The 2026 World Cup could become the most polluting in history, despite FIFA’s sustainability pledges.
The passion that unites the world every four years during the World Cup may be about to leave an unprecedented environmental footprint. The 2026 edition, to be hosted by Canada, the United States, and Mexico, is raising serious concerns regarding its ecological impact, with the risk of becoming the most polluting tournament ever organized by FIFA. Despite promises of a more sustainable event, the data and the expansion of the tournament itself point to an alarming scenario.
Expansion Increases Carbon Footprint
One of the main factors pointing to the unsustainability of the 2026 World Cup is its expanded format. The competition will grow from 32 to 48 teams, increasing the number of matches from 64 to 104. This expansion, spread across an entire continent, exponentially multiplies Scope 3 emissions—the indirect emissions that are more difficult to control. Air travel for official delegations and millions of international fans between host cities as far apart as Vancouver, Miami, and Mexico City will be the primary culprit.
The Sustainability Paradox
FIFA has argued that utilizing existing stadiums, rather than building new ones, contributes to the tournament’s sustainability. However, this strategy appears insufficient to offset the impact generated by the logistics of an event of such magnitude. The 2022 edition in Qatar, despite having most of its stadiums built from scratch, already generated a significant carbon footprint estimated at 3.6 million tons of carbon dioxide, with independent projections suggesting an even higher figure. For 2026, a report indicates that the World Cup could generate over 9 million tons of CO2 equivalent, a number that drastically exceeds its predecessors.
Greenwashing and Climate Urgency
The concept of greenwashing fits perfectly with the sustainability strategy announced by FIFA. Actions such as recycling in the stands or using LED lights become merely palliative measures in the face of the scale of the problem.
The science of sustainability is clear: global problems require global solutions, not just superficial gestures. As long as major companies tied to fossil fuels continue to sponsor football, the carbon neutrality goals of football’s governing body risk becoming empty promises.
The climate crisis is already a reality affecting the pitch, making football an increasingly unviable activity. High temperatures in North American host cities put players and fans at risk. The solution of running stadium cooling systems at maximum capacity exacerbates the problem by increasing greenhouse gas emissions—a clear example of what the IPCC calls “maladaptation.”
If football wants to survive on a warming planet, it is crucial to rethink the model. This means committing to more compact and regional host arrangements, reducing the number of matches, and, above all, making the planet’s well-being the top priority, above ratings or economic interests. The final whistle for environmental inaction is approaching, and the planet can no longer afford extra time.
