Mon, June 29, 2026
The World Cup’s more lenient refereeing style helps flow of game but also risks rise in injuries
The World Cup’s more lenient refereeing style helps the flow of the game but also risks rise in injuries, and flow continues to be criticised regardless due to hydration breaks. During this year’s tournament, referees have been advised by the sport’s world governing body, FIFA, to prioritise the flow of the game by applying the principle of not whistling for trifling fouls, minor, unintentional breaches of rules, more consistently to reduce stoppages. Fouls per game dropped to 24.3 from 27.7 in 2022 and 29.3 in 2018, NetSI Sport reported. As said by Brazilian TV pundit, Ledio Carmona: “There are a lot of tackles that referees simply don’t call. Anything goes.” Even though yellow cards have decreased, there has been an increase in red cards.
Chris West, conditioning coach at the University of Connecticut, told Reuters: “Looking at data from the last three World Cups, the distance covered by the athletes is similar, but there's a lot more high-speed running, a lot more sprinting.” More players act with the intention to regain possession immediately. West continued: “it has become a high-intensity game.” This years’ group-stage averaged 2.95 goals per game; the previous record set in 2014 was 2.83.
Even though there have been less stoppages and more goals have been scored, West has also stated that the risk of injuries to players’ hamstrings and calves, especially, is likely to increase due to more explosive movements. Those players not fully fit will likely suffer most, naturally.
Furthermore, the flow of the game has still been significantly criticised, regardless of the more lenient refereeing style, due to the hydration breaks. The World Cup permits a 3-minute hydration break, 22 minutes into each half, addressing concerns over the North American heat and player welfare. Though, these breaks take place regardless of the temperature at the time. Some matches have been played in more comfortable temperatures and others staged inside air-conditioned stadiums with a roof.
The decision to allow broadcasters to show commercials during hydration breaks has faced criticism as commentors argue the pace of play is disrupted and that it is just another ploy to increase revenue at the expense of viewers. Sports Illustrated (SI) reported that: “The Wall Street Journal estimates that one 30-second ad slot could go for around $200,000 in a regular group game and jump all the way up to $750,000 if the U.S. men’s national team is in action.”
Some argue that two broken halves of 45 minutes do not allow for much advertising time compared to other sports and therefore understand why the hydration breaks have been utilised by broadcasters. As said by Vice President of Production at Fox Sports, Zac Kenworthy: “FIFA is always trying to find ways to innovate…They’re very intrigued in the American market, the way we do sports here.”
Though, it was also highlighted by SI that “Fox, rather than FIFA, stand to benefit directly.” President of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, expressed that the hydration breaks are “purely a sporting matter” and bring “no additional revenue for FIFA.” He said all matches require them to ensure “equal conditions” for all competing nations.
Cutting to commercials during the hydration breaks is not mandatory as the tournament’s Spanish-language broadcaster in the U.S., Telemundo, is known to have opted out and keeps showing live match coverage including live shots of the crowd, stadium and match replays. Adverts are also not shown in the UK during the breaks.
Overall, an argument could be made that any reduction in stoppage time achieved through more lenient refereeing, despite its potential impact on increasing injuries, is ultimately overshadowed by the inclusion of hydration breaks anyway.
