Is it really surprising that Alexi Lalas is on the Fox side of things in the FIFA hydration break debate? He doesn’t shy away from butting heads with the great Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Thierry Henry on live TV. What difference is an average fan on social media going to make, especially when the conversation is about Fox’s $250M revenue machine?

On X, when a user challenged the need for hydration breaks indoors, Lalas pitched in with a three-point defense.

“1. Hydration is necessary and beneficial to humans, regardless of temperature. 2. A hydration break is a new and unique opportunity for coaches to influence the game. So it could be a competitive advantage/disadvantage if all teams were not given the opportunity. 3. I said so.”

FIFA mandated hydration breaks at every match for this World Cup, regardless of venue or temperature, a decision that drew immediate backlash. Broadcasters had the freedom to cut to commercials when the referee called for a hydration break during each half, and a majority of broadcasters in all the markets have opted to do so.

Each break would last for three minutes, and broadcasters had the liberty to start the adverts 20 seconds after the break began and return to action at least 30 seconds before the restart ( a guideline Fox violated in Mexico’s opener against South Africa). It meant each broadcaster had at least 130 seconds or 2 minutes and 10 seconds to broadcast ads. An average 30-second ad slot at the World Cup costs approximately between $200,000 to $300,000 on Fox Sports, as per the BBC Sport.

Applying the same rates to the hydration break, FIFA is likely to generate $250 million in the USA alone. Multiple other broadcasters in major markets like Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, India, and China are also showcasing adverts during the breaks, which is estimated to generate a revenue of $1 billion worldwide. But due to the BBC’s no-ad policy and Ofcom regulation on ITV in the UK, the fans in the UK are able to watch how the break plays out on the pitch.

Although FIFA’s intentions might be noble to protect the players from the intense heat, its blatant commercialization is leading to debates. However, Lalas believes that hydration is much needed during the game, irrespective of the conditions, and it helps refresh the tactics.

Recently, the much-maligned hydration break controversy took a new turn due to its mandatory enforcement policy. The England-Croatia game was played at the AT&T Stadium, which is the largest air-conditioned stadium in the world. A hydration break invited jeers and boos from fans.

When rain-soaked France-Iraq at Philadelphia (already delayed two hours) took a hydration break in the second half, fans questioned its necessity.

However, Lalas believed that enforcing it irrespective of the conditions would be the right thing to make sure no team gets an undue advantage during the tournament. His third point, “I said so,” comes mere hours after he confirmed he was the “boss” who decided to award Zlatan Ibrahimovic an “employee of the month” award on Fox Sports.

The National Soccer Hall of Famer built his reputation on hot takes and shock value. His statement comes as no surprise. But what do the actual on-field experts have to say?

The FIFA hydration break could be here to stay

The hydration break did not sit right with the soccer world due to it breaking the game down into four quarters, adding ads in between, and changing the momentum of the game. Marcelo Bielsa, the legendary coach of Uruguay, slammed the idea during a recent post-game press conference.

“I will just say that before this decision, football had a characteristic; now it has another. It adds nothing and takes away a lot,” he added.

England coach Thomas Tuchel also shared similar views.

“I think that it interrupts and changes the identity of a football match much more than I thought. Of course, I had hydration breaks before when it was really, really hot and needed, but they were shorter.

“They were just in a few matches. Now it is a point of fairness to every team. Now it breaks the match almost in four quarters, and it changes the characteristic of the match more than I thought,” he added.

But despite the complaints, the break did have a fair few supporters. Germany’s head coach, Julian Nagelsmann, credited the break for giving him some time to come up with new tactics as his side rallied to beat Curacao 7-1 after being tied 1-1 at the break. French coach Didier Deschamps also praised its impact for giving him the chance to speak to players mid-match. This laid the base for Lalas’ finding another point for his defense.

Despite the criticism, the FIFA president Gianni Infantino is only looking at the positives of the break. His justification laid the benchmark for Lalas’s views.

“If we were to use hydration breaks only in those matches where it was too hot and not in the other matches, we would give an advantage or a disadvantage to some of the coaches or some of the teams,” he told SNTV.

Bullish on the initiative, Infantino said FIFA will use the tournament as a model and maintain hydration breaks at future events.

UEFA has seemingly rejected this notion after confirming to The Telegraph that they will not have a mandatory hydration break at the 2028 European Championship. They will use the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) parameter and assess the condition on a match-by-match basis.

The final round of the group stage fixtures has commenced at the World Cup. As the knockouts are set to begin on Sunday, the mercury is set to rise both on and off the field due to the constant back and forth between those who support and detest the breaks.