This week, a fortnight into the World Cup, after booing ‘hydration breaks’ has become commonplace, Fifa put out a statement to tell us what a good and universally well-received innovation they are.
‘The breaks may have contributed to the unprecedented levels of intensity the matches have been played in,’ the statement read, with Fifa president Gianni Infantino elaborating: ‘Until the last seconds of the match, players attack… maybe it’s also thanks to this little break that the players have.’
He opined: ‘Having a moment to rest is extremely important.’ In case you’ve missed the controversy: this World Cup, football matches have been subdivided into quarters by the introduction of two mandatory three-minute breaks for the first time in history.
The breaks happen independent of climate conditions at the individual games, which is why England v Ghana took so long despite being played in fairly cool rain.
Don’t miss a World Cup moment
We’re witnessing history at this World Cup – our daily newsletter helps you make the most of it. Sign up.
Football has been played in two halves of 45 minutes since the rules were standardised in 1863. France coach Didier Deschamps confirmed this when he explained: ‘It’s not two half-times, it is four quarter-times basically that we’ve got.’
Infantino was keen to state that these hydration breaks (sponsored by Powerade) provide no commercial opportunities for Fifa. But it was his words about how the breaks have improved the games that made my blood run cold, because it was the clearest sign yet that Infantino wants football to be quartered henceforth.
So why does it matter? On a few points he might be right: players may appreciate additional rest and the extra coaching stops surely suit Deschamps, Tuchel et al. Global warming at its current rate will mean that football continues to be played in increasingly punishing conditions and extra breaks with welfare in mind may be a way of adapting to this new reality.
I am not some football purist who longs for the days before substitutions, who feels sad keepers can no longer pick up the ball from their own defence and doesn’t believe the game should ever be tweaked. Sometimes change is good.
The issue here is threefold. An unprecedented structural change has been forced through by Fifa without consultation or analysis. This decision has been made with no reference to the positive attributes – such as flow – of the game they serve and has artificially altered results (consider the equaliser scored by Brazil after a poor start saw them 1-0 down to Morocco). It solves no problem, or at least, no problem with how football works as a spectacle.
Compare the back-pass law. In the early 90s, there was clearly a problem to solve: games could be slowed to a standstill by a cheeky hoof to your own keeper – and were being. The proposal for what became the law was drafted first by Swiss international turned football administrator Daniel Jeandupeux. Not only did he suggest what might be done, he also provided data to show how much time-wasting back passes caused. Committees convened, debated, finessed. After a successful trial it came into effect in 1992, an organic reflection of the state of the game and an improvement that has stood the test of time.
Football is the world’s favourite game for a reason and the structure of it should be treated very carefully and with respect. The exact opposite has happened here. Unilateral hydration breaks solve no problem. A change to the structure of football has been applied by stealth.
Even if this were to lead to wonderful improvements in the way the game is played, the cynicism of the approach makes it absolutely the wrong call and one that must be resisted. As one of the greatest thinkers on the sport, Uruguay coach Marcelo Bielsa, said: ‘It adds nothing and takes away a lot. When [the game] was divided into four, no thought was given to the effect it might have on what made football a sport that captivates people but rather to another type of repercussion that I neither discuss nor analyse.’