“Low Risk” on Sustainability: FIFA’s Ludicrous Evaluation of World Cup Bids

There are gaping flaws in FIFA’s newly released bid evaluations for the 2030 and 2034 World Cups (see also our expanded briefing note on the 2034 tournament).

FIFA’s ludicrous characterisation of both the three-continent 2030 and the Saudi 2034 bids as posing “low risk” on environmental protection and sustainability indicates that it is totally unfit to safeguard the world’s most popular sport amidst climate breakdown.

Frank Huisingh, founder of Fossil Free Football said:

“While football fans around the world are deeply worried about the climate crisis, FIFA leadership is ignoring their concerns and going for ever bigger and more polluting World Cups. It is ludicrous to assess both the frequent-flyer 2030 and the big polluter PR 2034 World Cup as low risk on climate criteria. These evaluations are deeply flawed and football associations should not accept them as the basis on which they can take any serious decision. 

The Saudi 2034 World Cup is especially concerning. It will be extremely polluting with 11 new stadiums constructed and huge amounts of air travel because of the bloated format and long distances. But it will also provide a megaphone to a country that is desperate to use football to slow the transition away from fossil fuels and sell as much oil as it can for as long as possible. Its promotion of Saudi Aramco at the next two World Cups and hosting of the tournament in 2034 should be seen as parts of the same strategy that is crystal clear when it brazenly obstructs international climate negotiations. Despite all we know about the threat to football from the climate crisis, FIFA is happily allowing Saudi Arabia to use the World Cup to mislead the public on the dangers of fossil fuels and win favour with key decision makers.”

The 2030 and 2034 bid books

Both the 2030 and 2034 evaluations of the proposals are grossly insufficient or, especially in the case of the Saudi 2034 bid book evaluation, amount to nothing more than PR for the bidder. 

These evaluations should not be accepted by national football associations as a serious independent evaluation to base their decisions on. 

Both evaluations often base themselves on general “commitments”, without evaluating the quality and legitimacy of these commitments. 

A few things stand out on the two evaluations.

The 2030 bid book evaluation

On climate, the 2030 bid book evaluation is a bit more specific than the 2034 bid book evaluation; for example by including emission estimates (which we cannot independently verify at this moment). It acknowledges that it will have “a significant negative impact on the climate”.

But it doesn’t speak to one of the most polluting aspects of a three-continent World Cup: air travel to and from Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina, for players, fans, officials and others. This is an unacceptable omission.

On the local weather, the evaluation says: “Weather conditions are difficult to predict with the current development in global and local climate, but are unlikely to affect the health of players or other participants. As in all cases, the situation would have to be monitored.” No one believes that a summer World Cup in Spain, Morocco and Portugal does not come with risks for players and fans. This is already the case with current summer conditions in those countries. On a warming planet, this will only get worse. Leaving this out shows gross negligence for the safety of players and fans, and a total disregard for the impact of the climate crisis on the football community worldwide.

The 2034 bid book evaluation

When it comes to the 2034 Bid Book, the evaluation says: “The bid is presented in the context of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, of which sustainability and human rights-related topics are an integral part.” Knowing all we know about Saudi’s human rights situation and its clear bet on a fossil-fuel future, as detailed in our briefing, this evaluation is nothing more than a PR-exercise for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

The evaluation doesn’t question Saudi commitments to use the new stadiums built long into the future, despite all we know about white elephants being left after tournaments. Especially in a country with an already inhospitable climate, there is no reason to expect it will find a useful destination for 11 new stadiums.

From constructing 11 new stadiums to necessitating huge amounts of air travel, this World Cup will clearly mean massive direct fossil fuel pollution. Both Saudi Arabia and FIFA have a clear pattern of claiming false and flawed emissions reductions via offsets.  FIFA are embracing a state that is clearly and unequivocally set on doing whatever it can to push back the desperately needed phase out of fossil fuels. Fresh from obstructing COP29, Saudi Arabia has just collapsed international negotiations on plastics reduction. Its expansion into football is often framed as a way of whitewashing human rights atrocities, but it is also part of its pro-fossil fuel strategy because it strengthens its power to influence international climate action and allows widespread promotion of its oil dependent state owned corporations.