Global players' union FIFPRO is exploring whether extending halftime to 20 minutes and introducing more frequent cooling breaks could better protect players from extreme heat.
Nine of the 16 host cities for the 2026 World Cup face conditions considered “extreme risk” for heat-related illness.
Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Guadalajara, Houston, Kansas City, Miami, Monterrey and Philadelphia are expected to face dangerous levels of heat and humidity, posing player safety concerns and fueling calls for mandatory cooling aids or schedule changes.
FIFPRO’s heat risk assessments are based on wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT), a measure combining temperature, humidity, solar radiation and wind speed to estimate how environmental conditions affect the body’s ability to cool itself.
Under FIFPRO guidelines, a WBGT reading above 28 degrees Celsius indicates conditions in which matches should be postponed or rescheduled to protect players’ health.
By comparison, world soccer governing body FIFA’s own guidelines set the extreme risk threshold higher, at 32 degrees Celsius WBGT – but even by that standard, six of the nine cities are still projected to exceed safe limits.
“Cooling breaks at the 30th minute and 75th minutes are quite traditional, but from a physiological point of view it does not make sense,” said Vincent Gouttebarge, FIFPRO’s Medical Director.
“Even if you ingest more than 200 millilitres of fluid, you already cannot take it all. So I would definitely like to see some project where we look at the efficacy of perhaps more frequent but shorter cooling breaks – every 15 minutes, rather than only one during each half.”
Gouttebarge also questioned whether the traditional 15-minute halftime interval is sufficient when matches are played in extreme heat.
“You can imagine that halftime of 15 minutes might not be enough in order to decrease the core temperature,” he said.
“It could be a halftime of 20 minutes which would be significant. That has been shown in the laboratory and FIFPRO, together with the national union in Portugal in August, we are going to test this kind of mitigation strategy.”
The urgency of stronger heat protocols became clear at this month’s Club World Cup where two matches -- Benfica-Bayern Munich in Charlotte and Chelsea-Esperance in Philadelphia exceeded the WBGT threshold FIFPRO considers unsafe.
“According to our position, those games should have been postponed later that day or rescheduled,” Gouttebarge said.
FIFPRO officials acknowledged that FIFA has responded constructively during the tournament by lowering thresholds for mandatory cooling breaks and improving pitch-side hydration, but stressed that proactive planning is critical.
“FIFA have been quite responsive once the tournament was under way,” said Alex Phillips, FIFPRO General Secretary.
“They have actually modified how they’ve been dealing with heat during the matches based on FIFPRO’s input, which is credit to the work of the team. Obviously, it would have been better if that happened in advance, but it’s better that they have adapted.”
FIFPRO warned that the risks highlighted at the Club World Cup are a preview of what players could face at the expanded 2026 World Cup.
“This is not just affecting the Club World Cup, but also future tournaments either in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world,” said Alexander Bielefeld, FIFPRO Director of Policy & Strategic Relations.
“We need a better balance between commercial interests and the health and safety of players,” he added referring to earlier kick-off times to accommodate European television audiences.
