The planned stoppages would arrive around the 22nd minute of each half, according to the report, and run from the referee’s whistle until play restarts. Match clocks would continue, with lost time added at the end of each half.
Players would remain on the pitch rather than return to the dressing room. That makes the measure less like half-time and more like a structured pause for hydration, cooling and medical checks - particularly important across a tournament staged in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
The policy is being presented as a welfare measure rather than a tactical innovation. described it as “part of a focused attempt to ensure the best possible conditions for players, drawing upon the experiences of previous tournaments”.
The breaks will also give managers a guaranteed chance to address their teams during each half. Coaches could use the pause to change pressing instructions, reorganise a defensive shape or calm a side struggling in difficult conditions.
That may be especially significant in matches played during daytime heat. A three-minute intervention could interrupt momentum, help exhausted players recover and give substitutes and staff a clearer role in managing energy levels.
Referees are reportedly expected to combine a scheduled drinks break with an injury stoppage if treatment is already taking place nearby, avoiding two separate interruptions.
The controversy will come when football meets television. Regular, predictable pauses could create pressure for commercial opportunities in some markets, even though the breaks are officially designed around player welfare.
The wider question is whether these stoppages become accepted as part of modern tournament football or intensify concerns about an already fragmented viewing experience.
When the 2026 World Cup begins, the first major test will be whether the breaks genuinely protect players without distorting the rhythm of the world’s biggest tournament.