Can a Global Event Like World Cup Ever Be Sustainable?

Jul 19

The World Cup is everywhere right now.

Even as someone who does not usually follow football closely, it is almost impossible not to see match results, highlights, and emotional fan moments. And I have to admit, if Turkey were still in the tournament, I might even be watching more actively. Let’s just say our World Cup story ended before I could fully become a football fan. :)

This is one of those moments when a topic outside my usual interests suddenly becomes very relevant to me. I started thinking about everything behind the tournament, the travel, the stadiums, the energy use and the climate impact, and one question kept coming to my mind: what does it actually take to bring the world together for an event of this scale?

Green stadiums, long flights, and football in a warming world...

The FIFA World Cup connects national teams, supporters, media, sponsors and host cities through one big global event. But creating that global experience also requires moving millions of people and large amounts of equipment across countries. Stadiums consume energy and water, temporary structures are installed, hotels fill up, merchandise is produced.

At the same time, real efforts are being made to reduce some of these impacts, particularly at stadium level. At the start of the 2026 tournament, 13 of the 16 stadiums had received LEED green-building certification. According to the Associated Press, the certified venues collectively included more than 11,500 solar panels, alongside measures intended to reduce single-use plastics and waste sent to landfill. These are nice steps. But despite these improvements, there is still a very valid question: if stadiums become greener, is that enough to make the tournament sustainable?

A stadium may use renewable energy, conserve water and manage waste effectively, while the wider event still creates a substantial footprint through international flights, intercity travel, accommodation and logistics. The stadium is only one part of the system. It is not the whole system. And in 2026, that wider system is larger than ever before. The World Cup expanded from 32 to 48 teams and from 64 to 104 matches, with games distributed across 16 cities in Canada, Mexico and the United States. An independent pre-tournament assessment by Scientists for Global Responsibility and partner organisations estimated a total footprint of approximately 9.02 million tonnes of CO₂e, including around 7.72 million tonnes from air transport. The broader conclusion is clear: travel is expected to dominate the tournament’s emissions.

Managing the impact, or designing it in?

FIFA has developed a Sustainability and Human Rights Strategy for the 2026 World Cup, covering environmental, social, economic and governance responsibilities. For an event of this scale, however, sustainability cannot be treated only as a set of measures applied after the tournament has already been designed. It also needs to shape the decisions that determine the tournament’s scale, geography and transport needs.

That includes decisions such as:

how large the tournament becomes,
how many host cities are selected,
how far apart those cities are,
whether teams and supporters can travel by rail or are likely to rely on flights,
whether existing stadiums can be used, and
whether match schedules account for climate risks such as extreme heat.

These may look like sporting, logistical or commercial choices, but they also determine much of the tournament’s environmental impact.

The previous World Cup provides useful context. Even in geographically compact Qatar, FIFA’s official greenhouse-gas report found that travel was the largest source of emissions, with international air travel playing a major role. The winning bid for 2026, meanwhile, spans three countries and 16 host cities across a big geographical area.

FIFA’s host-selection process considers factors such as stadiums, transport, accommodation, finances, human rights and sustainability. If sustainability really matters in the selection process, FIFA should carefully consider the distances involved and how much travel the tournament will require. Otherwise, many of the tournament’s emissions are already built into its design before the sustainability measures begin.

When climate change changes the game

The relationship between football and climate change works in both directions. World Cup contributes to greenhouse-gas emissions, but climate change is also altering the conditions in which the game can be played safely.

Before the tournament, World Weather Attribution estimated that around a quarter of the 104 matches could reach heat levels at which FIFPRO (global organisation representing professional football players and their national player unions) recommends cooling breaks. In response, FIFA introduced mandatory three-minute hydration breaks and additional cooling measures. Players were also given access to water, electrolyte drinks, ice, cold towels, misting systems, and fans.

These examples show why climate adaptation and mitigation need to be considered together. Adaptation measures help players, teams and organisers cope with increasingly difficult conditions, and the need for them is no longer theoretical. Players have described matches as physically draining, while some teams have reduced or changed their training schedules to limit heat exposure. Supporters have also felt the effects, searching for shade and water and describing the heat as extreme. The above-mentioned measures can reduce immediate health risks and help the tournament continue under hotter conditions. But they do not address the emissions contributing to the underlying problem. Football must therefore adapt to a warming climate while also taking stronger action to reduce its own impact.

Overall, I know the World Cup brings people together. It creates joy, community and a shared sense of belonging, and that value should not be ignored. But neither should its environmental cost. So maybe the real question is not simply whether the World Cup can be sustainable, but how much impact we are willing to accept for the value it creates, and how much responsibility we expect organisers to take for reducing it.

Sources / Further reading

Associated Press. (2026). World Cup stadiums earn prestigious certifications as green buildings before matches begin.

FIFA. (2026). FIFA World Cup 26 Sustainability & Human Rights Strategy.

U.S. Green Building Council. LEED Sustainable Stadium Tracker.

FIFA. (2026, July 7). FIFA World Cup 2026: Match schedule, fixtures & stadiums.

Parkinson, S., Ali, S., & Daley, F. (2025). FIFA’s Climate Blind Spot: The Men’s World Cup in a Warming World. New Weather Institute, in association with Scientists for Global Responsibility, Environmental Defense Fund, Cool Down – Sport for Climate Action Network, and Badvertising.

Anderson, K. (2026, June 4). FIFA World Cup 2026: What’s the Real Carbon Footprint?.

FIFA. (2023). FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022. Greenhouse Gas Accounting Report: Ex Post Assessment.Prepared with support from South Pole Carbon Asset Management Ltd.

World Weather Attribution. (2026).Climate Change Big Player at FIFA World Cup 2026

FIFA. (2025). Players to Benefit from Hydration Breaks at FIFA World Cup 2026.

Noor, D., Clarke, S., & MacInnes, P. (2026). World Cup Matches Played in Potentially Dangerous Heat as Players’ Union Makes Climate Warning. The Guardian.

Moore, A. (2026). FIFA World Cup Faces Growing Sustainability Challenges.NC State University, College of Natural Resources.

Reuters. (2026). World Cup 2026: Data, Graphics and Key Insights—Hydration Breaks Versus Heat

FIFA. (2018). 2026 FIFA World Cup: Bid Evaluation Report