Water-gate: Fifa’s lucrative World Cup breaks are ruining the spectacle
· Yahoo Sports
“This hydration break is powered by Powerade,” roared Fox Sports commentator Ian Darke, as the first game of the World Cup stopped after 24 minutes so players could take on water. The temperature in Mexico City was 23C, constituting a relatively mild day in the Mexican summer. But if we’ve learnt one thing over the past few weeks, it’s that this is not a tournament to miss out on a fast buck.
Fox Sports, of course, used the three-minute break to show lucrative advertising. Powerade is Fifa’s official sports drink and once it had its moment on screen, Fox cut to adverts for AT&T (telecoms), Michelob Ultra (light beer), Lowe’s (home improvements) and FanDuel (sports betting). When the break ended, it cut back to find the players preparing to restart. Why anyone needs three minutes to glug some water has not been explained.
Visit syntagm.co.za for more information.
Mexico's head coach Javier Aguirre talks with his players during the hydration break (AFP via Getty Images)At which point, the momentum of a high-paced, entertaining first game was killed. Inside the stadium the roars that greeted the Mexican anthem and their team’s opening goal were replaced by music. The stands began to empty as fans left their seats, presumably to get their own food and drink, while “dance cam” took over the big screens.
There will be games when water breaks are necessary during this World Cup. But Fifa’s decision to blanket all 104 fixtures with mandatory hydration breaks is an extraordinary, unprecedented step. The governing body claims the stoppages will “ensure the best possible conditions for players”. A more cynical explanation is that Fifa’s broadcasters stand to increase their bounty from a World Cup that is already being squeezed for every penny it’s worth.
“I don’t like it,” said US coach Mauricio Pochettino, when asked about the prospect of water breaks during America’s first game against Paraguay on Friday. “I only like it when the conditions are extreme. But when the conditions are good, it is unnecessary.”
“I hate it,” tweeted Carli Lloyd, the great US women’s player.
What was all the more jarring was that this bizarre moment took place inside the historic Estadio Azteca, a footballing cathedral, on the game’s most hallowed turf. It is the place where Pele won the 1970 World Cup, where his perfect pass to Carlos Alberto drew a line across the pitch. It is the place where Diego Maradona conjured the greatest goal ever scored at a World Cup; where the “hand of God” broke dreams.
Mexico beat South Africa in the opening game of the World Cup (AP)Standing on the touchline before kick-off for ITV Sport (which did not show ads due to Ofcom restrictions), Ally McCoist was almost moved to tears to be so close to football history. And yet it was ironic that the ground has been renamed for this World Cup as the bland, lifeless “Mexico City Stadium” to adhere to Fifa naming conventions. Given this tournament’s lust for money, it’s a surprise the Azteca wasn’t renamed after one of Fifa’s partners: The Coca-Cola Stadium. The Hyundai-Kia Arena. The Marriott Bonvoy Thunderdome.
Fifa, it should be pointed out, had already bowed to Fox Sports long before this tournament began. Fox wanted to sue Fifa for moving the Qatar World Cup from summer to winter. To avoid an ugly and potentially costly legal fight, Fifa agreed to sign off the rights to the 2026 World Cup in a cut-price deal which saw Fox Sports take the entire tournament for $500m, back in 2015. Fox struck lucky, then, when the tournament turned out to be on home turf in North America, and then expanded to 48 teams and a record 104 games. The broadcast rights are estimated to be worth $1.5bn and Fox took them for a third of that price.
So Fifa’s decision to split every game into quarters offers more reasons for Fox to cheer. There could be 208 in-game ad breaks and Michael Johnson, a research analyst covering the US sports industry for S&P Global, told Reuters each advertising slot “could potentially command those Super Bowl-level prices within that seven to probably nine-million-dollar range”. If water breaks are retained for the 2030 World Cup, which will be staged in the Mediterranean heat of Morocco, Spain and Portugal, competition among broadcasters and streaming giants will be fiercely lucrative for Fifa.
Now the entire format of the oldest, most popular sport in the world has essentially been transformed overnight, on its greatest stage. The breaks are being used by coaches as tactical timeouts, and both managers could be seen dishing out instructions on the touchline while their players refuelled. US fans might not grumble, given they are used to similar formats in American sports, but they are being deprived of what makes football a spectacle, namely its pace of play.
Is any of this necessary? Fifa president Gianni Infantino has hailed the financial might of this World Cup, with revenues set to exceed £10bn for the first time. Is there any need to push for more, and more, and more? Water breaks come at a cost to the game. But as ever, Fifa only answers to the god Mammon.