Orders of $35 or more ship free within Canada!

0
0 item(s)
Heather Camlot on Why FIFA Needs a Climate Action Game Plan

Heather Camlot on Why FIFA Needs a Climate Action Game Plan

Jul 07, 2026
A photo of Heather Camlot.

Written by Heather Camlot, author of One Goal: How Soccer Can Help Save the Planet, illustrated by Drew Shannon.

Olé, olé olé olé! The FIFA World Cup is here!

I don’t know about you, but I’m excited about the FIFA World Cup landing in Toronto, the city I live in. This is a big deal for a country known for hockey and lacrosse and NOT for soccer. But I also can’t help thinking of all the people from around the world traveling here and to the other fifteen host cities across North America to see their favorite team play.

It’s a lot of people. And a lot of fossil fuels.

Hundreds of sports organizations signed on to the 2018 United Nations Sports for Climate Action Framework, committing to lowering their impact on climate change. FIFA was a founding signatory.

Ironic then that the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions of the FIFA World Cup are going up rather than down. CO2e is a measurement used to compare the impact of greenhouse gases (GHG), like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. While GHG are a natural part of the atmosphere — they keep Earth at livable temperatures — human activity has pumped so much GHG into the atmosphere that the planet is warming up at an unprecedented rate.

White text in a red box reads: "Constructing new stadiums involves massive amounts of materials, energy, water, equipment, waste and carbon emissions."

Typical emissions for FIFA World Cup tournaments between 2010 and 2022 was 4.71 million tonnes of CO2e (tCO2e), according to the authors of the recent report FIFA’s Climate Blind Spot: The Men’s World Cup in a Warming World.

The report’s estimation for the Canada-Mexico-United States joint event is at least 9.02 million tCO2e, which would make it the most polluting ever.  

What’s behind such a huge jump? The expansion of the World Cup Final.

The FIFA World Cup is playing out differently than in the past. FIFA widened the playing field to 48 teams from 32, beginning with the 2026 tournament. This translates into a third more players, coaches and support staff, all of whom have to travel to matches. With more teams, there are also more matches, now up to 104 from 64 games in previous years.

The 104 matches are spread out for the first time across three countries and 16 cities. North America isn’t exactly considered a sustainable travel continent. There is very limited high-speed (and low CO2e) rail compared to Asia and Europe. So, not only are teams flying to North America, they will most likely be flying within it.

An illustration of a trophy with a globe on the top.

Oh, and FIFA is expecting millions of fans from outside of North America to attend matches live and in person. (I won’t go into detail about what may also be keeping fans away — namely high tickets prices, the political situation in the United States, and that country’s ban on citizens from certain countries.)

It doesn’t take a report to figure out that all this flying is bad news for the climate, but it’s also backed up by FIFA’s Climate Blind Spot. Air transportation estimates for the 2010-2022 tournaments was 1.82 million tCO2e. FIFA World Cup 2026 flights are expected to create 7.72 million tCO2e.

According to the report, air transportation estimates for the next two World Cup finals are also higher than the norm, though lower than the 2026 estimate. FIFA World Cup 2030 and 2034 are estimated at 4.78 and 4.75 million tCO2e. These numbers are conservative assumptions, just to be clear. The lower estimation for the 2034 World Cup is easy enough to understand — it will take place in a single country, Saudi Arabia.

White text on a blue background reads: "Traveling to games and building stadiums burns a lot of fossil fuels, sending GHG into the atmosphere."

The 2030 World Cup is a little more complicated. It will be the tournament’s centennial year. To celebrate, the festivities — and matches — will take place on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Spain, Portugal and Morocco (all combined, an area vastly smaller than North America) are co-hosting the main events. Because the World Cup kicked off in Uruguay in 1930, with the host country beating Argentina in the final, those two countries, plus Paraguay, will each hold one match. The 48 teams and 104 matches remain.

On a positive climate note for 2026, Canada, Mexico and the United States didn’t build a single new stadium for the tournament. Instead they’re using those already in existence (though spread out across the continent). The 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup, which took place in France, did the same.

Constructing new stadiums involves massive amounts of materials, energy, water, equipment, waste and carbon emissions. A typical tournament’s new construction emissions from 2010 to 2022 was 1.89 million tCO2e, according to FIFA's Climate Blind Spot.

FIFA World Cup 2030 is building only one new stadium, estimated to generate 0.27 million tCO2e, in order to host 48 teams and 104 matches. Saudi Arabia however has eight planned new stadiums and three more already under construction. That estimation? 2.97 million tCO2e.

I know, this blog is full of numbers, but they provide evidence that the FIFA World Cup is going in the opposite direction to the organization’s climate change commitment. Traveling to games and building stadiums burns a lot of fossil fuels, sending GHG into the atmosphere. While there are certainly other sources of fossil fuels during soccer matches and tournaments, transportation and construction are the biggies.

An illustration of a dark-skinned girl kicking a plastic bottle into a recycling bin.

The new format of the FIFA World Cup involves more teams requiring more flights as well as more matches requiring more stadiums. If FIFA wants to reduce its environmental footprint and fulfill its commitment to the United Nations Sports for Climate Action Framework, it should begin by returning to 32 teams, which will reduce the number of flights and necessary stadiums. It should also ensure that hosts already have stadiums in place rather than having to build new ones. And here’s a longshot: why not return to the numbers of that very first World Cup — one country, one city, 3 stadiums, 13 teams, 18 matches?

It won’t help the financial bottom line, but it will do a world of good for the environmental one.

And if you are flying to North America for the World Cup, there are a few things you can do to lower your climate impact: research which airlines fly with full planes, book economy, pack lightly, fly direct and during the day, pay extra to offset carbon emissions and combine reasons for travel into one trip.

And once you’re here … GO CANADA GO!

An illustration of three children wearing soccer uniforms with their arms around each other. One child has short red hair and holds a soccer ball, the middle child has long braided blonde hair, and the last child holding a flag has dark skin curly black hair.

----

References:

Tags  drew shannon, environment, fifa, greenhouse gas, Groundwood Books, heather camlot, nonfiction, picture book, soccer, sports, World Cup
scroll to top