Hydration breaks at World Cup draw boos from fans, praise from players

England began their 2026 World Cup campaign with a 4-2 victory over Croatia on Wednesday, but the match was marked by boos from the crowd — not directed at the players or officials, but at the tournament's new hydration breaks.

Two three-minute pauses per game, one in each half, have been introduced to help players cope with the summer heat in North America. While some national team coaches have welcomed them, fans have expressed strong disapproval. In the air-conditioned Dallas Stadium, supporters of both England and Croatia united in jeering the stoppage.

Fan criticism: Commercial motives and disruption of flow

The main criticism is that the breaks serve as opportunities for broadcasters to air additional advertisements. “The hydration breaks are obviously for one purpose and that's big money for advertisements,” said one England fan after the game. “In this stadium, I don't think they were needed but in another with no air conditioning and you are playing in 90 degrees plus, they are absolutely essential.”

Another supporter added: “Yes, if you are outside you need a hydration break, I get that. But you are in an air conditioned stadium — you don't need one. It stops the flow. Football is about the flow and there's no need to stop the flow in an air-conditioned stadium.”

This was not the first instance of fan backlash. On Tuesday, during Norway's match against Iraq in Boston, the pause was met with boos despite a mild 23°C temperature. Iraq conceded four minutes after play resumed and lost 4-1. Similar reactions occurred during Sweden's 5-1 thrashing of Tunisia on Monday and Spain's goalless draw with Cape Verde, played in the air-conditioned Atlanta Stadium. After England's win, the first hydration break in the Ghana-Panama match also drew jeers.

The breaks effectively divide the game into four quarters, a change that concerns some fans. “It is like the Americanisation of football here,” said one. “It is turning the game into quarters and I don't love it. I get why people were booing and I was one of them.”

However, not all fans oppose the breaks. “I think they are badly marketed,” said another supporter. “If they were not called a hydration break, and were called a relief break then everyone doesn't miss a goal. I think we have to think about it in a new way, corporate [bodies] get what they want, we get what we want and everyone is happy.”

Player and coach perspective: Tactical advantage and safety

Despite fan discontent, many players and coaches view the breaks positively. National team bosses use them to regroup, pass on instructions, and regain momentum. Players welcome the chance to take on fluids, especially in tougher conditions ahead.

“It is good practice to have them to prepare for New York and Boston,” England goalkeeper Jordan Pickford said. “It is still humid in the stadium, they are not going to stop happening, so we may as well get used to them and treat them as an advantage not a disadvantage.”

Defender Nico O'Reilly acknowledged their usefulness but said he would not mind if they were removed. “I don't feel like we need them, we've acclimatised well,” he said. “They're in the tournament and we can't do anything about it.”