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

Heat Risks

• Researchers predict that 14/16 venues are likely to exceed dangerous heat levels, putting players, officials and fans at risk. 
• A World Weather Attribution (WWA) study found that human-caused climate change has made dangerous humid heat substantially more likely at all 16 venues since the last US World Cup in 1994, with around 25% of matches projected to exceed 26°C Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT).
• Over 20 leading medical, public health and climate scientists have written an open letter to FIFA warning that its current 32°C WBGT threshold for mandatory cooling puts players at serious risk of heat injury. They call for FIFA to delay or postpone matches above 28°C WBGT and make water breaks at least six minutes long. 
• Player demands: 70 current and former professional footballers from more than 20 countries, including Norwegian World Cup player Morten Thorsby and Italy captain Elena Linari, have backed the experts’ call and urged FIFA to drop fossil fuel sponsors and take meaningful climate action. Players union FIFPRO has also called for FIFA to lower its heat thresholds. 

Polluting Air Travel

• Tournament Expansion: 48 teams (104 matches), up from 32 teams (64 matches) in 1998-2022 and 24 teams (1994). 5 million fans are expected to fly in from across the world, before moving between 16 venues spread across the continent, producing huge emissions from flying.
• Expected Emissions: 9 million tonnes CO2e, nearly double the historical average for World Cups (2010-2022).

Polluting Sponsorship

• Sponsorship: promotion of Saudi state oil company Aramco as FIFA’s ‘Major Worldwide Partner’ will induce a further ~30 million tonnes CO2e.

Continue reading for more detail on how FIFA have ensured this World Cup will be the most polluting ever and the climate threats players and fans could face.

The Cost of Expansion

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 expansion of the format to 48 teams and 104 matches.

A large proportion of the pollution generated stems from air travel. FIFA expects over 5 million fans to fly from around the world before travelling across North America. FIFA’s decision to spread matches across 16 cities and three countries has added to the air travel burden. 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 public transport infrastructure in host venues means that many fans will fly, or drive between matches.

Construction is another source of emissions, and even though the 2026 tournament 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).

In their open letter to FIFA, players also highlighted another key consequence of format expansion; the physical burden. Other fixture expansions have already placed them under physical strain and the extreme heat, worsened by the climate crisis, adds further difficulty. Players therefore argue that a smaller, more regional football calendar would simultaneously reduce climate impact and ease pressure on players.

FIFA Sponsors: Promoting Pollution

With up to 6 billion viewers expected, FIFA’s partnerships carry huge global influence. The massive audience for this tournament will receive promotional messages that normalise and boost demand for highly polluting products, despite the urgent need to reduce fossil fuel consumption. 

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, strategic undermining of COP28, 29 and 30 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. Aramco’s climate damaging practices are outlined in a detailed report from FairSquare, Fossil Free Football and other partners. It concludes that its FIFA partnership is “arguable the most dangerous example of fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship the world has ever seen”. 

Other sponsors also promote environmentally harmful products. Coca-Cola is the world’s largest plastic polluter and lobbies against action on plastic pollution. 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.Valvoline, an engine oils manufacturer and ‘World Cup supporter,’ is owned by Aramco. 

The heat experts noted that “the active promotion of fossil fuels presents a conflict of interest with the protection of player welfare” and that “a key underlying driver of extreme heat conditions is the burning of fossil fuels.” The professional players echoed this sentiment. David Wheeler said “being sponsored by the world’s largest oil company compromises FIFA’s ability to safeguard all players from heat-related illnesses and to show global leadership in trying to tackle the worst effects of climate change”. Elena Linari, Italy captain with 120 caps, added, “with the climate crisis affecting all of us, football should be on the side of the people, of players and fans. We ask FIFA again to drop their oil sponsor and to protect players from extreme heat and update their policies in line with the advice from medical experts.”

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 “drill baby drill” mantra take the country well out of step with these requirements.

FIFA claims that its competition expansion is 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.

Dangerous Extreme Weather 

Fans and players are likely to be subjected to dangerous heat at the tournament, given that  14/16 venues exceed dangerous temperature thresholds. Both the group of 70 professionals as well as players’ union FIFPRO has called for FIFA to lower its heat thresholds to improve player safety. 

Climate change is intensifying heat 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. 

A 2026 World Weather Attribution (WWA) study compared the likelihood of dangerous heat during the 2026 tournament with conditions at the last US World Cup in 1994, when global temperatures were 0.7°C cooler. Using Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT), which combines air temperature, humidity, radiant heat, and wind to assess physiological strain on the body, WWA found that dangerous conditions have become substantially more likely at every venue due to human-caused climate change. The study found that some host cities now face around a 25% chance of exceeding the 28°C WBGT threshold at which FIFPRO and the experts recommend match postponement. The research highlighted the risk of record-shattering heat events that go beyond what historical probability estimates can capture. Such extremes are both plausible during the tournament period and increasingly likely in a warming world. 

The research found that the most exposed open-air venues are Kansas City, Philadelphia, New York New Jersey, Miami, Boston and Monterrey. Even the semi-final in Dallas, held in an air-conditioned stadium, has nearly a one-in-three chance of outdoor WBGT conditions exceeding the 28°C FIFPRO postponement threshold in surrounding fan zones and public spaces. WWA notes that air-conditioned stadiums do not protect the millions of fans gathering at outdoor public screenings and city-centre events during the tournament. 

Experts and Players Call for FIFA Action on Heat 

As mentioned before, more than 20 medical experts, exercise physiologists, climate scientists, and public health researchers publicly called for FIFA to update its heat guidelines to keep players safe. They described its current measures, which only trigger mandatory cooling breaks above 32°C WBGT, as “impossible to justify”. For context, a temperature of 45°C with 20% humidity or 35°C with 80% humidity, still falls below this threshold. 

The letter also states that FIFA’s three-minute cooling breaks, which will be used in call matches regardless of conditions, are too short to meaningfully reduce core body temperature or allow adequate rehydration. Signatories call for cooling breaks of at least six minutes, aggressive pre-game and half-time cooling measures in all locker rooms, and full adoption of the FIFPRO framework recommending cooling measures such as cooling breaks at 26°C WBGT and match delay or postponement above 28°C WBGT. The letter also highlights that on-pitch referees may face particular risk, as they are often less physically conditioned than elite players while operating under the same extreme conditions.

Players have explicitly backed the experts’ call, writing: “We find it important that all players are protected from heat impacts, from the grassroots to the elite level. As the elite playing the World Cup sets the example for players around the world, it’s essential that the best available medical expertise is put to practice.” Nedum Onouha, formerly of Manchester City, Sunderland and QPR, said “heat is going to be a big factor in this World Cup. FIFA must take notice of what medical professionals are saying to make sure all players are as safe as they can be”. Jimmy Keohane of Galway United explained “I’ve had experience playing in extreme heat and it is intense. But as a player you just want to carry on. In the heat of the moment, you’re not gonna decide to stop. You expect the organisers of the game to protect you.”

The players’ letter is signed by current and former internationals from over 20 countries, including Norwegian international Morten Thorsby, Guardian Player of the Year and Danish international Sofie Junge Pedersen, Ipswich Town’s Chuba Akpom, Australian internationals Massimo Luongo and Winonah Heatley, Italy captain Elena Linari, and former Scottish internationals Jordan Rhodes and Russell Martin.

Further Extreme Weather Dangers 

Beyond heat, 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.

Wildfire smoke is a co-occurring threat alongside extreme heat. In summer 2023, smoke from a number of fires blanketed host cities including 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.

Climate impact city guides for six host cities are available here.

The World Cup’s Uncertain Future 

The World Cup is football’s most iconic and treasured event. But FIFA’s lack of seriousness on extreme heat and massive fossil fuel pollution means the tournament could face major challenges beyond 2026. FIFA cannot ignore the issue because it will once again be hugely relevant for both the 2030 and 2034 tournaments. In four years time, the World Cup will be hosted in Morocco, Spain and Portugal, in the usual midsummer period, despite those countries also being highly exposed to dangerous heat. FIFA has awarded the right to host the tournament in 2034 to Saudi Arabia. While little has been made official, it seems certain that this World Cup will again be forced to move to the winter, because of high summer heat in host cities. 

——

Further Information

The New Weather Institute, Scientists for Global Responsibility, Environmental Defense Fund, Cool Down Sports For Climate Action Network. FIFA’s Climate Blind Spot: The Men’s World Cup in a Warming World

Fossil Free Football. FIFA and Saudi Aramco: 5 Reasons This Deal is a Bad Idea!

World Weather Attribution: Climate Change Big Player at FIFA World Cup 2026

Cool Down Sports For Climate Action Network: Hot 6 City Guides

FairSquare, Fossil Free Football, Reclame Fossielvrij and Badvertising. Football Ignites the World. 

—

For clarification, comment or interview:

Frank Huisingh – frank@fossilfreefootball.org