The 2026 World Cup will be “the most polluting ever” because it is far larger than any previous edition, demands air travel across an entire continent and will promote the world’s largest oil company to billions of viewers. At the same time, it is highly exposed to dangerous extreme weather, worsened by fossil fuels and climate change.

This factsheet outlines key data on emissions, sponsorship and climate risks linked to the tournament.

Key Facts

• Tournament Expansion: 48 teams (104 matches), up from 32 teams (64 matches) in 1998-2022 and 24 teams (1994).
• Expected Emissions: 9 million tonnes CO2e, nearly double the historical average for World Cups (2010-2022).
• Fans: FIFA expects over 5 million fans, with long-haul, cross-continent flights skyrocketing emissions.
• Sponsorship: promotion of Saudi state oil company Aramco as FIFA’s ‘Major Worldwide Partner’ will induce a further ~30 million tonnes CO2e.
• Heat Risks: 14/16 venues likely to exceed dangerous heat levels, putting players, officials and fans at risk.

This factsheet details how FIFA has ensured this World Cup will be the most polluting ever and lays out some of the resulting climate threats faced.

The Cost of Expansion

FIFA’s decision to expand the 2026 World Cup to 48 teams dramatically increases its pollution. Even this extreme is a compromise for FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who also expanded the Club World Cup and has long sought biennial global tournaments.

FIFA expects over 5 million visiting fans who will fly from around the world before travelling across North America, significantly contributing to overall pollution. Matches are spread across 16 cities and three countries, making travel obligations substantial. Bosnia, for instance, will begin in Toronto before flying 3500km to Los Angeles, and then another 1500km to Seattle. During the knockout stage, they may fly another 4000km to Boston, and so on. Limited shared transport infrastructure means that many fans will fly, or drive between matches.

Construction is another source of emissions, and even though 2026 avoids entirely new stadiums, substantial renovations (much of it temporary) have taken place in ten cities (Mexico City, Guadalajara, Toronto, Los Angeles, Boston, Vancouver, New York, San Francisco, Houston and Dallas).

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is expected to be the most polluting of all time. Generating around 9 million tonnes of CO2e, it will almost double the historical average from 2010-2022, demonstrating the damaging impact of FIFA’s recent decisions.

FIFA Sponsors: Promoting Pollution

With up to 6 billion viewers expected, FIFA’s partnerships carry huge global influence. That audience will receive promotional messages that will boost demand for highly polluting products.

Aramco, the Saudi state oil company and largest corporate polluter in history (responsible for over 4% of all historic emissions), became a “major worldwide partner” in 2024 in a deal reportedly worth $100m p/a. Aramco continues to expand fossil fuel production despite UN warnings that its activities undermine the Paris Agreement and violate human rights. Being 98.5% owned by the Saudi government, Aramco is deeply linked to the state’s strategy to build soft power and block climate action. This includes a plan to ‘hook’ developing countries on fossil fuels, and attempts to undermine COP28, 29 climate talks, as well as negotiations on plastics, aviation, shipping, and drought. The fact that Aramco specifically, not another Saudi entity, has been  put forward as a sponsor of FIFA, makes clear that its sporting strategy is intertwined with its commitment to fossil fuels. Research suggests emissions induced by Aramco’s sponsorship could reach 30 million tonnes CO2e, far exceeding the tournament’s operational emissions.

Other sponsors also promote environmentally harmful products. Coca-Cola is the world’s largest plastic polluter. Qatar Airways relies on long-haul aviation with no credible decarbonisation plan. Hyundai/Kia continue to sell millions of polluting vehicles, with electric vehicles still a small fraction of sales as well as a commitment to ICE vehicles and large SUVs for years to come.

FIFA’s Pledges vs. Practice

FIFA’s 2021 climate strategy pledged a 50% emissions reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2040. It acknowledged climate threats to football and aimed to “protect our iconic tournaments”. But subsequent decisions, including expanding the World Cup and partnering with fossil fuel companies, contradict these goals. Its latest bid requirements state that prospective hosts must “show leadership in climate action”, seek to join the UN Sports for Climate Action net-zero pledge, and have emissions reductions plans in line with the Paris Agreement. The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement as well as President Trump’s links to the fossil fuel industry and personal mantra of “drill baby drill” take the country well out of step with these requirements.

On expanding the tournament, FIFA claims that its actions are motivated by a desire to increase revenue and redistribution to benefit its members. But doing so by increasing pollution worsens climate impacts and ultimately harms members in the ways FIFA outlines in its own climate strategy! With an $11 billion budget, FIFA could invest in low-carbon tournaments, drop polluting sponsors, and lead on climate – but has chosen not to. Notably, 90% of North American fans surveyed believe the World Cup should prioritise sustainability.

Playing Through Dangerous Heat

Climate change is intensifying risks for host cities. While typical June and July weather already puts players and fans at risk, recent extreme events contextualise the high chance of serious disruption.

The 2024 Copa America in the US saw an assistant referee collapse due to extreme heat, forced players to be substituted, and led to widespread concerns.The same heat wave broke records in Boston, impacted Philadelphia and New York, while 2023 was particularly dangerous in Dallas and Houston. The 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome killed hundreds in Vancouver and Seattle. Mexico has also faced severe heat in 2023 and 2024, with host cities Mexico City and Monterrey coming close to total water system failure. The 2025 Club World Cup, also in the US, was disrupted by extreme heat, with substitutes forced to stay inside due to 30°C average gametime temperatures, teams forced to cut training sessions short, and players asking to be substituted.

Fans and players are likely to be subjected to dangerous heat as 14/16 venues exceed dangerous temperature thresholds. Players’ union FIFPRO has called for lower thresholds for cooling breaks and delay of the match than FIFA’s current policy.

Wildfire smoke is a recurring threat alongside extreme heat. In summer 2023, smoke from a number of wildfires blanketed a number of host cities: Toronto, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Kansas City and Atlanta. Health orders forced millions to stay indoors, while elite sports were postponed. A series of fires in January 2025 killed 30 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Los Angeles.

The Eastern United States and Mexico also experience severe summer storms, flooding, and hurricanes regularly, with record Atlantic temperatures increasing the risk of major storms. Houston was seriously damaged by Hurricane Harvey in 2017, and Beryl in 2024, while New York was flooded by hurricanes Sandy and Ida, and Miami is at risk of similar disasters. In 2024, in Monterrey, Tropical Storm Alberto killed a 16 year old who was trying to retrieve a football from a river.