As world soccer prepares to experience its biggest edition ever – 48 teams, 104 matches, three host countries – a report released by the New Weather Institute issues an alarm that is hard to ignore: the 2026 World Cup risks becoming the most polluting sporting event in history. It projects at least 9 million tons of CO₂ equivalent, almost double the average for tournaments played between 2010 and 2022, which stood at around 4.7 million. In a more pessimistic scenario, the figure could rise to 15 million tons.
It is the logical consequence of precise choices: an ever-expanding format; host cities thousands of miles apart; the almost total absence of alternatives to air transportation. The report, produced in collaboration with Scientists for Global Responsibility, Environmental Defense Fund and The Sport for Climate Action Network, spares no criticism of the International Football Federation, accused of having a “blind spot” in the face of the climate crisis.
More teams, more matches, more planes
The root of the problem is structural. The move from 32 to 48 teams has increased the number of matches by 63 percent compared to previous editions. Unlike tournaments concentrated in a single country, this World Cup is played in 16 cities spread across the entire North American continent, from Vancouver to Monterrey, from New York to Los Angeles.
The result is that teams, technical staff, journalists and millions of fans will have to rely almost exclusively on airplanes to get around. The report estimates that air travel will generate more than 7.7 million tons of CO₂, an increase of between 160 percent and 325 percent over previous tournaments. This is a huge range, depending on the actual number of spectators traveling and the geographical origin of the fans of the qualifying teams.
The comparison with Europe is merciless. The old continent has a high-speed rail network that connects major cities in a matter of hours, making the train a viable alternative to the airplane for trips of up to 600-700 kilometers. North America, on the other hand, has never developed a similar system on a continental scale. Between Seattle and Dallas, between Toronto and Miami, the only quick and affordable option is to board a plane.
Fifa’s blind spot
The title of the report,“FIFA’s Climate Blind Spot,” is already a manifesto. The authors argue that the federation has systematically ignored the climate implications of its strategic decisions. The decision to expand the tournament to 48 teams, the decision to assign the 2026 edition to three countries far apart, the renunciation of stringent environmental criteria in the selection of venues-all of these should have been evaluated in light of the emissions reduction goals that FIFA itself claims to pursue.
This is not the first time that major sporting events have found themselves under indictment for their environmental impact. The Olympics, Formula 1 Grand Prix, Grand Slam tennis tournaments: all have had to deal with the ecological footprint generated by the movement of athletes and spectators. But the World Cup has a scale that few other events can match, with a global following that mobilizes tens of millions of people.
What makes the 2026 case particularly emblematic is the contrast between stated ambitions and concrete choices. Fifa signed up to international initiatives for sustainability in sport, pledged to reduce its emissions, and published articulated climate strategies. But then it approved a larger format, chose more distant venues, and failed to provide concrete mechanisms to disincentivize air travel or incentivize more sustainable alternatives.
What Fifa says
The federation, for its part, is not backing down on the issue. On its institutional website, Fifa says World Cup 2026 will be accompanied by a sustainability strategy aimed at reducing environmental impact and leaving a “positive legacy” in host cities. Sustainable building standards for stadiums and temporary infrastructure, promotion of public transportation, and cutting waste and energy consumption are cited.
However, the report’s authors believe that these measures are wholly insufficient to offset the structural impact of the tournament. Promoting public transportation within a city does not solve the problem of emissions generated by millions of intercontinental flights. And building a stadium with solar panels does not balance the tons of CO₂ produced to get fans from one end of the continent to the other.
A model to be rethought
The deeper question the report raises is not just about this edition of the tournament, but about the very model of growth in world soccer. More teams means more markets, more sponsors, more television revenue. The federation’s logic is one of continuous expansion, of soccer becoming more global, more widespread. But this logic clashes with the physical constraints of the planet.
Are there concrete alternatives? The report’s authors suggest a few: return to a more compact format with fewer teams, concentrate matches in geographically limited areas, introduce emissions offsetting mechanisms that are credible and verifiable, and make climate reporting mandatory for major sporting events. These are proposals that involve difficult choices because they touch on established economic interests.
The 2026 World Cup will still be played, with its 48 teams and 104 matches. But the debate it has sparked could have major consequences for future editions. Pressure from public opinion, environmental organizations and a growing part of the sports world is forcing international federations to come to terms with an issue they can no longer ignore. The ball is in Fifa’s court.
