Red card for Fifa cooling breaks? The real culprit is climate change

The 2026 Fifa World Cup continues to deliver drama in abundance. For South African fans, it is the rollercoaster ride of Bafana Bafana’s historic highs and devastating lows that still has us shook.

There can be no doubt, the team did the country proud. Yet, beyond the action of the rankings, this tournament has quietly transformed the modern game. It’s not only the changing regulatory and commercial considerations; even the rhythm of a match has changed. Forced to adapt to dangerously high temperatures, fans and players have had to adjust to interruptions and play stops, every 22 minutes, for a mandatory three-minute cooling break.

Now a standard and familiar practice throughout the tournament, Fifa says the measure is necessary to protect players from increasingly dangerous temperatures during matches. It is a remarkable moment for the world’s most popular sport. Football, a game built around continuous action and endurance, is literally being forced to pause because the planet is getting too hot to handle.

Fifa is facing a crisis, but it is not one of its own making.

The World Cup has traditionally been played, quite comfortably, during the Northern Hemisphere summer. Yet climate change has pushed summer temperatures to new extremes, creating growing health risks for athletes, officials and fans alike.

Medical research has consistently shown that rising temperatures increase the risk of serious health outcomes. Even a one-degree increase in temperature can significantly increase cardiac arrests, while heatwaves have been associated with an 11% increase in deaths linked to cardiovascular disease.

Cooling breaks

In that context, cooling breaks are not a luxury. They are a necessity.

Still, many players and medical professionals argue that Fifa’s current measures do not go far enough. Fifpro, the global players’ union, has called for additional cooling breaks during matches, noting that athletes cannot effectively absorb more than around 250ml of water every 20 minutes. The organisation has recommended hydration breaks in the 15th and 60th minutes in addition to the existing stoppages around the 30th and 75th minutes.

Medical experts warn that a three-minute pause in each half may not provide sufficient time for players to cool down and recover. Heat exhaustion occurs when the body can no longer regulate its temperature effectively because of excessive heat and inadequate hydration. Without prompt treatment, heat exhaustion can progress to heat stroke, a life-threatening condition.

The uncomfortable truth is that football is being forced to adapt to a climate emergency that others helped create.

For decades, fossil fuel companies have used football as a marketing platform. Across Africa and beyond, oil and gas giants such as TotalEnergies have sponsored tournaments, teams and competitions while continuing to profit from activities that scientific evidence overwhelmingly links to climate change.

Bitter irony

There is a bitter irony in this relationship. Companies may have made billions promoting themselves through a sport whose continued existence in its current form is now under threat from the consequences of fossil fuel combustion.

Fifa’s response is becoming increasingly expensive. New stadiums are being designed with covered roofs and climate-control systems. Existing facilities are being retrofitted with cooling technologies. Misting systems are being installed to cool players on the bench and fans in the stands. Water stations and shaded areas are becoming essential infrastructure rather than optional amenities.

All of this comes at a cost – and a very significant one.

For the 2026 World Cup, host cities and stadium operators have already spent billions upgrading facilities to cope with extreme heat. Toronto alone expanded its stadium budget by tens of millions of dollars to accommodate required upgrades. These costs will ultimately be passed on to someone.

And that someone is likely to be football supporters.

Ticket prices may rise. Food and beverage prices could increase. Fans attending matches in sweltering conditions may find themselves paying premium prices for water simply to stay safe.

Serious ethical concerns

In many venues, spectators are no longer permitted to bring their own water into stadiums. Instead, they must purchase it inside. Critics have pointed out that charging up to six dollars for a bottle of water at an event where heat presents a genuine health risk raises serious ethical concerns. The security rationale for banning outside water is also questionable.

This raises an important question of fairness.

Should ordinary football supporters bear the costs of adapting to a climate crisis they did little to create?

Should communities, municipalities, players and fans be expected to pay for cooling systems, stadium retrofits and rising operating costs while the companies that have profited most from fossil fuels continue to enjoy record earnings?

Climate reparations

Perhaps the answer lies in a concept that is gaining traction around the world: climate reparations.

If football is being forced to spend billions adapting to a hotter world, perhaps the industries most responsible for creating that world should contribute to the solution. Rather than sponsoring tournaments to polish their image, fossil fuel companies could help to fund stadium adaptations, heat-protection measures and community sports facilities that are increasingly vulnerable to climate impacts.

Imagine if the companies that profited from decades of carbon emissions helped pay for the infrastructure now needed to protect athletes and supporters. Imagine if climate responsibility extended beyond glossy sponsorship banners and television advertisements.

Football did not create this problem. Fifa did not create this problem. Fans certainly did not create this problem.

But they are increasingly being asked to pay for it.

The cooling breaks interrupting matches today are more than a health measure. They are a warning signal. Climate change is no longer a future threat. It is changing the way the world’s biggest sporting event is played right now.

The question is not whether football will adapt.

The question is, who should foot the bill? DM