Kylian Mbappe's honest take on hydration breaks at World Cup is going viral

Kylian Mbappé has become the latest World Cup star to offer his honest take on the implementation of hydration breaks, and it's got fans talking.

Hydration breaks were introduced for the 2026 World Cup, with referees calling a three-minute break midway through each half, regardless of the weather conditions at stadiums.

Pundits, fans and players have made their feelings clear on the change, with many claiming it slows down the intensity and rhythm of the game.

Following the Netherlands' opening group game against Japan, Virgil van Dijk became the first player to address the hydration breaks, saying: "I think hydration breaks are really interesting. I was obviously watching almost all of the games up until today. I think every time we go to commercials, it's not really something that I like.

"I think for the neutral viewers on TV it is also not great. So if it is really hot, it would be good to put them in, but I think you have to look at every game separately, in my opinion. But I think I have said enough already on that."

Former Liverpool head coach Jürgen Klopp also expressed his frustrations on German television, with the 59-year-old slamming the commercialisation of the sport, as broadcasters played adverts during the breaks.

READ NEXT: Zlatan Ibrahimovic delivers the most brutal analysis of the World Cup so far after Belgium vs Iran

Klopp claimed football is “held hostage by executives ensconced in air-conditioned offices”, describing the breaks as “a golden cage built for sponsors”.

What has Mbappe said about hydration breaks?

And ahead of France’s second group match against Iraq on June 22, Mbappé has offered an alternative take on the topic, with the Real Madrid forward suggesting that players may not be best placed to offer their opinions on the matter.

At a press conference, Mbappé said: “My thoughts on hydration breaks? Don’t ask us players for our opinion; we’re very reactionary.

“If tomorrow we’re dominating in the 25th minute and there’s a hydration break, we’ll be angry because it breaks our rhythm. But if the weather is hot, or we’re being dominated, I’ll be happy.”

Fans took to social media to react to Mbappé’s comments.

One said: “Top guy response. He’s stating the advantage and disadvantage. He doesn’t want to get involved in the conversation of whether it’s good or bad.”

Another added: “Mbappé is so likeable if you’re not stupid.”

A third claimed: “I've never heard him say anything crazy. Everything he says is always put together perfectly.”

Scaloni and Bielsa not happy with hydration breaks

The debate around the hydration breaks will no doubt run until the end of the tournament, with Argentina boss Lionel Scaloni, as well as Uruguay head coach Marcelo Bielsa, also offering their respective takes in recent days.

Speaking after Uruguay’s shock 2-2 draw against World Cup minnows Cape Verde, Bielsa slammed the breaks, explaining how he felt they add “nothing but take away a lot”.

"With the new rules, there are lots of goals — so be it," he said. "According to the general consensus, playing four periods instead of two alters the culturally constructed conception of how to interpret football."

He added: "In my view, it adds nothing and takes away a lot. When [the match] was divided into four periods, no thought was given to the effect it might have on what makes football such a captivating sport, but instead to other repercussions which I'm neither discussing nor analysing."

Scaloni, whose Argentina side take on Austria on June 22, shared a similar view, saying it “fragments the game”.

The Argentine said: "It's four quarters then, and at halftime we have just three minutes to talk to players between them coming in and going back on the field. But it's done."

He added: “The 'four-period' concept is real. Between the time players arrive and leave, we only have three-and-a-half minutes at halftime to talk to them.

"That's how it's done, and here we are. Whatever plans I have in mind can change based on what happens during those 22 or 23 minutes. We have attacking players on the pitch, plus our bench options. We look for solutions, the same things you'd do during a normal halftime.

"Perhaps I was misleading when I mentioned it benefiting the weaker team; it also helps the attacking side make corrections. It feels strange adapting to this. Eventually, it will become the norm, just like any other improvement. For now, it feels unusual because the flow is so broken up. We try to analyse and make adjustments. Matches unfold in different ways, even within that first half alone. I'm sure it will improve."