The reported stoppages last around three minutes, making them more significant than a brief pause for players to take on fluids. They alter the rhythm of matches and create a predictable window for broadcasters to consider commercial content.
That is the central tension. A hydration break may support player welfare, particularly in hot conditions, but it also risks turning the match into a segmented product. The report says Ferdinand believes domestic leagues could examine the financial return from the World Cup format before deciding whether the disruption is worthwhile.
For leagues under constant pressure to grow revenue, that argument may prove difficult to dismiss.
The breaks have reportedly drawn criticism from players and coaches. Virgil van Dijk has questioned the policy, while Jürgen Klopp is said to have argued that the stoppages appear longer than necessary for drinking.
The concern is not limited to players inside the stadium. Longer interruptions can frustrate viewers, especially when live coverage moves directly into advertising. That creates a clear divide between the stadium experience and the broadcast product.
president Gianni Infantino has defended the measure as a sporting decision and reportedly rejected the idea that it was introduced to create additional income for the governing body. Even so, the commercial effect will remain part of the debate.
Hydration breaks are only one part of a broader package of changes reportedly being tested. Faster restarts and a more permissive approach to natural contact are designed to increase flow, while VAR has so far avoided major controversy at the tournament.
The next test will come when domestic competitions assess whether the breaks improve player welfare enough to justify changing the familiar matchday structure. If commercial returns become compelling, resistance from clubs, players and supporters may be tested again before the next major tournament.