by advertisement breaks.
"I understand it’s a water break, I know that’s a decision taken externally, but ads during a match is wrong.
"There’s a commercial argument that is legitimate, but the event is still ongoing.
"The players are still on the pitch, there’s interactions between the coaches and players, there’s something happening which may be relevant and we’ve decided ‘nah forget about it, let’s just promote stuff’."
Since that opening game, RTÉ has cut to ads sparingly during hydration breaks, but notably did so during Scotland’s game against Brazil, and Argentina’s win over Austria on Monday.
In a statement, RTÉ said that, to date, it "has made only limited use of the advertising capacity available during these breaks and does not anticipate extensive utilisation over the course of the tournament, in order to protect the viewer experience".
"This approach supports our ability to bring the FIFA World Cup and other major international sporting events free-to-air to audiences across Ireland."
It said: "RTÉ takes its commercial responsibilities seriously and seeks to strike an appropriate balance between generating revenue and delivering a high-quality viewing experience."
RTÉ did not provide figures for the cost of ad space during World Cup matches or water breaks, but said it would be in a better position to provide this information closer to the end of the tournament.
However, RTÉ does provide costs for advertising during other sports programmes.
For example, the spot rate for a 30-second ad during the Champions League Final is €21,000 while the same ad during the All-Ireland hurling or football finals would cost €35,000.
A 30-second ad during this weekend’s football quarter finals has a €10,500 price tag while earlier rounds of the Champions League cost €9,000 for a 30-second ad.
However, the timing of some of the games at this year’s World Cup is sure to affect pricing, with audiences plummeting for games in the small hours compared to primetime slots.
But regardless of RTÉ’s pricing structure, and with just over eight 30-second slots available per game during hydration breaks, the intervals clearly provide the national broadcaster with serious earning potential.
In the UK, the BBC does not show ads during any programme and the World Cup has been no exception, while ITV has been limited by British TV regulations in its capacity to cut to ads.
Regulator Ofcom limits the number of ads that can be shown in 60 minutes.
US audiences are well used to ad breaks during sporting events, with timeouts and breaks in play providing ample opportunity to show ads.
However, football, with its two 45 minutes plus added time of uninterrupted play, has, before now, been less marketable to brands whose ad space is severely limited.
The water breaks give broadcasters an additional 260 seconds to show advertisements.
The two hydration breaks, which take place 22 minutes into each half, are three minutes long.
However, FIFA has ruled that broadcasters must wait 20 seconds after play ends before cutting to ads and must return no less than 30 seconds before play resumes.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that a 30-second ad break could cost brands in the US around $200,000 for games early in the competition.
However, this can rise as high as $750,000 for games featuring the US and for knockout games.
That puts ad revenue for Fox Sports at anywhere between $1.7m and $6.5m per game.
Taking conservative estimates, the US broadcaster could be taking $250m from ad revenue from the hydration breaks across the tournament.
It is widely reported that Fox paid just under $500m for the English language rights to broadcast the World Cup in the US.
So regardless of the estimate, the ad revenue from hydration breaks alone has gone a long way for Fox to cover what it paid FIFA for the rights in the first place.
However, not all broadcasters in the US are cutting to full screen ads.
Spanish language broadcaster Telemundo has opted against them, instead showing smaller ads in a box on the screen while the hydration break and replays play in another box.
Speaking to Sports Business Journal ahead of the tournament, Telemundo senior vice president for sports content Miguel Lorenzo confirmed that the match feed would remain on screen during the breaks.
"Our goal is to create an authentic World Cup viewing experience," he said.
"We think we can do that in a lot of ways, and one of the most impactful ways is by never leaving the pitch once the clock starts running."
While some broadcasters have aimed to capitalise on the immediate commercial benefits of hydration breaks, a hybrid approach along the lines of Telemundo may just satisfy both fans and accounts departments alike.
Altering the 'cultural conception' of football
FIFA insists that two hydration breaks take place at all games at the World Cup, regardless of weather conditions.
Mr Infantino said this week: "It’s very difficult to accept that a coach might have the opportunity to influence a match by making adjustments simply because it’s hotter, while in another match, where the temperature is slightly lower, the same coach doesn’t have the same opportunity."
Despite Mr Infantino’s focus on allowing coaches to give additional instruction, the new measure has not gone down well across the board with managers.
"Playing four periods instead of two alters the cultural conception that has been constructed to interpret football," said the outspoken Uruguay national team manager Marcelo Bielsa.
"This change of culture doesn’t add anything and takes away a lot.
"When the game was divided into four, no one thought about the effect it could have on what made football a sport that people love, but rather other kinds of repercussions were in mind."
Regardless of FIFA’s true intentions behind the hydration breaks, the introduction of the three-minute intervals may serve to be a watershed moment for football, in a sporting, entertainment and, perhaps above all, financial sense.
More stories on
- News
- Sport
- Analysis and Comment
- World
- World Cup 2026
Source: RTE
