Americans have lived with in-play advertising for decades—around 40 to 50 years—so it aligns well with the culture, says Rob di Gisi, a sport management lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.
He notes there is little resistance; tweaks that make the games feel more American are likely to be adopted with hardly any notice.
Telemundo, a U.S. Spanish-language broadcaster aimed at Latino audiences, is among the few choosing not to run ads during these stoppages.
During Canada’s opening match last week, its commentator said they prefer the traditional approach, arguing viewers should be able to watch what players are doing.
They added that the focus should be on fans enjoying the event rather than a corporate-driven version of football.
BBC Sport has contacted Fox Sports and Telemundo for comment.
Other major markets are also using ads, including Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, China, Japan, India, Australia, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.
While broadcasters in those regions can’t command Fox Sports’ rates and some won’t use the full allowed duration, the combined revenue will still be substantial.
Scaled globally, hydration-break advertising could generate around $1 billion (£756m), Di Gisi says.
However, simply putting products in front of viewers during in-game pauses doesn’t guarantee results.
T. Bettina Cornwell, head of marketing at the University of Oregon, questions whether backlash to hydration-break ads might undermine their value.
When brands disrupt what fans expect—such as the flow of the match—audiences can react negatively, she notes.