By
It’s the beautiful game. As many as 5.5 million fans will flock to the 2026 World Cup tournament held next year, hosted jointly by 16 cities in three North American countries: Mexico, Canada and the United States.
This World Cup will mark the first-ever tournament to be held across an entire continent, with 48 teams and 104 matches – 40 more than before.
Enjoying this article? Check out our related reads:
Despite the excitement surrounding the tournament, there remains a very considerable environmental footprint to consider.
According to research from the Scientists for Global Responsibility, the expanded tournament is set to generate more than nine million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, making it the most ‘climate damaging’ World Cup tournament in history. For comparison, this figure is significantly more than Qatar 2022, which is estimated to have had a footprint of up to 5.25 million tonnes of CO2e.
The total emissions for the 2026 World Cup are equivalent to nearly 6.5 million average British cars being driven around for an entire year.
So, what exactly makes the 2026 World Cup so polluting? And are there ways to mitigate some of the environmental issues it is likely to cause?
Pollution, pollution & more pollution
The main factor driving the spike in emissions for the 2026 World Cup is air travel. Expanding the tournament to 16 cities and three countries means players and fans alike will be travelling further distances to attend matches. And considering the absence of low-carbon alternatives such as high-speed rail in North America, most will flock toward airports to travel between cities and countries.
According to the report, it’s estimated that air transport emissions will rise between 160 and 325 per cent for the tournament – as well as the subsequent 2030 and 2034 World Cups – compared with average levels for recent finals.
For the 2026 World Cup in North America, air transport is estimated to account for 7.72 million tonnes of CO2e, more than four times the size of the air transport emissions seen in a typical 2010–2022 tournament.
Another major factor contributing to emissions is increased energy use due to extreme heat. The 2026 tournament is set to take place from June through July, placing it directly in the timeframe of extreme heat episodes in many of the major cities hosting it.
In the report, four venues for the latest World Cup face life-threatening conditions due to extreme temperatures. These include Houston, which, according to the report, needs to establish player safety through mandatory cooling breaks, and Dallas, which faces extreme heat that exceeds FIFA safety thresholds.
As such, these venues will likely require massive energy consumption to power cooling systems. This creates a vicious pattern – climate change drives energy consumption, which in turn accelerates climate change.
FIFA’s strategy
So, can anything be done to help mitigate the environmental issues? For some, the answer may lie with FIFA – the governing body of the World Cup.
Back in 2021, FIFA first introduced its Climate Strategy report. In the plan, the corporation pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2030, and achieve net-zero emissions by 2040. To achieve this, strategies were suggested from promoting sustainable infrastructure, enhancing energy efficiency and encouraging the use of renewable energy. As well as this, the plan also included copious amounts of carbon offsetting using credits.
However, some critics argue that FIFA’s carbon offsetting lacks transparency and ultimately does not mitigate the environmental impact of 2026’s expanded tournament. It’s not the first time that FIFA’s environmental policy has fallen short – back in 2022, its claims of carbon neutrality for the Qatar World Cup were deemed misleading by a Swiss regulator.
According to the report, FIFA could take several actions to limit the carbon footprint of the 2026 World Cup. One is to reverse the tournament expansion from 32 to 48 teams, and implement a binding limit on the number of teams that are able to compete in the Finals. Such a measure would reduce reliance on air travel and, consequently, help to drive down greenhouse gas emissions.
Another solution is for FIFA to drop high-pollution sponsors. The sponsored emissions attributed to FIFA (such as the estimated 30 million tons of CO2e induced by the FIFA-Aramco deal for 2026) are larger than the emissions generated by the tournament itself. Cutting ties with businesses like oil giant Aramco could reduce emissions and demonstrate FIFA’s desire to address the climate crisis.
As well as this, FIFA could also lower minimum stadium capacity requirements. In doing so, host nations could better utilise existing infrastructure and significantly reduce carbon-intensive stadium construction.
Ultimately, there are options to make the upcoming World Cup less planet-polluting – but these are by no means quick fixes. It will likely take institutional-level changes in order for emissions to be reduced, and even then, the tournament is likely to still produce major emissions. With less than eight months to go until the 2026 World Cup kicks off, only time will tell whether FIFA respond to these suggested measures to mitigate the tournament’s environmental footprint.
