FIFA’s ability to use football as a unifying factor has arguably never been more streamlined than the collective distaste for its decision to introduce hydration breaks in all fixtures at the World Cup.Fans, players, coaches, and everyone in between have criticised, debated, and challenged the decision that has become a major talking point of the six-week-long tournament, with a myriad of other socioeconomic, political and financial problems.Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of listWhen FIFA unveiled the rule in December, it was announced with a sense of finality. The global governing body for football claimed that players would “benefit from three-minute hydration breaks in each half of games as FIFA prioritises player welfare”. South Africa players take a drink during a hydration break in the match between Czechia and South Africa at Atlanta Stadium [Molly Darlington/Getty Images via AFP]Do players prefer hydration breaks?One week into the tournament, and it’s obvious that the players are not keen on the inaugural, compulsory, non-negotiable amendment.Netherlands defender Virgil Van Dijk led the charge against the “interesting” hydration breaks.“If it’s really hot, obviously it will be good to put them in. But I think you have to look at it in every game separately, in my opinion.”Belgium’s Youri Tielemans seemed to agree, saying the breaks could work both ways.“In some cities, it’s not that hot, and maybe we shouldn’t do it. But at the end of the day, if you do it in some cities, you should do it for everyone.”Tielemans’s comments are in line with FIFA’s reasoning. Advertisement “There will be no weather or temperature condition in place, with t …
