WORLD - Every four years, the World Cup gives football its biggest stage. It brings countries together, fills stadiums, and turns a sporting event into a shared global moment. But the celebration also comes with it’s climate bill.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup will be the largest yet. Hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, it will include 48 teams, 104 matches, and 16 host cities. FIFA-linked economic analysis estimates that around 6.5 million people are expected to attend across the host countries.
The bigger an event becomes, the more people travel, the more hotels operate, the more energy is consumed, and the more waste is produced.
Independent estimates suggest that the tournament could generate around 7.8 million to 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Scientists for Global Responsibility and partner organisations estimate about 9.02 million tonnes, with air travel alone responsible for about 7.72 million tonnes. Greenly, a carbon accounting platform, gives a separate estimate of around 7.8 million tonnes.
However, venues already exist. That reduces the need for new stadium construction, which was a major issue in Qatar 2022. But existing stadiums cannot cancel out a tournament built around long-distance movement. A World Cup spread across three countries may avoid some construction emissions, while creating another problem: flights between cities, countries, and time zones.
There are also climate risks on the ground. A climate emergency assessment cited by SGR found that six of the 16 stadiums face extreme heat stress, while eight require immediate environmental intervention. In June 2026, FIFA also banned reusable water bottles at venues, citing safety concerns. It said host cities would provide measures such as misting stations, fans, hydration stations, and cooling tents.
At COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, FIFA presented its Climate Strategy and pledged to cut carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2040. The strategy focuses on education, regulation, adaptation, and emissions reduction.
The issue is whether the promise is strong enough for the reality. A tournament can recycle more, use cleaner energy, and improve stadium operations. These steps matter. But if the model keeps expanding, and if most emissions come from travel, the climate question becomes bigger than stadium management.
The World Cup will remain a celebration. The question is whether football’s biggest celebration can grow without making its environmental cost grow with it.
