The 2026 World Cup is on course to become the most polluting tournament in history, with scientists projecting total greenhouse gas emissions of around nine million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – nearly double the average for tournaments held between 2010 and 2022. Air travel alone is expected to account for approximately 7.7 million tonnes of that total, more than four times the average air-travel emissions from previous World Cups. Even that figure may be an underestimate: the worst-case upper bound for air transport, researchers note, could reach 13.7 million tonnes of CO₂.
Environmental catastrophe on a continental scale
Much of the damage is self-inflicted. Fifa chose to expand the tournament from 32 to 48 teams, while selecting three host nations – Canada, Mexico and the United States – that together span a vast geographical expanse. The distances involved make low-carbon travel impractical even if North America possessed a high-speed rail network of any note; as it stands, air travel is the only viable option for most fans and teams. The Bosnia and Herzegovina squad, for instance, will have to travel more than 5,000 kilometres from Toronto to Los Angeles to Seattle, with their training camp in Salt Lake City adding further carbon miles. Algeria will rack up around 4,800 kilometres shuttling between Kansas City, San Francisco and back. Czechia, starting in Guadalajara before heading to Atlanta and then Mexico City, will notch more than 4,500 kilometres. The 2022 Qatar World Cup, by contrast, generated roughly 3.8 million tonnes of CO₂e, with stadiums clustered closely together and linked by metro and bus. The 2026 tournament is projected to more than double that figure.
A history of greenwashing
Fifa’s record on environmental claims has long been the subject of scepticism, and the buildup to 2026 has done nothing to dispel it. Ahead of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, Fifa President Gianni Infantino urged fans to “raise Fifa’s green card for the planet” by recording short videos about how they would “preserve the environment and save our world”. He declared his “aim” to make that tournament “carbon neutral”. In reality, the Qatar 2022 World Cup was a carbon bomb: more than 1,000 daily inbound and outbound flights, an energy-intensive desalination system, largely bogus carbon-offset schemes, and even grass seeds flown in from North America on climate-controlled aeroplanes. A Swiss advertising watchdog later ruled Fifa’s carbon-neutral claim misleading and unsubstantiated.
Now, for 2026, the organisation has signed a four-year partnership deal with Aramco, the state-owned Saudi energy giant that is the largest corporate greenhouse gas emitter on Earth, responsible for more than 4% of all emissions since 1965. The emissions induced by this sponsorship deal alone are estimated at around 29.95 million tonnes of CO₂e – more than three times the tournament’s projected direct emissions. More than 100 professional female footballers, including prominent internationals, signed a letter condemning the partnership. Canada national team captain Jessie Fleming said: “Aramco is one of the biggest polluters of the planet we all call home. In taking Aramco’s sponsorship, Fifa is choosing money over women’s safety and the safety of the planet.” Critics argue the deal amounts to classic greenwashing – lending legitimacy to a fossil-fuel behemoth while making token sustainability gestures.
Fifa has published a sustainability strategy for 2026 that includes targets to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2040. Host cities such as Dallas have drawn up plans covering sustainable infrastructure, climate action and waste reduction, with initiatives including renewable electricity, waste diversion and public transport promotion. All venues will install hybrid natural grass fields, which can sequester carbon and support biodiversity. But campaigners point to a glaring gap between rhetoric and action: the tournament’s projected emissions are substantially higher than any previous World Cup, and the Aramco sponsorship directly contradicts the stated climate goals.
Heat threat to players and fans
Beyond the emissions ledger, the tournament poses a direct physical danger. Multiple studies have identified a significantly increased risk of extreme heat stress for players and fans compared to earlier World Cups held in North America. The National Weather Service has warned that every region of the United States will experience temperatures above historical averages during the two months of the tournament. Researchers use the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT), which accounts not only for air temperature but also humidity, wind speed and solar radiation. An academic study found that 14 out of 16 host cities are likely to experience average WBGTs exceeding 28°C (82.4°F) in June and July. The global players’ union, Fifpro, recommends cooling breaks when WBGT reaches 26°C and advises match postponement above 28°C. Fifa’s own regulations reportedly only consider postponement at WBGT levels exceeding 32°C.
Six host cities – Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Miami and Monterrey – have been identified as posing an “extremely high risk” of heat-stress injuries. Of those, Kansas City, Miami and Monterrey have stadiums that are neither air-conditioned nor equipped with retractable roofs, leaving players and spectators fully exposed to the elements. While Atlanta, Dallas and Houston do have air-conditioned venues, the energy required to cool them adds further to the tournament’s carbon footprint. Dr Madeleine Orr of the University of Toronto, one of the study’s authors, said: “What is perhaps most absurd to me is the lack of commonsense preparations by event organizers to keep people safe in extreme weather conditions. Hot and humid weather is predictable in North American summers. So are wildfire smoke in the West and hurricane-force winds driving big storms in the East.” She added that the focus appears limited to protecting athletes on the field, with “basically no consideration for fans, staff, the media and volunteers working in the stands or on the streets.”
Fifa has taken some steps. Many games in hotter cities will kick off in the evening, and the organisation announced last December that each half of every match would feature a mandatory three-minute hydration break, regardless of weather conditions – a departure from the previous approach where breaks were conditional on heat thresholds. However, those breaks also create new commercial opportunities: broadcasters can fill two minutes and ten seconds of each break with adverts, provided they do not cut away within 20 seconds of the referee’s whistle and return 30 seconds before play resumes. Despite the hydration breaks, around a quarter of all matches are still projected to be played in conditions exceeding Fifpro’s recommended safety limits. The tension between player welfare and broadcast schedules remains unresolved, with afternoon kick-offs forced by international television demands.
Scholar Tim Walters has argued that the combined consequences of increased greenhouse gas emissions and extreme heat make this World Cup the deadliest sporting event in history, calling it a sign of Fifa’s “abject misanthropy”. The organisation may claim a “green card for the planet” in its promotional materials, but the reality – a tournament that doubles the average carbon footprint, partners with the world’s biggest corporate emitter, and subjects players and fans to foreseeable heat danger – suggests a very different colour.
