FIFA's decision to introduce mandatory hydration breaks in all World Cup matches has drawn widespread criticism from fans, players, and coaches worldwide. The move has become a major talking point of the tournament, overshadowing other issues.

FIFA claimed the breaks were for player welfare, but many view them as a commercial venture. Netherlands defender Virgil van Dijk called them 'interesting' and suggested they should be decided on a game-by-game basis.

Belgium's Youri Tielemans agreed, saying the breaks could work both ways. 'In some cities, it's not that hot, and maybe we shouldn't do it. But if you do it in some cities, you should do it for everyone,' he said.

Weather expert Everton Fox noted that most games have not been hot enough to require breaks. He described the decision as 'a commercial venture worth millions of dollars in advertising to US TV channels.'

A 30-second ad slot on Fox Sports costs between $200,000 and $300,000, rising to $750,000 during US matches. Advertising during hydration breaks could generate over $250 million in the US alone, according to reports.

Canadian right-back Alistair Johnston said the breaks are 'probably making some more money for FIFA.' Some broadcasters cut to full-screen commercials during breaks, disrupting the viewing experience.

From a sporting perspective, breaks can kill momentum. Curacao equalized against Germany only to see a hydration break allow Germany's coach to rally his team to a 7-1 victory.

However, some coaches welcome the breaks. Belgium coach Rudi Garcia called them 'a coaching break more than a cooling break.' France's Didier Deschamps uses the time to speak with players and 'adjust a couple of things.'

Source: www.aljazeera.com