Player welfare is the strongest argument for hydration breaks, particularly in hot or humid conditions. A short stoppage can allow players to rehydrate, receive medical attention and reset when heat becomes a genuine performance and health factor.
The tournament policy provides one hydration break in each half, the report says. That consistency gives officials and teams a clear framework, but it may also remove the flexibility to respond to the actual conditions on the day.
Van Dijk’s concern centres on the effect of regular interruptions. The reported 2-2 draw was described as one of the livelier matches in the group stage, and his argument is that compulsory stoppages can break momentum during games that are already flowing.
That matters tactically. Teams preparing to defend a lead can use a pause to reorganise, while the side chasing the match may lose attacking momentum. A break can also change the emotional temperature of a contest, especially during late pressure.
The update also says Van Dijk questioned whether additional interruptions could affect the viewing experience when commercial activity is added around them. That issue is secondary to welfare, but it explains why the policy has become a broader football debate.
A universal rule is easier to apply fairly than a system based on subjective assessments of heat, humidity or player fatigue. Yet a fixed approach may appear excessive in cooler venues and insufficient in extreme conditions.
The next group matches will provide more evidence for both sides of the argument. If stoppages continue to affect the flow of close games, pressure for a more conditions-based policy is likely to grow.