Red Card for Sustainability at the World Cup.

This 2026 World Cup is underway – 48 countries are competing and fans around the world are brought together across cultures, languages and borders.

There have already been memorable moments; debut appearances of smaller nations such as Curacao and Cape Verde and unlikely friendships forming between travelling supporters. But this World Cup is also breaking records for the wrong reasons. It is set to become the hottest World Cup on record, with several host cities experiencing temperatures above 35°C. At the same time, analysts project that it could be the most carbon-intensive sporting event in history.

For fans and players, the World Cup is an amazing celebration of international community and sporting achievements. But FIFA also had the opportunity to demonstrate their sustainability and climate action on a global scale, and they have fallen short. Instead, concerns over emissions, extreme heat and questionable sponsorships have overshadowed the tournament.

Carbon Emissions at the World Cup.

One of the most significant concerns about this World Cup is its carbon footprint.  A report from Scientists for Global Responsibility last year conservatively estimated that this World Cup would produce at least 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. To put this in perspective, this is more than smaller competing nations like Uruguay and DR Congo emitted over the whole of 2024 - 8.7 and 8.46m tonnes respectively.

Most of this carbon ‘budget’ is spent on air travel; the report estimates approximately 7.7m tons alone will be from player and fan flights, with the upper estimate at 13.7, tons. This is a drastic increase from the average World Cup, mostly because of the expansion in competing teams. Sharing the tournament across multiple nations gives a chance to countries which may not have been able to host previously, but it also creates unavoidable distances to travel - some teams will be travelling over 4500km during the tournament.

The expansion directly conflicts with FIFA's climate commitments. Given the scale of air travel required, any reductions in carbon emissions from host stadiums or green transport are unlikely to make a difference to offsetting the environmental impact. In fact, the president of FIFA himself, Gianni Infantino, has reportedly travelled over 50,000km in 27 private flights during the tournament. The carbon emissions from these flights alone is estimated to be more than the annual carbon footprint of 70 people.

Heat conditions.

This North American world cup has also been in the spotlight for extreme heat and weather conditions. Heatwaves in Europe and America have brought to focus the extreme impact of climate change, especially in urban areas where temperatures have become dangerously high. Climate conditions are becoming part of the game itself. Despite FIFA enforcing cooling breaks and pitch irrigation in this competition, fans and players are still at risk of heat stress in over 35°C conditions.

The temperatures are a reminder that we are getting close to surpassing the Paris Agreement of 1.5°C of warming. Interventions from FIFA can only do so much, and questions are being raised for future tournaments during increasingly hot summers.

Greenwashing.

As a result of contradictions between words and actions, FIFA has been criticised for ‘greenwashing’ – making strong climate commitments with little intention of following them. This is seen in small actions like not allowing reusable water bottles into stadiums, therefore drastically increasing waste. Others are far more significant; FIFA’s repeated claims about reducing environmental impacts while expanding the competition and choosing sponsorships from fossil fuel giants.

In 2022 after the World Cup in Qatar, FIFA was taken to the Swiss Commission for Fairness. They ruled that their claims of carbon neutrality during the tournament had been “false and misleading” under Swiss competition laws.

Despite a commitment in 2021 to reduce emissions by 50 per cent, FIFA’s actions do not match. The game has only expanded - plans for the 2030 Men’s World Cup include games played across 6 countries - and this is not compatible with a reduced carbon footprint.

FIFA and Aramco.

FIFAs partnership with Aramco represents the clearest example of this contradiction.

In 2024, FIFA signed a four-year sponsorship deal with Saudi Arabia’s state-owned company Aramco, the world's largest oil and gas company. The agreement covers the 2026 Men’s and 2027 Women’s World Cups and other tournaments during that period, for an estimated $100 million per year.

For many climate and sport activists, this shows that the World Cup has now become a profit-seeking event for FIFA. Aramco is one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet, bigger than many nation states and estimated to be responsible for 4% of the entire world’s emissions since 1965.  Advertising to billions of fans helps to boost Aramco’s image at a time when the world should be divesting and moving away from fossil fuels.

Concerns have also been raised by significant players who have spoken about the partnership. More than 100 professional female footballers signed a letter to FIFA condemning the partnership when it was announced. A recent paper by the University of Manchester proposed lowering the price threshold for sustainable and charity sponsors rather than giving the spotlight to high-emitting sponsors.

Lessons from America.

Criticism of FIFA’s environmental failings should not take away from the crucial social and economic benefits of the game. The World Cup helps host cities and local businesses gain recognition, and events and screenings in home countries bring community and unity. These benefits can be built on, especially with less focus on profit for FIFA and their sponsors.

An example of best practice has been in Houston, who have been committed to being a sustainable host city since 2023 when they began planning. They aimed to use 100% renewable energy at key sites and reduce direct emissions from hosting and energy use. They also created a ‘green corridor’ to promote public transport, bike trails and pedestrian routes across the city.

Initiatives such as these demonstrate that environmental considerations can be integrated into tournament planning from the outset.  These should be key requirements for host cities going forward.

Call to Action.

The climate action from this World Cup has been disappointing given the potential influence a sustainable game would have. While millions of people have come together to celebrate football, the tournament has also highlighted the growing tension between sporting events and climate responsibility. Sporting events like the World Cup can’t simply adapt to rising temperatures, they must be part of the solution to address climate change.

However, examples such as Houston demonstrate that a different approach is possible. By prioritising low-carbon transport, renewable energy and sustainable event planning from location selection to number of seats sold, organisers can reduce environmental impacts and increase community benefits.

CAFA’s Sustainable events guidelines help organisations implement best practice at all stages of planning. By helping organisations identify direct and indirect emissions, it highlights opportunities to reduce their environmental impact. This may be implementing low-energy lighting, water efficiency measures, and selecting venues and suppliers who align with your values.

The World Cup already has the reach and influence to lead by example, but they must take their own commitments more seriously to do so. Associations and member organisations can also lead by example by joining CAFA today to continue climate action at all scales.