FIFA has come under mounting criticism over the environmental impact of the 2026 World Cup, with campaigners and researchers warning that the tournament could become the most polluting edition in football history.
The competition, which will be staged across the United States, Mexico and Canada, will be the first World Cup jointly hosted by three countries. It will also be the first edition to feature 48 teams instead of 32, increasing the number of matches from 64 to 108.
Critics argue that the expansion has dramatically increased the tournament’s environmental footprint while moving FIFA further away from its public climate commitments.
According to a report titled FIFA’s Climate Blind Spot, the 2026 World Cup is expected to generate more than nine million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. Researchers behind the study say this would make it “the most polluting edition in the tournament’s history” by a considerable margin.
The report estimates that emissions linked to the 2026 tournament will be around double the historical average recorded during the World Cups held between 2010 and 2022, including tournaments in South Africa, Brazil, Russia and Qatar.
Researchers say air travel will account for the overwhelming majority of the emissions because of the vast geographical spread of the host cities.
The tournament will take place in 16 cities stretching from Vancouver in the north to Mexico City in the south, leaving flying as the only practical method of transportation for teams, officials and supporters.
The report estimates that air travel alone will contribute 7.72 million tonnes out of a projected total of 9.02 million tonnes of emissions.
Stuart Parkinson, one of the authors of the report, said the scale of the tournament was the central issue.
“We focused primarily on air travel because it is the biggest factor, especially in the 2026 edition which will take place across three vast countries.”
He added: “We estimated the resulting emissions at around 9 million tons. We also estimated that sponsorship contracts, particularly the agreement with Aramco, could increase emissions by about 30 million tons more on top of that.”
Parkinson said the combination of expanding the tournament and spreading it across a continent had significantly worsened its environmental impact.
“This is a result of a combination of expanding the tournament to 48 teams and more than 100 matches, and spreading it across an entire continent. This goes completely in the opposite direction to what is needed to reduce emissions.”
He also criticised FIFA’s climate strategy, arguing that its carbon neutrality pledge fails to address emissions generated directly by major competitions.
“FIFA has a goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2040, but it only includes the organization itself, such as offices and staff travel, and does not include tournaments, which is a loophole they rely on.”
The report concluded that the planning of the 2026 World Cup exposes what it describes as a widening gap between FIFA’s environmental promises and the practical realities of hosting increasingly larger global sporting events.
Researchers warned that the tournament would not only increase football’s contribution to the climate crisis, but could also intensify scrutiny of how international sporting organisations balance commercial growth with environmental responsibility.
