The World Cup has been hung, drawn and quartered

From the moment the US was confirmed as a co-host of this tournament, you just knew they would find a way to leave a lasting mark on future World Cups.

Maybe it would be compulsory half-time shows, cheerleaders on the sidelines, player walk-downs or hotdogs delivered by drone. There was always going to be something introduced in America that would stick long after the tournament had moved on.

What I didn’t expect was for that legacy to come in the form of play grinding to a halt so grown men can have a sip of water.

The much-hated hydration breaks, we are told, are about player welfare and, in genuinely extreme conditions, that argument holds up very well. But the idea that they needed to be universally imposed is absolute nonsense.

In the scorching heat, fair enough. But when play is stopped during a game being played in pouring rain, you know there is some ulterior motive behind it.

Because what has happened in this tournament, without ever being formally acknowledged, is that football’s traditional two halves have been surreptitiously carved into something else entirely.

In practice, matches now unfold in four distinct segments, neatly interrupted and conveniently paused, edging ever closer to a structure that feels far more familiar to American sports fans – the quarters.

Now of course, you might assume, and reasonably so, that I am being overly dramatic and that these enforced intervals will be a thing of the past come July 20; that they are just a heat-related compromise that quietly disappears once the tournament ends.

Sadly, there isn’t a cat’s chance in hell of that happening.

Because once something like this finds its way into a World Cup, it doesn’t get rolled back. Not by FIFA, and certainly not when it comes wrapped in the kind of opportunity this one does.

Which, inevitably, brings us to money.

Gianni Infantino has insisted these stoppages are not generating additional revenue for FIFA and, strictly speaking, he may even be right. But only in the narrowest sense.

Because broadcasters who paid for the rights to the current competition have suddenly found themselves with something unexpected, but extremely valuable, on their hands: more advertising inventory.

More interruptions mean more slots, more slots mean more money. Industry estimates suggest these hydration breaks have unlocked around one billion dollars in additional revenue globally.

That is not a number that quietly disappears.

It is a number that reappears when FIFA sits down to negotiate broadcast rights for 2030, 2034 and beyond, when those same broadcasters will be bidding with the knowledge that there is more revenue to be extracted from every match.

So no, the breaks may not be making FIFA extra money right now, but they are most definitely laying the groundwork for increasing broadcasting revenues in the future.

Conveniently, the next two tournaments are also being played in hot countries, so ‘player welfare’ will be at the heart of FIFA’s concerns in 2030 and 2034.

And by then, everyone will have got used to them.

Having said that, when FIFA smells additional revenue they wouldn’t have let a small matter like actual temperature get in the way. Even if the 2030 competition were being held in Siberia in winter, they would have found a way to keep the interruptions in place.

Dehydration breaks, perhaps....

When FIFA smells additional revenue they wouldn’t have let a small matter like actual temperature get in the way

From lions to mice

Well, that’s a relief – normal service has been resumed.

If England’s showing against Croatia gave us long-suffering fans hope and belief, then their display against Ghana brought us crashing back down to earth.

The performances were chalk and cheese – in the first they showed energy and creativity while in the second they were lethargic and unimaginative. England proved they are very much the Jekyll and Hyde of international football.

Yes, the African side defended deeper than just about any team I have ever seen at this World Cup and did it with a determination that was truly admirable. They had a game plan and they stuck to it rigidly.

But if you are one of the favourites to win the trophy you should expect opponents to set themselves up that way. More importantly, you need to have a plan to combat it, which England clearly didn’t.

I admit that, just as we shouldn’t have allowed ourselves to get overly excited by the first performance, we shouldn’t get too down about the second. It’s a long tournament with a lot of football left to be played.

And, by the time you read this, there is every chance England could have put in another convincing performance in last night’s/this morning’s game against Panama.

But for me, the Ghana match was like a trip back in time to one of those performances under Gareth Southgate when there didn’t seem to be plan B or C. And barely a plan A.

And from a personal point of view that has certainly dampened by enthusiasm and diminished my expectations.

Which is actually quite a relief.

To play or not to play

Few players are able to divide opinion quite as ferociously as Cristiano Ronaldo.

After his lacklustre performance in Portugal’s first game, the country’s fans found themselves split down the middle.

On the one side were those who feel he is an untouchable national institution who deserves to play until he decides to call it a day. On the other side, there were those who felt he is no longer worthy of selection and is actually holding the team back.

Fast forward to Portugal’s second game and CR7’s two goals in their convincing win didn’t end the discussion. In fact, it only served to pour fire on the debate with supporters saying ‘told you so’ and opponents pointing out that this was only Uzbekistan, and without him they would have scored 10.

But this is where the conversation needs to be a little more grown-up: the solution isn’t black or white, it is very much grey.

Completely discarding his knowledge, experience and skills would be silly. But allowing him free reign to play as much as he wants is equally daft.

A compromise is needed, and that, to my mind, would see him play parts of the game. Either start him from kick-off and let him go for a solid hour, knowing he doesn’t need to pace himself for a full 90 minutes.

Or, alternatively, bring him on for the final 20 or 30 minutes when opponents are more tired and allow him to weave his old school magic over a short, but intense, period of time.

It’s a simple solution that should not only make both camps relatively happy but would also allow Ronaldo to perform to a higher level.

That this isn’t already happening suggests there is some truth in the rumours that it is Ronaldo dictating things behind the scenes with Roberto Martinez little more than a puppet.

And if that’s the case, this saga isn’t going to end well for them.

E-mail: Jamescalvertmalta@gmail.com

X: @maltablade