In Play with B&K

Welcome to “In Play with B&K”, the regular update from the Bray & Krais sports law team on current legal issues within the regulation and business of sport.  In our first edition, Alex Goodchild  looks at broadcasting issues at this summer’s 2026 football World Cup in US, Mexico and Canada. (3 min read)

World Cup water breaks: win for player welfare or further Americanisation of the sport?

ITV have reportedly decided against using in-picture adverts during the three-minute hydration breaks taking place in every half of this year’s World Cup.  Before we rush to commend ITV, as a practical matter we should note that Ofcom have strict limits on the total time broadcasters can set aside for advertising (in-game adverts would come at the cost of traditional breaks).  Yet, it is also an acknowledgement of fan backlash when ITV trialled in-picture adverts during this year’s Six Nations.  In the context of competition for every eyeball, in-picture ads would have left BBC, who can boast ad-free broadcasts, with something of an open goal.

Whatever ITV’s motives, the advent of three-minute breaks and accompanying adverts serves as a prompt for wider discussion on football’s direction of travel.

After Chelsea FC’s Enzo Fernandez decried the “very dangerous” heat in last summer’s Club World Cup, it is unsurprising FIFA are promoting the three-minute “hydration breaks” as “prioritising player welfare”.  A cynic might point out that similar breaks made sense in the heat of the Qatar World Cup and were only triggered if temperatures hit a minimum threshold, whereas these ones will take place over all 104 matches, irrespective of the weather.  These are quite different to the special Ramadan breaks observed in English football too.  Nor should we forget that the additional six minutes will likely be offset by the trend of longer injury time.  All in all, these breaks make no material difference to player welfare.

Ironically, these so-called welfare breaks are driven by the same factors that see the football calendar expand and saturate: stakeholders’ eagerness to tap into new revenue streams.  Assuming Fernandez plays every game in the remainder of the domestic season for Chelsea (Madrid fallout aside) and Argentina make the World Cup final again, he could be on course to play almost 70 matches this season (including the Club World Cup), marking a high point in the tension between rightsholders seeking returns and players as the assets.

On the other hand, the commercial logic for the breaks is as follows: more advertising spots means more revenue for broadcasters.  As new entrants like Netflix and Paramount muscle in on bids for major competitions, rights package prices only continue to rise. For the likes of ITV, who have already lost out on the FA Cup rights to TNT, that new stream is imperative in competing for and retaining rights.  In turn, more value for broadcasters means they should in theory be willing to pay more to FIFA (and other organising bodies in future).  Additionally, under FIFA’s rules (should the broadcaster opt to commercialise the breaks), broadcasters can either cut to full-screen ads (and sell those spots to anyone) or, more likely, they can use in-picture ads, the catch being that these spots can only be sold to FIFA partners, such as Coca-Cola or Aramco.  FIFA can then expect to leverage this increased visibility in its deals with partners.

With Trump recently speculating that the NFL should change its name so that “soccer” can become “football” in the States, it is curious to think that the sport is becoming more American in the hunt for new profit streams.  Controversial plans for the Valencia-Barcelona and Como-Milan league fixtures to take place in Miami and Perth respectively, akin to the NFL’s overseas matches, failed.  After Real Madrid and UEFA reached a settlement in February, the European Super League US-style closed-league project is over too.  It is tempting to herald ITV’s decision as another refreshing reminder of fan power but, with broadcasters under increasing pressure to find the money for TV rights packages, the real question will be whether FIFA’s latest innovation finds its way into the domestic game.