Twice a match, the 2026 World Cup pauses. Drinks appear, ads go up, and fans boo. Football’s governing body FIFA says these ‘hydration breaks’ are aimed at the well-being of players – a response to rising temperatures and the increasing risk of heat exhaustion. But right now, FIFA is missing the mark and risks turning a good idea into a bad example.

To save lives during heat waves, focus on how human bodies work

I say this as a researcher investigating the effect of heat on health and performance. Cooldown breaks can work. Science is strong. But they must be executed correctly.

Bottom line: Cooldown breaks should be driven by the risk of heat stress and designed around effective cooling, not broadcast schedules or commercial pressures.

In the field, that principle is beginning to fail. Breaks that should be calibrated to environmental heat stress appear to be linked to television schedules and advertising revenue. Critics complain that the scheduled cooldown time is used for tactical instructions and that players receive guidance while in the sun rather than in the shade.

FIFA’s medical guidelines are clear: cool-down breaks are intended solely to prevent heat illness and should be used when environmental heat stress exceeds a defined threshold (a humid globe temperature of 32°C).

But in this World Cup there is a gap between policy and practice. Breaks appear in every game, regardless of conditions, even in climate-controlled stadiums. While it might seem fair to treat all games the same, this blanket approach risks undermining confidence in heat safety measures. If breaks are always used, regardless of the risk, they cease to be meaningful and begin to look like routine stoppages.

Repeated heat waves can be as aging as smoking or drinking

Heat exhaustion in athletes is common, but it can be prevented. My collaborators and I have conducted controlled experiments with participants simulating 90-minute soccer matches in 40°C heat and 41% humidity. We tried different cool down approaches: passive breaks, active cool down, and longer recovery periods. The difference was marked. Short breaks during the game with ice-soaked towels and cold drinks, combined with a slightly longer break at halftime, significantly reduced core temperature and cardiovascular strain. In contrast, breaks without active cooling offered few measurable benefits (HA Brown et al. J. Sciences. Medicine. Sport 28491–497 (2025); HA brown et al. Bro. J. Sports medicine. 581044–1051; 2024).

It’s not the pause in the game, but how it is used. If players do not actively cool down, heat stress remains a problem.

This is not just a sports problem. It is a problem for human health. The same principles apply to construction workers on a hot job site or agricultural workers in a field. Across these settings, the evidence is consistent: structured interventions that combine rest, hydration, and active cooling reduce physiological stress and protect health. When they are poorly designed or applied inconsistently, the benefits may not be felt.

That broader relevance is why it’s important to get this right in football. World sport sets the tone. When governing bodies misapply science in highly visible events, they risk normalizing ineffective approaches. But there are positive examples of heat management strategies. Some sports have moved beyond temperature thresholds and adopted responsive heat stress management that prioritizes physiology. The point here is flexibility, guided by science.

What is the highest temperature that humans can survive? These laboratories are redefining the limit

In tennis, the Australian Open, for example, uses a five-level heat stress scale, developed with researchers at my center. It combines the physiological risk of heat stress with environmental measurements and the response is adjusted accordingly. That can mean anything from implementing cooling measures on the court to suspending play. Since 2025, World Rugby has taken a similar approach, working with our center to introduce evidence-based heat guidelines that tailor interventions to both conditions and individual player risk.