Hydration breaks have been a hot topic at the 2026 World Cup, but how much have they actually been affecting games? We look into the numbers.
Anyone who didn’t follow football before this World Cup might wonder what all the fuss is about.
Three-minute hydration breaks have been introduced midway through each 45-minute half, in an addition to a high-tempo sport that could very feasibly be considered extremely sensible. In the heat of the red-hot North American summer, it might understandably be considered wise to pause and take on some water.
Football is one of the very few sports which doesn’t have natural breaks that are long enough to allow a full team to stop and gather their thoughts together. That might be something that fans of other sports find strange, but for many long-time football watchers, the continuity and lack of disruption for 45 minutes are part of what makes it so captivating.
Hydration breaks at the 2026 World Cup have, therefore, not been everyone’s cup of tea (or water, perhaps). Some claim they are a money-generating addition to the game, with television viewers in many countries – but not the UK, notably – shown three minutes of advertisements during those stoppages. FIFA president Gianni Infantino has insisted “there is no additional revenue” for the organisation from these breaks.
As for the football, there has been a consistent feeling that these hydration breaks are affecting the flow of games. The main concern is that breaks in play can disrupt the progress of the team that is in the ascendancy and allow the other team to regroup just when things were getting difficult. Emma Hayes, the head coach of the US women’s team, has referred to them as “momentum breaks.”
The truth is that momentum swings naturally in football matches and always has done. There are breaks in play for injuries, substitutions, or when the ball goes out of play. And even without any interruption to play, a single moment, like a chance, a shot that is saved, a big tackle, or a foul, can spark a team into action. The fans can also play a role, with the roar of a home crowd spurring their players on.
But the idea of a drinks break ‘artificially’ affecting how a game would have otherwise ‘naturally’ flowed; that seems to be something that grates.
But is that actually happening? Are we seeing the momentum of 2026 World Cup games shift because of the hydration breaks?
The truth is, that’s impossible to answer with any certainty. There have been games where it has appeared as though momentum has changed, though, and every time that happens, the belief is strengthened that the breaks are playing a role.
In the Netherlands’ 5-1 win over Sweden, for example, before the first hydration break, the Netherlands had four shots to Sweden’s one, and 1.34 xG to their opponents’ 0.03 xG.
Then, Graham Potter switched from five at the back to four, and between the end of the hydration break and half-time, his Sweden side outshot their opponents eight to one, with 0.44 xG to Netherlands’ 0.03.
There’s no doubt that the game changed either side of the interruption in play; the stats prove as much, and the stoppage allowed Potter to implement his plan properly, with instructions given directly to his players, rather than passed on from the touchline.
But did it change because of the break? Sweden were 2-0 down by this point, and Potter’s tactical change might have had as much impact had he made it during a ‘normal’ first half. Game state surely played a part here as Sweden desperately pushed for a route back into the game.
Germany head coach, Julian Nagelsmann, suggested that the hydration break midway through the first half of his side’s 7-1 win over Curaçao helped him clarify his messaging to his players as they adjusted to playing against their opponents’ diamond midfield shape.
“Very few teams do that anymore,” he said. “And we needed a bit of time. The water break was actually good to simply reiterate what we had already [spoken about].”
Germany generated 0.64 xG before the drinks break, and then 1.82 xG after it. It was 1-1 when the game was paused, and Germany went in at half-time 3-1 up.
Again, though, nobody can be certain that the break in play necessarily played a part. Germany, clearly a superior side to Curaçao, might well have scored two goals after the midway point of the first half, given the scores were level and they’d have wanted to find a lead before half-time.
There was also a noticeable shift in the second half of Switzerland vs Bosnia-Herzegovina. Switzerland had been on top for much of the game, but with the scores still goalless approaching the midway point in the second half, Bosnia were enjoying their best spell. They didn’t have tonnes of chances, but the game was being played in Swiss territory, with Bosnia having 34 touches in the final third (they’d had just 13 in the period before the hydration break in the first half).
Then came the break in play, and the game lurched in the other direction. Switzerland generated 1.67 xG after the break (including a late penalty), having had just 0.31 xG before it, and went on to win the match, almost inexplicably, 4-1. Bosnia had just five more final-third touches in the last quarter of the game.
Switzerland coach Murat Yakin said afterwards that he purposefully waited for the hydration break to make substitutions “because then the opponent can’t react immediately.”
Yakin made a triple change at the break, and one of his subs scored twice (
Hence then, the article about are world cup hydration breaks really killing momentum was published today ( ) and is available on The Analyst ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Are World Cup Hydration Breaks Really Killing Momentum? )
Also on site :