Sustainablity  Green Goals

FIFA is promising a greener World Cup. Yet the 2026 tournament will be bigger than ever before. Air travel, high temperatures and social issues make it clear just how difficult it is to make global soccer sustainable.

With 48 teams, 104 matches and 16 host cities in the USA, Canada and Mexico, the 2026 soccer World Cup will be bigger than ever before. And this superlative is precisely where the problem lies: the bigger and more scattered a championship is, the harder it becomes to limit its ecological and social impacts. World soccer’s governing body, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) that was founded in Paris in 1904, is thus facing quite a number of challenges when it comes to sustainability.

Mobility is the Biggest Emission Factor

The key climate issue doesn’t begin in the stadium but on the way there. International sports championships involve lengthy journeys. This was also true of past World Cups. In 2026, however, it’s not just getting to the host countries from around the world that is the problem – the distances between the venues are also considerable. Some host cities are thousands of kilometres apart. What is more, North America often lacks rail connections that could otherwise be used instead of flying. Consequently, transport will be the biggest driver of emissions.

EURO 2024 in Germany showed the extent to which travel influenced the tournament’s overall carbon footprint. A study conducted by the Oeko-Institut on behalf of the Federal Environment Ministry arrived at a clear conclusion: international journeys are the biggest source of emissions. Although roughly two thirds of stadium spectators came from Germany, international fans – i.e. only around a third of visitors – accounted for emissions that were more than five times as high as those generated by all the German fans put together. Around 85 percent of the emissions caused by the tournament were generated by mobility, with flights accounting for two thirds.

These figures can’t be translated directly to the 2026 World Cup. However, they do show where the basic problem lies: if even a compact championship in Germany leads to so much travel, the effects will be hugely multiplied when a World Cup is hosted across three countries.

Sustainability thus becomes a social issue, too. Visas, accommodation and transport make the tournament unaffordable for many people. Only those fans who can pay the hefty price tag will embark on the long journey to the 2026 World Cup.

Progress at Stadium Level

Building and operating the enormous World Cup stadiums is another major issue when sustainability is the goal. Some real progress has been made in this respect in North America.

The Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta for example claims to consume 29 percent less electricity than conventional stadiums. Equipped with more than 4,000 solar panels, it generates around 1.6 million kWh of renewable energy per year and is designed to reduce water consumption by 47 percent. The SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles operates according to the standard ISO 20121 for sustainable event management. Such measures are important. They show that stadiums these days can be run more efficiently than in the past. Furthermore, existing infrastructure is being optimized in many cases rather than building new arenas. That said, many of these measures come courtesy of voluntary commitments made by the stadium operators, which means they vary considerably from one venue to another.

Hot Host Cities

World Cup 2026 is also facing another challenging adversary: the heat. A number of scientific studies have warned of high temperatures at many venues. One study in the highly regarded journal Scientific Reports envisages a very high risk of extreme heat in 10 of the 16 host cities. An article in Sports Medicine magazine even predicts that 14 of the 16 venues will be affected by considerable heat stress. This means that more air conditioning will be required inside buildings, more protective measures will need to be taken and there will be more pressure on infrastructure and energy supply networks. Members of local communities and neighbourhoods in Mexico City for example have criticized the fact that water shortages around the Azteca Stadium, where the opening World Cup match will be played, have been exacerbated by maintenance work on the stadium. State authorities such as the National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua, CONAGUA) also regularly report droughts and water stress in parts of the country.

Germany: Sustainability is Institutionally Enshrined

Is it even possible for a World Cup to be sustainable under such conditions? Some progress has definitely been made: improved stadium technology, certifications and clearer strategies. Some aspects of the 2026 World Cup can be made more environmentally compatible than in past tournaments. However, its sheer size and geographic structure make it a prime example of how global mega events can quickly reach systemic limits in terms of how much sustainability is possible. Unless issues such as long-distance travel, the more sprawling character of the tournament across three nations and the need to adapt to local climatic conditions are consistently factored into the equation, many innovations will remain isolated local measures. Sustainability in top-class international sport only becomes credible when policymakers, associations and fans adopt a sustainable mindset towards the championship as a whole rather than simply making individual stadiums greener.

A glance at how Germany does things differently reveals what is possible. EURO 2024 was planned in line with the UN’s environmental criteria – with clear targets defined for the environment, social impacts and governance. UEFA addressed specific thematic areas, working with concrete measures and key performance indicators. What is more, sustainability in professional soccer is more institutionally enshrined in Germany. Germany’s soccer league DFL has included sustainability criteria into its licensing system, while its soccer association DFB has also adopted binding guidelines. Though this doesn’t solve all the problems, it does highlight one difference: in Germany, sustainability is based more on a strict set of rules and regulations, whereas in North America it’s often a matter of voluntary initiative.