Connect with us


FIFA Considering Proposal to Play World Cup Games As Three 30-Minute Periods

If you wanted another reason why Qatar winning the 2022 World Cup bid is a joke, consider this:

To deal with the sweltering conditions in the summertime in Qatar, FIFA is considering a proposal to play 90 minute games over three 30-minute periods if the temperature inside the stadiums exceeds 86F because of the potential health risks involved, reports The Daily Telegraph.

“There is a moderate risk of heat injury to the players between 24C-29C but if you go above that you have high and extreme risk of injury, ” said Michael Beavon, a director of Arup Associates, the company responsible for developing the zero-carbon solar technology intended to cool them, who was speaking to delegates at the Qatar Infrastructure Conference in London.

“The one thing Fifa do say, although it is for guidance, is if it’s 32C they will stop a match and play three 30-minute thirds rather than two 45-minute halves.

“The reason would be to re-hydrate the players before they could carry on playing. That of course would play havoc with TV schedules and those kind of things.

“The commitment from Qatar was to provide conditions in the moderate band, so that matches would go ahead and be played as normal. Matches have to be played at an acceptable temperature and in safety so that Fifa do not intervene.”

200+ Channels With Sports & News
  • Starting price: $33/mo. for fubo Latino Package
  • Watch Premier League, World Cup, Euro 2024 & more
  • Includes NBC, USA, FOX, ESPN, CBSSN & more
Live & On Demand TV Streaming
  • Price: $69.99/mo. for Entertainment package
  • Watch World Cup, Euro 2024 & MLS
  • Includes ESPN, ESPN2, FS1 + local channels
Many Sports & ESPN Originals
  • Price: $6.99/mo. (or get ESPN+, Hulu & Disney+ for $13.99/mo.)
  • Features Bundesliga, LaLiga, Championship, & more
  • Also includes daily ESPN FC news & highlights show
2,000+ soccer games per year
  • Price: $4.99/mo
  • Features Champions League, Serie A, Europa League & NWSL
  • Includes CBS, Star Trek & CBS Sports HQ
175 Premier League Games & PL TV
  • Starting price: $4.99/mo. for Peacock Premium
  • Watch 175 exclusive EPL games per season
  • Includes Premier League TV channel plus movies, TV shows & more


  1. Victor

    July 9, 2011 at 6:19 am

    Whenever a change has been proposed to change something about any sport it always comes under heavy criticism, initially. Yet, somehow that sport survives and even thrives with those changes. When tennis instituted tie-breaks, many a purist was up in arms about it. Even in soccer when penalty shooutouts were propsed many were against it. In basketball that already had timeouts, during the playoffs TV timeouts were instituted and many complained that it will alter the flow of the game or give some teams an advantage with those extra timeouts when trailing. Now it is instituted without complaint. People just get used to it.

    Should soccer institute three 30-minute periods I suspect it will survive too.

  2. Harry C

    July 8, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    Marathon runners still can hydrate sooner than futbol players.

    • brian c

      July 8, 2011 at 9:00 pm

      There’s some truth to that but there’s typically a water stop every mile or so. I am a marathon runner but I don’t stand around and stop when there’s a break in the action. I keep going and going until I feel like I’m going to die. And then I keep going further.

      Footballers do a lot of standing around. Forget this 30 min period thing, it’s not going to make a difference.

  3. Tom

    July 8, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    I think it’s ridiculous to consider changing the game in such a way. The 45 minute halves are one of the many reasons I love soccer so much, and the thought of changing the sport just because the weather in Qatar is too hot is preposterous. If it’s so hot, then why is Qatar even being considered as a host? Why would you ever consider a place as host if you can’t even safely play the sport in that location? It doesn’t make sense to me.

    From the keyboard of Tom at

  4. Harry

    July 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    Well I have to say this…American football is a bit different concerning heat and player conditioning, considering this:

    1. Players on average are about 50 to 150 HEAVIER than soccer players

    2. Add to the fact that they wear more equipment

    3. Practicing and playing in extreme heat is common

    On the flip side of that, though:

    1. The games DO tend to stop often and players have a chance to hydrate

    2. there has never been a game called due to excessive heat

    3. Pro players HAVE DIED (thankfully not during a game) from extreme heat.

    So, with that said, how does making changes in Quatar really affect the players?

    • Nelson

      July 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm

      1. The games DO tend to stop often and players have a chance to hydrate.

      Ummm… they don’t “tend” to stop often they constantly stop. There simply is no point comparing NFL to soccer. A marathon would have made a better comparison.

  5. Gavin

    July 8, 2011 at 10:40 am

    It’s so nice to see this blog turn into a version of Fox “news”. So many people writing about things not directly related to the issue of whether the three 30-minute periods proposed by FIFA is a good thing or not. One of the truisms of poor debate is if you cannot adequately defend a certain position then rant loudly about peripheral issues in the hope that people will forget what the real issue is.

    As a parent of kids who play soccer on hot days I welcome the discussion about what to do in such an eventuality. As a purist I would not like to see the game changed but would prefer a stoppage of 5 minutes midway into each half. This is what many amateur leagues do routinely when it is very hot or humid. However, I am open to other ideas if they are explained properly.

    • M.

      July 9, 2011 at 1:31 am

      Stoppage of 5 minutes, playing in the night, climatised stadium. And 2×45 minutes.

  6. Rickard Kristoffersson

    July 8, 2011 at 6:14 am

    This sounds like a very good idea. Football i suffering from too long periods causing the players to grow tired and the game suffers.

    Further this would provide more possibilities of changing tactics and an overall more enjoyable game.

    TV channels wouldnt mind two breaks either.

    Remember, if we already had three periods and someone wanted to change it to only two periods you would all sit here writing the exact same thing…

    • Frank

      July 8, 2011 at 10:38 am

      I agree and this is bound to happen too because leagues and tv channels want to make more money and an extra 15 minutes of commercials would give them that. Also it would substantially reduce injuries from fatigue because players get to rehydrate and cool down twice a game instead of only once. I mean we are talking about an extra break here and not about becoming like the other sports where they have commercials during the middle of play. No i would disagree with having a tv commercial every 5 minutes like in NFL but having an extra “half time” sounds very reasonable to me.

  7. Mark

    July 8, 2011 at 4:18 am

    I love it. So much attention to the heat in Qatar, not the fact that neither gays or Jews can attend this World Cup. Your petrodollars at work helped secure Qatar this World Cup. I wouldn’t go to this one if they provided me with first class airfare and a free room at a five star hotel.

    • Rob

      July 8, 2011 at 4:25 am

      Mark, I’m sure as we get within even 10 years of 2022, we can hope to see hundreds of articles addressing the concerns you brought up. But as a fan of blogs that address specific issues one-at-a-time, let’s avoid the cable news mentality of trying to lump every problem involved in an issue into one article’s comments, and instead try to improve the overall discourse.

      As someone who is concerned about Qatar’s human rights record, why not do some serious research and create something as a guest contribution to this blog? It seems as though those in charge are willing to accept factually-based, well argued editorials as part of the overall football discourse on this site.

      We all make such a great effort to be well informed about the beautiful game, so why not make our contributions in a positive way, rather than trying to change the conversation through a 2-line reply buried in a comment section?

  8. hooraybeer

    July 7, 2011 at 10:50 pm

    For everyone defending this, or saying this is just residual about Qatar getting the bid. You are right, this isn’t about the proposal for 30 minute periods, it is about Qatar and their world cup.

    The issue is this 30 minute proposal never comes up in another country. FIFA isn’t talking about this for 2014 in Brazil, where the Avg Temp in Manaus is 87-89F or Brasilia where it is 90-95F in June in July. This is not about making it a permanent move to 30 minute periods anytime the temp is over 86, it is for one tournament, in 12 years, in the biggest tournament in the world.

    So that means YES it is about Qatar, and Qatar’s 2022 bid. That bid promised ways to combat the heat, if FIFA did not believe in those proposals just a few months ago, why did they vote to give it to Qatar (we all know why). Why in a few short months have a change of heart to the degree of needing to change the way the game is played.

    • Rob

      July 8, 2011 at 4:03 am

      Everyone is missing the point with all this talk of the US or Brazil having temperatures in the 80s or 90s Fahrenheit! When you have direct sun air temperatures over 110F, even the shade isn’t going to help! It seems to be summertime where most of these comments are coming from, so do me a favor and on the next hot day wherever you live, go stand out in the sun for 5 minutes and see how you feel. Then go stand in the shade for 5 minutes and see how much better you feel!

      The problem FIFA and Qatar face is temperatures getting so high that it even rises above 86F in the SHADE of a stadium. If we all set aside our opinions of Qatar getting the cup in the first place, and consider the facts, it makes sense that FIFA would want to have an official structure in place for these heat-related issues to be resolved. Imagine if a semi-finals match was under the control of a referee to control when the game was stopped for a break and by chance one team is screwed over of a chance to put themselves ahead because of what the referee decides. We’d be as livid as if a handball occurred inside the 18!

      Let’s see this as what it is, FIFA making sure that they retain the logistical control of all matches in a standardized way.

  9. Jacob

    July 7, 2011 at 10:23 pm

    In the end they will agree to stop the game for a few minutes to allow the players to cool off and get some fluids, as they do now when it’s too hot in any game. I expect they will have one stoppage after about 25 minutes and another after 70 minutes. Both will last for no more than 5 minutes. No need to amend any laws. Again, this will happen only of the temperature gets above 32 degrees Celsius.

    We saw this last summer during certain pre-season games in the USA when play was stopped to allow players to get fluids before continuing.

  10. cy

    July 7, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    Calm down guys. FIFA would never get one much less the two needed home nations to vote for this to amend the laws.

  11. Rob

    July 7, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    These arguments that US cities get just as hot is crazy. The issue at hand is that the air temperature in a mostly covered stadium could potentially reach 86F. When the US reaches temperatures around 110F it is usually in the sun, and people seek shade for relief. Qatar is so bloody hot that air temperatures in the shade can reach dangerous levels.

  12. Carolyn

    July 7, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Peter, obviously you are incapable of understanding the issue raised by my posts. The issue is not whether the World Cup in Qatar is a joke, how the bidding process should work or what criteria should be used in awarding the rights to the World Cup.

    The issue here is the proposal of having three 30-minute periods to combat the heat. That is the issue. You may well disagree with the proposal and have an opinion about it. Fair enough. It, however, has nothing to do with the process of awarding the rights to the World Cup. You are not advancing your argument by clouding the issue.

    • Richard

      July 8, 2011 at 5:29 am

      It has everything to do with the bid and your repeated insistence that it is a separate issue does not make it true.

      The proposal has ONLY come about because of the extreme weather conditions in the host nation at the designated time. If it had been awarded to any of the other bidders then it simply would not be an issue.

      If Qatar has to change the rules of the game and the agreed worldwide scheduling arrangements just to make their bid workable, then it should have been stated in their written bid and the issue should have been discussed then.

      It cannot be right that the rules of the game, which have accommodated every country in the world for the last 150 years should be changed on the basis of one bid.

      That the proposal in fact came from the company who were meant to be solving the problem of playing in these conditions further illustrates that this is an issue that has arisen solely because of the fact that the bid was won by Qatar. If it was not, then the issue would not have been raised.

  13. Sean

    July 7, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    If I was Fifa I’d be loving this option, an extra break for extra advertising revenue, you know Old Sepp would be jumping all over that.

    I also think US soccer will never have enough funding to become a “big” game as they dont have enough advertising income from only the one break. Most other sports in the US have multiple periods of play, not to mention specific “TV” breaks in the middle of play.

  14. Phil McThomas

    July 7, 2011 at 3:15 pm


    Now that it’s out there, why not play every game in 3×30 minute chunks?

    What are the arguments against it, other than “it’s not the way we’ve always done it”?

    You could say it breaks the game up into chunks that are too small. But is 3×30 that much different to 2×45? I assume they’d reduce the breaks to, say, 2×10 minutes instead of 1×15. So it might add ~5 mins to the total duration of the game and add one extra stoppage.

    There are so many more things that we take for granted today that were more radical changes:

    * Substitutes
    * Offside changes (e.g. 3 players to 2 in 1925)
    * Red cards for violent of “professional” fouls
    * The back-pass law

    These all change the actual game itself – who can play it and how it is played.

    Adding an extra break changes practically nothing.

    The single biggest problem I see with 3×30 is that it makes the direction of play uneven, i.e. you kick in one direction two times and the other direction only once.

    Maybe we need 4 quarters (yes, that old chestnut, oh the horrors) with a proper half-time and an “extra-time style” turnaround after 25 minutes. The turnaround could be skipped in some leagues/competitions, could be very quick, or could include a five minute rest/drinks-break in hot countries.

    I’ll take your abusive feedback now…

    • Phil McThomas

      July 7, 2011 at 3:16 pm

      Oh, and on the off-chance you actually think I may have something interesting to say, I have a blog at


    • brn442

      July 7, 2011 at 3:33 pm

      Phil – if they want to propose a permanent, World-Wide change, that would be one thing but to do it for just one tournament???

      From the same FIFA that said that goal – line technology, video replay, and (until a year ago) extra match officials are off the table for very sake of keeping the “mode and laws of the game consistent” – worldwide? Go have a lay down fella.

    • Peter

      July 7, 2011 at 5:39 pm

      Lets also add adverts into the game constantly, timeouts, tobacco chewing, and anything else we can do to make it a nonsport.

      The beauty of football is that it is uninterrupted unlike American sports which stop every 2 seconds. A game is 105 mins- 45 mins each half, and 15 mins half time. Done. Thats it.

  15. Brian

    July 7, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    MUFC77, at the amatuer level many athletes have died of dehydration in many sports, including soccer. I have read of soccer players in the far east dying of dehydration (not sure if they were professionals or amateurs). Last year a soccer player died in Saudi Arabia after being admitted to the hospital after a game and the cause of death was given as dehydration.

    The 3rd most common cause of death among US high school athletes is heat-related. High school guidelines suggest that every 20 minutes atheletes drink 8 ounces of fluids and on very hot days games are stopped after 20 minutes to allow athletes to hydrate.

    • Matt

      July 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm

      the key here is “amateur level”

      I think that we can all agree that the players at the world cup will be anything but amateurs.

      well, except for the Qatari national team, who would struggle to stay with Accrington Stanley

  16. Robert

    July 7, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    It’s all God’s fault for making it so hot in Qatar. Why not put the blame where it really lies!

  17. Carolyn

    July 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Gaffer, how can you say that this is another joke of a story when the isuue is a proposal about a health issue that you agree is not a joke. If you believe that FIFA’s proposal is a joke then please tell us why and what you would have instead.

    Since we know FIFA is not going to move the World Cup from Qatar I would hope people who are critical of FIFA’s proposal will come up with better solutions, if they have any.

    • BD

      July 7, 2011 at 3:16 pm

      Is that you, Sepp? YO SEPP! Love your ballot. A choice of one…priceless.

    • Peter

      July 7, 2011 at 5:33 pm


      Do you work for FIFA? Are you one of Sepp Blatter’s little people trying to run football?

      The world cup in Qatar IS a joke. I think FIFA should institute a requirement that the team who is hosting the World Cup have qualified for AT LEAST one tournament in the past 4 tournaments. Qatar gets a free pass to this world cup, meaning 1 football nation won’t make it to the World Cup.

      The bid won (not only because it was bought and through collusion with the Russia 2018 bid) but also because of the promised of sustainability. The plan is to deconstruct the stadiums after the World Cup and give them to 3rd world countries… Hmmm.. Sure….

      Anything else you have to say??

  18. David

    July 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    The issue of playing soccer in very high temperatures is a serious one. Many a soccer player has died due to heat exhaustion or dehydration. It may not be common in cooler climates but it does exsit. Even here in northern New England where it can be 90+ degrees in the summer playing soccer can pose a health risk to kids and adults alike. During the summer league for kids and teens when it’s very hot we routinely allow the players to take a 5 minute break midway through each half. That FIFA is considering such a proposal like the three 30-minute periods is a good one that sends the right message about the importance of health risks in such conditions.

    • MUFC77

      July 7, 2011 at 1:55 pm

      “Many a soccer player has died due to heat exhaustion or dehydration”

      You got some names of these players because in all my 30+ years following football i cant think of one.

      Maybe when its cold in the winter the EPL games can also have three 30 minute periods, we wouldn’t want anyone dieing of hypothermia

    • Pete

      July 8, 2011 at 1:16 pm

      If playing in high temperatures is considered such a serious problem, than the Cup should never have been given to a country like Qatar in which we know the temperatures can reach dangerous levels. The rules of the game should not be changed to accomodate a host country. Only countries in which the games can be played without accomodations should be considered. Simple.

  19. BD

    July 7, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    If there was ever a time when the words “what the f**k” are to be uttered, it is now…….

  20. SPARK

    July 7, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    We really need to be worrying about Brazil in 2014. By most accounts, they are not even close to being ready to stage the event.

    Qatar will be okay. They have the money to throw at any problem. If they want they can just build domes on all their stadiums. Seriously. Qatar gets very few shots to show the world what they’ve got. They will not waste this opportunity.

    • Lars

      July 7, 2011 at 12:53 pm

      Before every WC there are always reports of the host nation not being ready and that they will move it, etc etc etc….It means nothing as far as I am concerned.

      I am still really pissed that Qatar got the World Cup instead of the United States or other bid nations. It makes absolutely no sense; I would have chosen Libya as host nation before thinking of Qatar!

  21. Carolyn

    July 7, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    The gaffer wrote:
    “If you wanted another reason why Qatar winning the 2022 World Cup bid is a joke, consider this:

    To deal with the sweltering conditions in the summertime in Qatar, FIFA is considering a proposal to play 90 minute games over three 30-minute periods if the temperature inside the stadiums exceeds 86F because of the potential health risks involved, reports The Daily Telegraph.”

    I take exception to your use of the word joke in the context of a proposal, yes it is a proposal that hopefully will be debated on its health merits, about a serious health issue. One can oppose Qatar’s bid on many things but to oppose it on this and to label it as a joke is absurd.

    • The Gaffer

      July 7, 2011 at 12:43 pm

      Carolyn, thanks for the feedback but I wasn’t saying that the health issues were a joke. I was referencing that this is another joke of a story in a long line that have come out about the 2022 World Cup. First, it was that the World Cup would be moved from the summer to the winter. Then it was that the players and fans would have air-conditioned stadiums and fan zones created. And now this.

      The Gaffer

      • m

        July 7, 2011 at 2:47 pm

        Gaffer dont forget the artificial clouds they’re going to be designing for the stadiums.

  22. Jose

    July 7, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Gaffer, it is FIFA that has proposed a very sensible solution to a health problem. The bid by Qatar, to the best of my knowledge, never included 30 minute periods. Do you have knowledge that the rest of us don’t that the proposal included this provision?

    I stand by my assertion that this is more a venting by people who are upset that Qatar was awarded the rights than about the merits of 30 minute periods if the teamperature exceeds a certain level.

    • Matt

      July 8, 2011 at 2:15 pm

      “Qatar was awarded the rights”

      sorry mate. the correct spelling is “bought”

  23. Frank

    July 7, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    What ever happened to the Stop-Racism campaign in soccer? I guess it doesn’t apply if the target are those Middle-Eaterners. Nice.

    • Nelson

      July 7, 2011 at 12:23 pm

      I agree the issue is more than just the 30 minute thirds. It’s about there being even more evidence why Qatar will not be an adequate host. This is not a racism issue for me at all and I hope not for anyone else on this thread. So, Could someone please give me the reason Qatar was considered a far better host than the others and why I should believe this is the best for World Cup football.

    • RaiderRich

      July 8, 2011 at 10:25 am

      The “Stop Racism” campaign apparently doesn’t stop people Frank from making racist remarks about all Americans either.

    • RaiderRich

      July 8, 2011 at 10:26 am

      or rather people like Frank

  24. Jose

    July 7, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Amen Harry. You hit the nail on the head. This is not about the 30 minute periods but really about Qatar.

    • The Gaffer

      July 7, 2011 at 12:09 pm

      That’s ridiculous and not true. If ANY country’s World Cup bid proposed 30 minute periods, they all be criticized the same way.

      The Gaffer

      • Nik Arur

        July 7, 2011 at 12:50 pm

        If a country wins a World Cup bid, but then goes on to need proposals that completely change the format of the World Cup simply for it to be held, that bid will receive criticism. If the bid was won by a European nation or the US, there would be no such criticism because there would be no such proposals. 3 30 minute periods wouldn’t be needed in most other countries.

        • brn442

          July 7, 2011 at 2:37 pm

          It’s not just changing the format. It’s changing the entire sport. We’re not just talking about a new ball here. It will mean that every match played will have to have an asterisk next to it as it will have a new, unique format – why not bigger goals and unlimited subs while they’re at it. The whole thing is a joke.

          • blue

            July 8, 2011 at 10:53 am

            +1 agreed totally

  25. Nelson

    July 7, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Remind me, why was Qatar considered a far better host than the others?

    • The Gaffer

      July 7, 2011 at 12:10 pm

      Because they bought the bid.

      The Gaffer

      • eplnfl

        July 9, 2011 at 6:45 pm

        Stand by that Chris. The sooner the Cup is given to the US the sooner the World Cup may have some small amount of integrity returned to it.

        I can well remember the 94 Cup played in the US and the concern over the warm weather conditions at that time in US in the summer. I can not recall any matches effected by the heat. However, summers in the US are nothing compared to the constant high heat in Qatar. Let’s also remember that the stadiums to hold the matches in are non-existent at this time and may float on water or was that walk on water? In any event it will be a miracle.

  26. Harry

    July 7, 2011 at 11:59 am

    I’m sure if this was done had the World Cup been played in Europe or the Americas everyone would have said how sensible this was by FIFA. But because this is in Qatar and the controversial nature of them getting the World Cup people are up in arms about it. It’s easy to read into the prejudices of some.

    • brn442

      July 7, 2011 at 2:47 pm

      I’m sorry Harry — Qatar has no footballing history and a population of ___ – there is no potential for any legacy (like a South Africa or an India) , no proximity to a country that does, potentially fatal temperatures, and they get to host a world cup ???


      They promised they will have air conditioned stadia as part of their winning bid, If they can’t fulfill their commitment – The World Cup should be yanked, as Columbia had done to them in ’86. Prejudice my arse.

    • RaiderRich

      July 8, 2011 at 7:41 am

      In Harry’s world, if you’re against bribery, poor planning, and awarding the cup to a country ill-suited to host the event, you must be prejudiced against Qatar.

      • Matt

        July 8, 2011 at 2:12 pm


  27. bluemoon70

    July 7, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Why do the teams have to actually go to Qatar at all? Couldn’t they just play the 2022 World Cup on Playstation3. This way everyone stays nice and hydrated.

  28. Nelson

    July 7, 2011 at 11:54 am

    L.A. hot!? Why do you think so many damn people live here? They live here for the perfect temperature. It has been high 60’s to mid 70’s all month. Could it get to 86 degrees, sure. Will it get to 105, hell no. I don’t understand all the arguments that the USA is a less than ideal place for the world cup. Were there any issues in ’94? Far less than some of the countries since.

  29. Sam

    July 7, 2011 at 11:51 am

    I’ve seen many soccer games where the officials stopped the game because of the heat and allowed the players 3-5 minutes to hydrate themselves. They usually do this after 20-30 minutes in each half. It is sensible given the health risks of not doing so.

    All FIFA is doing is making it mandatory if the temperature reaches a certain level. Why wouldn’t anyone be for it in such a situation?

    Whether or not Qatar deserves to host the World Cup is a totally different matter that should have nothing to do with the temperature issue. Any nation that is a soccer-playing nation and part of FIFA deserves to be considered for hosting the World Cup.

    • BCB

      July 7, 2011 at 1:37 pm

      I disagree.

      All of these suggestions and outlandish measures to mitigate the unsuitable conditions should be unnecessary. A large part of winning the rights to host should be that your climate is suitable to playing the games. It’s no different than awarding the Winter Olympics to a flat country on the equator and then trying to figure out how to hold the downhill skiing!!

      And remind me how the three 30 minute periods is going to help the fans who still have to suffer the conditions for as long as they are attending the tournament?

    • MUFC77

      July 7, 2011 at 1:49 pm

      I love the idea of three 30 minute periods for the world cup in Qatar. IT means more drinking time for fans during the game. oh wait I forgot you cant drink Alcohol in public in these god forsaken countries or heaven forbid you touch your wife/gf in public and end up arrested and locked up for 90 days.

      Those responsible for choosing that place for the biggest sporting event in the world need a good beating.

    • Matt

      July 8, 2011 at 2:10 pm

      There is no way this occurred in a major international tournament. I have seen it at the youth level or watching my much older cousins play in men’s league.

      If there is enough legitimate concern that athletes in such world-class physical condition would require more stoppages, then why are they playing the tournament there in the first place…

      oh yeah, the Qatari group bribed them.

  30. David

    July 7, 2011 at 11:19 am

    How about splitting it into 14 chukkers? Because that’s what this plan makes me want to do…any other country than this suggests this and they’d be laughed out of the building.

  31. Attaturk

    July 7, 2011 at 10:02 am


    10 – 9 minute periods and during breaks the player’s mothers and fathers will alternate bringing out oranges and gatorade.

    And then afterwords everybody gets in the van and off to Dairy Queen!

    • Guy

      July 7, 2011 at 11:40 am


    • Troy

      July 7, 2011 at 12:21 pm

      I laughed. +1

  32. bluemoon70

    July 7, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Why not just play 9 innings and then the players would have even more chances to hydrate?

  33. Paul

    July 7, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Are you F-ing kidding? Why not just play in quarters and give each team 3 timeouts?

    • canyid

      July 7, 2011 at 2:59 pm

      And add 45 second breaks between any stoppages of play

  34. comma, splice

    July 7, 2011 at 9:41 am

    How would this “play havoc” with TV schedules? The time from kick-off to the final whistle would be only 10 or so minutes more, right?

    You’d think the TV networks would actually like this idea, because it means one more block of commercials during that second intermission.

  35. Brendan

    July 7, 2011 at 9:36 am

    86F? Even if it was moved to the US, you would top that in most cities in late-June early -July. And if games are in LA? Forget about it.

    • Nik Arur

      July 7, 2011 at 9:47 am

      The article just says the plan would be to have thirds IF temperatures exceeded 86F, not that the temperature in Qatar will BE 86F, it’ll be more like 110, seeing as it AVERAGES between 105 and 115 in June and July in Qatar. If you’re trying to tell me any city in the US is as hot as that, you’re sadly mistaken. Also, there has been a World Cup here not too long ago and it was considered again for 2022 so I really don’t think the heat is much of a problem here.

      • Brendan

        July 7, 2011 at 9:57 am

        I’m not sure what your argument is. No where in my comment did I say that the US would be hotter that Qatar. That’s ridiculous.

        However, as you stated, the “thirds” plan, as proposed in the article above, is contingent on the temperature being above 86F. My point was that moving the World Cup to the US (which someone in the comments brought up and would probably be the most likely destination IF it’s moved) would not exactly eliminate concerns of playing in temperatures above 86F.

        • Nik Arur

          July 7, 2011 at 10:05 am

          My argument is:

          That FIFA would only consider/bring this up because it’s so f*cking hot in Qatar and 86F is just some arbitrary number. I don’t think they’d be making these kinds of suggestions if it were being held in another country with a comparatively milder climate, even if that country might be hotter than 86F in the summer. I suspect that if 86F is the figure, then about half the world would be rendered incapable of hosting the World Cup. The Cup being held in the US may not eliminate concerns of temperatures above 86, but it would certainly eliminate concerns enough for them to stop coming up with all these ridiculous ways to beat the heat (i.e. proposing having it held in the winter). I don’t think these conversations would be happening if the US won the bid.

        • Nik Arur

          July 7, 2011 at 10:12 am

          My argument is that FIFA is only bringing this up because it’s ridiculously hot in Qatar, and that 86F is just an arbitrary number. I don’t think this discussion would be held if the US won the bid, even if like you say it’ll be hotter than 86F here as well. I’m sure there have been plenty of World Cups in the past that have flirted with this temperature, and if 86 was considered the max then about half the world would be rendered incapable of hosting. A US bid may not eliminate concerns of 86+ temperature, but it would be a difference large enough for FIFA not to have to make these kinds of considerations (including possibly hosting it in the winter, which I think is ridiculous).

          • Nik Arur

            July 7, 2011 at 10:22 am

            Sorry for the double post, thought it didn’t work the first time…..

      • Jake Islas

        July 7, 2011 at 10:30 am

        Not commenting on your opinion either way, but saying that no US city averages between 105-115 is sadly mistaken. I live in Arizona and it’s between 108 and 116 everyday during the summer.

        Not that Phoenix would be a WC venue, but just saying, there’s hot places in the US – Houston, LA, Dallas – places where a venue may be, get pretty darn hot.

        • Nik Arur

          July 7, 2011 at 10:36 am

          I worded myself poorly. I know there are cities that are that hot in the US, but I meant possible WC venues compared to the fact that Qatar as a whole averages 105-115. Most cities in the US that have stadiums fit to host WC games would be around 20 degrees cooler on average, that’s the point I was trying to make, but you’re right.

          • Chris

            July 7, 2011 at 11:18 am

            But the stadiums in Houston and Dallas are retractable roofs so teams wouldn’t be playing in 100 degree heat

        • RaiderRich

          July 8, 2011 at 7:33 am

          Hey Jake, Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston all have retractable roof stadia that can be regulated for temperature. Quit spewing out anti-American hatred and do some research

  36. bill victor

    July 7, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Great, they can mow the lawn between periods.

  37. jmansor

    July 7, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Is this an April Fool’s joke?

    • jj

      July 10, 2011 at 8:45 pm

      jimansor,it look so,it came late this year

  38. Jake Islas

    July 7, 2011 at 9:20 am

    86F??? Surely no one believes that’s dangerously hot? that’s actually nice. 105+ I would say but 86?

  39. Nik Arur

    July 7, 2011 at 9:20 am

    This entire World Cup will be a complete joke… yourselves while you still can and move it to the US, FIFA!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

More in General

Translate »