Do hydrated players play better football? We asked an expert about this World Cup

Get free access to the most comprehensive World Cup coverage in The Athletic app.

The hydration breaks that have become a feature of this World Cup have not been universally popular with players, coaches or fans. There have been criticisms over the division of a 90-minute match into essentially four quarters rather than two halves (with hydration breaks inserted around the 22nd and 67th minutes of every game).

The decision of some broadcasters to insert extra commercials during thes three-minute breaks has also been derided, particularly when it appears that a late return from those commercials has delayed action re-starting on the pitch.

After the United States’ World Cup opening game against Paraguay, US men’s national team defender Antonee Robinson said: “The referees are saying: ‘No, you’ve got more time, it’s alright, because the ads are still running’.”

For players and coaches, the break in play might feel like an annoyance when the temperatures do not seem to demand extra hydration, but what are the physical implications of stopping midway through each half? And could it be that despite all the griping about hydration breaks, the end product is actually being enhanced because of them?

The Athletic consulted Dominic Rae, a sports medicine and performance specialist who is currently head of sports medicine at Ten Percent Club and senior first team physiotherapist at Al Nasr Club in the UAE to find out.

What are the benefits to performance of being well hydrated?

“There are two parts to hydration that we need to remember: You’ve got the fluid-replenishment element and you’ve got the electrolyte replenishment element.

“Because our blood is made up of a large proportion of water, fluid replenishment is key to make sure we maintain our blood consistency, and that’s important to make sure that we’ve got the efficiency of removing waste products, which is obviously important when we’re exercising. It also ensures that we’re delivering the right amount of nutrients and oxygen to peripheral tissues which, again, when we’re exercising is certainly important.

“The second part of hydration is restoring electrolytes. This is important to make sure that we maintain fluid balance, and also ensures proper cell signalling. This will mean that muscle and brain function are less impaired, and that’ll improve things like decision-making and maintaining physical outputs, especially as we go through games when heavy sweating is going to be a factor.”

What physical effects might we be seeing from the hydration breaks being implemented at the World Cup?

“What we should see from the hydration breaks is that because players get a rest, they’re able to bring the heart rates down, they’re able to regulate body temperature better, and they’re also able take on things like electrolytes, fluids, and sugars. We should therefore see an increase in physical output.

“Potentially, they’re not hitting higher peaks because of this but what we should see is the periods of peak demands from a physical output point of view, and the key metrics that we look at, being sustained for longer periods. We should also see less drop-off in the later periods of halves or games because of the things we spoke about at the start of this question.

“Another element that should be mentioned is that these breaks allow more opportunity for coaches to speak to the players and make small tactical tweaks, which can also impact the physical element of the game. Therefore, we should see less stagnant parts of the match because coaches are able to adapt more often and react quicker to tactical situations and scenarios that happen in the match.”

How long does it take the body to absorb and make use of things like electrolytes in drinks and the glucose in energy gels? i.e. is there likely any impact within the same half or is it more long term?

“Depending on the type of product, the ingredient panel, and the method of taking, this answer can vary. So it can be anywhere from a couple of minutes all the way up to somewhere around 30 minutes, and that will then vary the impact it has on the period after the hydration break or if it’s later in the match.

“For example, if we took an electrolyte drink that was diluted in water or we had a sugar drink or a sugar-based gel, and we swirled that around the mouth, we’ve got a sublingual method of absorption (under the tongue), and we’ve got a buccal method of absorption (between the gum and cheek). Because these areas are packed with blood vessels and really close to the surface of the skin, we get quite rapid absorption there and therefore, the acute effect is much better than if we just drank them straight and relied on the digestive system to get them into the bloodstream — that’s much slower.

“So a recommendation to players would be when you’re taking these products, swirl them around the mouth for a little bit first, and that’ll allow them to get more rapid absorption, and then the rest will get absorbed via the normal digestion method.

“Another thing to consider is that if there are already contents in the stomach, the products will have a much slower digestion and a slower absorption than if we were taking them on an empty stomach. So how close meal timings were before and what the contents of that were will have an impact on how much of an acute response we’ll get from that hydration break.

“The types of products used and the bioavailability of their ingredients play a massive role in this too, so quality of product is really important. The more bioavailable and higher quality a product, the more acute an effect it will have on the next periods of play than a product with lower quality and lower absorbability.”

Is it possible that we are seeing ‘better’ football because of the hydration breaks?

“Logically, we should definitely see better physical outputs. Players are able to bring the heart rate down, control body temperature and take on fluids, electrolytes and sugars, so their abilities to sustain physical outputs should improve. As a result, we should see higher physical output in games and higher physical peak demands for longer periods. This should lead to better football, because we’re seeing less fatigue and less impaired decision-making.

“I think what we’ll also see is better games or more competitive games because of the impact the coaches can have. It’s allowing them to have tactical breaks, if you call them that, as well as hydration breaks, so changes can be made more frequently and coaches can be more reactive to things that they are seeing to make sure that periods of games aren’t as one-sided as maybe we’d see with only a handover at half-time.”

Would you expect to see more of an impact in these knockout games when there can be periods of extra time?

“What we should see is players being able to sustain physical outputs and periods of peak demand for much longer because of the rest periods when they can control heart rate, bring body temperature down, and take on fluids, electrolytes, sugars, etc.

“What will be interesting to see in extra time is whether we see both teams being able to maintain intensity and therefore nullify each other.

“I think that instead of the norm, when you generally find that one team maintains the intensity slightly better and it becomes relatively one-sided in extra time or it becomes a slower game with frantic periods of transition, what we’ll now see is a game of football that looks the same all the way through regulation time and extra time because both teams are able to continue to play the way they want in order to win.”