World football governing body FIFA has pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 50% by 2030, and to reach net-zero by 2040. After the current World Cup it will have plenty of catching up to do.
The expansion of the tournament to 48 teams is only part of the problem. Playing 104 matches across 16 host cities spanning the USA, Canada, and Mexico accounts for the majority of the rest.
Aviation will make up 80-90% of the competition’s carbon footprint, which in total will generate over nine million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent.
Air travel will account for an estimated 7.72 million tonnes of CO₂e — more than four times the average for previous tournaments – while 14 of the 16 host cities are vulnerable to dangerous heat during the summer months, with air conditioning and hydration breaks further driving up energy costs.
The host nations, in their original bid, projected just 3.6m tonnes of CO2e, stating that the competition would “establish new standards for environmental sustainability in sport”. The likelihood is that it will, but not in a way that will benefit the planet.
Environmental group Scientists for Global Responsibility argues that the expansion of the tournament - which is projected to be the most carbon-intensive tournament in history - and fossil-fuel ties run counter to public green pledges. Critics want huge changes in the future, including dropping major polluting sponsors, reversing tournament expansions to curb mass travel, and restricting future bids to nations and regions that do not require continent-spanning flights.
On the plus side, host cities are implementing bespoke plans focusing on waste reduction, renewable energy, and sustainable infrastructure. For instance, Dallas is collaborating with municipal governments, non-profit and higher education institutions to track and manage localised ecological metrics.
Also, the tournament relies entirely on existing stadiums rather than new builds, reducing the upfront construction carbon footprint.
A report published by the University of Manchester, Loughborough University and the University of Bristol, which will form part of “Football and Climate Change: The Unsustainability of the Beautiful Game”, due to be published in 2027, says football’s carbon footprint is not simply caused by fan travel or stadiums, but is politically produced through commercial growth, globalisation, ties to fossil fuel companies and Petrostates.
University of Manchester lecturer Dr James Jackson says: “Rather than being proactive and ensuring football helps mitigate against the worst impacts of climate change, they (FIFA) are - at best - pursuing meagre adaptation measures for things which affect fans and players. As FIFA has sought little in the way of sustainability initiatives to instead cosy up to many of the largest fossil fuel states in the world, they look like an increasingly neglectful governing body.”
Senior lecturer in International Public and Social Policy at the University of Bristol, Dr Oscar Berglund, said: “FIFA has made elite men’s football the primary target of Petrostate sportswashing. This World Cup, with the ridiculous Trump Peace Prize and having Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest polluter, as its main sponsor, reaches new levels.
“It has been a key strategy of Petrostates to use football’s unrivalled cultural influence globally. They don’t need to convince us that fossil fuels are good, just that they are inevitable. So, as we watch and love our beautiful game, we come to accept the necessary evil of fossil capital.”
The investigation recommends: FIFA stop awarding tournaments to Petrostates, restrictions be placed on fossil fuel ownership of clubs, fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship be banned in football, and authorities halt the expansion of competitions.
FIFA has previously defended its sustainability strategies and said major tournaments can drive investment, infrastructure and development in host nations. The organisation has also said that expanding competitions increases global participation and opportunities for smaller footballing nations.
