The 2026 FIFA North and Central America World Cup kicked off today. This World Cup is the largest in history, with 104 matches across 16 host cities and 48 participating nations. But off the pitch, a different set of numbers is drawing attention. According to ‘FIFA’s Climate Blind Spot,’ a report jointly published in 2025 by academic and environmental groups including the Environmental Defense Fund and Scientists for Global Responsibility, this tournament is estimated to generate approximately 9.02 million tons of CO₂-equivalent emissions — roughly double the average emissions of World Cups held between 2010 and 2022. The largest-ever festival of football is casting a shadow as the largest-ever carbon emitter.
As Participating Nations Increase, So Do Emissions
The core driver of increased carbon emissions is not the stadiums but travel distances. Since the 2026 World Cup largely utilizes existing stadiums, new stadium construction is not the central issue as it was with the Qatar World Cup. However, the widely dispersed host locations — with over 4,500 km separating Miami and Vancouver, for instance — increase the likelihood that teams and fans will rely on air travel. Approximately 7.7 million tons of the tournament’s total carbon emissions are expected to come from aviation alone, and under the worst-case scenario, aviation emissions could reach 13.7 million tons. Indeed, the Bosnia and Herzegovina national team must travel from Toronto to Los Angeles to Seattle in sequence, a zigzag route across the North American continent that generates substantial carbon emissions. The journey to the stadium is creating a greater environmental burden than the 90 minutes played inside it.
[BC Place Stadium in Vancouver, designated as a Canadian venue for the 2026 World Cup © BC Place Official X]
Heatwaves have also emerged as a variable. U.S. meteorological authorities forecast that temperatures across most of North America during the June–July tournament will exceed historical averages. Warnings have been raised that 14 of the 16 host cities could exceed a Wet-Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) of 28°C — an index measuring perceived heat stress in high-temperature environments — which is considered a dangerous level. Some cities such as Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta operate air-conditioned stadiums, but critics point out that large-scale cooling itself leads to additional energy consumption and carbon emissions. It is a vicious cycle: the climate crisis engulfs the World Cup while the World Cup deepens the climate crisis.
FIFA’s Promise to Reduce Carbon Emissions: How Sincere Is It?
In 2021, FIFA announced the ‘FIFA Climate Strategy’ at the UN COP26, setting a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieving net zero by 2040. The report included measures such as building eco-friendly infrastructure, improving energy efficiency, and encouraging renewable energy use. Yet the gap between declaration and action remains unbridged. FIFA’s claim of achieving ‘carbon neutrality’ at the 2022 Qatar World Cup was ruled as false advertising by the Swiss Fair Trading Commission on the grounds that it was ‘unverifiable’ and lacked a ‘specific offset plan.’ The declaration failed the verification test.
[Crude oil production and refining facilities of ARAMCO© ARAMCO Website]
In 2024, professional women’s soccer players from around the world sent a letter of protest to FIFA. At the time, FIFA had signed a four-year sponsorship deal with ARAMCO, the world’s largest state-owned oil company based in Saudi Arabia, making ARAMCO an official sponsor of both the 2026 World Cup and the 2027 Women’s World Cup. Regarding FIFA’s partnership with a company profiting from oil that exacerbates climate change, the women’s players criticized, “Grassroots football is suffering from extreme heat, drought, and fires, while Saudi Arabia is profiting by supporting FIFA.” This is why FIFA’s actions — declaring carbon reductions while accepting fossil fuel company sponsorship — cannot easily escape greenwashing criticism.
FIFA has proposed measures to reduce carbon emissions at the North and Central America World Cup, including adjusting match times and introducing hydration and rest breaks for players. However, climate and environmental groups and researchers assess these as insufficient to address the fundamental climate burden, and have stressed the need for efforts not only to shorten travel routes but also to reduce the overall scale of major sporting events in the climate crisis era. As long as FIFA’s growth strategy — expanding participating nations and dispersing host locations — is structurally designed to increase carbon emissions, the next tournament and the one after will struggle to escape the same criticism. The 2026 World Cup will be both the largest festival in history and the stage where the effectiveness of the carbon reduction pledges FIFA has championed for years will be rigorously put to the test.
by Editor N