New research from SGR and collaborators finds that the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup Finals are set to be the most polluting World Cup ever, with extreme heat risks to players and fans raising urgent safety concerns. 
 

Media release, 9 Jul 2025

• The expanded 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup Finals, taking place in the United States of America, Canada and Mexico, will generate over 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e), making it the most polluting World Cup to date. This level of emissions is equivalent to nearly 6.5 million average British cars being driven for an entire year. 
• Six of the 2026 World Cup stadiums face extreme heat stress during the tournament and half (8 out of 16) of the stadiums require immediate environmental intervention to prevent harm to players and fans alike.
• According to our new research, the Spain-led 2030 World Cup will generate over 6 million tCO2e and the Saudi Arabian 2034 World Cup will generate over 8.5 million tCO2e.
• FIFA’s sponsorship deal with Aramco, the Saudi state-owned oil company, could induce an additional 30 million tonnes of CO2e in 2026 alone. 

The 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup Finals is on track to become the most climate-damaging World Cup in the tournament’s 95-year history, according to new research released today.

There are also urgent safety concerns over FIFA’s ability to protect players and fans at the tournament, with extreme heat and climate disruptions expected to disrupt play.

The report, FIFA’s Climate Blind Spot: The Men’s World Cup in a Warming World, authored by Scientists for Global Responsibility, the Environmental Defense Fund, Cool Down - the Sport for Climate Action Network, and the New Weather Institute, calculated the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to the 2026 tournament, including the amount of air travel required for fans and teams, and other match-related emissions. It also estimated the GHG emissions induced by high-carbon sponsorship deals. 

Given the tournament’s expansion from 32 to 48 teams, and the decision to host it across three countries, the 2026 World Cup Finals is estimated to generate approximately 9.02 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e, a metric used to compare the heating effects of emissions from different greenhouse gases). 

The 2026 total is almost double the historical average attributable to World Cup Finals tournaments from 2010-2022. The 2026 figures are driven by a high reliance on air travel and significant increase in the quantity of matches - up from 64 to 104 - due to FIFA expanding the tournament. 

Future World Cup tournaments, such as the Spain-led 2030 Finals and the controversial 2034 tournament in Saudi Arabia, are also expected to be highly polluting due to the high reliance on air travel and the construction of new stadiums. 

Alongside the World Cup’s contribution to climate change, the 2026 tournament is set to face extreme conditions that will put fans and players at risk. According to the climate emergency risk assessment led by the Environmental Defense Fund, both fans and players can expect to experience extreme heat stress and extreme weather events. 

The authors found that six of the sixteen 2026 World Cup stadiums face extreme heat stress. The AT&T Stadium in Dallas experiences 37 days a year above 95°F (35°C) with a July wet bulb temperature of 83.5°F (28.6°C), which exceeds FIFA safety thresholds. Half (8 out of 16) of the stadiums require immediate environmental intervention to prevent harm to players and fans alike.

If the emissions attributable to FIFA’s sponsorship deals are taken into account, the total climate impact of future World Cups rises dramatically. FIFA recently entered into a high-profile commercial partnership with Aramco, the Saudi Arabian state-owned oil company which is the largest oil company on the planet in terms of both historical and current emissions. The emissions induced by this sponsorship deal are estimated to be approximately 29,950,000 tCO2e. 

To reduce emissions and mitigate climate risks, the authors urge FIFA to:

• End commercial partnerships with high-pollution companies like Aramco;
• Reverse the recent tournament expansion and implement a binding limit on the number of teams;
• Lower minimum stadium capacity requirements to reduce new stadium construction;
• Establish binding environmental standards instead of relying on voluntary commitments;
• Introduce new measures to reduce risk and exposure to climate impacts.

Dr Stuart Parkinson, of Scientists for Global Responsibility and lead author of the research briefing, said:

“FIFA must take responsibility for its growing role in the climate crisis. The 2026 World Cup is set to be the most polluting ever, and future tournaments are planned to continue the substantial reliance on air travel and other high-carbon activities. With the climate crisis rapidly deepening, the only sensible response is for FIFA to take immediate action to markedly reduce tournament emissions.” 

Samran Ali, from the Environmental Defense Fund, said: 

“The World Cup unites us around a shared love of the game—but it also carries a heavy carbon bill. That cost isn’t abstract: from rising temperatures to stronger storms, it’s felt by communities already facing the consequences of climate change.  For events of this scale, environmental responsibility cannot be an afterthought. We need transparent accounting and real emissions cuts—backed by binding standards, credible limits, and partnerships that reflect serious climate ambition.”

Andrew Simms, from Cool Down - Sport for Climate Action Network, said:

“Football can inspire global action on climate change in the way it has challenged racism, sexism and other prejudices - but only if FIFA stops hiring out the global game as a billboard promoting the very polluters who are heating the planet.  Football’s custodians are currently betraying fans, players and the sport’s future by hosting the most polluting World Cup in the tournament’s 95-year history. Almost unimaginably, in partnering with the world’s biggest oil company FIFA has found a sports’ sponsor worse than tobacco.”