Will Climate Change Ruin World Cup 2026?

The stage is almost set. Three nations, 48 teams, 104 matches, and 16 cities, football is ready to witness its biggest carnival in less than three weeks. While the tournament has expected a footfall of over five million football fans, from Monterrey to Vancouver, speculations, doubts, and uncomfortable conversations have been going on for months. Unfortunately, these conversations are not tactics, trophy predictions, or players.

Environmental experts are warning that the 2026 FIFA World Cup will be the most polluting sporting event in history. For the first time, three nations are hosting a tournament, which means more air travel, more vehicles, and there will be 48 teams, which is by far the highest number of teams appearing in one edition of the FIFA World Cup. Let's dive deeper and explore why climate change is the biggest player in the World Cup 2026.

Also read || Can Arsenal Finally Win the UCL This Season?

Is the FIFA World Cup 2026 really the most Polluting World Cup in History?

Whether you love football or not, you can not deny that this edition is the biggest tournament ever to be hosted, and the numbers tell everything. FIFA World Cup 2026 is forecasted to generate over 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). When you compare these numbers with the 2022 edition, which generated up to 5.25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, it is more than double. Interestingly, 6.5 million average British cars generate nearly the same level of carbon dioxide equivalent.

But why is it happening? We know that climate change is real, and the world is trying to move towards more sustainable plans. In FIFA's case, the biggest factor is tournament expansion from 32 teams to 48 teams, which led to more cities, more flights, more matches, and everything. Whether it is teams, officials, or fans, everybody has to crisscross a continent rather than one compact host country. Air travel alone is one of the key factors, and no green infrastructure in the world can offset that.

Apart from green infrastructure, FIFA's commercial decisions are highly criticized by climate scientists. FIFA's partnership with Saudi Aramco might add 30 million additional tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2026 alone, according to research by Scientists for Global Responsibility and the Environmental Defense Fund. In an environmental publication, Geographical, it was noted that emissions from FIFA's sponsorships are now larger than the emissions from the tournament itself.

Also read || Will Mourinho's Return Transform Real Madrid's Future?

Lessons From Past World Cups: What FIFA Failed to Learn

Every four years, FIFA lands in some controversy, and this is not the first time. During the 2014 Brazil, 2018 Russia, and 2022 Qatar editions, all had their share of controversies around environmental criticism. In the 2022 Qatar World Cup, FIFA promised to deliver the world's first "fully-carbon-neutral World Cup", which was a very bold claim. The Swiss Fairness Commission (SLK) ruled in 2023 that FIFA had made "unsubstantiated claims" about Qatar's environmental impact, and the actual footprint was not 3.8 million but estimated at up to 5.25 million tonnes of CO2e.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is projected at 9 million tonnes of CO2e, and the planned 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia is already estimated at over 8.5 million tonnes, according to SGR research. Every edition, the tournament is getting bigger, broader, and more travel-intensive. All that is happening when global climate science demands the vice versa. After the Qatar edition, a recalibration was expected from FIFA, not an expanded format and a partnership with the oil giant.

You can't count humans out of the equation as well. The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), alongside researchers from Brunel University of London and Queen's University Belfast, warned that 6 of the 16 host stadiums face extreme heat during the tournament. Besides, 8 of 16 require immediate environmental intervention to protect players and fans. Apart from that, dizziness, dehydration, heat cramps, and heat strokes are also serious concerns when matches are in Miami, Kansas City, New Jersey, and East Rutherford.

Also read || 7 Strongest FIFA World Cup 2026 Teams Without a Title

FIFA 2030 Sustainability: Commitments, Player Action & Climate Future

It would be wrong to say FIFA is keeping mum about the concerns. They faced enough criticism during the 2024 Club World Cup. As a result, they introduced mandatory three-minute cooling breaks in each half of every match, climate-controlled benches for substitutes and staff, and heat monitoring using the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) standard, which is the gold benchmark for assessing physical heat stress.

FIFA's existing pledge is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2040. Experts from SGR and Environmental Defense Fund have identified specific steps that FIFA should take to minimize emissions, such as reversing the 48-team expansion back to 32, cutting ties with high-emissions sponsors like Aramco, and lowering minimum stadium capacity requirements to prevent carbon-intensive construction of new infrastructure. While these tasks appear simple, they might cost FIFA a lot of money.

Footballers from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, and other nations have signed an open letter citing that heat stress causes "fatigue, muscle cramps, dizziness, and worse," making it "impossible to play with the same intensity". They urged FIFA to strengthen its protocols and align them with "contemporary exercise physiology and the best available science." The pitch may be set. Still, the bigger game is yet to be played.