You cannot miss the big screen at the Gillette Stadium in Foxborough – it’s 360 feet wide and 60 high. For those keeping score, it’s the largest you’ll find outdoors at a sports venue in the United States.
I was drawn to it on Saturday night, when Scotland’s opener against Haiti was abruptly halted after 22 minutes and the screen burst into the fluorescent blue colours of an advert for Powerade.
Until that interlude, the game had been cagey. Cautious. Scotland had cut through with a couple of chances, but Haiti began to stir. Scott McTominay was becoming a touch predictable through the middle and pressure was increasing in the opposite direction. Haiti were smelling a little blood; Haiti weren’t feeling so small anymore. It was getting tense.
And then they were all summoned for a drink and a chat. For three minutes, that screen lit up the night sky for those of us in the vast home of the New England Patriots. For those in their own homes in the US, the broadcasters cut to adverts.
But here’s the problem: a lot can change in three minutes; a manager with Steve Clarke’s knowledge is sufficiently long in the tooth to fix a few glitches. There was more talking than drinking.
By the time they got back out there, it was clear that the tone of the game had changed. Haiti’s momentum had been taken away and Scotland were now favouring the wide areas; they were getting Ben Gannon-Doak on the ball more. John McGinn soon scored.
The screen at the Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, where Scotland opened their World Cup campaign, is the biggest at any outdoors venue in the world
During the first water break of Scotland’s clash with Haiti, the screen turned flourescent blue for a Powerade advert
The Scots’ won their World Cup opener on Sunday morning thanks to a goal from John McGinn
The assist? Gannon-Doak and Che Adams did the leg work, but maybe we should credit it to FIFA.
And perhaps Germany can thank them, too. A day later, a similar thing occurred and even more glaring this time. Curacao had just pulled level against one of the giants, which by a stretch was the moment of the tournament so far. But two minutes later came the break and Julian Nagelsmann’s chance to make a few tweaks. Curaçao’s swagger disappeared in a blink and an avalanche followed.
Naturally, we know plenty about the ‘hydration breaks’ at this World Cup by now and we know why they exist. That ‘why’ is something of a contested battleground, of course, because there’s the official claims from FIFA around player welfare and then there’s a reality clearer to anyone in possession of a double-digit IQ.
There are a lot of advertising dollars to be made via a screen covering 22,200 square feet. And the penny ought to drop a little quicker when you tot up all the other screens showing a match in homes around the world.
But this is the FIFA of Gianni Infantino, and to that preening charlatan, we’re all there to be robbed.
He has robbed jeopardy from this tournament by bloating the field to 48 nations and he has robbed the fans on ticket prices and he has robbed all of us of the ebb and flow of matches themselves. Dick Turpin wore a mask; this buffoon wears a grin.
Against his other misdemeanours, the instalment of water breaks for an extra revenue stream might seem small beer, but that underplays the violation – he has essentially distorted the way the very game is structured and played. He has altered its make up, killed its rhythms, put more in the hands of managers and reduced the scope for panic. None of that is positive.
FIFA cites player welfare as its reason for introducing water breaks (FIFA chief Gianni Infantino is pictured)
Infantino’s duty is meant to favour football; it appears that he has instead favoured the American broadcasters, hard wired to sports of quarters over halves, and a FIFA balance sheet forever wedded to lucrative new columns.
This one is an abuse of power. It is a perversion. The kind that became clear in the very first match, Mexico against South Africa, when the broadcaster, Fox, cut away to adverts and viewers missed the restart by a few seconds.
But we knew this would happen. We knew it when FIFA announced the change in December, citing that they would be ‘prioritising player welfare’ with breaks irrespective of the weather, and it was clearer still in March, when they clarified that the gaps could be filled with advertising.
The ‘benefit’, as FIFA put it, was on the side of the players. I prefer to side with the Wall Street Journal report that said a 30-second advertising spot during games is fetching between $200,000 and $750,000. At least the first Watergate was complicated; this one is larceny in plain sight.
Which England star has 7 GCSEs? Who has lost half of his finger? Test your knowledge of Thomas Tuchel’s squad with our exclusive quiz HERE.
