Hydration breaks have quickly become one of the most divisive features of this World Cup.
Many fans have criticised FIFA's decision to make them mandatory, even when conditions do not appear to demand it, arguing that the stoppages change rhythm, give players extra rest and let coaches address the group mid-half.
In that context, former USMNT defender and outspoken broadcaster Alexi Lalas has taken the unpopular side of the argument and even predicted where football may be heading.
Photo by Hector Vivas – FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images
Lalas, a former United States international who later became one of the country's most recognisable football pundits, defended the breaks after being asked about them on X.
"I have no problem with hydration breaks. It benefits players and advertisers. Win/win. Yes, it changes how you play/coach/watch, but so did substitutions, 3 pts for win, VAR, etc. Evolve and adapt. There will be a generation whose version of the beautiful game includes quarters," wrote the ex-defender.
That final line was always going to annoy traditionalists. The fear for many supporters is that mandatory breaks are pushing football closer to an American-style quarter format.
Lalas clearly sees that shift as evolution rather than damage, arguing that changes which once felt dramatic can eventually become normal.
Virgil van Dijk offered the other side after the Netherlands' 2-2 draw with Japan at the air-conditioned AT&T Stadium. He criticised the breaks and said the commercial interruptions were not great for neutral TV viewers.
That contrast captures the debate. FIFA says the pauses are about welfare and consistency, but fans and players are already asking whether the game is being reshaped for adverts.
Read more:
