Officials in sporting organisations should always remain neutral when it comes to tournaments. Wrong ideas and thoughts will rush through the heads of the fans and other people who see a member supporting a team.
That has been the case with FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, publically backing Argentina when they faced Cape Verde.
FIFA chief, Gianni Infantino, has been accused of corruption after eye-opening footage emerged of some "shameless" comments he made following one of the World Cup's Round of 32 ties.
Football's top dog has found it difficult to stay away from the limelight for too long this summer and his latest act could be his most controversial yet.
Indeed, some of the other things he has done that have kicked up a storm include the sycophantic gesture of gifting US President Donald Trump an inaugural "FIFA Peace Prize" last December.
Meanwhile, he introduced hydration breaks even in stadiums that are air-conditioned or experiencing heavy rainfall; while his organisation also threatened to change the kick-off times for a number of fixtures. This included England's trip to Mexico, before backtracking just two days before the match.
While being interviewed by an Argentine journalist after Lionel Messi and co. required extra-time to beat Cape Verde 3-2 on Friday night, Infantino appeared to let slip his secret support of the 2022 winners. He said, "Tonight, I suffered with Argentina... But I'm neutral."
The 56-year-old's realisation that what he said was probably not going to do his already-tarnished reputation any favours, and so prompting him to backtrack on his 'shameless' comments, has caused a huge stir on social media.
With many already suspicious over the fact the world champions have been given the easiest route to the final; one X user wrote: "But seriously what can be done to curb this corruption scandal going on?" as a second added: "Incompetent. It’s a disgrace that the FIFA president is this biased. He needs to resign ASAP."
Another continued: "How do you even convince people that this organization isn’t favoring Messi when the president openly declared his support for Argentina?" Meanwhile, a fourth remarked: "Imagine the outrage if he said this about Portugal", while a fifth concluded: "Absolutely embarrassing, we should protest and boycott until he resigns."
A few individuals were disappointed to see such a biased stance from the person who was supposed to oversee neutrality in the sport.
"This guy has no shame," a person commented, while another wrote, "We're literally fighting against a system, I never would've thought I'd have revolutionary ideas for soccer."
Multiple matches of Argentina involved questionable refereeing decisions, to say the least, which only added fuel to the fire. Although multiple teams have been on the wrong side of controversial VAR calls and tight decisions, the speculations intensify when the defending champions get a call in their favour.
Meanwhile, this year’s FIFA World Cup is the first in history to require three-minute hydration breaks at the midpoint of each half in every game — regardless of heat conditions.
Many fans and players have derided them as a cheap ploy to sell TV ads that corrupts the free-flowing nature of the beautiful game. But medical professionals say some version of hydration breaks are necessary for an outdoor sport that is increasingly asking players to compete in extreme heat conditions.
"I don’t think the core of football has to fundamentally change," Travis Hanson, an orthopedic surgeon who’s on the medical staff for the U.S. men’s and women’s national soccer teams, said in an e-mail. "No true fan wants to put the health of the players they cheer for at risk."
Players, coaches, fans and commentators are'ot only debating whether to have hydration breaks, but at what temperatures, for how long and at whose discretion. The World Cup dilemma has become a miniature version of the one faced by football officials all over the world: how the sport should adapt to climate change without sacrificing the character of the sport.
In comments to the press last week, FIFA President Gianni Infantino said the association "will analyse" how to incorporate cooling breaks in future World Cups.
Others describe the lapse in action as an intentional foul befitting a red card.
"This is even beyond money; it’s about the game and has totally impacted the game for the worse. Selling the soul of the game," said Ramon Vega, a former defender for English club Tottenham Hotspur F.C., in a Wednesday tweet.
This year’s World Cup is among the hottest ever, as climate change fuels more frequent and intense heat waves. This week’s knockout round comes as a heat dome envelops the Eastern U.S. and parts of Canada and Mexico.
It may drive temperatures above 100°F in many of the cities where the do-or-die matches will be played outdoors: Miami; Kansas City, Missouri; and East Rutherford, New Jersey.
The fiery debate over how to implement the hydration break continues to linger on.
FIFA first started allowing referees to call hydration breaks at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, when the "wet-bulb globe temperature" exceeded 32°C or nearly 90°F. Wet-bulb temperature was designed by the U.S. military to measure how various conditions, including direct sunlight and humidity, combine with air temperature to impact physical performance.
The optional breaks were three minutes long and came roughly 30 minutes into each 45-minute half. They were used sparingly: The first didn’t occur until the play-off round.
FIFPRO, a union representing more than 70 000 players worldwide, pushed back against FIFA’s approach after a major club tournament in the U.S. last summer. Footballers endured "concerning" levels of heat during the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup, the union said, arguing that "current guidelines do not do enough to protect the health and performance of players."
The union recommends requiring water breaks roughly midway through each half when the wet-bulb temperature exceeds 26°C. If it surpasses 28°C, the match should be postponed; according to the group.
FIFA went further. It said in December that it would require all 104 matches of the 2026 World Cup to have hydration breaks in all weather conditions, "to ensure equal conditions for all teams, in all matches." The breaks last three minutes and come at the 22-minute mark of each half.
The blanket application has been criticised by prominent players and coaches — including participants in the tournament. Most argue that breaks should occur only if they’re needed.
"I only like it when the conditions are extreme," Mauricio Pochettino, who coaches the U.S. team, told ESPN. "When the conditions are good, it is unnecessary."
Alan Shearer, a former star forward for England, said in a podcast that the hydration break swung momentum in a match between Germany and Curaçao, allowing the Germans to weather an attack and spring forth to a 7-1 victory.
Infantino, the FIFA president, has defended the hydration breaks, saying it’s not fair to allow some teams the benefit of a strategic reset simply because it’s hot outside, without extending that benefit to other teams in the tournament.
In an e-mailed statement, Infantino said: "This decision is based purely on the sporting equity and the sporting merits. I want to stress this, because I hear as well it’s about money — it is not."
"Some of the traditionalists don’t like it," John Gallucci Jr., assistant chief medical officer for Major League Soccer in the U.S., said by phone. "Me as a health care provider, and most health care providers, love it."
Versions of the hydration debate are occurring throughout the world among football authorities.
The Union of European Football Associations, which hosts world-famous competitions like the Champions League and the European Championship, will not be adopting FIFA’s mandated hydration breaks, as first reported by The Telegraph. UEFA confirmed in a statement to POLITICO that it has no plans to change its heat-related rules.
UEFA requires referees to call a cooling break if the wet-bulb temperature exceeds 32°C just before a match.
The Asian Football Confederation uses a protocol similar to UEFA’s, while the Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol, which oversees football in South America, also applied rules that echo UEFA’s in its 2024 tournament of nations, the Copa America.
It’s unclear whether the Confederation of African Football has heat-related rules. It didn’t respond to requests for comment.
FIFPRO’s medical director, Vincent Gouttebarge, has said that soccer officials need to develop "optimal mitigation strategies" for matches on a hotter planet.
Beyond cooling breaks, FIFPRO has said half-time could be lengthened to 20 minutes, a five-minute increase.
In May, a group of medical and public-health professionals wrote to FIFA saying it should lengthen hydration breaks to six minute;, arguing that three minutes isn’t enough time "to have a meaningful impact on rehydration and body cooling."
The letter said locker rooms should feature equipment that players could use to cool down before games and at half-time. The authors said FIFA didn’t respond.
Mathias Vuille, a professor of atmospheric science at the University at Albany, said football is in less "dire" shape than winter sports, many of which will struggle to adapt on a planet less hospitable to snow and ice.
Vuille, a passionate football fan, said the future of the World Cup could involve holding matches in the morning, rather than in the afternoon. The tournament could also be moved to cooler regions, and the number of substitutions could be increased to eight from the current five.
"Climate aspects should be part of the decision-making," he said by phone. "It’s an evolving game."
To me, Infantino should've kept his mouth closed. It looks to me that he loves the attention and will do anything to have it. Just because he's the president doesn't mean he should get all of the attention.
I believe that the constant hydration breaks are simply cash grab opportunities. I would align with UEFA and I would only apply the breaks when necessary.